Attn: First gen guys...

[lateapex911]

Hey Dave....isn't your signature line a few months early???

Shouldn't it read ITA Prelude until January first 2005??

Kidding...I had a great time at the Glen this weekend and REALLY appreciate the help you gave. (How many guys will actually help walk the track with you looking for those custom bolts and spacers that hold your axle in??)

PS, I made it home on the tire...I stopped every hour and a half and put 50 cents in the machine and pumped it up to 50 or 60psi.....but every time I stopped it was down to 26lbs! Exactly 26 ..how weird! Two hours after I got home, it was ......f l a t!


I agree on the acceptance issue. Maybe this won't be a popular comment, but anyone who has an issue needs to explain to me why, because I just don't see it as being a problem. As long as it is placed in the class fairly, it should bring nothing but even more racing enjoyment and challenges to the class.

And while the empirical data suggests this is a reasonable move, it is certainly a controversial one, so IF the ITAC recommends it, I would bet they will err on the conservative side, and the car will have to fight hard for every position.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited October 25, 2004).]

 

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
...One word on Rick running with the frontrunning ITS car at CMP (by the way, the winner was an ITA Miata). That S car is the series champ, and runs fast times at all the tracks he shows up at. The car is prepped and driven very well...

At most of the events I've competed in the A cars are faster then the S cars - Grattan, Mid-Ohio, close at Gingerman. The A track record at Grattan is nearly a second faster than the S record. I suspect it's a combination of very good A competition and tracks that favor them. So what does it prove? Probably nothing. ( Frustrates me though

)

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by JeffYoung:

One word on Rick running with the frontrunning ITS car at CMP (by the way, the winner was an ITA Miata). That S car is the series champ, and runs fast times at all the tracks he shows up at. The car is prepped and driven very well.

Hey Jeff, no worries, you are top notch in my book.
I admire your efforts with the 8. Doubly so due to its British heritage. OR is that BritishAmerican?

Interesting quote on the ITA Miata that won the race. It's Mike VanSteenburg. Mike and Bowie are pretty close in times from what I can see. Bowie has run the ARRCs before in the Miata, and has so far, been not quite in the hunt. So it serves to reinforce the opinion that Rick T would do very well indeed at the ARRCs, but would be well off the leaders pace.

From what i can see, he drives the wheels off the car and is perhaps the best example of an IT-7 car in the country. Or perhaps the quiet but very effective Mr. Susko, who was the fastest race lap last year.

At tracks like Atlanta, (all the classic great tracks..natuaral road circuits with elevation changes, challenging corners and long straights) that require the most complete package (power, handling and brakes) it will an uphill battle for a 7 to even keep the leaders in sight for more than a few laps if the leaders are top notch.

Wish you were coming down to the ARRCs.... I am looking forward to putting some faces to names, and shooting the breeze in person about stuff like this.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

 

[dickita15]

on the matter of acceptance in a new class, when the ITAC made the decision when asking for PCA'a that a religning of the classes in IT could be done with the current 4 classes and not be adding a 5th class, I felt it was the right decision but not the easy one. chopping it into 5 classes would have made it much easier to sort the deck without offending anyone in a current class. by decideing to try to make cars fit into 4 classes change becomes neccesary. that means B cars moving to C in order to repopulate that class and slow a cars movung to B.
people resist change thats only natural.
dick patullo

 

[Tom Donnelly]

Jake,

I'm late posting this and I also don't know if this will help or not but..

I'm not so sure the ARRC is a good benchmark for laptimes. Road Atlanta is my home track and I'm familiar with a good many of the local drivers. ARRC lap times tend to be several seconds faster than others throughout the year. You could post a 1:44 or even a 1:45 at mid season and take first in ITS (before BMW's). But the same car, same driver, same level of prep would post a 1:42 at the ARRC.
Track conditions at Road Atlanta in November are different enough to partially skew the data, IMHO.

Tom

 

[dickita15]

That is good to know but I do not think it changes the data. the better track conditions should help all cars and up to now we have not been compareing RA ARRC time to other RA events.
dick

 

[Tak]

Let me chip in with a left coast perspective. We don't have competitive Hondas in the SFR. As a result, Rx-7's rule in A (1st, 2nd, 3rd in season points last year and this year). But again, we don't have competitive Honda's running. Last time we had a competitive Honda was 01 (Nick Thoroux in an acura).

At Thunder Hill, Nicks 01 race record (2:08.88)was finally broken this year (thanks, new Hoosiers!)by Bob Bradfield (Rx-7) with a 2:08.13.
For comparison Thunder Hill SRF race record is from 01 by Kevin Rogers at a 2:02.69

At Sears Point raceway, Steve Borlick (rx-7) has the ITA race lap record at a 1:54.74, finally beating Eduardo Martinez (CRX from SoCal) 02 record of 1:56.12. Again for comparison, the SRF record at Sears is Chris Jackson's 1:51.25 from 2002.

The Laguna Seca track record is still held by Bob Strecth (240sx) from 97 at a 1:46.6.
Current best Rx-7 time at Laguna is a 1:47.3 by Borlick. SRF track record at Laguna is from 03 by Flemming at 1:43.84.

Note that I use SRF as comparisons because I believe that group is better policed and uses the same (dot) tire accross the country.

 

[Tak]

I forgot to add my thoughts on competiveness and reclassing the Rx-7 to B.

Fundamentally, the problem is that there is too big of a performance gap between ITS and ITA. I really believe the only real solution is to add a 5th class between S and A, or completely re-class A thru C, which will make all the current C cars non-competitive... A second fundamental problem is that FI cars are recognizing greater gains from stock to race trim than carburated cars--something not taken into consideration by "the formula".

I do not like the idea of adding 100 to 300 lbs to the rx-7. I already replace brake rotors every 3-4 races. With more weight, this will only get worse. The Rx-7 also has a fragile transmission--again, more weight will hurt reliability. Better to limit it's performance by mandating the stock exhaust manifold for B. Leave the weight alone. Use 6" rims. Beyond less contact patch, this will also raise the car 1" because the 45 and 50 series tires won't mount on 6" rims...

Bones to thow us to improve competitiveness in ITA: 1) allow port matching of the manifold only ( 3 to 4 HP at the wheels). 2) allow us to run a miata gear box (closer ratios, bolts right in)--although this is quite inconsistent with IT rules... Nothing else is easy or cost effective. I highly discourage porting (it's an enforcement nightmare).

Weight-I'm a 170 lb driver. My car weighs in at 2390 (2220 with out me) with 4 gallons in the fuel cell. I also carry 25 lbs of ballast, a passenger seat, and several (heavy) stock components on the right side of the car. If push came to shove, I think I could pull an extra 50 lbs out of the car (including ballast) my chassis is an 84 with a good (not great) cage.

Power: I've heard of Drummond ITA motors making 150-155 crank HP perfectly tuned on the dyno. Allowing 15% driveline losses, this translates to 127-131 at the wheels.
With a professionally built carb, custom exhaust, and a properly built motor (lapped housings, new seals, carefully fitted seals, and fully balanced), I have 122 at the wheels measured on a Dynojet. I can get 125 with a peaky power curve, but have found the car is faster with a broader power curve.
With a junkyard motor, bolt on exhaust, and simple rebuilt carb, I would not expect more than 110 at the wheels--on a good day.

Last year I was 3rd in the A championship with an ill-handling car. This year I only ran half the races, and still havn't cured the handling (but it's getting better). When I get the thing handling right, I expect to run with Bradfield and Borlick (1st and 2nd in A in Rx-7 past two years), but I also expect to get smoked if a good driver brings out a good honda (CRX or Acura), neon, 240 sx, etc.
"Tak"
Tachi Callas
#29 ITA Rx-7
SFR SCCA

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Tak:
Fundamentally, the problem is that there is too big of a performance gap between ITS and ITA. I really believe the only real solution is to add a 5th class between S and A, or completely re-class A thru C, which will make all the current C cars non-competitive...

However... What is causing this "gap" in performance? It's not the 2nd RX-7, 240Z, or Integra... It's the newer, higher hp cars like the E36, 944S, etc... 170+ STOCK hp cars that have more recently been added to ITS.

I contend that the "solution" is a class ABOVE ITS for these types of cars. THEN, they wouldn't have to be classified so heavy. This would relieve some of the pressure on ITS, and would leave the class more balanced with cars in the 150-170hp range (stock)...

ITA would be something to the effect of a 110-150hp class, ITB up to 120hp, ITC up to 100hp...

Additionally, popular cars like the 300Z Z32, etc., would have a place in IT to run without upsetting the apple cart too much...

Originally posted by Tak:
A second fundamental problem is that FI cars are recognizing greater gains from stock to race trim than carburated cars--something not taken into consideration by "the formula".

I'm curious as to what makes you think THAT???

First off, we've said all along that we "estimate" the IT-Prepped output of the car in question... Wouldn't you suspect that we'd take ECUs, FI vs. Carb, etc., into consideration???

Second, it's not always true that an FI car has "greater gain" with IT prep... Often, they are better optimized from the factory, i.e.: small engines making more hp, and don't have that much to gain with IT prep...

All of these things are considered as much as we have the information to consider them...

Then again... when is the last time we've had to deal with a car that had a carb???

Originally posted by Tak:
Nothing else is easy or cost effective.

Not that this is a serious consideration or being considered at all, but for the sake of conversation and tossing out thoughts... what about allowing lighter flywheels? My RX-3SP was considerably better with a 14lbs flywheel... (Japan market stock flywheel from a 12A...) This would take care of the "sluggish" accelleration, help the car spool up, and generally get it revving quicker...

Thanks for posting your thoughts... This kind of information and perspective is most helpful...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[Hotshoe]

Darin:

....I think you hit the nail on the head. I like the idea of a "Faster" class. (BMW Z3 in the works for T2) Like you said, the HP is on the rise.

.... A lighter flywheel would give the RX7 some more power and would cost less than 1/2 the amount of a set of wheels. Count me in.

....Rick Thompson
____84 RX7 ITA/7
____98 BMW Z3 2.8 (future T2 maybe IT?)

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Not that this is a serious consideration or being considered at all, but for the sake of conversation and tossing out thoughts... what about allowing lighter flywheels? My RX-3SP was considerably better with a 14lbs flywheel... (Japan market stock flywheel from a 12A...) This would take care of the "sluggish" accelleration, help the car spool up, and generally get it revving quicker...

Keep in mind that the early RX-3, RX-3SP and the RX-2 allhad larger ports as well. Even when the RX-7 was "dominant" in ITA, an RX-3-SP could draft by on the straight. Of couse, slowing down at the END was another story!

Also, as long as we are "what if-ing" allowing the secondaries to be mechanical like every other carb in the world might be worth looking into.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Also, as long as we are "what if-ing" allowing the secondaries to be mechanical like every other carb in the world might be worth looking into.

Are there any aftermarket replacement carbs available, or modifications to the stock Nikki, that would work on this car? For example, is there an adapter made for a Holley 4-bbl that will fit the stock, legal intake manifold?

What does it take to make the Nikki have mechanical secondaries??

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 28, 2004).]

 

[Speed Raycer]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Are there any aftermarket replacement carbs available, or modifications to the stock Nikki, that would work on this car? For example, is there an adapter made for a Holley 4-bbl that will fit the stock, legal intake manifold?

What does it take to make the Nikki have mechanical secondaries??

Technically... some safety wire. It's not hard to do and is a very common practice on street RX's.

Carl at PB&J Racing would be a good guy for you to talk with. He built my carb and knows quite a bit about the Nikki's. I'll dig up his email...

IIRC, the holleys take a bit of reworking to get them to physically work correctly on the RX.

{edit} carl(at)pbandjracing.com

www.pbandjracing.com


------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it

Izzy's Custom Cages

[This message has been edited by Speed Raycer (edited October 28, 2004).]

 

[ddewhurst]

While we are "what if-ing" what things may be "FOR REAL" if a person was to get info from a motor builder or two. Let's make a for "FOR REAL" list.

A. Light flywheel/clutch

B. Mechanical secondarys

C. Alternate carb

D. ???????

Have Fun

David

 

[dickita15]

d. port matching on intake manifold side only.

 

[mustanghammer]

e. 626 or Miata Gear box

f. GSLSE Brakes

------------------
Scott Peterson
KC Region
IT7 #17

 

[Speed Raycer]

Most of what seems to be suggested seems to me to go against the basis of the IT ruleset. What other car is allowed alternative gear boxes (even though they ARE very similar), lightweight flywheels, or induction/exhaust timing changes, etc?

If the RX was thrown any of those bones, the rest of the pack would be screaming, although I never hear them say how it sucks we can't port match our motors and they can

.

Since other vehicles are already allowed to port their manifolds, allow porting of the complete 12a manifold, but factory manifold only. According to Carl at PB&J Racing (see above), the factory manifold is a huge waste of a casting and doesn't flow very well at all in factory form.

Manifold porting combined with Mechanical secondaries might just be part of the ticket. And while they're at it, allow Mechanical Secondaries on all 4 bbl carbed cars

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Speed Raycer:
Most of what seems to be suggested seems to me to go against the basis of the IT ruleset.

Originally posted by Speed Raycer:
...allow porting of the complete 12a manifold,

Ummm.....

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[Speed Raycer]

Originally posted by Banzai240:

Ummm.....

Ok... not the compete manifold.

The thought behind it was that if "they" can make a rule to disallow porting of any kind for rotaries and everyone in the boinger world is fine with it, then "they" can make a rule allowing only the rotaries to port the intake manifold. Maybe the entire manifold was asking too much...

how about 2"'s in????

[This message has been edited by Speed Raycer (edited October 29, 2004).]

 

[ddewhurst]

Folks, while we are "what if-ing" lets continue the brainstorming "FOR REAL list. During brainstorming nothing gets thrown out. Who is the SCCA in place for ? The workers or the owners/drivers. Darin, I appreciate your work with the ITAC but PLEASE don't put dampers on some of these things. (& I am not taking the attitude that I run or have control of anything. But at the same time I beleive that WE the owners & drivers should have more control over our destiny.) Let the good times (ideas) roll.

Have Fun

David

ps: At completion I'll (or someone like Jake

can grab the bull.) do a common list & request responses from several rotor motor builders. We need to start someplace other than B.