New SCCA IT Class -- ITR
04-10-2006, 04:57 AM
#1
7th Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
New SCCA IT Class -- ITR
Gentlemen, I have been asked to post here by the ITAC (Improved Touring Advisory Committee) regarding a new national IT class that is being formed "above" ITS (in which the 944, 924S and 944s currently run).
The Porsches to be classed, at the present, include the early 219 hp 928, the 944S2, the mid 70s to early 80s 911s and the 968. We are looking at a target wheel hp range of about 210 to 240 and a target weight range of between 2600 and 3400 lbs, with the "ideal" power to weight of about 11.5 to 1.
Am I missing any Porsche models that would fit?
What sort of interest would we attract from the PCA crowd? I know there has been frustration with the weight of the 944 vis a vis the 325 (justifiable) and I believe that has been corrected as well. That said, would any of you guys be interested in running the new ITR class?
Thanks. I'll e-mail you the spreadsheet with the cars to classed if you ask.
Jeff Young
youngj@mvalaw.com
The Porsches to be classed, at the present, include the early 219 hp 928, the 944S2, the mid 70s to early 80s 911s and the 968. We are looking at a target wheel hp range of about 210 to 240 and a target weight range of between 2600 and 3400 lbs, with the "ideal" power to weight of about 11.5 to 1.
Am I missing any Porsche models that would fit?
What sort of interest would we attract from the PCA crowd? I know there has been frustration with the weight of the 944 vis a vis the 325 (justifiable) and I believe that has been corrected as well. That said, would any of you guys be interested in running the new ITR class?
Thanks. I'll e-mail you the spreadsheet with the cars to classed if you ask.
Jeff Young
youngj@mvalaw.com
04-10-2006, 08:00 AM
#4
Addict
Rennlist Member
Rennlist Member
944 turbo. (Not S)
04-10-2006, 08:43 AM
#5
Race Director
A bit of a correction here....
First of all, Jeff was NOT asked to post this by the Improved Touring Advisory Committee. I know this because I am a member of the Improved Touring Advisory Committee. I believe Jeff was asked to post this by members of the committee. There is a difference.
Secondly, this class is NOT and official reality. This class is being built and organized as a grassroots effort by members of the SCCA and members of the ITAC. It is not officially recognized by the SCCA and there is no mandate from the Club Racing Board (CRB) to get this done. A proposal is being put together to make this happen.
The reason I am posting this is NOT to undermine Jeff, but to set the record straight. The very last thing I want to see happen is someone to build a car based upon this and find out there is no class and then blame the ITAC or the SCCA.
I completely and fully support this effort and am working on getting involved in it (if this was officially being done by the ITAC I wouldn't have to ask to be involved, I would be involved from the get-go). This is a class that IMHO should happen. The IT category is a great category, but its current construction by necessity cuts cars off and what today is a rather low hp level. There is a strong belief by many of us that there is untapped demand out there for more powerful cars to race in this category.
I think there would be demand if the Boxster and other Porsches were properly classified (and no, the SCCA and ITAC do NOT hate or are afraid of Porsches). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that there are few Boxsters in PCA racing because they are poorly classed.
Unfortunately you will not find the 951 classified or any turbo car for that matter - certainly not at this time. Turbocharged cars are specifically disallowed in IT.
Once again, this is an effort to put together a class from a grassroots level with support from some of the folks on the ITAC, including myself.
One other point.... NO IT class is or can ever be (at this point in time) a national class. IT is a regional only class. However, while being a regional class, the rules are nationally unified. This point is important because the national classes get to go to the Runoffs. This class will NOT be eligible for the Runoffs.
First of all, Jeff was NOT asked to post this by the Improved Touring Advisory Committee. I know this because I am a member of the Improved Touring Advisory Committee. I believe Jeff was asked to post this by members of the committee. There is a difference.
Secondly, this class is NOT and official reality. This class is being built and organized as a grassroots effort by members of the SCCA and members of the ITAC. It is not officially recognized by the SCCA and there is no mandate from the Club Racing Board (CRB) to get this done. A proposal is being put together to make this happen.
The reason I am posting this is NOT to undermine Jeff, but to set the record straight. The very last thing I want to see happen is someone to build a car based upon this and find out there is no class and then blame the ITAC or the SCCA.
I completely and fully support this effort and am working on getting involved in it (if this was officially being done by the ITAC I wouldn't have to ask to be involved, I would be involved from the get-go). This is a class that IMHO should happen. The IT category is a great category, but its current construction by necessity cuts cars off and what today is a rather low hp level. There is a strong belief by many of us that there is untapped demand out there for more powerful cars to race in this category.
I think there would be demand if the Boxster and other Porsches were properly classified (and no, the SCCA and ITAC do NOT hate or are afraid of Porsches). Correct me if I'm wrong, but I get the impression that there are few Boxsters in PCA racing because they are poorly classed.
Unfortunately you will not find the 951 classified or any turbo car for that matter - certainly not at this time. Turbocharged cars are specifically disallowed in IT.
Once again, this is an effort to put together a class from a grassroots level with support from some of the folks on the ITAC, including myself.
One other point.... NO IT class is or can ever be (at this point in time) a national class. IT is a regional only class. However, while being a regional class, the rules are nationally unified. This point is important because the national classes get to go to the Runoffs. This class will NOT be eligible for the Runoffs.
04-10-2006, 11:54 AM
#6
Pro
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by JeffYoung
Duh, yes, sorry, we have the lowest hp Boxster in the class at under 3000 lbs.
Bro
04-10-2006, 12:46 PM
#7
Race Director
Originally Posted by bruinbro
So you have the 2.5 L Boxster at under #3000 in this class? That would be 150 rwhp for, let's say, #2900 or 19.3 lb/hp. This is the reason why Boxster owners will thumb thier noses at this. Poor classification.
Bro
Bro
Most engines make gains in the neighborhood of 25% in full IT prep. Some make less (944 for example) and some make more (most Honduhs and the E36 Bimmer for example). When we have solid evidence that an engine deviates from the norm, we will take that into account.
A quick search gave me 201 bhp for a stock 1996 2.5l Boxster. With IT prep I'd expect it to make 251.25 bhp. At 11.5:1 wt:hp it comes out 2,889 lbs. Without a careful comparison of other cars in the class I'm not quite sure what "adjusters" may apply. Probably something for outstanding balance, but I'd say it would probably be properly classed somewhere between 2,900 and 3,000 lbs. Seems reasonable to me.
IF someone were to present solid evidence that it's not possible to get 251 bhp from an IT prep Boxster engine, as I said that would be taken into account, but that would take a strong development program from a solid builder and/or a technical reason, e.g. the 944 does not respond as well as most cars because the cam has no overlap. Most normal performance mods don't have the usual effect such as headers.
Also, the wt:hp ratios are crank hp, not wheel hp. I'd be rather shocked that a Boxster would only put down 150 whp. That's a LOT of drivetrain loss on a car with a transaxle.
BTW, I got your e-mail. You're right, I've been swamped. I'll get back with you tonight.
Trending Topics
04-10-2006, 12:56 PM
#8
Pro
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: SoCal
Posts: 612
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Geo
A quick search gave me 201 bhp for a stock 1996 2.5l Boxster. With IT prep I'd expect it to make 251.25 bhp.
IF someone were to present solid evidence that it's not possible to get 251 bhp from an IT prep Boxster engine, as I said that would be taken into account, but that would take a strong development program from a solid builder and/or a technical reason, e.g. the 944 does not respond as well as most cars because the cam has no overlap. Most normal performance mods don't have the usual effect such as headers.
Also, the wt:hp ratios are crank hp, not wheel hp. I'd be rather shocked that a Boxster would only put down 150 whp. That's a LOT of drivetrain loss on a car with a transaxle.
IF someone were to present solid evidence that it's not possible to get 251 bhp from an IT prep Boxster engine, as I said that would be taken into account, but that would take a strong development program from a solid builder and/or a technical reason, e.g. the 944 does not respond as well as most cars because the cam has no overlap. Most normal performance mods don't have the usual effect such as headers.
Also, the wt:hp ratios are crank hp, not wheel hp. I'd be rather shocked that a Boxster would only put down 150 whp. That's a LOT of drivetrain loss on a car with a transaxle.
04-10-2006, 01:22 PM
#9
7th Gear
Thread Starter
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
George, thanks for the clarifications. Yes I was asked by MEMBERS of the ITAC and not the ITAC to do this. Make what you will of that distinction and the fractured politics that is the SCCA.
As to the national/regional distinction, George is right and my use of terms was inartful. I am posting a similar message on the BMW Forums and was asked if this would be a regional ruleset class like ITE or ITGT, as opposed to a national ruleset class like SM or ITS/A/B/C. The intent is for a national ruleset. The class will not be "National" in the sense that SCCA uses the term, nor will it run at the runoffs.
I thought I was clear in my post that ITR is in the process of being formed, is nascent, etc.
George, if you want to be the liasion to the Porsche folks here, that is fine with me. You know the cars far better than I do.
I will have to check the spreadsheet, but I think the Boxster is slotted in at 2700 to 2800 lbs right now with an IT build power to weight of around 11.5 or so (+/- .5) -- right on target for the class.
Jeff
As to the national/regional distinction, George is right and my use of terms was inartful. I am posting a similar message on the BMW Forums and was asked if this would be a regional ruleset class like ITE or ITGT, as opposed to a national ruleset class like SM or ITS/A/B/C. The intent is for a national ruleset. The class will not be "National" in the sense that SCCA uses the term, nor will it run at the runoffs.
I thought I was clear in my post that ITR is in the process of being formed, is nascent, etc.
George, if you want to be the liasion to the Porsche folks here, that is fine with me. You know the cars far better than I do.
I will have to check the spreadsheet, but I think the Boxster is slotted in at 2700 to 2800 lbs right now with an IT build power to weight of around 11.5 or so (+/- .5) -- right on target for the class.
Jeff
04-10-2006, 03:54 PM
#12
Track Day
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'd be interested. I raced my PCA/44SuperCup S2 in ITE once... once. Admittedly, I'm a lot faster now than I was then (especially since I'd broken my suspension a bit on the practice day...), but the fast ITE cars in WDCR run, I dunno, 10 sec a lap faster than my car will ever do. At least, without strapping a solid booster to the roof. (-: The speed delta just wasn't fun for me or for the group leaders, so I didn't do it again.
It'd be even better if the E30 M3 would be classed in ITR, too. It did run in similar series to the S2, back in their heyday (e.g., they both ran the Firehawk series). Then I could race my wife in SRF and in ITR, both (perhaps even on the same weekend)!
-Steve
It'd be even better if the E30 M3 would be classed in ITR, too. It did run in similar series to the S2, back in their heyday (e.g., they both ran the Firehawk series). Then I could race my wife in SRF and in ITR, both (perhaps even on the same weekend)!
-Steve
04-10-2006, 04:36 PM
#13
Race Director
Originally Posted by JeffYoung
George, thanks for the clarifications. Yes I was asked by MEMBERS of the ITAC and not the ITAC to do this. Make what you will of that distinction and the fractured politics that is the SCCA.
As to the national/regional distinction, George is right and my use of terms was inartful. I am posting a similar message on the BMW Forums and was asked if this would be a regional ruleset class like ITE or ITGT, as opposed to a national ruleset class like SM or ITS/A/B/C. The intent is for a national ruleset. The class will not be "National" in the sense that SCCA uses the term, nor will it run at the runoffs.
I thought I was clear in my post that ITR is in the process of being formed, is nascent, etc.
George, if you want to be the liasion to the Porsche folks here, that is fine with me. You know the cars far better than I do.
I will have to check the spreadsheet, but I think the Boxster is slotted in at 2700 to 2800 lbs right now with an IT build power to weight of around 11.5 or so (+/- .5) -- right on target for the class.
Jeff
As to the national/regional distinction, George is right and my use of terms was inartful. I am posting a similar message on the BMW Forums and was asked if this would be a regional ruleset class like ITE or ITGT, as opposed to a national ruleset class like SM or ITS/A/B/C. The intent is for a national ruleset. The class will not be "National" in the sense that SCCA uses the term, nor will it run at the runoffs.
I thought I was clear in my post that ITR is in the process of being formed, is nascent, etc.
George, if you want to be the liasion to the Porsche folks here, that is fine with me. You know the cars far better than I do.
I will have to check the spreadsheet, but I think the Boxster is slotted in at 2700 to 2800 lbs right now with an IT build power to weight of around 11.5 or so (+/- .5) -- right on target for the class.
Jeff
The issue about whether the ITAC did the asking or ITAC members is not a matter of politics. The reason I make the distinction is if it had come from the entire ITAC it would imply a mandate that does not exist at this time. However, it does have the support of some very active members. Now we just need to get the CRB on board.
I think that weight for the Boxster will probably be a good weight for it. Should make it an interesting car to race.
04-10-2006, 04:46 PM
#14
Race Director
Not enough info on that dyno run. First of all there is no information regarding corrections. Secondly it's a Mustang dyno that are known to be rather conservative in comparison with a Dynojet, so that explains some of it. Lastly, I'd rather see a dyno plot from someone who is trying to maximize their hp rather than someone trying to sell a SC kit. Not saying it's wrong, but I'd rather see a little more independent test.
Still if one were to accept that a Dynojet would calc 10% higher than the Mustang (may or may not), then that would put the Boxster about where I would expect.
I'm not trying to be a stinker here. It's just that when we work up weights for cars we have to be VERY careful about the numbers we're using and what they mean.
Still if one were to accept that a Dynojet would calc 10% higher than the Mustang (may or may not), then that would put the Boxster about where I would expect.
I'm not trying to be a stinker here. It's just that when we work up weights for cars we have to be VERY careful about the numbers we're using and what they mean.
04-10-2006, 05:05 PM
#15
Instructor
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Sacramento
Posts: 132
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
George
Just an FYI,
I have a 99 boxster that makes 248hp/ 220rwhp with a Supercharger/headers/giac chip. NO way a normal aspirated boxster will make 250. Numbers were taken on a Dynojet 250 back in 2001 when I put it on.
Not that I race the boxster anyway, just thought you should know.
Just an FYI,
I have a 99 boxster that makes 248hp/ 220rwhp with a Supercharger/headers/giac chip. NO way a normal aspirated boxster will make 250. Numbers were taken on a Dynojet 250 back in 2001 when I put it on.
Not that I race the boxster anyway, just thought you should know.