Hp and 2 litre ITB cars

Improved Touring cars are not limited by lift, they're limited by being the stock unmodified camshaft.

As such, they are not field-checkable, they need to be subjected to either comparison to a known-stock part and/or the optical comparator thingy that Topeka has.

Of course, known-stock examples likely don't exist any more for the vast majority of the cars.

Even if you were to start putting max lifts on the IT spec lines against which to spot-check them in the field, where are you going to get that info? The FSM (it's not in there)? The competitors themselves? If so then my ITB car (which can run in HProd) has a .575" lift cam stock.

It's one big ole loophole that someone can drive a truck trhough, and one of the big technical reasons Improved Touring has never been considered for Majors/National status.

Inclusions of other classes into your own carries a ton of baggage with it, most notably the very important need to keep on top of those classes' regs changes as well as your own. I watched some heads asplode this past weekend when some STL competitors suddenly realized that the STAC's allowance of all ITS cars also allows in 2.5L straight-5 VWs and 3L straight-6 BMWs. I tried to demonstrate the pitfalls of doing that by entering an ITS car in STL for the 2015 Daytona Runoffs; but for a couple of stupid driver errors I damned near put that car on the podium.

GA
 
Each car would need a line with cam lift /compression and weight . IMHO. To avoid the VW mk 3 deal that ruined ITB.

Basically like I stated earlier . L3 level of 10.5 compression, .425 lift and weight per CC.
 
What a coincidence?
How light can you get a 142? I built a couple and prepped a couple more . Seems like they were heavy .


Maybe we can list them @ 425 lift and 10.5 /1 and take off weight . With L2 chassis prep .
List them all and see if any show up and tweak the weights from there.
BMW 320, 318 ,2002
Audi 5 cyl
Volvo 140 series
VW Mk 3 . ( is close as IT prepped )
FWIW an ITB Volvo runs about 2;21 at Watkins Glen, Mid pack in HP . LR is about 2:16
Daytona . Mk 3 VW runs in the middle of the HP times.
So maybe IT weight is a good start . The Mk 3 would pick up 10+ HP with a good cam .
 
The dam has a leak!!!

(a.k.a, "...and it begins...")

SUBJECT: Errors and Omissions, Competition Adjustments, Clarifications, and Classifications
All changes are effective 5/1/2021.

3. #30132 (Hayes Lewis) Appeal of Request to Move Porsche 924 to HP
In HP Spec Lines, classify Porsche 924 (76-84):

1. #30350 (David Reiter) Change Classification of 84-87 Mazda 626 from FP to HP
In HP Spec Lines, classify Mazda 626 (84-87):
 
The Mk 3 Golf is 60#s too light at2325# It will put down 150 or more at the wheels. Should be 2400# .
The Mk3 runs in the middle of HP field in IT trim ..

The 626 is also too light by about 100# or a little more . Should be 2400# .
 
To help put some light on what you guys are talking about, all of these went into HP, and all with the same 11.0:1 & .425" allowance:
- Volvo 142/142E at a base weight of 2450lbs
- Porsche 924 (76-84) at a base weight of 2400lbs
- VW Golf/Jetta mk3 (93-98) at a base weight of 2325lbs
- Mazda 626 (84-87) at a base weight of 2300lbs


Greg Amy":1zzthu7u said:
But 92hp (crank) Porsche 914s?

<shudder>
Click to expand...
I think it should be moved up to EP, just to be sure...
 
They are all tooo light except the 142. The 142 has the least power potential of these.
Should all be 2450.

The 914 should fit of course .
My apologies to the class .
 
While I think that the numbers are too ight for the cars @ 11/1 .,
2400# for FWD and 2450 for RWD at 10.5 /1 with the 4.25 lift would be very close and not result in rocket cars.
This would allow these cars to move weight ,add a fire system and race . Maybe skim the head and buy a cam. They may even run on 93 octane fuel. This would be a win for all involved.
And not ruin the class.
 
Protech Racing":1t837vsq said:
They are all tooo light except the 142. The 142 has the least power potential of these.
Should all be 2450.

The 914 should fit of course .
My apologies to the class .
Click to expand...

I thought there was a 2 liter 142 that was in the 13x hp range no?

As far as the 914, it's already classed in FP and his Mr2 is in FA. I don't know what Greg is on about.... ;)

(in all seriousness - if any car deserves an individual look it would be one with an air cooled motor in this class)
 
I was all over this move and this is part my fault . Sorry to the class. I never expected that our board would put the cars so light . Big mistake that I hope gets fixed in the next month , before anyone builds a car .
 
Please fix this before anyone builds a car and before a healthy (mostly) balanced class gets all effed up just for the possibility of adding a few cars...
 
The most important thing is that we don't head into a spiral of speeding everyone else up to match any possible overdogs. That's an easy trap to fall into and is potentially quite destructive.
 
Well said Al. These cars belong in F... bring them in as is and slowly allow mods to speed them up. Let people develop the cars. Coming into H, they will destroy the class. 130+ top speed and stop in the corners. It’s a recipe for disaster vs a 115 top speed Spridget that weighs 1000 lbs less. Even the mk 2 VWs will be swallowed by these 2L beasts.

Writing a letter today. Hope a lot of you do the same. We need to stop this or the class will get destroyed and we will lose current HP drivers.
 
These cars have all already been in FP, for a long time, and have absolutely ZERO chance of ever being even remotely competitive there. So what you're saying to do, has already been done, for a long time, and doesn't work. They already can't even come close to their current base weights, and pushing their engine specs further would be full-prep levels of compression and cam, while accomplishing very little, as those things would do absolutely nothing to fix the awful head and intake manifold designs that they would all still be required to have as a Limited-Prep car.

So new classifications were made in HP, at higher weights, and more restrictive engine parameters, to make them fit into the performance realm of the class. No one wants lead-sled straight-line rockets, and coming up with specs to try and curb that was the #2 goal here, behind only "determine the realistic performance capability of these cars, and which class best fits that capability". The end result is four months of research, data collection, analysis, discussion, and making the best estimate possible. (Because that's what all new classifications are, estimates.)

People write letters, and its the committee's job to give all of them serious consideration. That is the case for every letter, and for every random car that ever ends up getting a classification in Prod. It is not your, or I's, place to say who's allowed to come and play in the pool. It doesn't matter "how the class is doing", in your eyes, or anyone else's, on if a new classification should be added into it. Yes, HP is doing well in terms of participation and the number of different classifications that can be competitive, but that in no way means it should be locked up and absolutely nothing should ever be added or tweaked with, until its on the brink of dying...again. That's ridiculous. Its current racers are owed to keep that momentum going, and its future possible racers are owed a legitimate shot to race their car competitively, as we all want with our cars.

Keep in mind two years ago Honda's swept the podium at The Runoffs, and over-dog was decreed and the LBC was dead and OMG so terrible. Then the following year an LBC crushed everyone and all was right in the world and no one cared. Last week, everyone was happy, and the "buzz" around HP was really cool. Now four new classifications get made into the class, of which no cars have actually even been built to yet, let alone even put a wheel on track yet, and OMG so terrible again. Amazing how fickle the mind can be.

If you want to write a letter voicing your displeasure about a decision that's been made, that's your free-will right to do so, but you better be bringing some serious information and analysis as to why your thinking is "correct". "Because I don't want it" isn't helpful in any way, or going to cancel out any of the work and analysis that went into making these classifications.

Lastly, if by some chance any of these cars do end up being some blatant overdog, the PAC has the tools and the willingness to collect data on them and take action accordingly. We should all know that by now. I'm not going to say that there's zero chance of that happening. Because no, the cars were not brought in way overweight and with sub-IT-Level engine specs, just to "give them a place to race". No one wants that, except those trying to protect their own turf, who are often the same people complaining that their thing needs more. Why would someone spend their time, effort, and money building and racing something that everyone and their mother knows has absolutely ZERO chance? Why would the committee even waste their time on creating such a thing? Do we want good, close, competitive races, with more cars, or more spec lines that no one races, or more rolling chicanes out on track?

Throughout all of the opinions people are giving through several different channels at the moment, I have yet to see a technical argument to back up their thoughts. Stock engine design parameters, stock compression and cam specs, stock power and torque levels, intake manifold and port designs, combined valve size area, their ITB classifications, performance, and power/dyno outputs, their FP classifications, performance, and FP power/dyno outputs, previously known existing ITB-to-HP classifications and how they improved, etc. Then compare all of those things to some of the typical "players" in HP. These decision weren't made quickly or lightly, and neither should yours.
 
So I likely know far less than most of you guys about specs on most of these cars and what they're capable of, but something that really sticks out to me is: how is there a Mk1 VW in FP that is very competitive, yet it has been determined the mk3 version of that car same car cannot be?


We ask Chuck to develop his car to the teeth but cant do the same for someone else in a newer car? In the Northeast (1/3 of the SCCA racing population) and I dont think I've seen one mk3 VW out there being raced/developed. I can say the same for the other cars on this list in my area of the country. Never seen one of these cars once at any majors events, yet it's been determined that they are unfit for FP?

Curious where are the supporting arguments for:

kruck":3adbhrrf said:
These cars have all already been in FP, for a long time, and have absolutely ZERO chance of ever being even remotely competitive there. So what you're saying to do, has already been done, for a long time, and doesn't work.
Click to expand...

This is a serious question, I'm not being snarky. I'm a younger guy who only gets out a handful of times a year (enough to qualify for RO basically) but between being at the track, following national results and social media, I feel like I've got a decent grip on the prod racing world and I don't see any of these being seriously campaigned.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top