[lbgroup]

What we do with tube frame GT-1’s
May I suggest an idea? GT-1R
Actual situation
• The GT-1 class are not showing to the events in this area
• Most cars still in the hands of drivers simply they are not racing them.
• Trans-Am hasn’t show signs of recovery.
• In Central America the Latin American Championship promotes an spec engine class which results are not yet measurable
• Cars in Puerto Rico and Dominican Republic and some States are stored in garages
• Everybody every places are waiting for something to happen that will impulse this type of cars to show.
Reasons? Many…
• These types of cars are expensive to race, and economics worldwide is known difficult.
• Year by year some new cars technology and engines put a big burden over the common sportsman making them feel a sense of unfairness
AFFORDABILITY IS KILLING THE CLASS
Objectives
Re-fire the participation of this type of cars
Do it with a substantial cost reduction
How?
• Race with pump ‘’premium unleaded’’
• To work a formula resulting in less tire wear
• The formula must be of easy application to all cars
• The formula should allow to easily reverse the car back to be raced Trans-Am or SCCA rules (where engines are “open”)
• The formula must give confidence and fairness.
The main idea..
To keep our cars the way they are but everybody to install a factory crate engine from Ford or GM.
The GM’s: All to race the GM-Performance P/N # 88958604(400 HP / 400 ft/# torque) www.gmperformance.com
Issues to resolve to this Kit: (At a glance)
• For most common tube modern frames the factory gas pump base must be cut to allow dry sump pump installation. A fitting and plugs must be installed where factory oil filter is.
• Cars with newer engines will need new headers (23* required)
• Most of us will need a new 600 stock carburetor.
• Crank cover to change to dry sump type
Clutch, water pump, engine plates, will be the same we actually have.
Approximate invest: $6500.00
The Ford’s: To race with Ford Motorsports) P/N # M-6007-D347SR (405 HP / 400 FT/# torque) www.fordracing.com
Issues to resolve to this Kit: (At a glance)
• Fittings y plugs to allow dry sump oil inlet ( factory oil filter area )
• Requires a new stock 600 CFM carb.
• Change crank cover to dry sump type
Clutch, water pump, engine plates, will be the same we actually have.
Approximate invest: $7800.00

The changes described to both crate engines are easy tasks to any skilled mechanic but, since this engines are sold by most reputable parts distributors; it won’t be strange for me to some to offer the engines with the changes already made. NOW, ALL MUST BE DONE THE SAME WAY.
The biggest advantage of this proposal is that any car can be reversed to the full blown trans-Am or SCCA GT-1 engine versions within hours.
As you can see we have an engine package environment where everybody can feel comfortable, and more over where the manufacturers advertise then as the counter part of the other.
This type crate engines are use in some circle track series.
And all other rules?
• SCCA GT-1 (we understand must cars can comply with this general rules without any extra expense. At this stage we are affecting the engines even thou all kind of restrictions can be ruled to level the play field but must will result in other expenses that will dilute this initiative.
• Only one weight for all car to be mandated our recommendation to be 2750# including driver.
• The amount and type of tires can be easily regulated. Autos using radials to use hard compound.
• Gasoline: MUST BE PUMP (this is of utmost importance to reduce operational cost and because it will limit limit the possibilities of increasing (illegally) engine performance via compression or timing)
Where we start?
• The most important action is to identify the individuals interest in this idea..
• We should contact other friends and competitors and discuss the idea.
• We should return this message or discuss via web to allow it to be rounded better
• IF WE LIKE IT, AND HAVE SOME CONSENSUS LET”S MAKE IT HAPPEN
• Our future is in our hands…hoping you like this idea.
• But more hope you, with your comments and ideas can allow the creation of a brighter future for our class.
Luis Burgos
President Puerto Rico Drivers Club
lbgroup@hotmail.com

Carlos López
Lopesport, Mia Florida
lopesport@aol.com

[Joseph Freda]

I totally agree. I got out of GT-1 because of the high cost. The majority of which was due to high engine costs and $2000 a set for tires. I am now considering getting into GTA because of the spec engine, tires and low cost chassis. I big fear is having to many classes: GT-1, GT-1R, GT-A, SPO etc.

I wonder if there is a way to have parity with GTA using a spec engine, extra weight, smaller tires, and other performance adjustments??

[prt1983]

I disagree, we heard this same idea when we first started the GT-1 board, here's what I wrote in a article that I put on the Gt-Forum board;

One other note here before I move on, this next point will show how liberal people think and how they want to the change everything to their way.. I helped start the GT-1 group and help to establish a forum on the internet so SCCA would listen to us. I made the 2 hour trip to the north side of Chicago where we meet and discussed putting together the GT-1 group.. After that, a fellow lady GT-1 driver worked on getting the group on the internet and soon discussions started on the future of GT-1, now comes the interesting thing that happened, we had one or two guys start discussing about making GT-1 with a spec engine, because they didn't have the money to compete with the other guys, so if everyone had the same engine, they could race with the group. Well I got ticked off and told them that I also didn't have the money to be up front, but if you race hard and your there at the end, one can be surprised.. I then told them that spec racing doesn't mean you have a better chance of winning, it just means that everyone is bunched up and one has to bump someone to get ahead.. They came back with a nonsense reason, so I finally said, I'm tired of people coming into a group, which they know ahead of time what it is about, trying to change it when what you want is already a class in SCCA.. They shut up but it's true, SCCA has a stock class for corvettes or mustangs, which they could have driven in, but no, let's go into a class and try to change it, same thing happening with the country, the minority controlling the majority.

I'm from the 70's of muscle cars, everyone thinks that spec. cars are the way to go, Indy cars, Nascar, SCCA, but if one looke at history, people want to see real cars, not a bunch of Neons running in a long line or IROC, plus spec. racing doesn't get TV time, look how the Indy cars are on TV less, but look at ESPN running the Rolex series or Grand Am series, look how Formula 1 has no trouble with getting sponsors and people spending money, because they are a running real fast and powerful race cars. I have a blueprint for getting SCCA PRO racing back to what it use to be and back on ESPN, but I'll never have the chance because we have too many people thinking spec. cars are the only way to race.

Bottom line, racing has always cost money, it cost to run, it cost to win, everyone knows the cost when they get into a certain class of racing, if it's too expensive, then there's always the stock classes. Also, you can not blame it sorely on GT-1 is expensive to run, people with cars in the stock classes are finding it hard to go racing, with the economy doing so bad, politics is affecting our racing and will until it gets changed. Just comman sense and logic.

mitch poremba

[racer14]

prt1983, on 28 June 2011 - 10:22 PM, said:

I disagree, we heard this same idea when we first started the GT-1 board, here's what I wrote in a article that I put on the Gt-Forum board;

One other note here before I move on, this next point will show how liberal people think and how they want to the change everything to their way.. I helped start the GT-1 group and help to establish a forum on the internet so SCCA would listen to us. I made the 2 hour trip to the north side of Chicago where we meet and discussed putting together the GT-1 group.. After that, a fellow lady GT-1 driver worked on getting the group on the internet and soon discussions started on the future of GT-1, now comes the interesting thing that happened, we had one or two guys start discussing about making GT-1 with a spec engine, because they didn't have the money to compete with the other guys, so if everyone had the same engine, they could race with the group. Well I got ticked off and told them that I also didn't have the money to be up front, but if you race hard and your there at the end, one can be surprised.. I then told them that spec racing doesn't mean you have a better chance of winning, it just means that everyone is bunched up and one has to bump someone to get ahead.. They came back with a nonsense reason, so I finally said, I'm tired of people coming into a group, which they know ahead of time what it is about, trying to change it when what you want is already a class in SCCA.. They shut up but it's true, SCCA has a stock class for corvettes or mustangs, which they could have driven in, but no, let's go into a class and try to change it, same thing happening with the country, the minority controlling the majority.

I'm from the 70's of muscle cars, everyone thinks that spec. cars are the way to go, Indy cars, Nascar, SCCA, but if one looke at history, people want to see real cars, not a bunch of Neons running in a long line or IROC, plus spec. racing doesn't get TV time, look how the Indy cars are on TV less, but look at ESPN running the Rolex series or Grand Am series, look how Formula 1 has no trouble with getting sponsors and people spending money, because they are a running real fast and powerful race cars. I have a blueprint for getting SCCA PRO racing back to what it use to be and back on ESPN, but I'll never have the chance because we have too many people thinking spec. cars are the only way to race.

Bottom line, racing has always cost money, it cost to run, it cost to win, everyone knows the cost when they get into a certain class of racing, if it's too expensive, then there's always the stock classes. Also, you can not blame it sorely on GT-1 is expensive to run, people with cars in the stock classes are finding it hard to go racing, with the economy doing so bad, politics is affecting our racing and will until it gets changed. Just comman sense and logic.

mitch poremba

[test driver]

The idea that the engine cost is what keeps people from racing is totally wrong. It does keep some form running but it is because they don't know anything about the engines they are using. They automatically assume the other guy has more HP, and so they need it to keep up. Which is wrong. Our formula now of the 'big' engines means we have more HP than we can use, except in rare instances and in qualifying on stickers. To prove this point, I have repeatedly run faster lap times than the rest of the Trans Am field with as much as 80 HP less than my best engines. But, because people don't want to believe this, they will think I have some sort of agenda. I don't, except to say that what makes this class attractive to me and, in my opinion, most fans, is the speed and sound of the big HP. Throughout the US, one of the most popular forms of Saturday Night racing is Dirt Late Models, and currently there are the traditional "Super" late models with open engines, and a "crate" class, which is identical in every way except they run a 604 crate, and a harder 'spec' tire. Now, (and I go to a lot of these) when the Super cars are on the track, you have to stand on your toes to see any action, the crowd is at attention. When the crate cars (which outwardly look identical, and were praised as the necessary step to 'save' dirt late model racing) take to the track, the only issue you have with people is in the concession line. I'm serious. And here's the kicker, becuase the cars are so capable having been designed around 900 HP, it becomes a wide open parade with no passing, except for a ton of crashes on the starts and restarts. It is popular to a certain extent because guys can run them for the price of say a super stock, but as a result it turns into a crash fest, and there are very few crate races with exciting endings, virtually none compared to the Super races. There is something to throttle control as a skill you know.

The performance for the dollar of our open stuff now is a real bargain, the engines run a LONG time, and anything built within the last 4 or 5 years (by knowledgeable people) can be had for less than 20k fresh and will win races. I leave my engines in for never less than 4 trans am weekends, and only take them out then because someone wants to buy it. It's not my fault if people refuse to believe it.

Now, what I will say about catering to those that can't afford to run Trans Am/ GT-1, our TA 2 class uses late model style chassis built or adapted to road racing, with a variety of engine packages that produce about 500 HP. Some new camaro bodies have been produced that look really great on the track, and you run on tires that cost 600 per set. Complete cars can be had for under 40K regularly, and hold their value very well. I propose that these cars be added to any venue running GT-1 cars to add to the field and support, not take away from, GT-1.

Tony Ave

[tom stanford]

So, here we are in October, the Runoffs are over, and GT-1 had one of smallest fields that I can recall. For me, the need to feel that I am competitive in that event is what brings me out. I no longer feel competitive at Road America which is why I did not enter, and I am sure that is the case for many others. Road America is a fun course for GT-1 cars but it is very HP friendly. If you don't have the HP, you won't have anyone to race with at that track.

The idea that engine cost keeps people from racing is legitimate, especially for tracks like Road America, but I believe it's not the only reason keeping GT-1 cars at home. I don't know the ideal solution to get the cars out, but for me personally it is about being competitive. I'm not saying I have to win, but I have to feel I have a chance. I have raced in GT-1 for many years and have slowly improved all aspects of my car, year after year. My challenge has been that the rules change faster than what I can keep up with. As a result, I fall of the pace.

What it comes down to in my mind is: What is the objective of GT-1 as a class in SCCA club racing? If the objective is to allow rule changes in order to continue increasing speeds and introducing technology, then it looks like the GT-1 objective is on course. If the objective is to have good close racing at a reasonable level of technology, with big enough fields to make it interesting, then it is obvious there is something wrong. I am certainly not advocating a spec engine or a spec class, there are already too many of those. My opinion is keep the rules stable. Judge this by the competitiveness of the GT-1 fields and the level of interest, assuming this is the objective.

Adding another class won't help to improve the GT-1 fields, but again, maybe that's not the objective.

Tom Stanford

[prt1983]

Tom,

Read your post and it brings to mind more of what us GT1 racers need to talk about, but first, I was up to RA on Thursday, your right Tom, disappointing small field but not the only class to have small numbers from what I saw that day. I heard a suggestion from a driver that should be seriously consider, the the Runoff schedule is too long, costing some people 2 weeks of time and money, I mean when GT1 qualifies on Thurs. and races on Sunday with no racing to do in between, makes for a long week, anyway the suggestion I heard was that the Runoffs should be run like the June Sprints. Very good and logical point, there's nothing wrong with Gt1 and Gt2 in a group, I think that we as a racing organization are going to have to look at some changes.

Tom, to your other point about changes that have cost GT1 and make it harder for some to compete, here's what I see and I'm going to get the TransAm guys ticked off at me, but more changes are coming that will cost GT1 racers more money because of TransAm guys, I'll explain later here. Three things have made GT1 more expensive and two of them I think trickle down from TransAm, the first is engines and heads, a big price and the most costly. When I bought my Fringes chassis with Olds body back 94, I ran 23 deg. heads and motor which was common, but there was a lot of talk about the Ford engine and it's heads that perform a lot better, if I remember right there was a 75 lb. weight rule added for the Fords. I think other race series had the same problem, so that's when these head manufacturers started in with the 18 deg. heads and even the 15 deg., some time after that SB2 came out. The Pros start using them and since some wanted to keep running in GT1, they got SCCA to bow to their way, but things are changing back somewhat, I think a couple of NASCAr short track series have steered away from the SB2, Air Flow Research has dropped their 18 or 15 deg. head if I saw it correctly online, I'm going with AFR 235 23deg. head, the flow rates are close to the 18 deg., so NASCAR and some of the Pro divisions probably will stay with the more expensive engines.

The second thing was the adjustable sway bars, which I think came from the CART race cars, then came to TransAm, there again, SCCA was talked into going with it, there's no adjustable sway bars on American sports cars (sold my fringes/Olds chassis and building up a newer car), I plan to go with non-adjustable sway bars, the way a sports car should be.

The third thing, the wing instead of a spoiler, again, trickle down from TransAm so they can run in GT1, I got a spoiler for my OLDS back in 95 from a stock car company, I've looked around and can't find anything like it, they went to those plexi-glass ones, so the wing is here to stay.

Other then that, the GT1 rules have been pretty stable over that last 20 years.

I want to say, that everyone should believe what Tony said above in his posting, I'm going to be less in HP with the 23deg engine, but going with some lighter and stronger components on the car, along with planning on mounting of items for better weight displacement, since with the rule changes for TransAm, that dream has gone to the side of the road and is lost, so going thru my building of the car for just GT1.

Now, I'm going to really tick off the TransAm guys, every GT1 racer should be aware what is about to come and that it will cost us more money, even drive some racers out, my theory to what is happening with TransAm is starting to show the light of day, I have written to Randy a couple of times, that the TransAm rules are getting farther away from GT1 and that it seems like GT1 is not welcome in TransAm unless we want to spend a lot of money to change the cars over. The reply I got back was that the rules were the same except for a couple of safety things, I said wrong and I went thru the whole list, like the right side net which a false claim about safety, I explained that my Fringes/OLDs had the master on/off and Fire button between me and the right side window, the hours to change that over and hours of labor is a cost to any businessman, was not going to happen, that there are other slightly older GT1 cars that are probably the same, plus other things. I heard a comment at RA, that it might be that SCCA or whoever is running TransAm, which I think might be a owner, that older GT1 cars are not welcome, they want the TransAm to be newer cars.
I told Randy that your making TransAm more of a spec. car to go along with the rest of the Pro Division, with the rule changes and what's coming next year, I told him, that I would think you would learn by what is happening, that GT1 is not as resrticting in the rules and GT1 has more cars at their National events than TransAm cars at their races, GT1 had 25 cars for the June Sprints. Instead of being more friendly to GT1 cars and getting them in the field, they went with getting T2 and T3 cars, spec race cars, now this year they added GT-3, another spec. class, so with TransAm being so much faster, their changing the rules next year and costing the drivers alot of money to change and from the other side of the mouth comes, to control cost, no it's to get the class closer to a spec. race car.

Here's what every Gt1 racer should be aware of and ready to stand up too, just like the sway bars, wings, etc., they are going to say with the TransAm changes, we now are going to be at a disavantage in GT1, so the rules need to change for GT1, which will cost us dearly. We are in a better postion to stand up to them now, back in the 80's and 90's, there were a lot of TransAm cars and drivers, like I said, Gt1 Nationals have more drivers then TransAm at their events. Either SCCA or a TransAm owner who runs in GT1 is controlling the Series and they will want the rules changed, but it's going to drive out more racers, but some people feel they have to control everyone and make others that aren't as rich as they are, pay more. Here's were I stand and I'm going to make a stand, I'm going to be a jerk about, it's like this, okay TransAm, you made the rules more restricting and basically showing GT1 that they're not welcome, well since we have more cars at our events then you do, we are NOT changing the rules for you, you want to run in GT1, you run by our rules and not go to SCCA to change the rules so you can run up front and cost the rest of us a lot more money.

Here's one more point all GT1 racers should know about, I've written this to a board member, that a builder suggested to SCCA that they should consider having one chassis built with a Crate engine, be cheaper and get more people into the class, SCCA was interested, if that doesn't show that SCCA would like all their classes to be spec. race cars, I don't know what will and I wrote that as long as I'm around, I'll fight to keep GT1 a true muscle car race class.

You know, I could be beating a deah horse into the ground or making more enemies, but this b.s. of the few controlling the majority and making racing so much more costly, like now, seat blets have to be recertified every two years, that's a added to cost to racers, it use to be five years, the fire bottle probably is next, but get this, the Indy League and AMLS do not have regulations about getting belts and bottles recertified, so why is SCCA dumping all these regulations costing us more money, since I've been with SCCA in the early 80's, GT1 has not had a serious accident or some one die, TransAm had the one at Lime Rock in the late 90's, but it was kinda rare how it happen, we sign wavier forms, no one has sued SCCA, if SCCA has to change for safety and not to be sued, that tells me the wavier forms aren't worth the paper their written on, which leads to, are the SCCA lawyers any good?

I'm like the rest of you, I just want to race and not have a lot of regulation costing me money which takes away from racing, it just seems like in the last ten years, we are getting hammered with regulations in racing and in the real world. It's going to have to change or a lot of expensive race cars won't be hitting the tracks as much and there's too many GOOD people that we meet at the tracks, which makes the sport fun, to lose that.

I'm done writing my book here,

mitch poremba

[parkerracing]

I haven't been on here in awhile and its funny how the topics haven't changed much. The easiest way to keep costs down is to not obsolete equipment. Sure, new things are learned about safety every year and should be incorporated where practical and grandfathered where impractical. The last thing a GT1 driver needs is to buy more engines crate or otherwise. One of the things I liked about AGT (remember them?) was their engine rules. But I don't think they went far enough. The older a car is, the tougher it is to lighten up. Therefore, don't give a weight break, give a displacement break. 23* motors to 410, 18* motors to 383, 12-15* motors to 366 and SB2's @358. All running the same weight. If you can run a 310 or even a 276 at the weight break, go for it (maybe even take off another 50 lbs). Every GT1 racer should be able to build (or rebuild) stuff in the garage with only a modest investment in new parts. 410's are a common sprint car size. 383's are everywhere. 366's less so but not any worse than a 310. This will get everybody closer in hp to make the racing much better regardless of budget.

The other thing to control costs is a spec tire or 3 (hard, soft, rain) at no more than $200 ea, This would also negate some hp advantages as well (since in theory at least, it wouldn't be as sticky as what is currently available, even in soft compound. Or at least lose a bunch of grip during a race to allow those who chose hards to run them down). Again, this makes for a better race. What do you think?

[tom stanford]

I agree, keeping equipment from becoming obsolete will keep costs down. Keeping costs down should result in larger, more competitive GT-1 fields. Unfortunately, the influencing entities of the GT-1 rules do not seem concerned with meeting this objective. I have written letters and voiced my opinion on rule changes over the years, but have had no influence. The original idea of this particular website was to get the input of the GT-1 drivers as a group and use that as leverage to influence the rules. From my perspective, we had no influence.

The economy is soft right now, and SCCA is seeing the effects. Membership has dropped off considerably and the more expensive classes are losing entries. We need to keep those in SCCA that are approving the rule changes, very aware of the impact on costs, and ultimately, number of entries. We cannot allow weight breaks or weight penalties to be the rationale for allowing rule changes that introduce expensive new technology. We all know how that ends.

Finally, if SCCA is OK with near single digit GT-1 fields at their premier showcase event, with a largely separated field and no close racing, then maybe my comments and efforts to voice my concerns over rule changes are just another futile effort. Kinda like my effort to get the weight of my aging chassis closer to the legal minimum, and for some arbitrary reason, weights were reduced a 100 pounds, why? I can take a guess, and the answer has nothing to do with helping my GT-1 racing effort.

[mopar358]

My post is to all but Tony Ave specifically, For Australia the GT2 class with the Camaro and Mustang body with a control engine ( probably the CT525 LS3 based engine) seems to have potential.. The sport sedan class is populated by incredibly beautifully engineered cars with Tony Ave built Mustang typical of the competitive cars. The class is long running but not well enough supported to have mainstream support. The diversity in the field from Audis, Alfa Romeos, Opel Calibra Aston Martin and Jaguar all powered by 6 Litre engines primarily Chev with a couple of Dodge R5P7s and C and D Fords provides an exciting spectacle but not close racing. Tony mentioned using a GT2 chassis and tyres at $600.00 (what tyres and what size) I feel that a single design Chassis with a choice of two body styles with a control engine, gearbox(Tex 101a) and a common rearend either a Cambered 9 inch or Quickchange, would be a great development class for the V8 supercar class at a fraction of the cost of the undersubscribed Porsche Carrera Cup. Making the car Fast, reliable and easy to engineer and repair. What are the disadvantages of the Late model based chassis with a Panhard bar over the more typical Transam Watts linkage. They both use a three link rear end ?? and as Tony said can be purchased for sub 30K. Please discuss.