Originally posted by Raptor13x:
I drive my RX-7 so much its kinda becoming tiring, I'm not a huge fan of the poor brakes and persistant "wondersteer" as I call it, though I love the smooth powerband and oversteer-rich handling.
In racing trim, the brakes are adequate. It is legal to use the GSL ltd slip disc rear end. And the "wondersteer" commment is teh first I have heard. Check your idler bushing. It fails regularrly due to the proximiity to the hot exhaust. The handling can be made friendlier too. The oversteer looses its charm after 2 laps!
I absolutely love the old Z-cars, but I'm kinda worried about the rust problems and the cost issues associated with them. Can you use all fiberglass body panels in IT?
As others have said, f-glass is a big no-no, except in an airdam, where it is fine. I am not aware of the cost of getting a Z car competitive, but if your long term goal is to have a competitive base for your chosen class, choosing ITS will be your most expensive choice in all probability. Currently, when the best in the class show up, the E36 runs and hides. That may change, but currently thats the bottom line. The RX-7 is NOT the choice for A either, but obviously it IS the choice for IT7!
One question though... why doesnt the SCCA adjust the minimum weights of the cars to make every type of car more competitive?
Well, this is THE homerun question....
You have entered our little world at perhaps ITs most dynamic period in it's 20 year history. The category was oriinally intended as a place to run old out of eligibility SS cars, and a few others as well. A middle ground between Prod and SS, it was designed to give the "regional" guy a place to race, but was set up so that "serious" folk would want to race in Prod, and do the whole National/Runoffs thing, because Prod has weight and other adjustments to acheive model to model parity.
Over the years though, the Prod classes became increasingly archaic, the adjustment thing didn't always create the 100% level field as hoped, and one rule change after another made the category very difficult to prep for. IT, with it's simpler rule set, made prep easier, and while the cars were never perfectly equal, they were, for the most part pretty close. There were lots of fun cars classiffied that folks could pick up and campaign inexpensively (remember the ITC Rabbit fields?) and the category flourished.
But, as any category ages, it runs into a new vs. old issue. How to allow the new cars without dissing the old. And over 20 years, the brainpower that classed the cars (set the race weights) changed a zillion times, and it is hard to deny that some bias and illogic crept into the process over the years. Not to mention the occasional honest mistake!
So, over the past two years or so there has been a movement to change the rule that states "Adjustments will not be allowed" to one that incorporates an adjustment system. (Do a search here for "competition adjustmets", and you will see some of the most interesting threads this site has witnessed...and a veritble history lesson of the competition adjustment movement in IT)
Eventually, someone suggested (man what a bright guy he was
) a form of "limted adjustemnt", which would allow changes to cars like the BMW, where it is agreed that the classing is grossly wrong, but leave the majority of the field alone, as it was felt by a lot of folk that stability was a major calling card of the category. Essentially the idea was to reel back the over acheivers in classes where there were problems, and if it could be seen that there were obvious well driven and prepped cars that were better suited for the class below, that they could be moved as well.
Fast forward to today. The proposal for "Preformance Compensation Adjustments" (I THINK thats what it stands for!), known as "PCAs", went before the Board of Directors this past month, and while there has been no official confirmation, it is a badly kept secret that it passed.
So, IT will be seeing some changes. Search the archives of the SCCA site under "proposed rule changes" in the "Garage" section, I think, and you will see the proposed car moves, and weight changes that are in the works. Basically the first round has the back markers in ITS (Neon, NX-2000, SE-R) moving down to A, as well as some of the same for A to B.
Notably absent from the proposed adjustments are changes to the weight or classing of the ITS 944, the ITS E-36, the ITA RX-7 and MR-2, all cars that are considered widely to have "issues" but I guess the best solution has not been agreed on.
So.............you asked! Sorry for the long winded answer. But read between the lines....The category is changing. The Z car
could get more competitive
if the board fixes the BMW. The ITA RX-7 though, is getting dumped on even worse...ironically one of the "poster children" for the need for PCAs (a once competitive car relegated to has been status by newer classifications) sees even more competition in the form of 3 more cars coming into ITA from ITS! So, there are winners (hopefully, and likely, there are more of them), and there are losers.
In the end, the basic "There is no guarantee of competiveness" clause remains, but for the most part, it should be easier to pick a car that will give you that good "base" you desire. The ARRCs are coming...lets see what happens there!
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]