September fastrack

Neither would I. But I would also argue that most people would rather bust a nut to get down to a possible minimum weight than have to add 250+lbs of lead to a car - and deal with all the associated headaches that brings upon you (hubs, rotors, pads, spindles, insert increased wear item here). Like I said, cars should be classed in the highest (fastest) class they can fit while acheiveing min weight.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Not to mention that, by adding that much lead, the roll cage (if built to the limit of ITA rules) would need to be ripped out and changed, as the 250 pounds would most likely put it out of regulations.
 
Now THAT'S funny!! Do you need a mirror Andy?? :lol:
[/b]
Click to expand...

Come on Jeff. Dave's comments were out of line - because he isn't reading the explanation well enough. Nobody has to AGREE, but to make logic jumps when none were implied and call out BS is just foolish given what was written. That's it.

Back to not posting in this section. :bash_1_:
 
There really are two schools of thought here. One says that it can be expensive to get down to minimum weight, even if it's well within the rules to do so. So people don't want to spend money there. Just as people might not want to spend money on headers, even though they will make their car go faster.

The other is that people don't want to add weight to a car that is a race car. Race car people like having light cars. People want their race car to be lighter in race trim than in street trim. It's not a race car if it's got 300 lbs or more of lead bolted to the floor. Or if it's still got its interior in place. Etc.

[/b]
Click to expand...
Then of course we could allow dual classification for tweeners and no one would have a bitch.
 
I understand not wanting people to bolt in 250 lbs of ballast, but as you said I'm close enough to know the car don't believe that would have been necessary. Off the top of my head, I can't remember what the original ITA weight was but at that weight, no additional ballast was used on Jake's car to reach the old ITA weight.

to make logic jumps when none were implied [/b]
Click to expand...

Yeah well, the RX7 in ITA and SE-R in B comment...gee, wonder why I thought that part of your post was full of fluff. :rolleyes: I was just trying to understand the rationale used and maybe see if there was some inaccurate information supplied by an outside source.

Hey, if I want to beat up on Jake I can always use the Neon.
 
Yeah well, the RX7 in ITA and SE-R in B comment...gee, wonder why I thought that part of your post was full of fluff. :rolleyes: [/b]
Click to expand...

Except the point eluded you. You can ALWAYS move a car 'down' and assign it a new process weight. Just like the examples I gave you. In those examples, crazy amounts of ballast would have to be installed to make them tip the scales appropriately. Some would argue the MR2 is in the exact same situation. I believe that the right class for each car is the 'highest' it can fit into while making minimum weight.

Dick - everyone would be happy in THOSE cars. Then the flood of letters come in for people who THINK they have a tweener car...do those get approved? Where is the line? Dual classification is not something the CRB is looking at right now as a rule. The concept does intrigue me however. We have a few exceptions out there in ITS/ITR - but that was predicated by a new class being formed. Some want to sunset those DC's as well.
 
Just to further this pointless argument, would any of our resident ITAC'ers be willing to run some numbers and post the ballpark process weights of some of these 'tweener' ITA cars if they were in ITB? I'm thinking maybe the MR2, RX7, Neon, GTI, and Pulsar...

Then maybe the guys actually racing those models could chime in and let us know what their cars actually weigh now, as raced, and we could see how the change would impact the real cars and real drivers, and not just the theoretical cars and drivers. I know this would prove nothing - in which case it would fit right in with most of the other posts in this thread - but it might add some fuel to the fire and kick this pissing match up to the next level, and draw some of the big guns into the fracas :D
 
Earl the Gti is in ITB, thats what I race. If you mean the 16v, god it would be one heavy pig that would likely have to brake the the 500 marker at SP. The 8v is competitive in ITB.
 
Earl the Gti is in ITB, thats what I race. If you mean the 16v, god it would be one heavy pig that would likely have to brake the the 500 marker at SP. The 8v is competitive in ITB.[/b]
Click to expand...
James - Yes, I was thinking about the General Li ('87 16V) when I wrote that. Yes, it might end up being too heavy to be worth it, but at 2220 lbs. it isn't exactly 'the car to have' in ITA right now, is it (hoping Matt isn't reading this thread...)?
 
Yes but even with his car 2-300# overweight as built today he runs me down on the front straight even if I exit turn 10 six car lengths ahead of him. Sure I could probably be faster through 10, but his top speed is way higher then my car by a long shot and my 8v min weight is 2280 and im using fuel to stay just above min weight.
 
I'm a beginner here so bare with me. I gather there is some formula that is used based on obtainable HP and obtainable weight that is used to class a car, correct?

My car is 2350 with me (210) in the car. So a very light driver can make weight. Even though I look at my car and don't see many options for losing more weight, I don't see the error in classifying the MR2 as being based on weight. I see it as based on the obtainable HP.

What is the assumed obtainable HP? If it is much over 110 RWHP, I would be willing to say the assumption is inaccurate.
 
Just to further this pointless argument, would any of our resident ITAC'ers be willing to run some numbers and post the ballpark process weights of some of these 'tweener' ITA cars if they were in ITB? I'm thinking maybe the MR2, RX7, Neon, GTI, and Pulsar...

[/b]
Click to expand...

Ballparked

The MR2 and RX7 would both be around 2550 in ITB.

The GTI would be around 2500-2550 as well.

The Neon is ITA to the bone.

Pulsar? That looks and smells like a B car to me if it is 113hp.



B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve b @ Aug 28 2007, 01:20 PM) [snapback]121885[/snapback]
Click to expand...
<div class='quotemain'> I'm a beginner here so bare with me. I gather there is some formula that is used based on obtainable HP and obtainable weight that is used to class a car, correct?

My car is 2350 with me (210) in the car. So a very light driver can make weight. Even though I look at my car and don't see many options for losing more weight, I don't see the error in classifying the MR2 as being based on weight. I see it as based on the obtainable HP.

What is the assumed obtainable HP? If it is much over 110 RWHP, I would be willing to say the assumption is inaccurate. [/b][/quote]

And you may be right. A 25% increase in IT trim is assumed and used in the process unless actual (and significantly different - by 5% +/-) numbers are known.
 
I don't know but 145 crank hp is what is being used for that car.

18% loss is common for RWD. 119rwhp?

15% loss is common for FWD. 123rwhp?

I would think it would act more like a FWDer on the dyno but 120whp is a good target to feel REAL comfortable you are inside the target envelope.
 
okay, so the 116 crank HP with a 25% gain in IT trim give you the 145 crank HP. I agree that the loss is probably around the 15% range. But let's just say it's 18%, that would be a loss of 26 HP giving you a RWHP of 119.

Mine just dynoed at 109 which is actually 1 better than the 108 it dynoed fresh. That's 7.5% under the theoretical 25% gain.
 
okay, so the 116 crank HP with a 25% gain in IT trim give you the 145 crank HP. I agree that the loss is probably around the 15% range. But let's just say it's 18%, that would be a loss of 26 HP giving you a RWHP of 119.

Mine just dynoed at 109 which is actually 1 better than the 108 it dynoed fresh. That's 7.5% under the theoretical 25% gain.
[/b]
Click to expand...

108 sounds like ITB to me.
 
B)--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(steve b @ Aug 28 2007, 12:36 PM) [snapback]121901[/snapback]</div><div class='quotemain'>
Mine just dynoed at 109 which is actually 1 better than the 108 it dynoed fresh. That's 7.5% under the theoretical 25% gain.
[/quote]
But what's the level of your build? How much tuning have you done with intakes, headers, mufflers, exhaust pipe sizing, and ECUs? How big an overbore? Compression increase? Balanced and ported? Etc, etc ...

Just asking. The number is meaningless without context.
 
now thats getting somewhere. I wonder if I put 200# more into matts car if he would still run by me like I was in the wrong gear.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top