Tweeners - Multiple Class Listings

Rick,

... I have one question about "adjustments". Where in the world did they come up with the driver weight being 180 lbs? Must have been in the Ethiopian Region 

... Considering the average in this region I would think 200 lbs would be the standard. Can anything be done about this?
Click to expand...

Eat more salads! :lol: Seriously, back at CMP Memorial Day weekend after we ate those steaks and potatoes I was pushing maybe 210. Somehow, I'm down to 185 w/o really trying. One meal a day must be a salad w/vinegarette type dressing (no creamy bleu cheese), no sodas and when I would normally burp to make room for more food I quit eating. It took about 2 months but it worked.

I'll still be cooking steak at the track though :023:
 
Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 29 2005, 09:12 PM
Andy,

... I have one question about "adjustments". Where in the world did they come up with the driver weight being 180 lbs? Must have been in the Ethiopian Region :D

... Considering the average in this region I would think 200 lbs would be the standard. Can anything be done about this?
[snapback]67017[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Absolutely!!

Effective IMMEDIATELY, all cars classified at 2500 lbs total with a spec 180 lb driver will now be 2500 lbs total with a spec 200 lb driver (soaking wet). :D

All other weights will adjust in the same manner.
 
the ITS 240sx comes to mind as another tweener in my opinion.

155 flywheel factory hp is not enough to keep up with the germans, but too much for the 110 flywheel factory hp stuff of ITA. maybe given a weight break it could be respectable. don't one of you ITAC guys run one??? what's your opinion?

i'd LOVE to try one of these things out, and would consider buying an already built one just for the hell of it. i had a 98 for 2 years, and wouldn't mind putting another one on the track if it had a chance in hell of winning.

of course, i don't really have a chance in hell of winning in SM either, but that's neither here nor there. :(
 
Originally posted by lateapex911+Nov 30 2005, 04:19 AM-->
ITAs performance envelope increased dramtically with the inclusion of the CRX, and then was fortified with the addition of the 240SX and the Integra
[snapback]67018[/snapback]​
[/b]
Click to expand...

And SER, and NX2000, and Maita, Civic Si, Prelude, etc. I still think ITA is doing great. Look at car counts. Why mess those cars up?

<!--QuoteBegin-lateapex911
Sam Moore qualified slower ....ITB showed an Accord in 1st and 3rd, Golfs well placed...
[snapback]67018[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Hmm... Accord, Golf, Prelude, - these are ALL recent additions to ITB. Sam Moore? Am I mistaken or was he the ONLY Volvo that even ran the race? You have to ask yourself - why weren't they even entering the championship race?
 
I seem to remember Chris Albin telling me that he still thinks the MkII Golf is faster than his new car. There's subtley different ways to interpret what that means - potential, before the new one is completely developed, etc. - but for what it's worth.

I STILL have a hard time believing that the MR2 and its cousins would be a problem in B.

K
 
You have to ask yourself - why weren't they even entering the championship race?
Click to expand...

Good question but it is not because the car still is not competitive. Scott Carlson in the NER area – crazy fast driver and car. When I take a look at the entries before a race and see Volvos included, I think that’s one car to watch for. That was an ironic statement… :(
And in the race, he (as I am SURE you know, LOL) ran afoul in an ambitious move and flattened his right front tire on a certain pal of ours fender and bumper, and was out of the race.
Click to expand...

There are many reasons why people don’t attend the “championship race”. Financial reasons (ouch!), distance, kids and wife (wink, wink Jake F.), time (it required me taking a week off of work and many hours to prepare for the event) or are simply content with staying local. Just because various cars do not show at the ARRC does not mean they are not doing well through out the nation. (This is not just directed towards Volvos.)
 
Originally posted by tom_sprecher@Nov 30 2005, 06:22 AM
I'll still be cooking steak at the track though  :023:
[snapback]67024[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

... Don't forget to invite me....

... I'll be the 6'4" bean pole :wacko:
 
914 2.0 to B
914 1.7 / 1.8 to C
99+ Miata to A w/ Current SM weight and plate
VW VR6 Golf / Jetta / Corrado to A with 100 lbs ( can't loose down to 2450 to be good in S )
A1 GTI to C with a few pounds
944 to A for Gods sake already


Just what comes to mind right now........
 
Originally posted by Fastfred92@Nov 30 2005, 02:21 PM
914 2.0 to B
914 1.7 / 1.8 to C
99+ Miata to A w/ Current SM weight and plate
VW VR6 Golf / Jetta / Corrado to A with 100 lbs ( can't loose down to 2450 to be good in S )
A1 GTI to C with a few pounds
944 to A for Gods sake already
Just what comes to mind right now........
[snapback]67052[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Sorry Fred, but I can't see a 172hp VR6 torque monster in ITA, especially @ 2550#. I'm guessing that the process would put it well North of 3000# in ITA.

But I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks the Rabbit GTI would fit in ITC w/ an extra 70# or so).
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 30 2005, 06:34 PM
Sorry Fred, but I can't see a 172hp VR6 torque monster in ITA, especially @ 2550#.  I'm guessing that the process would put it well North of 3000# in ITA.

But I'm glad I'm not the only one that thinks the Rabbit GTI would fit in ITC w/ an extra 70# or so).
[snapback]67053[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Bill, I was thinking of adding slightly to the current ITS weight of 2680 maybe between the SS weight of 2930. I make weight no problem in SS but the parts you can gut in IT may not get you much less than the 2680 or so for IT. This car needs to be around 2450 / 2500 in ITS ( IMHO ) so I dont see enough of a POSITIVE adjustment in S working.
 
Originally posted by Fastfred92@Nov 30 2005, 02:21 PM
Bill, I was thinking of adding slightly to the current ITS weight of 2680 maybe between the SS weight of 2930.  I make weight no problem in SS but the parts you can gut in IT may not get you much less than the 2680 or so for IT. This car needs to be around 2450 / 2500 in ITS ( IMHO ) so I dont see enough of a POSITIVE adjustment in S working.
[snapback]67064[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


Your kidding right? 172 stock HP V/6? I think the Ad-hoc underestimates the ability of this engine to make power.
 
Joe,

While you'll certainly gain some w/ a good header/exhaust, and tweaking the computer, the big restriction on these motors is the ability to move air through the heads (i.e. cams). Regardless, they make boat loads of torque!!! Maybe our esteemed webmaster will chime in on this one.

Seriously though Fred, if the E46 323, which makes 170 hp, stock, comes in at 3000#, why would you think that a car that makes about the same power, albeit a FWD car, would be 500+# lighter? At 2680#, these cars are probably already light.
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 30 2005, 05:23 PM
Joe,

While you'll certainly gain some w/ a good header/exhaust, and tweaking the computer, the big restriction on these motors is the ability to move air through the heads (i.e. cams).  Regardless, they make boat loads of torque!!!  Maybe our esteemed webmaster will chime in on this one.

Seriously though Fred, if the E46 323, which makes 170 hp, stock, comes in at 3000#, why would you think that a car that makes about the same power, albeit a FWD car, would be 500+# lighter?  At 2680#, these cars are probably already light.
[snapback]67075[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
ANy idea on the factory valve lift on this thing? Maybe duration if you know. I bet I could get 15 to 18 out of and exhaust without trying.
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 30 2005, 06:23 PM

Seriously though Fred, if the E46 323, which makes 170 hp, stock, comes in at 3000#, why would you think that a car that makes about the same power, albeit a FWD car, would be 500+# lighter?  At 2680#, these cars are probably already light.
[snapback]67075[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

:happy204:

The problem is that most people compare their car in ITS against the E36. The VR6 cars are very well classified in ITS, if not light like Bill said. I will be very interested to see the Bilden Corrado at Pocono in 2006...

AB
 
Originally posted by tnord@Nov 30 2005, 03:28 AM
the ITS 240sx comes to mind as another tweener in my opinion.

155 flywheel factory hp is not enough to keep up with the germans, but too much for the 110 flywheel factory hp stuff of ITA.  maybe given a weight break it could be respectable.  don't one of you ITAC guys run one??? what's your opinion?
Click to expand...

I pretty much agree. The 240's in ITA (SOHC motor) start off with 15 less crank HP (rated at 140 HP stock in ITA), but in many of the dyno charts I've seen of stock-ish SOHC, they make more torque than a similarily modified DOHC motor (the ITS cars).

However, the weights - even as they sit in the classes today, are off by a bit:
ITA weight: 2530
ITS weight: 2650

So the ITS cars start out with 15HP more, but get 120lbs more weight. That sounds almost like an equalizer itself....

joe
 
The tweener issue is very big for me--I run an Rx-7 in ITA. I would like to respectfully remind the ITAC, comp board, and members that there are still many options consistent with old IT class rules to improve the competitive situation of cars.
First, limited preparation rules exist for the rotary engine, and have existed since it entered IT competition (example, no port matching--for good reason). If there is truly a consideration to move the Rx-7 to ITB, put a further limit on engine preparation. For example, I would MUCH rather run with a STOCK EXHAUST MANIFOLD than an additional 200 pounds. The cost of this change is minimal, and very effective at limiting power output. Bolting a stock exhaust manifold back onto ANY car is easy, and the exhaust setups have already been figured out in Showroom stock (remember, where IT cars used to come from!).
Another consideration should be an alternative carburator for ITA and ITS. The alternate carburator already allowed (webber 32/36 DGV) worked as a great equilizer in ITC and ITB for many years. Think about that. A weber DCOE or equivelent (or fuel injected equivelent) would be a boon to rotaries and any pre OBD-II fuel injected car (1996 model year?). The power producing ability of engines with this carburation and various venturies is well understood from production. This induction change would help the MR2, Rx-7, Capri, older GTI's, miata's etc. In my particular case, buying a carb, manifold, and a bunch of jets is still cheaper than buying 3 sets of 6" wheels...I don't think it would put me on par with the Honda's, but it's help!

Both of these paths are already consistent with IT rules. They are inexpensive. They are not required for anyone who is happy running their car as is...

Think about it!

Tak
#29 ITA, SFR
 
Tak, :happy204:

While I'm sure there are some that would be very wary of any kind of spec line "allowances" there is something to be said for some broader class specifics. For example the idea of increasing the allowed alternate carb size for those unlucky bastards with uncompetitive cars in ITS/ITA sounds like it has some potential. A couple mm bigger might put some ITA cars back on the same level as the newer front running generation (CRX, Integra, 240, etc) without having to make major weight, suspension modifications. I hate to say it but dyno tuning is easier and cheaper to accomplish than suspension tuning, unless someone has some free time to offer on a shaker rig? Of course how many cars will this fix in ITA and ITS, not all certainly but it does sound better than adding weight to a car to make it slower and spending money on wheels. And yes I realize this is somewhat self serving, but notice I did say a change to carb size across the board for the class, not just model by model changes.
 
Tak and Matt...

While there is validity to your ideas, you are swimming in Prod-style adjustments here. I for one am against this detailed of an allowance. The letters would start pouring in...

We have put forth a proposal that will change the landscape of ITA slightly. Imagine a car like yours that gets a weight break and a few cars at the 'top' of ITA that get added weight. The net could be as much as a couple hundred pounds in your favor...all of this using the classification formula that was used in moving the Neon, SE-R, 16V 2.0l Golf, etc.

AB
 
Andy,

I'm certainly sensitive to anything that brings on adjustments like the prod community has. I also follow that discussion group and . . . well let's just say adjustments are not their most attractive selling point. The interesting thing about allowing larger carb sizes for all ITA and ITS cars is the performance levels of those two classes have already grown thanks to the inclusion of cars like the CRX, Integra, etc in ITA and the E36 in ITS. This growth in performance was not paced by an increase in allowed carb size or a decrease in weight for previously classed cars, hence the imbalance in the classes. Sure weight is one way to go and I'm trying to patiently wait for the CRB and BOD to come to some decision about the proposal in front of them. Until then I'm holding off on any letter writing but the carb change might still be reasonable method, particularly for cars that would have difficulty meeting a target weight.
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 1 2005, 03:17 PM
Tak and Matt...

While there is validity to your ideas, you are swimming in Prod-style adjustments here.  I for one am against this detailed of an allowance.  The letters would start pouring in...


AB
[snapback]67141[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


And that is why I am glad to have you on that group.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top