mustanghammer
New member
Thanks for your efforts in this regard.
You can run a FWD VW in every production class if you want to. There are LP and non-LP VW's in the same class.
This is also true of Honda Civic/CRX in G and F.
G Production Proposal
- Thread starter mustanghammer
- Start date
Thanks for your efforts in this regard.
You can run a FWD VW in every production class if you want to. There are LP and non-LP VW's in the same class.
This is also true of Honda Civic/CRX in G and F.
mustanghammer
New member
Nothing specific regarding time. A return e-mail stated that the proposal woudl receive offical review and that I would be contacted for additional information as needed.
Thanks for your letter of support. I spoke to several drivers at last weekends race at HPT and the idea was well received. This included some current GP drivers and they liked it too.
mustanghammer
New member
Well, they - the CRB - said no.
Check out page 5 of the May fastrack.
I am not terribly surprised or disappointed with the result. However the answer is Very disappointing. I realize that there are space constraints but I cannot believe that the answer fits the true reason for the rejection.
A bummer but at least I get to race my car and tune on an ITE Mustang this weekend!
At any rate, thanks to all that responded both positively and negatively. I was frankly surpised by the interest allot of you had for the idea. Too bad the CRB didn't see it the same way.
Thanks again
Check out page 5 of the May fastrack.
I am not terribly surprised or disappointed with the result. However the answer is Very disappointing. I realize that there are space constraints but I cannot believe that the answer fits the true reason for the rejection.
A bummer but at least I get to race my car and tune on an ITE Mustang this weekend!
At any rate, thanks to all that responded both positively and negatively. I was frankly surpised by the interest allot of you had for the idea. Too bad the CRB didn't see it the same way.
Thanks again
Jim Susko
New member
Scott,
I like this idea because of the opportunity to run in a national class relatively cheaply. My own circumstances would probably preclude doing so right away--just got married at 60, a five year old came with the package and there is one on the way--but I am far from being over the hill as far as racing is concerned.
I especially like the IT engine part. I built my engine probably eight or nine years ago, grinding my side plates on a rotary table and lapping them by hand with soap and water using 220 grit wet-dry paper on a piece of glass plate for a sanding block. After all these years the engine was strong enough to set fastest lap at the ARRC a few years ago, though a transmission problem kept me from the podium. There is a certain appeal to never having to touch your motor. I don't like the idea of cracking the lower end, however, to go to the trouble and expense of lightened rotors or any of that stuff. I still run the cast iron apex seals, too. All of my power is from attention to detail on the outside and fine tuning on the dyno to assure A/F is right.
I just bought two brand new sets of Panasport wheels a couple years ago and don't like the idea of throwing those away, either. The 13 inch tires on a very light car would probably do well in the class, and are far easier to fit, lower the center of gravity and frontal area for a given optimal geometry, are lighter, and have considerably less rotational inertia under braking and acceleration. The low power of the IT engine would compliment this combination. All I might need is a set of spacers to run the wider slicks.
Taking stuff off to lighten the car is cheap, too. Running without the now problematic stock wiring harness buried under the dash would be heaven.
Have you considered asking the Competition Board if there is any set of circumstances they would consider to allow a very, very limited prep first gen in GP, ASSUMING the car would be specified not to be an overdog? Their response would indicate a direction you could go to get the car in. Otherwise you could submit a million responses with no feedback until you just get lucky. Or by that time they would be tired of you and wouldn't give you the time of day. I am a believer of understanding a problem is the first step to solving it, and much easier.
Incidently, I have not followed GP so I don't know what a good lap time for a GP car is at Mid-Ohio or Road Atlanta to compare to my own times, which I beleve are probably right up there with any legal ITA or IT7 car. Can anybody give me a number?
Jim Susko
G-Force Engineering
I like this idea because of the opportunity to run in a national class relatively cheaply. My own circumstances would probably preclude doing so right away--just got married at 60, a five year old came with the package and there is one on the way--but I am far from being over the hill as far as racing is concerned.
I especially like the IT engine part. I built my engine probably eight or nine years ago, grinding my side plates on a rotary table and lapping them by hand with soap and water using 220 grit wet-dry paper on a piece of glass plate for a sanding block. After all these years the engine was strong enough to set fastest lap at the ARRC a few years ago, though a transmission problem kept me from the podium. There is a certain appeal to never having to touch your motor. I don't like the idea of cracking the lower end, however, to go to the trouble and expense of lightened rotors or any of that stuff. I still run the cast iron apex seals, too. All of my power is from attention to detail on the outside and fine tuning on the dyno to assure A/F is right.
I just bought two brand new sets of Panasport wheels a couple years ago and don't like the idea of throwing those away, either. The 13 inch tires on a very light car would probably do well in the class, and are far easier to fit, lower the center of gravity and frontal area for a given optimal geometry, are lighter, and have considerably less rotational inertia under braking and acceleration. The low power of the IT engine would compliment this combination. All I might need is a set of spacers to run the wider slicks.
Taking stuff off to lighten the car is cheap, too. Running without the now problematic stock wiring harness buried under the dash would be heaven.
Have you considered asking the Competition Board if there is any set of circumstances they would consider to allow a very, very limited prep first gen in GP, ASSUMING the car would be specified not to be an overdog? Their response would indicate a direction you could go to get the car in. Otherwise you could submit a million responses with no feedback until you just get lucky. Or by that time they would be tired of you and wouldn't give you the time of day. I am a believer of understanding a problem is the first step to solving it, and much easier.
Incidently, I have not followed GP so I don't know what a good lap time for a GP car is at Mid-Ohio or Road Atlanta to compare to my own times, which I beleve are probably right up there with any legal ITA or IT7 car. Can anybody give me a number?
Jim Susko
G-Force Engineering
mustanghammer
New member
Thanks Jim,
Congrats on the marriage and the new family!
I considered allot of aspects when I created the request. Cost, reliability, and ease transition from IT. I think it hits on all of those but I do not believe that any production car is ever cheap. However this seems more managable than an EP car in a few areas.
A letter will be written that addresses the answer that was provided in Fastrack. I had several conversations this weekend I believe I have a strategy for getting closer to the truth.
My background is from Solo II - I ran a CP car and attended Solo II Nationals in CP for 13 straight years - and I find it strange that the rules making process in Club Racing is not more collaborative. In Solo II new cars are classed without anyone asking for a class. Often new cars are classed deep into the class structure that Solo II offers, not just Stock. So a driver has a choice of Stock, Street Prepared, Prepared, etc without much effort. Not so in Club Racing, apparently
On the one hand the BOD is threatening to combine National classes and or drop certain National Classes from the Run-Offs. While on the other hand the CRB is refusing to add any new cars to mix that might increase numbers. I may not have submitted a good or reasonable request but I would expect an accurate answer to that effect. Or at least a suggestion as to what could be done. Isn't the deal that more cars are needed in the H and G production classes?
At the R/N this last weekend Chris Albin turned a 1:45.8 in GP and an ITA RX7 turned a 1:48.8 on the same day so there is three seconds. The ITA RX7 was piloted by Dave VandeBerg and he is fast. If I recall Chris who won GP was 2-3 seconds off of Kent Prather at the Run Off's last year. So my math has it at 5-6 seconds difference. However this is certanly not scientific and kind of like comparing the '27 Yankees to their modern day counerparts to see who is the better ball team.
Scott,
Good Luck on your quest to get a more detailed explanation of the answer.
Another approach that we might take is to contact our Area Directors. The "...doesn't fit the current philosphy..." argument will be hard to pin down. If you go through the GCR, you will find approximately 25 cars that are listed in 2 or more Production classes. Pointing this out to the AD will show that the precedent has been set for multiple classifications (Prep Levels) of the same base car. If having another 1st Generation RX-7 in another Production class doesn't fit the current philosophy, then I don't know what does . By going through your Area Director, your voice has a better chance of being heard. And as a courtesy, inform your RE that you are going to the AD. Even an RE who drives an open wheel car
would have to lend his support to this.
And with respect to the "focus on classing newer cars" argument, let's face it. Most of the offerings presented by the world's manufacturers in the past 30+ years have not been "Sports Cars". There have been a few exceptions like the Datsun Z cars, RX7's, and Miata's. But Neons, Saturns, Honda Civics, and Volkswagens don't have the same allure as a 911, Z3, or Sunbeam Tiger. The popularity of the Miata can be attributed to its close resemblence to the old Lotus Elan (and reasonable price.)
Jeff
Good Luck on your quest to get a more detailed explanation of the answer.
Another approach that we might take is to contact our Area Directors. The "...doesn't fit the current philosphy..." argument will be hard to pin down. If you go through the GCR, you will find approximately 25 cars that are listed in 2 or more Production classes. Pointing this out to the AD will show that the precedent has been set for multiple classifications (Prep Levels) of the same base car. If having another 1st Generation RX-7 in another Production class doesn't fit the current philosophy, then I don't know what does . By going through your Area Director, your voice has a better chance of being heard. And as a courtesy, inform your RE that you are going to the AD. Even an RE who drives an open wheel car
would have to lend his support to this.And with respect to the "focus on classing newer cars" argument, let's face it. Most of the offerings presented by the world's manufacturers in the past 30+ years have not been "Sports Cars". There have been a few exceptions like the Datsun Z cars, RX7's, and Miata's. But Neons, Saturns, Honda Civics, and Volkswagens don't have the same allure as a 911, Z3, or Sunbeam Tiger. The popularity of the Miata can be attributed to its close resemblence to the old Lotus Elan (and reasonable price.)
Jeff
Scott & Jeff, the thing that gets under my skin is that the request is for a IT SPEC MOTOR & the CRB said. Well you know what they said. The CRB has also said they will no longer class full prep cars.
The thing that really gets me is that WE don't a have as clue the real reason for the rejection & the CRB is not required to treat WE the CUSTOMER like any other company needs to treat a customer. In my thoughts the minimum requirement by the CRB should be for them to return some information on how to be successful getting the request completed.
If there is anything I can do for support please drop a line. [email protected]
The thing that really gets me is that WE don't a have as clue the real reason for the rejection & the CRB is not required to treat WE the CUSTOMER like any other company needs to treat a customer. In my thoughts the minimum requirement by the CRB should be for them to return some information on how to be successful getting the request completed.
If there is anything I can do for support please drop a line. [email protected]
Drew Aldred
New member
Scott,
Ya got hosed by the powers that be !!! I hope they will provide some answers to you (and all of us) on what would need to be done to get this car classed in GP. "Doesn't fit current philosophy" is just another phrase for "we don't feel like it, so it's not gonna happen" Ask the CRB how the "hybrid" 1275 Spridget with full prep suspension that was just recently allowed into H Prod fits into ANY current philosophy !!!!
Shouldn't there be a rule that if X amount of members support a car classification at a certain spec, then it shall be classed ???? After all when I get my email reply back from a letter I've sent in, I'm always thanked for my imput and how SCCA is a member driven organization.......... <_<
Keep us posted on any progress, or if you need help with anything. Good luck on your 2006 racing season.
Ya got hosed by the powers that be !!! I hope they will provide some answers to you (and all of us) on what would need to be done to get this car classed in GP. "Doesn't fit current philosophy" is just another phrase for "we don't feel like it, so it's not gonna happen" Ask the CRB how the "hybrid" 1275 Spridget with full prep suspension that was just recently allowed into H Prod fits into ANY current philosophy !!!!
Shouldn't there be a rule that if X amount of members support a car classification at a certain spec, then it shall be classed ???? After all when I get my email reply back from a letter I've sent in, I'm always thanked for my imput and how SCCA is a member driven organization.......... <_<
Keep us posted on any progress, or if you need help with anything. Good luck on your 2006 racing season.
Until we hear more from the CRB, "not consistant with class philosophy" could mean anything. It could be based on the "alleady classed" false canard, the " another prep level" false canard, or it could be based simply on the fact that there is nothing to put on the "spec camshaft" line and that befuzzled someone.
What really bothers me is that there was no other information that was forthcoming on just who said what. Item after item in the fastrack will tess us how many people were for or against a non-specified widget for a Formula wombat, but there was not even a tally of letters for/against the classification. Of course that's probably because the letters were overwhelmingly for the former, and they chose the latter.
What also pissed me off, but I am suprised that no one else on the prod board commented, is that a kit car is being given more consideration than the GP rx7.
The fact that Jim from G-Force responded after the response in Fastrack makes me wonder if perhaps one of the things the proposal was missing was letters of support from G-Force, Mazdatrix ,Mazda Comp and others.
What really bothers me is that there was no other information that was forthcoming on just who said what. Item after item in the fastrack will tess us how many people were for or against a non-specified widget for a Formula wombat, but there was not even a tally of letters for/against the classification. Of course that's probably because the letters were overwhelmingly for the former, and they chose the latter.
What also pissed me off, but I am suprised that no one else on the prod board commented, is that a kit car is being given more consideration than the GP rx7.
The fact that Jim from G-Force responded after the response in Fastrack makes me wonder if perhaps one of the things the proposal was missing was letters of support from G-Force, Mazdatrix ,Mazda Comp and others.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
or Mazdas advertising department....
...but lets face it, even they are hard pressed to care about a 30 yr old car in an obscure class these days.
The guys who should be most let down by this are the current GP & HP (esp) drivers...they need cars to show up.
Jim Susko
New member
GGNAGY WROTE "The fact that Jim from G-Force responded after the response in Fastrack makes me wonder if perhaps one of the things the proposal was missing was letters of support from G-Force, Mazdatrix ,Mazda Comp and others."
Guilty as charged, I guess. I recieved several notes urging me to write. The reason I didn't write was three fold.
I have been too busy, for one.
Secondly, I have written probably ten letters over the last seven years both to the Competition Board and the BOD to try to get some competitive adjustment or reclassing of the ITA RX7. I supplied exhaustive data once showing that at the ARRC the best of the IT7 class was fully three to four seconds slower than the ITA cars, and just among the fastest ITB cars, where it probably belongs. Why anyone would object that a sports car shouldn't be at the top of B rather than a VW Rabbit or some grocery getter is a mystery to me. Besides, moving the car to B would mean a rim width reduction and that would probably keep the Mazda just competitive, not an overdog. As I recall, several insiders at the national office confirmed that a Comp Board advisor who drove a Honda and a BOD member whose son also drove a Honda made sure any such proposal died. They all quit in disgust of this common occurrance.
So after finally getting a competitive adjustment, I didn't think it would be good form for me to suddenly ask to be allowed to compete in yet another class, before whe have allowed the competitive adjustement in ITA a chance.
Finally, due to personal committments (marriage, new baby, etc.) I have tapered off my racing and don't really have the competitive data ready to present to the Competition board to bolster any suggestions. As you know, you never get feedback or guidance from the board and an unresearched and unsupported suggestion is immediate death, and one can quickly lose one's credibility. Plus the board is far too busy to do our work for us.
Perhaps someone should ask exactly what the class philosophy of the Production class is, especially since the board obviously did a pullback by adding the Mazda in EP as an optional limited allowance car because things had simply gone too far. If you know the ancient history of the Production class in the fifties it started out as a Showroom Stock class, and then people started asking for all the "safety allowances" and they went down the slippery slope to today's "anything goes" (very expensive) class. Why they should do a turnabout from from a laudable effort to correct some of the errors of the past is the real mystery to me. If anything, the new proposal should be the wave of the future.
Why is it so important to spend tons of money to have fun? When a well prepared ITA car can start with a $500 junker and still run up to $20,000 and more even before it hits the track (I hear the Comp Board advisor with the Honda spent $30,000 on his in order to win the ARRC with a hired driver) it seems ludicrous.
Jim Susko
Guilty as charged, I guess. I recieved several notes urging me to write. The reason I didn't write was three fold.
I have been too busy, for one.
Secondly, I have written probably ten letters over the last seven years both to the Competition Board and the BOD to try to get some competitive adjustment or reclassing of the ITA RX7. I supplied exhaustive data once showing that at the ARRC the best of the IT7 class was fully three to four seconds slower than the ITA cars, and just among the fastest ITB cars, where it probably belongs. Why anyone would object that a sports car shouldn't be at the top of B rather than a VW Rabbit or some grocery getter is a mystery to me. Besides, moving the car to B would mean a rim width reduction and that would probably keep the Mazda just competitive, not an overdog. As I recall, several insiders at the national office confirmed that a Comp Board advisor who drove a Honda and a BOD member whose son also drove a Honda made sure any such proposal died. They all quit in disgust of this common occurrance.
So after finally getting a competitive adjustment, I didn't think it would be good form for me to suddenly ask to be allowed to compete in yet another class, before whe have allowed the competitive adjustement in ITA a chance.
Finally, due to personal committments (marriage, new baby, etc.) I have tapered off my racing and don't really have the competitive data ready to present to the Competition board to bolster any suggestions. As you know, you never get feedback or guidance from the board and an unresearched and unsupported suggestion is immediate death, and one can quickly lose one's credibility. Plus the board is far too busy to do our work for us.
Perhaps someone should ask exactly what the class philosophy of the Production class is, especially since the board obviously did a pullback by adding the Mazda in EP as an optional limited allowance car because things had simply gone too far. If you know the ancient history of the Production class in the fifties it started out as a Showroom Stock class, and then people started asking for all the "safety allowances" and they went down the slippery slope to today's "anything goes" (very expensive) class. Why they should do a turnabout from from a laudable effort to correct some of the errors of the past is the real mystery to me. If anything, the new proposal should be the wave of the future.
Why is it so important to spend tons of money to have fun? When a well prepared ITA car can start with a $500 junker and still run up to $20,000 and more even before it hits the track (I hear the Comp Board advisor with the Honda spent $30,000 on his in order to win the ARRC with a hired driver) it seems ludicrous.
Jim Susko
Heard a rumor that this proposal may not be dead after all. A BoD member at the Runoffs supposedly discussed it as a way to bolster G-Prod numbers and protect G-Prod from Runoffs Extinction with the addition of B & D Prepared, F1000, and the realignment of T1, T2, T3, T4.
Did anybody else hear anything at the CRB tent meeting or the Prod meeting?
Maybe a second round of letters to the CRB and the BoD is in order.
Jeff
Did anybody else hear anything at the CRB tent meeting or the Prod meeting?
Maybe a second round of letters to the CRB and the BoD is in order.
Jeff
***Heard a rumor that this proposal may not be dead after all. A BoD member at the Runoffs supposedly discussed it as a way to bolster G-Prod numbers***
Jeff, please provide some facts. Who is the BoD member & who did the discussion ? Non-ported at 2100 pounds I have interest but not with some bolster the field rules. There is no reason that we seasoned IT 1st gen RX-7 owners should be second classs racers.
I hope you are correct
David
ps: Maybe we should each get the ear of our BoD person, ask some questions & push for classing the 1st gen RX-7 in G Production. We might get some hint if there is any truth to your rumor.
Jeff, please provide some facts. Who is the BoD member & who did the discussion ? Non-ported at 2100 pounds I have interest but not with some bolster the field rules. There is no reason that we seasoned IT 1st gen RX-7 owners should be second classs racers.
I hope you are correct
David
ps: Maybe we should each get the ear of our BoD person, ask some questions & push for classing the 1st gen RX-7 in G Production. We might get some hint if there is any truth to your rumor.
mustanghammer
New member
Heard a rumor that this proposal may not be dead after all. A BoD member at the Runoffs supposedly discussed it as a way to bolster G-Prod numbers and protect G-Prod from Runoffs Extinction with the addition of B & D Prepared, F1000, and the realignment of T1, T2, T3, T4.
Did anybody else hear anything at the CRB tent meeting or the Prod meeting?
Maybe a second round of letters to the CRB and the BoD is in order.
Jeff
[/b]
Yes, where did you hear this?
I attended the CRB Production Tent meeting and didn't here anything about this specifically. I did miss the first 5-10 minutes however.
I went to the meeting to listen and learn and here is what I got out of the experience:
It is hard to get a straight or definitive answer in that setting. Many competitors tried but they didn't get anywhere. It must be the nature of the beast because the Solo II Town Meetings I attended at the Solo Nationals were the same deal.
Listening to what is said and the comments that were made by the CRB I did draw a few conclusions:
1. The compeiitors that were in attendence were against the combination of H and G Production. The CRB members seemed to support this however they also pointed out that there are not many cars that fit in H being manufactured these days. They want to class new cars but they don't know what those cars would be.
2. There is allot of confusion over the meaning of limited prep. Many commented that a limited prep car is not cheaper than a full prep car and can be hard to make competitive.
3. The CRB basically told Chris Albin that his Golf may never be competitive in G Prod as there is nothing more that can give him. That was fairly shocking and depressing.
From the whole Runoff's experience I came to the conclusion that limited prep only works for a few cars in F and E Production. Thankfully the E Production RX7 is one of those cars.
As far as a G Prod RX7 I think we should ask again however I doubt the car would ever be competitive in the current rules making environment. I spent some time with some G Prod racers and the HP numbers being generated by 510's is really impressive. Hard to get there with a 12A that is not ported.
For what it is worth here are the reason my original proposal was turned down:
1. The perception is that the car is too fast for G and too slow for F
2. The car is too old for consideration
3. The car already has a good home in E Production
4. A "stock" engine would represent a new prep level in production.
Reasons 1, 2, and 4 are BS and reason 3 is a crutch.
I was not at Topeka. This was about a 3rd or 4th generation rumor and I was hoping somebody might have been closer to the source and could have confirmed the conversation. Didn't get the BoD member's name or the other principal in the discussion. Sounds like it may have been a conversation held on the side and not part of the Tent Meetings.
Scott,
The 4 reasons listed for denying the proposal are ALL blatant BS. Especially the "a new prep level..." Pick up the GCR. There are already 25+ cars listed in 2 or 3 levels of the PCS. The precedent has already been set. I think a lawyer might present those 25 cars as supporting case law.
The car is too old??? What were they doing when they created the Hybrid Rolling Oil Puddle?
Let's face it. The Olde Guard's problem with this proposal is the rotary's reliability and simplicity. If you aren't putting new squirrels on the cage wheel every season, then you obviously aren't committed enough to join the Production community in their eyes. One needs to dump buckets of money (repeatedly) into the engine to have the opportunity to pray that it lasts a season before one can be a true Prod guy.
David,
I like your idea of having everyone pester his local BoD member. If you don't have easy access, start with your RE.
The common procedure when a new car is classed in Prod is to class it as a backmarker, have the drivers enter about 3 - 5 years of races as a backmarker, then graciously accept the 30# weight reduction when offered. Remember, you have to show your commitment to the Fraternity.
Wish I had more info on who was discussing it. But the idea that it was being discussed 5 or 6 month's after the CRB denied the request gives us some hope.
If anybody else knows anything, speak up.
Jeff
Scott,
The 4 reasons listed for denying the proposal are ALL blatant BS. Especially the "a new prep level..." Pick up the GCR. There are already 25+ cars listed in 2 or 3 levels of the PCS. The precedent has already been set. I think a lawyer might present those 25 cars as supporting case law.
The car is too old??? What were they doing when they created the Hybrid Rolling Oil Puddle?
Let's face it. The Olde Guard's problem with this proposal is the rotary's reliability and simplicity. If you aren't putting new squirrels on the cage wheel every season, then you obviously aren't committed enough to join the Production community in their eyes. One needs to dump buckets of money (repeatedly) into the engine to have the opportunity to pray that it lasts a season before one can be a true Prod guy.
David,
I like your idea of having everyone pester his local BoD member. If you don't have easy access, start with your RE.
The common procedure when a new car is classed in Prod is to class it as a backmarker, have the drivers enter about 3 - 5 years of races as a backmarker, then graciously accept the 30# weight reduction when offered. Remember, you have to show your commitment to the Fraternity.
Wish I had more info on who was discussing it. But the idea that it was being discussed 5 or 6 month's after the CRB denied the request gives us some hope.
If anybody else knows anything, speak up.
Jeff
Jeff, Scott & other interested folks I will be sending the CRB a letter requesting a factual understandable response to their Fastrack BS response to not having the car classed in G Production per the request.
Fastrack (month included) response to classing the 1st gen Mazda RX-7 in G Production:
"Creating another level of prep is inconsistant with class philosophy."
Question number one:
As you the CRB stated in your Fastrack response per above that classing the 1st gen Mazda RX-7 non-ported creates another level of prep what is your concern?
In my humble visual understanding there are all ready many spec lines & I highly dought that the tech folks remember each & every existing spec line today.
Question number two:
You the CRB used the words "class philosophy" within your Fastrack response. Within what page of the GCR/PCS is the Production car philosophy documented? If the Production car philosophy is not documented please document the Production car philosophy including forwarding a copy to my home address which is David Dewhurst 2551 North 67th Street Wauwatosa, WI 53213.
End of letter...........
I been going to the Runoffs for ten years & last year was my first & LAST tent meeting. My only intention was to listen which I did, but I had a hell of a time keeping from laughing. The responses to questions were the same as the responses in Fastrack & the good ol boys were all yucking it up for their traditionalsist Production car budys that dates in years gone by.
Scott, it was good meeting you at the Runoffs & my intention was to talk more about the RX-7 in G Production.
Have Fun
David
Fastrack (month included) response to classing the 1st gen Mazda RX-7 in G Production:
"Creating another level of prep is inconsistant with class philosophy."
Question number one:
As you the CRB stated in your Fastrack response per above that classing the 1st gen Mazda RX-7 non-ported creates another level of prep what is your concern?
In my humble visual understanding there are all ready many spec lines & I highly dought that the tech folks remember each & every existing spec line today.
Question number two:
You the CRB used the words "class philosophy" within your Fastrack response. Within what page of the GCR/PCS is the Production car philosophy documented? If the Production car philosophy is not documented please document the Production car philosophy including forwarding a copy to my home address which is David Dewhurst 2551 North 67th Street Wauwatosa, WI 53213.
End of letter...........
I been going to the Runoffs for ten years & last year was my first & LAST tent meeting. My only intention was to listen which I did, but I had a hell of a time keeping from laughing. The responses to questions were the same as the responses in Fastrack & the good ol boys were all yucking it up for their traditionalsist Production car budys that dates in years gone by.
Scott, it was good meeting you at the Runoffs & my intention was to talk more about the RX-7 in G Production.
Have Fun
David
mustanghammer
New member
It was good to meet you too David. Sorry our pathes didn't cross more often.
I plan on dusting off my original proposal and making some additions to it. I will request several carb specs and all of the EP mods for the rotors. This will not be a stock motor and it will not be an IT motor either. Frankly there are no IT engines in Prod only mildly souped up motors breathing through IT spec induction. The proposed engine will still not be ported. As always I will post here and on the Prod site for opinions before submitting the proposal.
I also plan on answering the 4 reasons for rejecting the original proposal as well.
The original proposal was killed by the Ad Hoc committee and not the CRB in my opinion. Based on what I saw in the tent meeting and other produciton dealings that I am familar with the Ad Hoc committe is the real gate keeper. The CRB merely referees the process and sets guidelines for the Ad Hoc committee to follow. I may be wrong but why would so many new uncompetitive Prod clasifications be hitting the GCR if the CRB was setting the specs?
I'll have something in a couple of weeks. More IT racing to do!
I plan on dusting off my original proposal and making some additions to it. I will request several carb specs and all of the EP mods for the rotors. This will not be a stock motor and it will not be an IT motor either. Frankly there are no IT engines in Prod only mildly souped up motors breathing through IT spec induction. The proposed engine will still not be ported. As always I will post here and on the Prod site for opinions before submitting the proposal.
I also plan on answering the 4 reasons for rejecting the original proposal as well.
The original proposal was killed by the Ad Hoc committee and not the CRB in my opinion. Based on what I saw in the tent meeting and other produciton dealings that I am familar with the Ad Hoc committe is the real gate keeper. The CRB merely referees the process and sets guidelines for the Ad Hoc committee to follow. I may be wrong but why would so many new uncompetitive Prod clasifications be hitting the GCR if the CRB was setting the specs?
I'll have something in a couple of weeks. More IT racing to do!
Scott, keep in mind that the CRB is who responds in the Fastrack. With the info that you posted in your previous post are you geting the posted info from your inside guy ? I would think we might have better progress if we knew WHO killed the last classing request. I would beleive that if it's the adhock who is killing things, that's all wrong. I thought their job was to investigate items to save the CRB time. Investigate, not make decisions. I been wrong before this year once or twice. 
In my mind I can't see anything wrong having a LP/Restricted Suspension with an IT motor. Before the LP rules started going south the name of the game in 1996 & 1997 when LP came to life per the Fastrack article Sept 1997 was to be "Back to Basics" where "What the Comp Board has created it hopes is a car that the average person can build and maintain in his garage and then run as a serious challenge in National club races." Ask your inside man if these quoted words were fact in 1997. Beleive me the car non-ported is not going to blow away Kent Prather or some of the other big guns at Nationals or the Runoffs. What's your times as compared to Kent's times on common tracks? Also the club leaders are realising that the LP rules have gone South & cost is again getting out of control. What I hear kind of openly is that things are going to get realed back in. The sooner the better. Of course the folks at the sharp end are saying open em up & lets play hard ball to which I say to their faces, if ya want to open the rules why don't ya step up to the plate & do a GT car. Then the frowns come across their faces.
Have Fun
David
In my mind I can't see anything wrong having a LP/Restricted Suspension with an IT motor. Before the LP rules started going south the name of the game in 1996 & 1997 when LP came to life per the Fastrack article Sept 1997 was to be "Back to Basics" where "What the Comp Board has created it hopes is a car that the average person can build and maintain in his garage and then run as a serious challenge in National club races." Ask your inside man if these quoted words were fact in 1997. Beleive me the car non-ported is not going to blow away Kent Prather or some of the other big guns at Nationals or the Runoffs. What's your times as compared to Kent's times on common tracks? Also the club leaders are realising that the LP rules have gone South & cost is again getting out of control. What I hear kind of openly is that things are going to get realed back in. The sooner the better. Of course the folks at the sharp end are saying open em up & lets play hard ball to which I say to their faces, if ya want to open the rules why don't ya step up to the plate & do a GT car. Then the frowns come across their faces.
Have Fun
David