Problem Cars

gran racing said:
It's not necessarily about this process or another form of classification. Fairness to me is being able to ask and understand the rationale of how cars reached it's classification regardless of whether one fully agrees with some of the factors. I do not think it's fair when a member seeks input on why one car that has a greater performance potential than others is classed at a lower weight and the only justification the PTB can provide is it was classed by a previous group of people. I also think it's great to have a group of people who are at least willing to listen if a member believes the factors used to class their car are wrong, and ability to provide some proof.
Click to expand...

i agree that transparancy is important. but in the end, i'll trade all the transparancy and consistency in the world for a stable ruleset and relative parity amongst the field. :shrug:
 
tnord said:
i agree that transparancy is important. but in the end, i'll trade all the transparancy and consistency in the world for a stable ruleset and relative parity amongst the field. :shrug:
Click to expand...

Travis, that's a VERY interesting statement.

Some would say that the things that you would trade, transparency and consistency, are the first principals that create a stable ruleset. (As far as classifications go. I'm ignoring, for now, the changing of washer bottle, etc rules)

IF the rulesmakers are transparent (which begats consistency), then cars that are classed, or are requested to be run thru the process will be treated equally, right?
 
lateapex911 said:
IF the rulesmakers are transparent (which begats consistency), then cars that are classed, or are requested to be run thru the process will be treated equally, right?
Click to expand...

Yes, they will be treated equally; will equal treatment necessarily give us parity though? Me thinks those are two different things. I'm beginning to think that those of us who are "pro-process" aren't necessarily that concerned about the end result, in terms of parity among cars. Certainly Stephen has said he isn't.

I know a lot of you point to the fact that we now have a variety of cars in each class that are relatively competitive. But in reality we have what, 4, 5, maybe 6 cars in each class that are capable of winning in a highly competitive field? Out of how many cars that are classed in IT - 300+? I think the process is a great tool to help us reach the goal, I just think we need to make sure we know what the goal is.

Just my $.02
 
erlrich said:
But in reality we have what, 4, 5, maybe 6 cars in each class that are capable of winning in a highly competitive field?

Just my $.02
Click to expand...

I would be willing to bet that if you took the top 5 drivers in those classes, forced them to build something other than those top 5 CARS, given the same budget and the same prep level, you would find that those same drivers were on top.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
I would be willing to bet that if you took the top 5 drivers in those classes, forced them to build something other than those top 5 CARS, given the same budget and the same prep level, you would find that those same drivers were on top.
Click to expand...

irrelevant.

if they're 2s/lap slower than what they were in one of the "top 5" cars however....THAT matters.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
I would be willing to bet that if you took the top 5 drivers in those classes, forced them to build something other than those top 5 CARS, given the same budget and the same prep level, you would find that those same drivers were on top.
Click to expand...

You make a good point Andy, and one that I forgot to bring up earlier. One of the problems I see with trying to make any determination about the effectiveness of the process has to do with the very nature if IT; there are so few cars that really are built & driven to their fullest potential that we may never really know how close we are to achieving parity, and therefore how good the process really is.

The answer may very well be that there is no answer :shrug:
 
You are getting VERY close to the answer, Earl - that we accept your premise re: "built and driven to their potential" and set free any assumption that we can make decisions based on what we see.

K
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
I would be willing to bet that if you took the top 5 drivers in those classes, forced them to build something other than those top 5 CARS, given the same budget and the same prep level, you would find that those same drivers were on top.
Click to expand...

I agree with this logic. It may be possible that there are some class overdogs that have never fully reached their potential and are cast aside. If I were rich and bored, I think it would be fun to do a few "all out" builds on some cars that have never made it that far.
 
RexRacer19 said:
I agree with this logic. It may be possible that there are some class overdogs that have never fully reached their potential and are cast aside. If I were rich and bored, I think it would be fun to do a few "all out" builds on some cars that have never made it that far.
Click to expand...

I think so too Jeff! The ones I would try right away would be:

SOHC Neon
MKII MR2
Fiero GT, 88
(insert one of a million Hondas)

ITS
Alfa Romeo GTV6
Mercedes Benz 2.3 16V
84 300ZX slicktop

Obviously parts and reliability are issues on some cars that could have a chance...
 
We have a Milano down here that has won race and has proven to be fast.

We also have an unbeatable Merc in ITS, when it comes out -- Irish Mike's 2.3 16v.

We had one guy, Chris Newberry, build an 84 300zx slicktop and it was extremely fast in testing, totalled first time out at Road Atlanta.

They've been done. They could be fast.
 
I'd toss in the Porsche 914-6 and The Monza in ITA as longshots, but interesting ones. I think the 2nd gen MR2 is not a longshot at all, it just needs a top builder /driver.
 
If anyone ever actually builds a 3.8 liter GM V6 motor in ITA, they are probably going to have a car with 170-180 whp and 200 wtq. I'm not kidding.

Regardless of how bad that thing stops and turns, and it won't be as bad as people think, that thing will run like stink in straight line.
 
Is that the same motor that needs to be lifted out of the car to change the sparkplugs? or is that the 350 version that came in the Monza for a bit?
(I might make that a double longshot. Smaller brakes than an Acura in front, drums in the rear, a live axle and 2800 pounds. yech)
 
Last edited:
I don't think so.

The 3.8 V6 is essentially a Rover V8, same block with two cylinders lopped off. I'm not kidding -- a Buick V6 water pump fits my car.

It's aluminum, lightweight, smogged out and LOTS of power potential when cleaned up in IT trim, just like the Rover V8.

I'm serious. I bet 170whp, 200wtq, on a $5k build.
 
I agree with that, for the most part. I know down at Summit Point the MR2 I was behind with not a well developed engine, I couldn't get past on the straight. That would be one to consider.

Although, the Mini would be on my short list of cars to consider for ITB.
 
Jeff,

Not to hijack the thread, but I think the 3.8 Buick V6 is cast iron. I do think the Monza/Skyhawk has potential but they are hard to find. It's the same basic engine as the V6 Camaro/Firebird in ITR.

The AMC Spirit 4.2 L6 is also an interesting ITA car. Isn't that the biggest displacement outside of the 5.0L pony cars?

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona (2.2L and 2630 lbs in case anyone cares)
 
Bob, you are right, it is cast iron, I went back and looked. I think you are right about the Spirit, it is the biggest displacement in IT outside of ITR.

There is a guy in Atlanta who runs one, Ed Forrest. I think the stock carb is a problem on it.

Jake, if those cars got processed I think they would loose serious weight -- 110 stock hp.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top