mgb gt spec line

I guess I am too thick headed to understand some of this. I understand that moving to a different class is something different from a PCA. if "The new adjustment mechanism is really only to correct an issue with a newly classed car" What is the difference between a newly classed car VS a car that has been classed forever but no one had built? If it is too fast we will slow you down, if you are too slow tough cookies? Am I the only one that sees anything wrong with this. Just because it has always been this way does not make it correct. What happens if after the JH gets all the bugs worked out it becomes a barn burner...will it get slowed down, under this reasoning no, it has been classed for too long. I hope it does real well I would love to see fields full of 30yr old british sports cars....oh I can it is called prod. <_<

I am not trying to be a pain in the a$$ but it just does not make sence to me, I am not talking about different carbs or anything, perhaps less weight.

How to loose the weight you ask? Well a few years ago we could not gut any of the doors now we can all in the name of safety. I would bet that in 10 years IT cars will have plastic windows, on board fire systems and must have fuel cells. I think that the SCCA lawyers might push this class in a direction it might not want to go.

Sorry to polute the MGB GT thread. But if it was me I would say build it only for the right reasons, those reasons are not in your head but in your heart.....boy that was mushy :D
 
Not a problem Cherokee, it's an interesting question of philosophy. But, for IT, the majority believes (including myself) that for the most part, you pick your chariot and you run with it, based on the weight, etc. set by the process.

If you build a 10/10ths Wacko GT and it is slow, well, so it goes.

If you build a 7th/7ths Wacko GT and it wipes the floor with everyone else's 10th/10ths car, well, then it was probably classed wrong.

I think the ITAC is trying to prevent minor tweaking of performance variables like you see in Prod. So, the idea is "roughly" set equal power to weight ratios and then let everyone have at it. Only make a PCA, as allowed by the rules, if something is grossly out of whack.

You take a chance when you build an unknown car in IT. Ron knew that, and I knew that. If it is slow, you're stuck with an expensive piece of art. Trust me, I feel for the guy who wants to build the MGB GT. There is a coolness factor to the oddballs that we all (on this subforum) like. But there is extreme risk too -- in fact, we should be LESS likely to get help than mainstream cars because abandoning the IT philosophy of no/very limited PCAs for an orphan car is just asking for big, big trouble.

Your only real hope with the orphans/oddballs is to pick one that CLEARLY has an advantage in one area. Go for it, and try to develop the car around the advantage. Try as I might, and I have always liked the cars, I just can't see one with the MGB GT in ITB. I do not ever see it running with the Volvos and Golfs and Audis.
 
Jeff has it pretty nailed there.

But....IF....one guy goes out and builds a car, then says, "It's too slow"...and asks for a weight break, what should the ITAC do?

Well, it would look at the request, and unless it saw a glaring issue, like it was assumed it had a 2.0 litre engine when in reality it has a 1.6, theres not much it can do. If it were the engine, thats an error and gets taken care of as an E & O.

But IT isn't in the biz of balancing every model on the head of a pin, and especially those that have ONE example running. Too many variables. Maybe he's finishng 6th in a VERY hot class in his area. He could go to the ARRCs and finish 6th or 7th...and even that isn't really indicitive of a need, or the lack of a need for an adjustment.

How do we know...really know, the development thats gone into the car?

How do we know it's legal?

How do we know that the guys he's comparing himself to are legal??

In short, it's not the goal in the first place, and beyond that, it's just about impossible to determine the real need, or lack thereof.

And yes, since I know it will be asked, the answer is tha same for a car that wins as opposed to one that loses. It takes much more in the way of trending to signal a need for an adjustment, and even then, it's just a possible signal.

Process process process.
 
... If it is too fast we will slow you down, if you are too slow tough cookies? Am I the only one that sees anything wrong with this. ... [/b]
Click to expand...
We've been assured that PCAs won't be applied to slow down a make/model that appears to be too fast either, for the reasons already shared here. That's part of the definition of "Performance Compensation Adjustment," in theory - the purpose behind the adjustment - that makes them different than "Competition Adjustments" (bleah!)

K
 
On the other hand when the process of PCAs were applied to the list of car in the ITCS we were told that the ITAC did not spend time on cars for which there was not good specs or that no one was racing. We were told at that time, if remember correctly, if we thought there was a car that met those conditions we could request it be run thru the process. I would post the specs here and let Jake or Andy run the numbers. If you like the results you could formalize the request. Of course the best you can possibly do is gett he car put in ITC.
 
Have you made a choice about the MGBGT? Sorry if all the political banter drove you away, we are getting enough of that on TV this time of year. Just last week I was looking at one for a street car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top