Tweeners - Multiple Class Listings

[lateapex911]

years ago, we were typing back and forth about the issues with IT, and the idea of a little weight adding and subtracting came up, in the form of performance potential adjustments.

It met with a LOT of flak, and the number 1 reaction from those against the idea was "Arrrgggg...sounds like Prod to me! Yeccch!"

Well, I submitted a very detailed plan that had limitations of how much, and how often weight could be added, under what conditions, and based it on the use of a formula of sorts. Again, mixed reaction, but there were some converts, who liked the idea of stability and an across the board fairness that would be applied.

IT has, as one of it's four cornerstones, stability.

I think what we have now, the PCA sytem, is similar, but with less restrictions actually, and support for it is at an all time high. But it is a very structured process, and is applied evenly across the board.

I see how the concept of alternate carbs has merit, but....

I really don't think we should get into that type of tinkering. Some cars will benefit, others will not, and some could benefit massively.

It opens a Pandoras box of sorts, and once opened, it would be impossible to close.

Lets hope the CRB sees the merit of "the proposal", LOL.

 

[Matt Rowe]

I didn't know you had the market on "devil's advocate" cornered.

Honestly I wouldn't even have considered the carb issue if it wasn't for the fact that the performance envelopes of ITS and ITA have definitely increased while the the approved list of carbs was never modified to allow those vehicles to increase potential power output. It would be like throwing the brand new miata in SM and leaving the current restrictors in place on the 1.8 motors. Now if you think that rebalancing can be with only weight adjustments than that would be fine and certainly more predictable than monkeying with induction/fuel.

Again, it's just a curiousity thing while we wait for the proposal to be reviewed.

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Nov 30 2005, 09:21 PM
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]​

With all due respect... 172 STOCK HP... When I run the numbers, this car is about 100lbs too light...

I think you'd better be happy with what you have...

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by jamsilvia@Dec 1 2005, 02:38 PM
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

[snapback]67102[/snapback]​

The issue with the '95-'98 240SX, however, is that it's going to be a FULL development program just to get to the currently classified weight... I think it could be done, but you'd be sacrificing the 5-lug rotors and ABS brake calipers, 16" wheels, etc., in order to do it... (you'd use the 4-lug stuff... available in 95-95 on the standard model...)

Mine crosses the scales at 2750lbs with about 2 gallons in the stock tank... There is still some weight to remove, via installing a fuel cell, and I may be able to get a few more pounds off in other places (I still have the 5-lug rotors, 16" wheels, etc...). I think if I ripped and replaced the cage I could save another 20lbs or so, and the driver could CERTAINLY lose 20lbs...

I don't disagree, however... I think the 240SX could be made to fit in ITA without much trouble... Running the numbers, it would need to weigh about 2800lbs in that class...

May sound like a lot, but I've raced mine at that weight for years, and it's just fine... In fact... I usually run what amounts to a fast ITA time... <_<

BUT... with the ITAC's proposal for IT, I think these 155+ hp cars will start looking a little better in ITS, and it will be less of a fit in ITA... if they are approved and acted upon... because they essentially narrow the performance envelopes for each of these classes...

Stay tuned... the CRB is meeting this weekend...

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 2 2005, 08:55 AM
The issue with the '95-'98 240SX, however, is that it's going to be a FULL development program just to get to the currently classified weight...  I think it could be done, but you'd be sacrificing the 5-lug rotors and ABS brake calipers, 16" wheels, etc., in order to do it... (you'd use the 4-lug stuff... available in 95-95 on the standard model...)

Mine crosses the scales at 2750lbs with about 2 gallons in the stock tank...  There is still some weight to remove, via installing a fuel cell, and I may be able to get a few more pounds off in other places (I still have the 5-lug rotors, 16" wheels, etc...).  I think if I ripped and replaced the cage I could save another 20lbs or so, and the driver could CERTAINLY lose 20lbs...

I don't disagree, however...  I think the 240SX could be made to fit in ITA without much trouble...  Running the numbers, it would need to weigh about 2800lbs in that class...

May sound like a lot, but I've raced mine at that weight for years, and it's just fine...  In fact... I usually run what amounts to a fast ITA time...  <_<

BUT...  with the ITAC's proposal for IT, I think these 155+ hp cars will start looking a little better in ITS, and it will be less of a fit in ITA... if they are approved and acted upon...  because they essentially narrow the performance envelopes for each of these classes...

Stay tuned... the CRB is meeting this weekend...

[snapback]67199[/snapback]​

Well I am planning on driving your ( my turn to break your stuff for a change) car enough next year to prove the car can be a decent ITS car if the adhoc plan makes it thru the CRB. I really think folks need to cool their jets until this plan gets approved or not. I don't know the full scope of you all's plan but what I have seen here looks good. If it doesn't I would like to see others push to get it back on the table.

 

[Tak]

Thanks all for the comments on alternate carbs.
My understanding of the current alternate carb rule (Webber 32/36 DGV) is that it was implemented for vehicles that had unruly carburators or fuel injection systems. Note that in it's current trim, there is only one alternate carburator configuration. To the best of my limited knowledge, the 32/36 DGV does not flow enough air to get much over 110 - 130 HP--not enough for ITA or ITS applications. I have seen it used successfully on everything from a 1.4 liter ITD corola to a 2.4 liter ITB fire arrow... All I am proposing is an alternate carburator specification (just 1 or 2) that supports an air flow more appropriate for an ITA or ITS car (150-200 HP--I'm not really sure what the proper range should be). Since there is a pretty sizeable power and displacement overlap between A and S, I don't know if 1 spec will fit all, or if it should be 1 spec for A, a second spec for S...
I truly believe that a modestly tunable FI system will always outperform a hightly tunable carburator system. Cars where the FI system can be successfully modified "inside stock computer housing" will be. All the others MAY benefit from an alternative carb. The cars that would benefit from this type of rule is anything that runs BOSCH K, KE, or L jetronic style fuel injection or an electronically controlled carb. I believe that is any pre 96 car.
And yes, I fully agree that trying to tune for each car is too much like production.

I also didn't see any comments about requiring stock exhaust manifolds on class downgrades / overdogs...Thoughts?

Tak

 

[Knestis]

The alternate carb rule was initiated as a break for one car (the Pinto, I think?), but someone squawked and it was made available to all cars with one carb. I used to know the whole story but that was a long time ago in a region far, far away. What's being discussed here is something a huge step beyond what is currently on the books - allowing FI cars to install a carb. Again, my memory is failing but I seem to remember that this was allowed, then discontinued, or perhaps there was conversation about making the swap acceptable?? I remember all kinds of niggling about adapter plates, how thick they could be, what they could be made of, what to do with vacuum lines and air ports, "all air must enter through the carb," whether it was OK to use a European manifold, and a bunch of other related issues...

I get very nervous when we start talking about alternate ANYTHING. In fact, I'd be all for going back through the ITCS and closing out some of those loopholes. It's a very slippery slope, once the genie is out of the bottle, and hard to close the barn door. You get my drift.

We are SO close to the edge of Competition Adjustments (blech) with just the weight variable in play. Picture what could happen if alternate carbs were on the table too, and a few key ITAC people got tired of the extra workload and were replaced. All of a sudden, if you are running the same kind of car as whatever SPEED Touring poacher shows up at the ARRC, you get lead for the holidays.

No thanks.

The problems that we have right now are so minor compared to that silliness, that it's best to use the tools available to get things as close as they allow, and be glad that we're neither stuck with the old status quo, nor getting adjusted left and right.

K

 

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 3 2005, 09:06 AM
What's being discussed here is something a huge step beyond what is currently on the books - allowing FI cars to install a carb.

[snapback]67254[/snapback]​

That's definitely not what I was talking about. I was only suggesting making a higher flowing alternate carb for ITA and ITS for cars that already can make use of the alternate carb allowance. I definitely don't see the point to allowing carbs to be fitted to FI. Basically the only rule change I was considering simply adding a suitable additional carb listing to 17.1.4.D.1.a.5.

Think of this along the same lines as the wheel rule ITB&C are limited to 6" ITS and ITA are limited to 7". But for some reason we are all stuck with the same alternate carb listings?

 

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Somewhere up there...
All the others MAY benefit from an alternative carb. The cars that would benefit from this type of rule is anything that runs BOSCH K, KE, or L jetronic style fuel injection or an electronically controlled carb. ...

It was this bit that got my attention...

K

 

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Knestis+Dec 4 2005, 12:05 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-Somewhere up there...

All the others MAY benefit from an alternative carb. The cars that would benefit from this type of rule is anything that runs BOSCH K, KE, or L jetronic style fuel injection or an electronically controlled carb. ...

It was this bit that got my attention...

K

[snapback]67309[/snapback]​

[/b]

I saw that, but I just wanted to clarify that was not the position I would support. Besides, who (outside of AS) would want to rip fuel injection out to put in a carb? And what would you do about wiring? :119:

 

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 2 2005, 03:46 PM
With all due respect...  172 STOCK HP...   When I run the numbers, this car is about 100lbs too light...

I think you'd better be happy with what you have...

[snapback]67198[/snapback]​

Ha Ha,,, I guess I will take my 172hp stock 2 valve motor, my 2680 lbs, my awesome fwd platform, and my 69% front weight bias and be happy!!