Preliminary CRB Minutes/Tech Bulletin - November

quadzjr said:
so long and short of it in IT trim they weigh more. It doesn't pertain to the conversation at hand, more of an Educational/FYI/Informative post.
Click to expand...

I assume you mean in IT trim they weigh more than the curb weight, but that isn't the case with every car. Of the cars I've built and/or owned all of them have weighed less at race prep (with driver) than they did in street trim (without driver) - 260Z, Miata, Jensen Healey, and the Mustang. The Mustang is going to way considerably less in race trim then in street trim, probably 2700 lbs (with driver) versus 3200 lbs.
 
Last edited:
Jim, we are doing all we can to try to keep C afloat but it is in trouble. The fact of the matter is it's just hard to find 60-80 hp stock cars to put in the class, and when we put a "heavy" higher hp car in the class a lot of people get anxious about it (the teeth gnashing over the 2.2 Mopars springs to mind).

People ARE spending that kind of coin on A, S and R builds and on the rare top flight B build. The reason is the competition is good enough to justify it.

I'd like C to stick around and prosper and one of the ways to encourage that is more "teeth gnashing" about whether a car might be a better fit in C despite appearances (like the Volvo 242).

jumbojimbo said:
Someone in FL did build an ITC new beetle about 3 years ago. Never raced it and sold it to a waterford hills/GL driver. It has raced once in GL (2010 ITFest) that I know of. I have no idea how it is on weight, it ran ok but not great. Could be a rocket or a dog. Likely not even close to a 100% build, but it is very pretty and I want it.

In your opinion C is dying. Which may or may not be supported by the numbers, especially when compared to entry trends in A and B which are also down. C is just an easy target regardless of the reality.

I agree that no one is going to spend that kind money to build a C car. But no one is going to spend that kind of money to build a B car either. And no one is going to spend that kind of money to build an A, S or R car. Even if a car is clearly a slight overdog, we're talking about miniscule numbers of potential builds best case. IMO all the teeth gnashing about classing is just moving the deck chairs around and wasting energy.
Click to expand...
 
Ron Earp said:
I assume you mean in IT trim they weigh more than the curb weight, but that isn't the case with every car. Of the cars I've built and/or owned all of them have weighed less at race prep (with driver) than they did in street trim (without driver) - 260Z, Miata, Jensen Healey, and the Mustang. The Mustang is going to way considerably less in race trim then in street trim, probably 2700 lbs (with driver) versus 3200 lbs.
Click to expand...


Correct, in IT trim with driver the mk1 MR2 weighs more than stock weight. I know that is not the case with every car.. actually I would think that this is one of the outliners. This is mostly due to the little amount of stuff to remove and the 5 steel bulkheads on the car. I was just letting you know that there is atleast one car that does not follow the norm from your qoute below. I have thought out, planned, and worked pretty hard on removing weight so I can balast on the passenger side floor to lower CG. Right now the spec weight is higher so it is a moot point. I was just answering the question you never asked.. you said you never head of a car.. I let you know of atleast one that I know of.

"I've never heard of a car gaining weight with the deletion of all the stuff you can legally remove, plus the the addition of cage, driver, and safety equipment. If it does end up weighing more in race trim, than street trim, then I suspect that someone hasn't done their race car construction planning very well. Single pounds do matter as they add up to 10s and 100s."-Ron
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Yeah, we put the car in at its ITS weight (intentionally, as a "no-brainer" and to avoid concerns about poaching ITS cars into STL) but those cars are demonstrating themselves to be pretty competitive in STL as-is (they currently hold the lap records at LRP and NHMS, for example). Of course, there's about ZERO fully-developed STL cars out there (mine's not) so it's not a fair comparison...hey, we'll "continue to monitor its performance"... :shrug:
 
Greg Amy said:
Yeah, we put the car in at its ITS weight (intentionally, as a "no-brainer" and to avoid concerns about poaching ITS cars into STL) but those cars are demonstrating themselves to be pretty competitive in STL as-is (they currently hold the lap records at LRP and NHMS, for example). Of course, there's about ZERO fully-developed STL cars out there (mine's not) so it's not a fair comparison...hey, we'll "continue to monitor its performance"... :shrug:
Click to expand...

I agree with you on the whole but you say two things here. They aren't really demonstrating themselves to be competitive as, like you say, ZERO developed cars out there. This is a BS request from a driver who instead of developing his program, wants to slow down the others who shouldn't be fast enough when the class plays out. I hate that.
 
JeffYoung said:
Shouldn't pretty much any even marginally developed STL car be faster than an ITS RX7?
Click to expand...
Welcome to ITS in the Northeast, Jeff.

I went faster than the Summit Point ITS lap record in my first outing in my marginally-developed STL Integra (MARRS 4?), yet I spent the rest of my (very limited) 2011 "season" battling hammer-and-tong with ITS RX7 drivers every race (Daryl Stein and Glenn Lawton as standouts). I'll have to look it up to be sure, but I have yet to go faster than the ITS lap record at any track up here, and I've got more compression (1/2 pt), intake mods, valve springs and retainers (for RPM), adjustable cam gears, better transaxle gearing (ITR gearset), larger brakes, and weigh about 160 pounds less than I would in ITS.

Please note that this is more a generalized statement of the state of ITS up here in NE than it is a commentary on my own prep and driving. I'm not a benchmark, just one simple data point... - GA
 
I actually think that having a car that sets a 90-95% competition level - at a 100% prep level is an interesting way to start a class. You have an immediate bogey to go race with, can reference ITS lap records as short term goals and see the light at the end of the end of the tunnel when each program continues to grow.
 
Agree there, this happened in ITR with the 325. Most good ITS cars are still faster than the developing ITR cars in SEDiv. Probably similar to the NEDiv with "maxed out" ITS cars competing against STL and ITR cars that are in the early stages of teh development curve.
 
Probably track dependent. From what little I know of STL, I would think an STL car might be down on power to the "average" ITR (probably 190 to 230ish whp) but should handle better (suspension improvements and aero).

So, power track? Advantage ITR. Handling? STL.

Rough guesses though.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top