Problem Cars

I

IPRESS

New member
Not everyone is in the know about what cars are "out of line" from a competitive stand point.
Which ones are messed up?
Are there cars out there that are so bad that they are stupid slow even with a great driver in them?
Is there a car in IT that is so superior that the car alone dusts the field? (I am thinking the ITS BMW type situation of a few years back.)
 
Very few on the track so it's hard to say for sure, but my poster-child for not run through the process are the ITS Alfa Milano's. Same chassis, one 2.5 liter, one 3.0 liter (with a good bit more power), same spec weight.
 
IPRESS said:
...Are there cars out there that are so bad that they are stupid slow even with a great driver in them? ...
Click to expand...

There are cars that are so badly classed that you almost never see them. I looked at ITB for a data-collection exercise we did...

How about a 2680# SAAB 900? One generation of Mopar stuff is in the same boat, hundreds of pounds overweight. A couple of the Volvo options are too heavy for the engines that came in them, leaving drivers to use the update/backdate rule to make them all the "right year." The 4-cylinder Mazda MX3 is spec'd 200 pounds heavier than the Golf III but comes with 88hp stock, vs. 122 for the VW. We should see a ton of BMW 318i racers in B but we don't because people are smart enough to know they are too fat.

K
 
the e30 318 m40 113hp or m42 136hp is classed the same wt 2600 t.he 325E m20 122hp at 2550 least it was the last time i checked.
 
Last edited:
Brakes and gearing also come into play for a lot of cars.

The problem with dropping weights is that a lot of these cars are kind of Porky anyways. I am not sure how you legally pull a couple hundred pounds out of a Saab 900, for example.

It is a "big" car to begin with.
 
Understand though, that it's not necessarily the "so far out of line" cars that are the problem. A pretty big part of the motivation to "fix" mis-spec'd cars is the inconsistencies that members see between cars that are ostensibly the same - that should be the same weight but aren't.

K
 
joeg said:
Brakes and gearing also come into play for a lot of cars.

The problem with dropping weights is that a lot of these cars are kind of Porky anyways. I am not sure how you legally pull a couple hundred pounds out of a Saab 900, for example.

It is a "big" car to begin with.
Click to expand...


Had a new kid this year who bought a 900 in B this year and had never scaled it. Lucked into a 3rd place and came across the scales at 150 pounds light.
But your point may still be valid.
 
Knestis said:
Understand though, that it's not necessarily the "so far out of line" cars that are the problem. A pretty big part of the motivation to "fix" mis-spec'd cars is the inconsistencies that members see between cars that are ostensibly the same - that should be the same weight but aren't.

K
Click to expand...

e.g. VW Scirocco in ITB vs VW Rabbit GTI in ITB
Same everything (literally - engine, brakes, chassis/floorpan, trans, suspension, steering) except the outer body, and the Scirocco came with 13 or 14" wheels, rather than 14" only. Yet the Scirocco weighs 50# more.
 
All Porsche 911s have to add several hundred pounds after the build to meet the process weight and the horsepower can't be upped the magic 25%.
Chuck
 
How about the other side of the equation. The cars that are very very hard to beat.
For example the ITA CRX/Civic Si's. A well built miata can beat them and of course the driver always is a big factor in any race that you look at, but what other cars are beating the Spec Honda ITA recipes.

Saturn SC2's, some of the Nissan products?

Of course I think a great car for the class is the Focus or Mazda 3's. Especially since now you can build a Mazda 3 with the 2.3 for the class. You are already starting out at IIRC 160HP stock.
 
joeg said:
Brakes and gearing also come into play for a lot of cars.

The problem with dropping weights is that a lot of these cars are kind of Porky anyways. I am not sure how you legally pull a couple hundred pounds out of a Saab 900, for example.

It is a "big" car to begin with.
Click to expand...

Joe,

If that's truly the case, I would think that car would be a good candidate for a move down to ITC. Look at the case of the VW New Beetle, it's believed that the car can't legally make the process weight that the identical (other than the bodywork) Golf and Jetta can. Therefore, the New Beetle landed in ITC at a portly 28xx lbs (IIRC).

Chris (shwah),

It's my understanding that the difference in the Rabbit and Scirocco weights is based on the perceived aero advantage of the Scirocco bodywork. I am not convinced that there's any aero advantage, but what I've heard, is that is the reason for the difference in weights.
 
Integras....240sxs....Miatas....Nissan SR20 motored cars....I'd love to see a full tilt E30 318is.....Neon maybe...the Saturn....a full on 2nd Gen MR2 whenever someone builds on (Ken!) will be fast I think.

ITA to me, an outsider, really looks like a choose you weapon class. Very balanced. The CRX is a lot like the RX7 or the 240z in ITS -- the secrets of the car have been cracked and it's just a formula to make the car fast.
 
But I have been told that aero is not an input to the 'codefied' process.

Even if it were 50# is a LOT to hang on cars with 90hp stock.
 
Not trying to stir anything up, but why is aero NOT a part? I am not saying it should be, just asking. Guessing that the determination of bad or good aero would take lots of either "track hours" or "tunnel time" (equals $$$$$)?
So from the above posts I am gathering that "B" has some, maybe more, cars that are on either side of the curve, am I right? (I am not trying to push this subject in any direction, I just think it is good to know where the problems are that push the buttons.)
Maybe somebody could make a list.
 
Marc, that's correct. Speaking for myself (although I think most of the ITAC agrees) there is just no way to quantify aero. Even the "book" numbers for a car are pretty much useless given what we can do with spoilers/splitters.
 
Aero drag - negative HP - is a very complicated business and there's no way to accurately determine it with the resources we have. We also dork with the factory body shape a LOT with airdams. Finally, the actual physics is often contradictory to what we *think* we see when we eyeball something asking how "aerodynamic" it is.

K
 
All depends on where the standard of the class is set. For ITB the standard was the Golf right? Since there aren’t many ways to lose weight on an IT car, it seems like the best the process can really do is micro manage around the standard. Unless of course we are willing to ADD weight to cars, even ‘popular’ cars, and I seriously doubt that will happen.
For example, last race I went to there were two Mustangs(fox body). They look a bit heavy to me at 2550lbs and 90hp(I think). I don’t think they have been reprocessed but I’ll bet they couldn’t lose the weight anyway. The point is, it’s easy to say “add weight and move to ITC” but not so easy to hear “lose 200 lbs we’re moving your ITB Golf to ITA” The question of achievable weight goes hand in hand with where the standard is set, and who decides that? It seems like the standard for the class should be running around with at least 100 lbs of ballast just to make weight. This would help center the class and include more cars in the curve.
Are the ‘class standards’ for each class running ballast?
 
I have heard from some that the standard was the Volvo. I have heard from others that there are multiple 'standards'. Either way, since they just recommended a (small) weight change on the Golf, I doubt it was the standard - though I used to assume it was.

Regardless - I run 100+ in my car.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top