2 q's on the 2007 rules

[slowoldpoop]

I know everyone is busy discussing tires and such, but please don't forget my question about the dyno results.

 

I am not criticizing anyone or complaining or anything like that. I think the new rules are fair and Greg did a wonderful job.

 

Not knowing how many points will be assessed for a turbo upgrade is just one of those loose ends hanging around that keeps me from figuring out where my car will be classified.

 

While I wait, I might as well ask the next question in this sequence: Since I'll be moving up to PT as soon as I can, do the same rules apply there with turbos? That is, if I am legal in TTB with my upgraded turbo, will I also be legal in PTB?

 

Unclassified-as-yet Rich

[ooldguy]

No personal attack's intended. However, I do have several specific questions regarding how the '07 classifications and points assesments were arrived at.

 

Robert Dudek

NASA Midwest Instructor

[slowoldpoop]

Bobby:

 

Are you not in TTB any longer? I will miss battling with you, o worthy opponent. Next thing you know, Slinky will be out of TTB too, and I'll have to find two other guys to battle. I was hoping that going a few rounds with you two guys would sharpen me up for PTB. Talk about your evenly matched cars! Whooda thunk that an Eclipse, a Corvette and an S2000 would be separated by only tenths of a second! Must be a great points system at work.

 

Rich

[Greg G.]

I am very happy with the proposed rules changes. It all seems very fair to me, especially since my car remains in TTB. At least, I think it does.

 

The rule on Page 19, Engine/Drivetrain, No. 3, has me stumped. Because I have an upgraded turbo, it appears that I have to get a dyno sheet and submit it to the National TT Director for his assessment. But there are no guidelines. Like:

 

1. How much horsepower am I allowed to have and remain in TTB? Does the 8.70:1 ratio apply here? (at 3270 lb, that ratio allows me 375 hp. )

 

2. Does the director's dyno sheet points assessment REPLACE all the points I meticulously counted up in this category, or does the assessment ADD to the points? In other words, if I have 25 points in the Engine/Drivetrain category, and the engine dynos at, say, 300 hp, do I add the assessment to the 25 points or does the director assign, say, 30 points total to the entire category?

 

3. What are the guidelines for figuring out what his assessment might be? Is it a subjective decision based on gut feel, or an analytical decision based on actual numbers?

 

I based my car classification on the points in the rules dated Dec 8, because the downloadable TT car classification form is still based on 2006 rules. Will the new form still have the points added for asterisks? In other words, the Base Classification Table has my car listed as TTE*. Does the asterisk mean I have to add 7 points?

 

Rich

Once a new base class is assigned for one of these cars, it takes into account the engine mods and weight. No further changes to either of those parameters is permitted (without re-evaluation), so there are no points assessed by default. However, you are correct that it would have been nice to have stated that outright somewhere in the rules--sorry.

 

We elected not to put the base classing system into the Rules. It started out in the Rules, but is somewhat complicated, and would only lead to more questions than answers. We do have a table of wt/power ratios that we will start with in classing swaps, aftermarket FI etc. Then, the class gets adjusted for AWD/FWD, overall weight, engine location, and if it has good OEM aero, suspension, chassis, etc. So, as I stated above, the best way for those of you to make plans is to send me your car model and desired competition weight (if you know it), and I'll help you with the power options for the various class levels that will correspond. I need to know your competition weight, because overall weight is a factor that must be accounted for to ensure that cars are classed correctly, and using the correct "base tire size".

 

The * denotes +7 points, and ** denotes +14 points added to the total points for classing.

[Greg G.]

I'm not so sure the RX-7 example is the best one...you are talking a bouta badass driver that is probably that much better than his competition.....my 2 cents.

The RX7 comparison is what I brought up, as that is what races in my region. The only cars in the lower PT ranks are RX7s and rabbit GTIs. Looking at last years rules, The former Pro-7 cars class out in PTE, the former GTI Cup cars in PTF. The GTI Cup guys have beed doing development all year, getting their cars as fast as possible while still fitting in PTF, and we got within a couple seconds of the Pro-7 guys ~2:14 vs ~2:12 at T-hill, ~2:05 vs ~2:03 at Sears point (with the ALMS T7). The Pro-7 guys haven't done anything to develop for next year, so they will certainly get a little faster under PT rules. Ffor comparison an ITA spec Rx7 (different driver than the Thill example) got down to 1:59 at Sears our last event.

 

The only possible way to make the cars even remotely competitive would be to take advantage of the overly low (and incorrect in my opinion) class weight. My car is fully prepped race car, and is probably the lightest of the GTI cup cars, at ~1900 lbs empty. With the rules weight of 1865, I can legally get the car down to ~1700 with no penalty using the alternate method. This may be possible by going full Carbon Fiber/Lexan, and cutting out some of the cage, but CF is beyond my budget, and I am not willing to comprome my cage to try and get my car competitive.

Tom, let's make sure we have the correct weights on these cars to ensure they are classed correctly to begin with. The data on these old Vdubs is very hard to come by. A change in 100-200 pounds can definitely make a difference in base class. Edited December 12, 2006 by Guest

[Greg G.]

I know everyone is busy discussing tires and such, but please don't forget my question about the dyno results.

 

I am not criticizing anyone or complaining or anything like that. I think the new rules are fair and Greg did a wonderful job.

 

Not knowing how many points will be assessed for a turbo upgrade is just one of those loose ends hanging around that keeps me from figuring out where my car will be classified.

 

While I wait, I might as well ask the next question in this sequence: Since I'll be moving up to PT as soon as I can, do the same rules apply there with turbos? That is, if I am legal in TTB with my upgraded turbo, will I also be legal in PTB?

 

 

Unclassified-as-yet Rich

Yes, the crossover is direct.

[Shawn M.]

[Tom, let's make sure we have the correct weights on these cars to ensure they are classed correctly to begin with. The data on these old Vdubs is very hard to come by. A change in 100-200 pounds can definitely make a difference in base class.

 

 

Ill see what I can do to find accurate US model weight for various years from circa 1975-85. Rabbit, Jetta, Scirocco.

 

Lookit Greg trying to own his own pages at the weee hours!

[Greg G.]

This year, we used the most objective method of base classing of any of our years with these rules. There is a table with wt/power ratios that puts any car into a tentative base class. The car is then moved up or down based on AWD/RWD/FWD. Overall weight is the next factor that moves the cars up or down. Mid/rear engine then can move a car up. Then, the only subjective factor is upclassing for high tech/excellent engineering of OEM suspension, drivetrain, aerodynamics, and chassis.

 

FOR THE RECORD, the SRT4 was one of the easiest cars to objectively class under this system. It was a simple wt/power from the table, then a one asterix adjustment downward for FWD. That's it. There is nothing on that car that could possibly be considered to be above average for aero, suspension, drivetrain or chassis. The weight of 2970 lbs. does not change the classing at all. There was no subjective component at all to the classing of this, and most of the other cars. In fact, both Edmunds and Autos.msn.com both listed the curb weight of the SRT4 as 2900 lbs. I ran that number through the system, even though I knew it to be incorrect, and the car still ended up in the same base class, but with 70 lbs less of a curb weight (so 70 lbs more benefit when using the Alternate Weight method). If it would have ended up one asterix higher, I would have used those numbers to avoid any talk like I've seen in this thread. However, it wouldn't have made much of a difference, since 70 lbs is worth 5 points using the Alternate method anyway. So, I used the higher 2970 curb weight that is correct (i.e. taking away a potential 5 point advantage for SRT4 owners). All cars use the manufacturer's listing for hp. Wikipedia is full of incorrect data posted by well-meaning people that often don't know what they are talking about. Manufacturer numbers are all we can go by unless we decide to change the entire system and Dyno every single car. I don't really object to that, but NASA doesn't want to go in that direction at this time.

 

Also for the record, I don't know what car I'll be running in '07 in TT or PT, if any. And, for the record, anyone that thinks that the SRT4 is such a fantastic car is free to purchase one and compete in TT and/or PT. (Do I hear any offers from buyers ) And, if I sell the SRT4, I sure as heck won't be buying a Mazda RX-7 12A (no offense to Mazda owners, but I would be looking for a higher level car).

[Shawn M.]

And, if I sell the SRT4, I sure as heck won't be buying a Mazda RX-7 12A (no offense to Mazda owners, but I would be looking for a higher level car).

 

 

 

How about a TTD Jetta??

[slowoldpoop]

the best way for those of you to make plans is to send me your car model and desired competition weight (if you know it), and I'll help you with the power options for the various class levels that will correspond. I need to know your competition weight, because overall weight is a factor that must be accounted for to ensure that cars are classed correctly, and using the correct "base tire size".

 

The car is sitting on jackstands right now, so I can't weigh it for a couple more months. Stock, it weighs 3270 according to your published numbers, and we've done no serious weight removal (seats replaced, plastic interior out, roll cage in, so it's probably about the same)

 

Can you calculate it for race weights of 3000 and 3200 lb?

That way, when I do get it weighed, I'll be able to adjust it up or down to fit into your guidelines.

 

It's a 1990 Mitsubishi Eclipse GSX AWD Turbo, and it fit into TTB in 2006 with its current mods. No further engine mods are planned. IMHO, it should stay in TTB, where the competition is ferocious, and not get bumped up into TTA with the badass cars.

 

Whatever you decide, will it also apply in PTB?

 

Thanks.

 

Rich

[FocusTed]

One thing that is important is, every car has a target class (sometimes more) that it runs best in. Some cars might be more competitive when it’s a highly modified car, some might work better in a lower modified car. This will varied for model to model, and sometime year-to-year. The problem is people are basing their cars class to where they were classed last year…. or where their car is classed in another series. Since these rules are different from last year, you almost have to start over and build a car for this year rules and determine what the best class for your car is. Just because some cars run in the same class in SCCA ITA with same mods, might not work out in TT or PT. The rules are different.

 

Here’s another example within the SCCA classes; In SCCA T2 class, the Evo’s STi’s and SRT4 are all in the same class, with different mods for all three cars. If you look in SCCA World Challenge the SRT4 runs in Touring Car, where the EVO’s and STi’s run in the faster GT Class. That’s because of the more open mods the cars can use in World Challenge, Again some cars have more to gain then others.

 

The key is to find what class (TTF, TTE or whatever) your car can compete best in and has the best chance to win in. If I look at a Spec Focus car that runs in TTD it might get killed in there…. So, they might have to take mods off and run in TTE if I want to be competitive in.

 

The most important thing is the base classes must be correct. Since it looks like there's a real system in place for 2007 for Base Classing, all the rest should fall into place. In years past it was only a guess of what the base classes are.

 

Now there could be a better way with the tire width, but points need to be added for tire width and it must be easy to be tech'd. I believe one of the reasons why Greg took out the Lightweight Flywheel is it's hard to tech that.

[Robispec]

FOR THE RECORD, the SRT4 was one of the easiest cars to objectively class under this system. It was a simple wt/power from the table, then a one asterix adjustment downward for FWD. That's it. There is nothing on that car that could possibly be considered to be above average for aero, suspension, drivetrain or chassis. The weight of 2970 lbs. does not change the classing at all.

Also for the record, I don't know what car I'll be running in '07 in TT or PT, if any. And, for the record, anyone that thinks that the SRT4 is such a fantastic car is free to purchase one and compete in TT and/or PT. (Do I hear any offers from buyers ) And, if I sell the SRT4, I sure as heck won't be buying a Mazda RX-7 12A (no offense to Mazda owners, but I would be looking for a higher level car).

 

Then for the record....Nasa is acting schizophrenic with reguard to the SRT4. This is because in NASA US Touring car Both the Evo and the SRT4 run Head to head and qualified VERY close to each other all year long..(so what gives the SRT a 51 point advantage in TT/PT???).We had the best driver in the series a 6K suspension with extensive suspension mount location changes in order to win the Championship. the SRT was lighter but made equal WHP.and usually qualified within 1/2 second of us... so my contention is that and always has been this car is missed classed. IF this is the simplest objective car you deal with.. you just cast question on the whole system...also the whole FWD/RWD/AWD subjective judgements. British touring car is a prime example...FWD is an advantage because with the = displacements and everyone having almost = HP the lower drivetrain loss FWD gets more power to the ground...and the fastest cars are FWD so there is ZERO handling loss AWD has even higher WHP losses but makes up for it by splitting up the traction to all 4 wheels. so run thinner tires or have higher penalties for wider/stickier tires in AWD classes if you want to punish them. not class the car so high in it's base class that it is "uncompetitive" stock in it's base class....which the evo VIII is thanks to 14 points given to it last year (no points given to it this year THANK HEAVEN). The Biggest point that NASA is missing here is there is a WHOLE GENERATION of AWD enthusiests which ARE NOT GOING TO NASA.(and if they do go to HPDE have ZERO desire to progress to TT)..every other track day association I go to has 3-4 times the AWD cars...and when I talk to the owners about TT HPDE they all say the same thing...why waste the time with Nasa when I would have to drop in too much $$'s to do TT in a competitive class...or the guys at NASA days no way can I be competitive in ttc in a stock Evo...

 

So the question stays

If the SCCA lists the cars in T2 as competitive (which they are).

NASA US Touring car runs them together and they are competitive there too.

AND subjectively the stock Evo/SRT owners feel the cars are close to equal in a straight line from a roll (they are in the real world and yes I have done it)

Why is there a FIFTY ONE point differance in the cars using the NASA TT/PT?? system? I can see a one class (20pt differance) but not the existing one...

Also just for kicks anyone out there with a bone stock evo including wheels &tires time within 2 seconds of the track records the SRT4 with mods to the ttc class set last year I would love to see them...Thanks

[slowoldpoop]

The Biggest point that NASA is missing here is there is a WHOLE GENERATION of AWD enthusiests which ARE NOT GOING TO NASA.(and if they do go to HPDE have ZERO desire to progress to TT)..every other track day association I go to has 3-4 times the AWD cars...and when I talk to the owners about TT HPDE they all say the same thing...why waste the time with Nasa when I would have to drop in too much $$'s to do TT in a competitive class...or the guys at NASA days no way can I be competitive in ttc in a stock Evo...

 

I beg your pardon. I know of several DSMs and 3000GT AWD cars just itching to run NASA. I've shown that a DSM can be competitive in TTB, and this has encouraged a whole bunch of folks in the DSM community to start prepping cars for next season. Last year, the classing system was incredibly well done (in TTB, at least). It remains to be seen where we will wind up this year with the upgraded turbo rule, but NASA has not turned any of us off YET. Sticking DSMs up there in TTU would do it, but they haven't said anything like that yet, so I am with child in anticipation.

 

They moved a couple of my ferocious TTB competitors up to TTA, so maybe TTA wouldn't be so bad, especially if the modded Z06es go up to TTS or TTU. In other words, maybe the new TTA will be the old TTB.

 

Problem is, all we are hearing is bitchin' about being moved up a class. We aren't getting any kind of perspective on the whole picture. If TTA is the old TTB, I have no complaint. But if I gotta run in TTA against the cars that were in TTA last year, that's a different story.

 

Maybe somebody who has the overall picture in mind can tell us what the philosophy is with all the new classes. I suspect that everything we need to know is OUT THERE somewhere in bits and pieces in dozens of emails from Greg over the last few weeks, but it's not in one cohesive form.

 

One interesting comparison would be to list what classes all the 2006 national champions will be in next year. Maybe we'll see that EVERYBODY got moved up a class or two, or into one of the new classes, so we can stop bitchin and start prepping for our new classes.

 

I will do that, as soon as I find out what class I'm in.

 

Rich

[Robispec]

My complaint isn't about the AWD's being missclassed just missclassed against the SRT.. Now if the SRT 4 we race against out here is still a "TTC" car after 3 winning seasons and still is in the same class that's different. (we got an Evo competitive with it and BANG next year the Evo got 14 points but the SRT stayed in class in 2006)...and the DSM's are a group of last gen AWD's.....with PLEANTY of MOD POINTS...to coverup the bad parts...

[FocusTed]

Maybe the best way is to post the ratings on all the cars. This was we can see how the rating system works and see if there's any mistakes that needs to be looked into.

 

There's has been some mistakes in the curb weight already, there could be other mistakes as well... Nothing against Greg on this, because it could be too much for one guy to do, and it could be a simple typo.

[Robispec]

Maybe the best way is to post the ratings on all the cars. This was we can see how the rating system works and see if there's any mistakes that needs to be looked into.

 

There's has been some mistakes in the curb weight already, there could be other mistakes as well... Nothing against Greg on this, because it could be too much for one guy to do, and it could be a simple typo.

I agree...and greg you do a good job....but you don't delegate and end up working too hard...but when you write the rule and run the class there will always be "questions", and people who will call you on it.

on a second thought the KW Varient 3's they have an attached resivoir but are within the $ # arn't monotube but have 2 adjustments...so how many points?

[hagakure]

FOR THE RECORD, the SRT4 was one of the easiest cars to objectively class under this system. It was a simple wt/power from the table, then a one asterix adjustment downward for FWD. That's it. There is nothing on that car that could possibly be considered to be above average for aero, suspension, drivetrain or chassis. The weight of 2970 lbs. does not change the classing at all.

Also for the record, I don't know what car I'll be running in '07 in TT or PT, if any. And, for the record, anyone that thinks that the SRT4 is such a fantastic car is free to purchase one and compete in TT and/or PT. (Do I hear any offers from buyers ) And, if I sell the SRT4, I sure as heck won't be buying a Mazda RX-7 12A (no offense to Mazda owners, but I would be looking for a higher level car).

 

Then for the record....Nasa is acting schizophrenic with reguard to the SRT4. This is because in NASA US Touring car Both the Evo and the SRT4 run Head to head and qualified VERY close to each other all year long..(so what gives the SRT a 51 point advantage in TT/PT???).We had the best driver in the series a 6K suspension with extensive suspension mount location changes in order to win the Championship. the SRT was lighter but made equal WHP.and usually qualified within 1/2 second of us... so my contention is that and always has been this car is missed classed. IF this is the simplest objective car you deal with.. you just cast question on the whole system...also the whole FWD/RWD/AWD subjective judgements. British touring car is a prime example...FWD is an advantage because with the = displacements and everyone having almost = HP the lower drivetrain loss FWD gets more power to the ground...and the fastest cars are FWD so there is ZERO handling loss AWD has even higher WHP losses but makes up for it by splitting up the traction to all 4 wheels. so run thinner tires or have higher penalties for wider/stickier tires in AWD classes if you want to punish them. not class the car so high in it's base class that it is "uncompetitive" stock in it's base class....which the evo VIII is thanks to 14 points given to it last year (no points given to it this year THANK HEAVEN). The Biggest point that NASA is missing here is there is a WHOLE GENERATION of AWD enthusiests which ARE NOT GOING TO NASA.(and if they do go to HPDE have ZERO desire to progress to TT)..every other track day association I go to has 3-4 times the AWD cars...and when I talk to the owners about TT HPDE they all say the same thing...why waste the time with Nasa when I would have to drop in too much $$'s to do TT in a competitive class...or the guys at NASA days no way can I be competitive in ttc in a stock Evo...

So the question stays

If the SCCA lists the cars in T2 as competitive (which they are).

NASA US Touring car runs them together and they are competitive there too.

AND subjectively the stock Evo/SRT owners feel the cars are close to equal in a straight line from a roll (they are in the real world and yes I have done it)

Why is there a FIFTY ONE point differance in the cars using the NASA TT/PT?? system? I can see a one class (20pt differance) but not the existing one...

Also just for kicks anyone out there with a bone stock evo including wheels &tires time within 2 seconds of the track records the SRT4 with mods to the ttc class set last year I would love to see them...Thanks

 

 

I would have to agree with the assessment about a theoretical TTC Evo....

If I ran TT in a stock Evo I'd be doing good to run 2:08 with bypass at thunderhill. there was a very well prepped TTC M3 with Turner suspension and engine mods that has run 2:03..and I don't think he is that much better a driver than I am....But on the other hand, it's nigh on to impossible to please everyone with this classing system, and I thank greg and the NASA execs . for their hard work. Meanwhile I'll just concentrate my efforts as best I can to be as competitive in TTA as possible.

[Greg G.]

Whoever said that a car is the most competitive in its stock class? What I said is that they were objectively classed. However, that doesn't mean that it won't be a more competitive car to try and overcome that 67:33 front:rear balance with mod points. The SRT4 would get killed in TTE by many cars--especially some that are modified from lower classes. In '06, my car was fully prepped to the extent of the '06 rules in TTC. I had a rebuilt engine that was rebuilt to the limit of factory specs. I ran 110 octane leaded race gas. We pushed the engine into the 13:1 air:fuel ratio range. I didn't waste points on unnecessary items. I ran a passenger race seat to stay within TTC points. And, even with all of that, the fastest H4 Honda was only 1 second slower than my best time of the week. And, that car would have had at least 10 more points available for modifications to max it out in TTC There is no doubt that a correctly prepped CRX could have easily won TTC and PTC. The Miata MX-5 that was only 0.08 seconds slower than my time didn't max out the potential of the car using the rules (could have had more hp with race gas and probably easily won). There were plenty of cars that were missed by competitors as the right cars to have in TTC last year if modified correctly. The Evo was a great car to have in TTB, TTA, and TTU last year. There is no doubt, and even the all-knowing Robispec won't argue this one, that a TTB Evo could have beaten the TTB winning time. And, if you take away the great times put down by Pat's Audi (that wouldn't be legal in '07), the Evo would have been very competitive against the nearly stock Vettes in TTA. Obviously, it was competitive in TTU, as the Evo won the class, and set the fastest time of the event. I don't think we would be seeing any SRT4's doing that, regardless of mods.

 

SRT4's are not Evo's. They are heavy, FWD, unbalanced, narrow track width, long wheelbase, butt high, poorly designed suspension rental cars that had a small turbo added to them to make them fast in a straight line so Dodge could sell a few more Neons before they tore apart the factory. Evo's and STi's are rally racecars that were built to race, and then converted to street cars for sales.

 

And once again, Robi, you have laid out a bunch of crap regarding the true nature of the two cars. In the USTCC, the Evo's minimum weight was 3670 lbs http://www.ustcc.com/pdf_doc/VSS-Mitsubishi-EVO.pdf running stock boost levels. The SRT4's minimum weight was 2800 lbs. Both cars ran on the same tire size. The SRT4 was allowed to run the Stage 2 Mopar upgrade kit with increased boost and hp to about 285-290 hp to the wheels after the other legal mods to exhaust, etc. http://www.ustcc.com/pdf_doc/VSS-Dodge-SRT4.pdf And, even with the almost 900 lb weight difference, the Evo still won four out of the six races it was in, and got second in the other two. The SRT4 won one race at the end of the season, when the Evo didn't race, and there were only 6 other cars in the race. Otherwise, it never got better than third. Oh yes, now I can see how they should be classed only one class apart.

 

In T2, the SRT4 doesn't have a chance:

10th place in 2006 with a 1:57.72, behind 4 STI's, 2 Evo's, an M3, and 2 350Z's. Fast times were 1:55's. And, the SRT's got a factory computer upgrade that is not available to me or anyone else without close ties to Dodge Motorsports. And again, the AWD's ran more than 500 pounds heavier than the SRT4. The World Challenge Series realized that the two cars were nowhere close to each other, and put the Evo's and STi's in with the Viper Comp Coupes in GT.

 

And lastly, your own cars have proven that they are very competitive exactly were they have been classed. If they didn't break every time you go to an important event, you would likely be a Champion or podium winner.

 

And, the stock Evo does 0-60 in 4.8 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 13.4 seconds for the Evo VIII and 4.5 seconds and 13.3 seconds for the Evo IX The stock SRT4 does 0-60 5.3 seconds and 13.9 seconds (most recent number in Motor Trend '05 of 6.o seconds and 14.4 seconds).

 

And, a stock Evo VIII can run in TTC on 245 Toyos in '07 (10mm larger than stock), and if it can't come within 2 seconds of any of my previous records, then the driver was the wrong choice. So, once again, you have posted false information. Oh, and don't forget, when we say stock, we mean stock minus the 30+ free mods now available. Now, quit your crying and false statements, and buy my car from me if you love it so much.

[slowoldpoop]

Now that you guys have settled that PLEASE leave Greg alone so he can figure out what to do about upgraded turbos, dyno sheets and so on.

 

I can't moan and groan and complain about what class I'm in until I find out what class I'm in.

 

Rich

[Greg G.]

Now that you guys have settled that PLEASE leave Greg alone so he can figure out what to do about upgraded turbos, dyno sheets and so on.

 

I can't moan and groan and complain about what class I'm in until I find out what class I'm in.

 

Rich

 

Rich, have you sent me your info? Please use e-mail instead of PM's guys. I can't log and retain the PM's as well. [email protected]

[slowoldpoop]

Yes I did. It's about two pages back, in the middle of all the SRT-4 stuff.

I will send it again to your email.

 

Rich

[bbyevo]

I was very close to being right in the thick of things in my region last year in TTA, despite being badly under-funded and under-prepped. A couple of well thought out mods and better driving would have put me right in the thick of things (except for hanging with Pat's Audi, whic I was fearful of this year). Last year the Evo was not a good TTA car, IMO.

 

I'm not sure how the 'new' TTA will look this year, but I may end up being an overdog (my car is still in TTA). Maybe not. The car will be better prepped, and hopefully I'll be a better driver. I'll report back in April and let everyone know.

[hagakure]

Whoever said that a car is the most competitive in its stock class? What I said is that they were objectively classed. However, that doesn't mean that it won't be a more competitive car to try and overcome that 67:33 front:rear balance with mod points. The SRT4 would get killed in TTE by many cars--especially some that are modified from lower classes. In '06, my car was fully prepped to the extent of the '06 rules in TTC. I had a rebuilt engine that was rebuilt to the limit of factory specs. I ran 110 octane leaded race gas. We pushed the engine into the 13:1 air:fuel ratio range. I didn't waste points on unnecessary items. I ran a passenger race seat to stay within TTC points. And, even with all of that, the fastest H4 Honda was only 1 second slower than my best time of the week. And, that car would have had at least 10 more points available for modifications to max it out in TTC There is no doubt that a correctly prepped CRX could have easily won TTC and PTC. The Miata MX-5 that was only 0.08 seconds slower than my time didn't max out the potential of the car using the rules (could have had more hp with race gas and probably easily won). There were plenty of cars that were missed by competitors as the right cars to have in TTC last year if modified correctly. The Evo was a great car to have in TTB, TTA, and TTU last year. There is no doubt, and even the all-knowing Robispec won't argue this one, that a TTB Evo could have beaten the TTB winning time. And, if you take away the great times put down by Pat's Audi (that wouldn't be legal in '07), the Evo would have been very competitive against the nearly stock Vettes in TTA. Obviously, it was competitive in TTU, as the Evo won the class, and set the fastest time of the event. I don't think we would be seeing any SRT4's doing that, regardless of mods.

 

SRT4's are not Evo's. They are heavy, FWD, unbalanced, narrow track width, long wheelbase, butt high, poorly designed suspension rental cars that had a small turbo added to them to make them fast in a straight line so Dodge could sell a few more Neons before they tore apart the factory. Evo's and STi's are rally racecars that were built to race, and then converted to street cars for sales.

 

And once again, Robi, you have laid out a bunch of crap regarding the true nature of the two cars. In the USTCC, the Evo's minimum weight was 3670 lbs http://www.ustcc.com/pdf_doc/VSS-Mitsubishi-EVO.pdf running stock boost levels. The SRT4's minimum weight was 2800 lbs. Both cars ran on the same tire size. The SRT4 was allowed to run the Stage 2 Mopar upgrade kit with increased boost and hp to about 285-290 hp to the wheels after the other legal mods to exhaust, etc. http://www.ustcc.com/pdf_doc/VSS-Dodge-SRT4.pdf And, even with the almost 900 lb weight difference, the Evo still won four out of the six races it was in, and got second in the other two. The SRT4 won one race at the end of the season, when the Evo didn't race, and there were only 6 other cars in the race. Otherwise, it never got better than third. Oh yes, now I can see how they should be classed only one class apart.

 

In T2, the SRT4 doesn't have a chance:

10th place in 2006 with a 1:57.72, behind 4 STI's, 2 Evo's, an M3, and 2 350Z's. Fast times were 1:55's. And, the SRT's got a factory computer upgrade that is not available to me or anyone else without close ties to Dodge Motorsports. And again, the AWD's ran more than 500 pounds heavier than the SRT4. The World Challenge Series realized that the two cars were nowhere close to each other, and put the Evo's and STi's in with the Viper Comp Coupes in GT.

 

And lastly, your own cars have proven that they are very competitive exactly were they have been classed. If they didn't break every time you go to an important event, you would likely be a Champion or podium winner.

 

And, the stock Evo does 0-60 in 4.8 seconds and the 1/4 mile in 13.4 seconds for the Evo VIII and 4.5 seconds and 13.3 seconds for the Evo IX The stock SRT4 does 0-60 5.3 seconds and 13.9 seconds (most recent number in Motor Trend '05 of 6.o seconds and 14.4 seconds).

 

And, a stock Evo VIII can run in TTC on 245 Toyos in '07 (10mm larger than stock), and if it can't come within 2 seconds of any of my previous records, then the driver was the wrong choice. So, once again, you have posted false information. Oh, and don't forget, when we say stock, we mean stock minus the 30+ free mods now available. Now, quit your crying and false statements, and buy my car from me if you love it so much.

 

Greg,

 

I'm certainly not going to add fuel tot he fire regarding the exchange between you and Robi...but I do have to disagree hardily regarding a stock Evo being compettive with your car in TTC. Not happening, Rally car converted to street car and back or not. The fact is pure and simple, that there is no way you are going to please everyone with these rules, but I myself am wholly convinced that you and everyone else invloved gave it your best effort, and there are bound to be compromises and disagreements. I feel a reasonably prepped Evo can do great in TTA...I won two events in norcal this past year, and hope to win more. I personally feel that TTA is the sweet spot for Evos without having to spend $$$$$$$$$ on huge turbo, displacement, etc that it takes to be competitive in TTU. In reality not that many Evo owners are going to WANT to run in TTC...these cars suck without a fair amount of power and suspension upgrades. People want to wax lyrical all the time about how "great" these cars are out of the box....they are not, in my opinion. the chasiss has briliant potential, and it takes little to MAKE them fast, but stock, they are not fast, they are wallowy, understeering turbolagging little pigs....This classification system is MORE THAN FAIR in the same way our system of democracy is...it works for the majority, but there are little sacrifices here and there. Again, good work and thanks for your effort.

[warrtalon]

Hagakure, don't forget TTS, too, since we only need about 380whp to stay right above the 8.7:1 cutoff for TTU. That is going to make us very competitive, since we can easily get close to that 8.7:1 even on the stock turbo, which allows us to focus our money on great suspension, brakes, tires, and aero. I'm excited about TTS this year as long as I figure out the alcohol vs methanol injection issue.

[Shawn M.]

I'm excited about TTS this year as long as I figure out the alcohol vs methanol injection issue.

 

 

Dont call it that. Call it "Windshield Wiper Fluid".

Then nobody will care!