September fastrack

The SOHC Neon is definitely too fast to be an ITB car.

On another note, I was very surprised to see only two people besides myself wrote letters in protest of the suggested "open engine management rules". I've heard a lot of negative opinions on this topic, so don't forget to put your pens to paper if you have strong opinions on the topic.

SM guys, what is the story with the '94 flywheel?
 
Another item that was clarified is the p/s NASCAR bars and subsequent gutting of the door. The way the proposed change reads, all the bars have to do is protrude into the door cavity to remove all items that are allowed to be removed.
 
SM guys, what is the story with the '94 flywheel? [/b]
Click to expand...

The 94 flywheel is slightly heavier than the 95-97. There is an allowance in SM for the 94's to run the later flywheel. The later flywheel is all that is produced now and has superceeded the early one. That request baffled the SMAC because essentially, the requestor was asking for it to be made legal for teh later cars to be able to run the heavier, rarer, and out of production flywheel. Why would anyone want that? We think it was a confusion in what is currently legal.
 
not moving the MR2 makes no sense to me. we have a procees to get the wieght right so why not [/b]
Click to expand...

Given the information we have from people doing full builds using the right year tub, the weight in ITA has been deemed acheiveable for the foreseable future unless some new information comes out. Similar situation to the 944 8V in ITS.

The vote was not unanimous.
 
Here's a question for some of the rules experts. I am interested in getting some opinion on the liklihood of having my SPO stock car classed in GT2 to compete in some national races where there will hopefully be more cars to compete against. It is 2750 with driver and makes 435 HP. Curious about what is the best approach to drafting my letter, providng any supporting evidence etc.

On paper it looks like it would fit well in that class when compared to the Panoz Esperante GTS and the Porsche 911 GT3.

The car will not be competetive in GT1 but if I couldn't get GT2 I'd settle for GT1. The only thing holding that back is the aluminum block LS1 - gotta be iron. I'm in no mood to drop $15K for a GT1 motor.

Down south they are classifying this car regionally as GTA. These late model cars with sealed motors ran in the last year of the Trans Am series classed as GTA to fill in space. There are no GTA cars in the NE besides mine that I'm aware of. Before Trans AM went bust my hope was to run in a few pro races.

The car is an ASA national touring series car and still has the sealed motor tags etc. to demonstrate it has not been modified. Any shot at GT2?
 
Why won't they publish the weight process. I understand there may be some 'subjective' parts to it, but cripe, there should be more non-subjective data going into it. Someone must have a list of all the IT cars, their OE HP, their IT expected HP and the weight their IT minimum weight. Then another checklist of stuff like FWD vrs RWD, carbs/FI, rear drums/disks etc. About half of it they publish in the GCR every year, why not just hand out the rest of it.

The only excuse would be that it is not in a format that they can easily distribute, but if that is the case, how do 'they' sit around and make decisions about cars as a group?

Seems odd to me.
 
Why won't they publish the weight process. I understand there may be some 'subjective' parts to it, but cripe, there should be more non-subjective data going into it. Someone must have a list of all the IT cars, their OE HP, their IT expected HP and the weight their IT minimum weight. Then another checklist of stuff like FWD vrs RWD, carbs/FI, rear drums/disks etc. About half of it they publish in the GCR every year, why not just hand out the rest of it.

The only excuse would be that it is not in a format that they can easily distribute, but if that is the case, how do 'they' sit around and make decisions about cars as a group?

Seems odd to me.
[/b]
Click to expand...

you a fan of the original snl seasons? remember the fake ads? picture the one for the "bass-o-matic". we on the itac call the process the "class-o-matic". put in basic ingredients, add a few odd items that change regularly, blend well, and presto! the cars get classed appropriately. :D

kidding of course....

marshall
itac newbie
 
Given the information we have from people doing full builds using the right year tub, the weight in ITA has been deemed acheiveable for the foreseable future unless some new information comes out. Similar situation to the 944 8V in ITS.

The vote was not unanimous.
[/b]
Click to expand...
I never knew that the weight being achievable or not was actually the issue at hand. I (and most MR2 drivers, I'm sure) would love to know how these "full builds" do in the heat of battle, even though we all know that classing is never based on on-track performance. :wacko:
 
Given the information we have from people doing full builds using the right year tub, the weight in ITA has been deemed acheiveable for the foreseable future unless some new information comes out. Similar situation to the 944 8V in ITS.

The vote was not unanimous.
[/b]
Click to expand...
Cars that fit the process can have some expectation of being competitive.
So if you get the exact right tub and do an expensive, time consuming build they can probably make a weight in ITA that fits the process.
Or you can build a car that meets the process weight in ITB without all the extra effort.
I though the idea behind Improved Touring was to take a stock car and change the thing that are required to turn it into an effective race car, not to have to be required to do a complicated, expensive build in order to make weight.
If the car can race at process weight in either class, why in the world do we make harder than it has to be.
 
Yes the weight is acheivable in ITA for an MR2. I currently went acroos the scales at Summit during MARRS 7. The car was 2293, 23 pounds over weight. I ran my ass off During the race. Finished 6th in class. ( thanks to alot of other driver's at the IT Fest. ) Going to ITB the weight was 2540. Gee sounds like fun. Look at the time sheets for ITB at Summit, then look at mine. I'm within the top 4 in ITB. Add the weight and GEE, I go right back to the same finishing postion. The weight and power have a lot to do with these cars. I just so sick of trying to inform the people who are not informed about the car, I'm thinking of perposing a spec class for the car. SPEC MR2 or ITMR2. Hey the RX7's got the wish.
 
I just so sick of trying to inform the people who are not informed about the car, I'm thinking of perposing a spec class for the car. [/b]
Click to expand...

Umm, some of us are informed about the car Doug. Peter Doane probably had the best preped MR2 that I've seen.

Your ontrack performance really isn't relivant but if you must, bring the car to the the NARRC at LRP or the ARRC if you really want to compare how it fairs. Put it next to a Moser ITA CRX, a Greg Amy NX2000, or Bettencourt's Miata. The MR2 doesn't have a chance.

Dick, I totally agree with what you are saying. I just don't get this one.
 
I think I like the idea of Dual Classing on this one.... It actually would be a fun car dual classed to purchase with a friend. I bet it would be a front runner in ITB, and even at the higher weight for ITB trim it would still be fun in ITA with so many people in that class these days.

Raymond "Thinking outside the box again :wacko: " blethen
 
Doug - Not to put your boxers in a bunch, and you do have a well prepared tub, but how much have you done in engine prep, final drive gearing, and tuning? Process weight has to take into account a full It legal engine build. If you can prove to ITAC that a fully IT prepared motor cannot make the power they are averaging on then maybe the process weight for ITB would change.
 
The SOHC Neon is definitely too fast to be an ITB car.

[/b]
Click to expand...

I think that after I went from 12th to 6th in the Sunday IT Fest race, there isn't going to be much happening for Neons in the near future. I believe that I have finally shown that it can be competitive. B)
 
If you can prove to ITAC that a fully IT prepared motor cannot make the power they are averaging on then maybe the process weight for ITB would change.
[/b]
Click to expand...



UHHh yeah, good luck proving that one. Where can I get a set of them rosy colored glasses??


R
 
Why won't they publish the weight process. I understand there may be some 'subjective' parts to it, but cripe, there should be more non-subjective data going into it. Someone must have a list of all the IT cars, their OE HP, their IT expected HP and the weight their IT minimum weight. Then another checklist of stuff like FWD vrs RWD, carbs/FI, rear drums/disks etc. About half of it they publish in the GCR every year, why not just hand out the rest of it.

The only excuse would be that it is not in a format that they can easily distribute, but if that is the case, how do 'they' sit around and make decisions about cars as a group?

Seems odd to me.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Heh. That was my letter. I requested that the ITAC publish *exactly* how each car's weight is derived and even suggested it go in the GCR. I think that info should be publicly published. The ITAC doesn't. I'll leave it at that and you can ask yourself why they wouldn't want to publish that info. I've already been back and forth with Andy privately on it.

I also sent in a letter opposing the new ECU rule. 5 letters total (for/against) is pretty pathetic considering how much debate was had just on this forum.

David
 
David,
I think part of the problem is that many people are a bit uncertain the true ramifications of the ECU rule, I know that I am.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top