IT should really think about welcoming Older SM's....... Without a new class..

G

gpeluso

New member
I think the writing is on the wall for the older SM cars(1.6) and soon to be na 1.8 cars in SpecMiata. A few of the IT rules make it tough for a SM to transfer.... Depowering racks ( yeah I know they made a manual) and the torsen rear end that most have from a 99. These cars are starting to sit and can be bought cheap... .these great cars need a home and IT needs numbers. IT should take advantage of SM being a National class and taking big dollars to win. I personally built a SM this year to have more people to run against. I currently have an ITR e46 BMW that I have $40k + in that I would sell today for $16.5k to fund another miata for IT or STL.

Looking at the ProIT series is a great example.... It would not exist without inviting current SM's...... Matter of fact..... Almost every racing organization will fail on a weekend with SM's paying for multiple entries. It's time to open up the rule books for simple changes and start having deeper fields.

Waiting for the food throwing at me now.
Greg Peluso
 
Oh yeah Lets open this pandoras box.

The simple answer is that a Miata with a 1.6 and a Miata with a 1.8 are both legal cars for IT right now. Build it to the rules that currently exist in IT and your done. OR Leave it in SM trim and run in SM.. Dont see any reason to allow Competition Adjustments for this model car only. Quite frankly this conversation has been had many times, and its getting old. Build it to the Rules in PLACE, or dont run IT! Its that F***** simple
 
Dano77
this weekend I am Running SM and parking my IT car..........your right,it is simple. Haha
Just thought timing was good....

Greg
 
Where are the conflicts in the regs? Where are the cars not compliant to IT regs now? Put together a detailed proposal to submit to the CRB; if you want to hash it out before submission, post it here.

GA

Edit: I have submitted several times a proposal to allow de-powering of the racks. I've been rejected each time. The general concern centers around two points: that's not the way it has always been done and it would upset the "balance of power". I counter that the first point is irrelevant except in the context of stability, and we have "what we know" for the the second point.

As for the Torsen rear ends of the 1.6s, given lack of availability I would not oppose a line-item allowance to change the pumpkins to '99 to allow the Torsen. But it ain't gonna happen on its own; you need to request it and convince the ITAC to support it to the CRB.
 
Last edited:
Dano77
this weekend I am Running SM and parking my IT car..........your right,it is simple. Haha
Just thought timing was good....

Greg
 
Look Im not trying to start a fight. I just dont see a need to change a set of rules or even the philosiphy of the rules to suit a certain car that is prepped to a different set of rules. The IT rule set works as designed. Certain cars have warts. The 1.6 Miata is one of them. I get that.

I also get that without the Miata the club would clearly go broke. I am actually surprised that the SCCA made it this far without the Miata from day one in 1948.

The Miata is eligible in SM,SSM,SM2,STU,STL,SMT,ITE,ITEZ all without a conflict of rules. With minor changes its also in SPU. A few more changes and it goes to EP FP GTL, GT3,GT2. Thats almost 50% of the closed wheel classes, Why do we need to Change an entire rule set to allow it to be Compliant in ITA and ITS as well. Run it as it is, take your chances in IT. IF some one does throw paper,and its non-compliant, take the lumps and move on.

And its way more than a PS rack being de-powered, or a rear diff from a different spec line.

Sorry Greg if I seem pissy, just tired of having this conversation every weekend with some one who thinks their car is being unjustly discriminated against is all.
 
Dano77 said:
...just tired of having this conversation every weekend with some one who thinks their car is being unjustly discriminated against is all.
Click to expand...
LOL! I hear ya, brother. But you just can't keep pressin' down and pressin' down on the back of the oppressed...it's time for JUSTICE!
 
If the Miata had never been produced, would SCCA have died? Hell no! People that want to race would race something else. The Miata is the easy button, a ton of development has been done on the car by Flatout, Planet Miata, Kessler, et al. Buy a Miata, rent a Miata...easy. But we sure as he'll don't need more classes for them to run in! Or cater to their every whim.
 
As the owner of a 1.6 SSM car I think this is not a good idea. I like the IT rule set and core values because it leads to stability. One of those IT tenets is "warts and all." I built my car for a specific class, just as the IT folks built their cars. If I want to run IT I have to accept all of the IT rules, "warts and all". There is no reason to give me any sort of special dispensation or "exemption." Line item exceptions are the road to Prod.

Rob, who built his car for a specific class in a specific region, and recognizes the "warts and all" that approach brings.
 
Ed Funk said:
If the Miata had never been produced, would SCCA have died? Hell no! People that want to race would race something else. The Miata is the easy button, a ton of development has been done on the car by Flatout, Planet Miata, Kessler, et al. Buy a Miata, rent a Miata...easy. But we sure as he'll don't need more classes for them to run in! Or cater to their every whim.
Click to expand...

This.

SCCA is good at eating its own young, classing-wise. Pretty much all of the current SM stalwarts - those teams that rent fleets of them - left another class smaller when they departed. Based on what I know from three freaking decades of this game, only the tiniest handful of new racers would have opted to, say, buy a bass boat instead of racing something else, absent SM.

K
 
So-Pac Division already allows SM's to race in IT in the divisional races. It's called out in our regional class rules. The sky's not fallen and the really serious SM guys only run SM anyway. It's mostly the mid-pack and back racers who do both or even SM-STL-IT.
 
Miatas should be eligible for all classes--even open wheel. Just take the front fenders off.

We can then have unlimited double dipping.
 
The depowered racks should have been done in IT a long time ago. For the ITAC to even think they consider that in classing is a joke. Nowhere in the process is parasitic drag of accessories considered. And this is from someone with a lifetime stash of non powered racks.

People with this hatred of Miata and the classes they can run need to get a little perspective. As a race chairman the numbers do matter. True what Kirk says, most of these drivers would just be back in the IT car they left if SM never happened. It is also very true that Mazda has pushed many other manufacturers to step up and offer contingency because of their support program. Those double dipping entries you make fun of help keep the numbers up and your entry fee down. I love it when OPM, etc rent the SM to another driver for ITA/ITS, it pays the bills. Now if you really believe that the 1.8 diff beat you you have some soul searching to do.

All past discussion aside, it sets a precedent to allow it and the ITAC has resisted that for good reason. That said never seen a driver protested because of it.
 
seckerich said:
All past discussion aside, it sets a precedent to allow it and the ITAC has resisted that for good reason. That said never seen a driver protested because of it.
Click to expand...

Agree. This can be dealt with on a Regional level. Specifically allow them in your regs and it's done. The issue is that there is no guarantee that he SMAC won't continue to tweak the rules to make those cars 'faster' to keep up with the 99's. Basing a rule on a spec level of another class that you can't control is not smart from the 10,000 ft level. Deal with it locally until it doesn't work, then fix.
 
The cars are competitive in ITA/ITS now. I don't know if these competitive cars have depowered PS racks or not, but I don't think anything is going to give you grief over it. It'd be nice to see the rules changes to allow folks to remove PS though.

However with a bit of work you can de-power the rack: pulley on the PS pump that is an idler around a bearing pressed on the PS shaft, remove the innards of the rack (i.e., my rack is busted), remove the vanes in the PS pump (i.e., my pump is busted). That said, I love the PS on the Mustang and feel it is a contributing factor to it being a very tossable and easy car to drive.
 
Many regions now also have SM2 to deal with exactly what you're talking about. It's quite popular in the N.E. The solution is already there.

I actually agree with Dan. Don't change IT rules to accommodate the car. Change the car to be legal with the class YOU CHOOSE to race with. When it becomes time that the car you're running isn't where you'd like to be at, sell it and buy something else. Yes, maybe hard to do emotionally and potentially financially. I just went through that recently after selling my ITB car and bought a guess what... LOL
 
Ron Earp said:
It'd be nice to see the rules changes to allow folks to remove PS though.
Click to expand...
Being able to de-power the rack would make my potential decision to prep the STL Integra to ITR a lot easier. Right now, finding, buying, and re-installing all the PS parts and bits and pieces is the biggest PITA of all the items I have to do to get there...

Regardless, that would address one of the three biggest differences between SM and ITA, the other two being 1.6L final drive swaps (I think that could get line-item'd without much grief) and head prep (unfortunately, already "tech shed legal").

I opposed inclusion of SM-spec cars into ITx a few years ago when it was first proposed. "Because Improved Touring" I'm still leaning that direction. However, if we could address the power steering issue as a category change, and the final drive issue as a line-item change, and simply accept that we cannot enforce the head prep issue, then that would alleviate having to allow the entire category.

GA
 
what Andy said - the allowances in SM which are beyond IT are offset by the allowances in IT that are not in SM. a fully complaint SM car is not compliant with IT but it's also not better than a fully built IT car, even one without more than slight intorturation of the roffe corollary. to include that in IT certainly wouldn't upset the balance of the class - but you never know what allowances might be made in the future that COULD. so it's a no go. as has been pointed out, there's plenty of other options with and without changes to the cars.

re depowered racks - SAE net HP includes accessories, SAE certified HP does likewise. so everything from the early 70's on that ONLY came with PS, yes, it is included in the process.
does that mean we should or shouldn't allow them? you've all seen the votes out of the committee and CRB in the past. it hasn't been allowed, we dont' see a NEED to allow it, and it COULD have some effect on parity. easy to do, convenient, etc.. are good arguments. they are not the only arguemnts considered. FWIW, I'm in the camp to allow depowering racks on cars whos specline included both PS and manual steering - but it's confusing and I understand why this position was not adopted.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top