OH MY GOD, V8's in ITR

No dog in this hunt....but

I thought the V8 Mustang in ITR would be a fine addition.
If anything, I figured that they would be significantly SLOWER than the top ITS cars, much less the ITR.
The lap times from this last weekend at Sebring would seem to bear that out.
My '94 Cobra Mustang that I race in BP is built well beyond ITR specifications.
(It has the larger Cobra 13in brakes and dyno'ed at over 300 RWH, 3195 lbs. w/driver)
My best lap time in Sunday's race was a 2:36.155
30 minutes earlier, Mike Flynn in a ITS BMW ran a 2:35.0
Tim Potter in a ITS RX7 ran a 2:35.7
 
Seems to be an overwhelming support of the cars in ITR if classed correctly. I think the CRB will need to have an extremely solid footing to refuse the request that isn't based on "we feel", "we think", or "we're told". Regardless if yes or no, I'm extremely interested in their decision logic, and even more interested in the factual data that supports that decision.
 
Officially, the proposal is still with the ITAC. Internally, we are split and we know that the CRB has it's reservations.

Write your letters for or against.
 
Understood. Is it appropriate/inappropriate to ask who is in favor and who is against? I would like to ask some questions of the cons.
 
After the official vote, I would hope anyone who still watches this BB would say how they voted if asked, but I won't put anyone out there who doesn't frequent here who can't defend their position on any issue.
 
I'm not afraid to admit that I support the limited inclusion of V8-powered cars that fit the ITR parameters, regardless of make or model - as a member and in my role on the ITAC.

If one were to go back through this (and related) threads, a bundle of cons have been surfaced. However, Jake's point about cloaking concerns in arguments that might not reflect motivations is a great reminder that the issues run deep on this, at all levels.

K
 
I can theorize that a case against might go something like this...

Hey we had IT for V8 pony cars (which is essentially what AS used to be, and what it decidedly is not any more), and the members that raced in that class wanted to change it into what AS is today. Why would this go around be any different? If folks wanted to run IT style V8 pony cars AS would still be that class. The fact that it evovled into something different suggests that folks do not in fact want to run IT style V8 pony cars.

I can't really come up with any other ideas on how it could be argued.
 
shwah said:
I can theorize that a case against might go something like this...

Hey we had IT for V8 pony cars (which is essentially what AS used to be, and what it decidedly is not any more), and the members that raced in that class wanted to change it into what AS is today. Why would this go around be any different? If folks wanted to run IT style V8 pony cars AS would still be that class. The fact that it evovled into something different suggests that folks do not in fact want to run IT style V8 pony cars.

I can't really come up with any other ideas on how it could be argued.
Click to expand...

The difference now is all those people that would race IT and want to turn it into what AS is today would then go race AS. All of those that want to race IT with their "muscle car" (cause it really should count) can stay IT.
 
shwah said:
. The fact that it evovled into something different suggests that folks do not in fact want to run IT style V8 pony cars.
.
Click to expand...

Except for the fact that impromptu voting here shows people do indeed want to run V8 Pony cars in IT....
 
The AS history clouds conversation around this issue but is one that we should ALL understand, as a cautionary tale. THAT is creep in action.

"Members wanted" lots of incremental allowances (ditching washer bottles were probably first on the list) and the folks making the decisions gave it to them. It was probably aggravated by the fact that there were basically two camps, separated by an ancient hatred - Fords and Chevys - motivating perceptions of performance differences along manufacturer lines, and corresponding lobbying efforts to make things "fair."

We do NOT want to become that, but if we really fear that can happen in IT, we should have far greater worries and be far more diligent than we sometimes are, regarding new allowances.

K
 
As mentioned, AS used to be ITGT. That was before the inception of the Ad hoc committees. Unlike ITA or ITS, ITGT was essentially a two model class. And those models were rather alike. Nearly a spec class. Thus, it was far easier to allow incremental change (the same carb for everybody, to allow more years in more easily, the same intake manifold, etc etc.)

Each change seemed to make sense at the time.

The CRB didn't attach the IT principals to the class either, it was renamed and made National sometime in the early/mid 90s, IIRC.

As we all know, it morphed into a much different animal, one that lots of people steer clear of.

This current concept is far removed form the first go-round. There are several key differences. First, and most important is the fact that these cars are one of many in the proposed class. That fact alone provides protection in terms of changes. Secondly, IT principals are better defined I think, and better defended by the ad hoc.

The way I look at the big picture is that we have categories, and they are divided by rulesets, or "work levels". ....the amount of work and changes it takes to go racing. In each category, I feel there should be freedom to class all different cars. You want a Camaro but want it stock? SS is for you. Moderately tweaked? IT is the choice. More of a heavily modded car? AS is your hone. Full on tube frame? GT is the place.

In my eyes, IT is the missing stepping stone.
 
You are correct sir.

I guess I should have stated that is the only argument I could come up with that had a thread of logic to it. To be totally clear to the group - that's not my argument, just the one that imagine could be made.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top