is it cheating??

No problem George, I figured someone with your mechanical knowledge knew that anyway.

1st Gen RX7s competitive again.....I'm tell you guys, come down to SEDiv. There is a group of 1st Gens down here that run with the S cars. I kid you not. In a 15 car ITS field this weekend at Savannah, one IT7 car qualified 3rd or 4th.

Driver + development and I think the RX can still run up front. At least that's what I see, as I watch them recede off into the distance in my windshield.....
 
Originally posted by Geo:
Yes, I understand they are different. What I'm exploring is the possibility of listing both on the same line so that those with a spent 12A could replace with a 13B
Click to expand...

For starters... The only years that came with both a 12A and 13B was '84-'85, so anything earlier and you'd be "creating a model", something which is currently against our rules.

Second, the GSL-SE ('84-'85 13B) has considerably larger brakes than the 12A model of the same years. By putting them on the same spec line, interchange would be legal, allowing the 12A cars to upgrade to 13B brakes...

Third, the '84-'85 13B is listed in ITS at 2530lbs... which I think is WAY to high to start with, and I'm certain would require a LOT of ballast, so I doubt that moving them to ITA WITH weight added would be feasible. The car would be just TOO heavy.

If anything, what the 13B 1st gen needs is a weight reduction for ITS or a straight drop to ITA. If someone has some real power numbers from one of these, I'd be interested in investigating just how this car really would fit...

Either way, I just don't see how, without special exceptions or something completely contrary to current IT philosophy/class intent, the first two items above could be circumvented, and I'm not sure we would even want to go down that road to start with...

The first thing to do, in my opinion, is to find out just how serious the problem is to start with, or even if there IS a problem to start with...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
84-85 GSL has......drum roll


FOURTEEN INCH WHEELS.
Click to expand...

While this is true, it may not be pertinent after this season... It's a minor difference at this point...

There are more important, IT-Inclusive issues to deal with, as I started outlining above...

First, I still would want to investigate the validity and magnatude of the problem before worrying too much about possible solutions...

The option would still exist for IT just to let these cars fade off into obscurity, as the RX-3 and any number of other models have over the years... It's not like those who race them don't threaten on a regular basis to run to another class if they can't be competitive here anyhow... They DO have about 4 other class options to choose from...

Not trying to be cold or single out the RX, but every car has it's day... Perhaps this is the time of the Miata... I'm pretty sure the Mazda would prefer that!
wink.gif




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
makes me wonder if this wasnt a planned shortage. Darin call Tim Buck at mazda comp yourself, want cost you a cent. 9:00 am to 4:00 pm mon thru fri 1-800-435-2508.
 
Oh awsome, now it'll be even harder for me to get started in ITS this year.
I didn't read the entire thread so sorry if this sounds ignorant.


------------------
Drew
18 years old
Wyndenup Racing
ITS Mazda RX-7 #99 - Me
Historic '76 Porsche 914-6 #49
 
Is this where we are?, VMRA, Vintage Mazda Racing Association, with my 2 year old racecar. I think not.
 
Originally posted by THawkbh:
Oh awsome, now it'll be even harder for me to get started in ITS this year.
I didn't read the entire thread so sorry if this sounds ignorant.
Click to expand...


Don't worry man, you're car is fine...it's the smaller engine (12A) guys who have an issue, and it sounds like a temporary one at that.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Jake, you got me digging into my rule book.

Found this:
ITCS D.1.p: All engine components not otherwise listed in these rules shall meet factory specifications for stock parts.

So, I do think if you have an identical part to a stock part, it is ok. Your thoughts?
Click to expand...

Well, that IS intersting...and while it is theoretical in the case of rotor housings, I went looking...

To begin, lets start with some equilizing terminology. In a rotary, I submit that the side plates function as the head in a piston engine does, for it is here that the intake port (= to valves) exists. I also submit that the housing is equivilent to the cylinder/block. (And yes, I know that the exhaust port on a 12A and 13B lives in the housing...work with me here).

So with that I read the good book. The line you refer to contains the phrase "all engine components not otherwise mentioned...". So i went hunting for "Block" or "Housing" or "Head" or "Cylinder", as these items are pertinent.
Rule ITCS D.1.j states: "Engines may be bored to a maximun of .040 inch over standard bore size."

Boring (verb) an engine requires a cylinder bore (noun), and those are found either in blocks or as indivdual items, such as in a Porsche. And I submit that the housing would fall into that category, although boring a housing is impossible.

So, to my eye, I think it's a stretch to replace a housing with a non Mazda housing, even if one were to be found.

On the other hand, the language required me to make suppositions, and there we run into the intent issue. Am I reading the book and allowing the obvious intent to sway my opinion? It does not "mention" "housings" anywhere else. Hmmmm.....

Thoughts?

(And yes, this IS like discussing the number of angels or whatever on the head of a pin, cuz nobody but Mazda will ever make these things!)



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top