October 2012 Prelim Minutes and TB

I would NOT support an increase in weight in ITB, for any reason. many new cars in B (and A, and S) are approaching 3k+ lbs and the cars simply aren't strong enough in many cases to take the abuse of that weight in a racing scenario (thinking driveline and hubs here - IT rules don't, and shouldn't, allow updates to account for the added weight and grip). if we ran the weight of B up 1 lb/hp that would work out to roughly 125-135lbs average weight gain, and we have plenty of evidence already to show that gaining and loosing that much has taken cars from reliable to parts-eaters and back again. sure, some cars would be fine, but many aree econohatches and NOT built for the abuse - why risk it? B is a growing class, and doing pretty well after years of stagnation. I'd rather just get the rest of the classified cars processed correctly per the current definition.

I'm FINE with dropping the bottom of B into C, not fine with making B more accomodating of C in a combined class. I'm OK with releasing CRB/GCR coverage of ITC and leaving it alone as a static rule set as the likelihood of cars getting added to it (outside of dropping the bottom out of ITB ) is low. There IS great racing in C, and the best way to preserve that is to leave it alone (seal it). IF we do anythign with C in the near future, it will be fixing the process variables for it because what we have run often appears REALLY far off the mark. moving slower B cars down would require likewise. changes to C would most likely upset the C drivers more than sealing up the class. there are a lot of options and none come without down sides.

B-segment cars don't have to have competed in B-spec to be candidates for IT. there are PLENTY of fits, 2's, rios, etc... out there that would make good IT cars in the future regardless of B-Spec racing's exisitance or popularity.

the B spec concept as applied to larger / faster cars is close to what the continental series offers, really. pro racing admin and competition prep costs add significantly to the bottom line, but "on paper" the cars are pretty cheap.
 
Last edited:
It scares me when folks say that the natural progression of things needs to be towards higher performance, faster classes. I certainly don't have as much time in the club as most of you guys, but no one seems to be mentioning the reason that I think we have to maintain the lower performance classes . . . COST. I can't justify spending more than I do now on my ITB car. As you look around the automotive landscape just about every manufacturer is now producing economy models that will someday fit into lower performance, RELATIVELY inexpensive IT classes. You can buy a very competitive ITB car for waaaay less than $10k (often less than $5k). I don't think we want to make the entry point for racing any more expensive than it is.

And, no, I don't want to race Chumpcar . . . I'd like to continue racing right where I am.
 
On the other side of the coin you have the "hey, if we just had a class for (fill in blank) we'd get tons of cars". And then we don't. We should think long and hard before we add classes. Does it ADD cars and drivers or just chop the field into even smaller slices? If we're not adding drivers then adding classes is counter productive.

I think it is unlikely any ITC cars can lose much weight, if any. I'm 100# overweight now. 50 of that is driver, and maybe I could get rid the rest if I really cared. But not much below that.

Maybe I shouldn't say this, but it is possible for most of the ITC cars that run in GLD to become ITB cars. The hondas can switch to fuel injection, the renaults can go to 1.8 motors I think. Not sure about the Jetta. We haven't seen the Fiat in a while.

Here's where I'd like to see some planning. If you said ok, in 4 years you're gonna have to move. We might be ok with that. Especially if you did something to grandfather the cars in. I'm pretty sure the hondas can switch pretty easily, but if there is some difference in the 1.8 renaults or the Jetta, maybe you waive that if it's just something cosmetic and not a performance difference. I don't want to spend $1,000 to move classes, but 5 years from now it might have to happen no matter what.

We might not be leaders in ITB but as long as we get to race, I think we'd be ok with it. The biggest danger for us is that we'd get broken up in a move to B. The great thing now is that have 5 cars that run within 1/2 second without hitting each other, plus several right behind that. Lose that and we lose a lot. If you run 8 drivers out so you can add a class of 2 cars, that would not be good.
 
jumbojimbo said:
On the other side of the coin you have the "hey, if we just had a class for (fill in blank) we'd get tons of cars". And then we don't. We should think long and hard before we add classes. Does it ADD cars and drivers or just chop the field into even smaller slices? If we're not adding drivers then adding classes is counter productive.

I think it is unlikely any ITC cars can lose much weight, if any. I'm 100# overweight now. 50 of that is driver, and maybe I could get rid the rest if I really cared. But not much below that.

Maybe I shouldn't say this, but it is possible for most of the ITC cars that run in GLD to become ITB cars. The hondas can switch to fuel injection, the renaults can go to 1.8 motors I think. Not sure about the Jetta. We haven't seen the Fiat in a while.

Here's where I'd like to see some planning. If you said ok, in 4 years you're gonna have to move. We might be ok with that. Especially if you did something to grandfather the cars in. I'm pretty sure the hondas can switch pretty easily, but if there is some difference in the 1.8 renaults or the Jetta, maybe you waive that if it's just something cosmetic and not a performance difference. I don't want to spend $1,000 to move classes, but 5 years from now it might have to happen no matter what.

We might not be leaders in ITB but as long as we get to race, I think we'd be ok with it. The biggest danger for us is that we'd get broken up in a move to B. The great thing now is that have 5 cars that run within 1/2 second without hitting each other, plus several right behind that. Lose that and we lose a lot. If you run 8 drivers out so you can add a class of 2 cars, that would not be good.
Click to expand...

This is a good post, especially since it looks at the big picture rather than one class.

I can assure everyone there are no plans afoot to move any class anywhere -- up, down or out -- right now, and it won't be done (at least with my support) until it's been hashed out at length and we have heard from the participants in the class.

I do think most of the "natural" reaction from both C and B guys will be like Chip's post above, which makes sense. At the same time, the fact is we won't be classing any new ITC cars anytime soon. There just is next to nothing out there with a power to weight ratio to fit. On the other thand, B has had something of a resurgence with newer cars coming in. I personally see some value, if it is possible, of moving the C cars into B, over time or however the class drivers want to do it.

But I think that decision should be driven by what the remaining ITC guys want. Right now, it's just letters on the door. C doesn't require its own run group or anything so it is not like this affects region scheduling, etc.
 
Looking at the proposed process. It is still figured wrong. The multivalve cars will not make the same HP increase as the cheap 2 valve cars. Never have never will, (with legal mods)
The 2V cars are all base econo cars with little tiny exhaust manifolds, low compression etc, MPG computers/mapping..
They wake up well with the header, some mapping and legal compression mods. They will make the 25 or 30% number.
The 3 - 4V cars are all the High performance cars with very good exhaust manifolds, mapping , intake throttle body size, cams. They simply wont go 25% better with a header and careful assembly. The do around 10% or even less.
I dont run any IT car anymore and really dont care how you guys are doing this now. But you have a chance to get it right at this point and should do it now.
I built the legal 16V VWs and Toy MR2.
The fastest 16V -VW all had very high compression, the wrong cams wrong cam timing,etc.
MM
 
MM,

You are right that the MR2 can't make much power because it was highly optimized from the factory, however not all 4 valve cars are the same. Any D series motor (D15B2, D15B7, D16Y7) that came in a base model Civic (DX, LX, CX, VX) from 92-00 are all 4 valves and all make very little hp from the factory (between 102 and 107hp), but can be woken up with IT legal mods. Why? Econo minded factory Intake, exhaust manifold, exhaust, and tune. Now they won't make the same horsepower as their Si brethen because of small cam profiles and smaller, less powerful intakes but they will make more then 10%-15% over factory hp figures.

There are other examples outside of Honda land, but I don't know enough about those to site them are examples. What I do know is that blanket statements, like "4 valve cars dont make ____ percent" are always wrong.
 
Last edited:
Flyinglizard said:
Blanket statements are always wrong...
Click to expand...


which is a blanket statement in itself, so that means blanket statements aren't always wrong, which means that .....

((brain explodes at this point sending little red bits all around in a mile radius))

"a mile radius???" ... "I know, my mother told me a million times not to exaggerate"

.
 
Flyinglizard said:
Copy that.
Blanket statements are always wrong...
Click to expand...

You got me. Bad choice of words.

It is still wrong to say 3 and 4 valve motors will never be able to make more than 25%. Just as it is wrong to say all 3 and 4 valve motors are high performance models, with very good exhaust manifolds, mapping, intake throttle body sizes and came. It simply is just not true. Sorry Mike but you are incorrect.
 
Yes, you are right .. Not all engines are designed the same . I implied that you were correct.
The VW and Toys, I have had enough time with to know.



RE ITC; There are a few old British - Sprigets ,HP cars that are not happy with the new additions to HP.
They are running ITC times MOL.. DOT tires and there may be a few new cars for ITC and a few semiretired cars from HP.
IMHO.
The bottom of those classes are not dissimilar lap time wise, spec wise, or participation wise. Stock pickup points, 1600cc, etc.
 
I checked lap times again for the old HP cars . Most(2-3) are about 2 sec faster than ITC @Sebring. On Slicks.
,Maybe add some DOT tires and a little weight, and the ITC has some more cars and the HP cars have a better place to play.
The cars are a lot alike, most have been in the family for a while and well loved. Not many new builds.

The regional HP class hovers around 9 cars. ITC maybe 5
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top