ITR
- Thread starter hunter164
- Start date
JeffYoung
New member
Guys, I think the RX8 fits nicely in ITR. It is only one year away from eligibility. Its hp and torque (most importantly) are very close to the S2000 which is in.
It was left off because of fear of too much power, and also because it was new. I am adding it to the proposal for the second "wave" of cars based on a couple of points:
1. Lack of torque.
2. Dyno numbers I have from a Grand Am car that shows little gains for the motor. I'm told (and I'm sure there will be people who do not believe it) that the car's stock exhaust is nearly maximized.
3. Bolstering the facts that the car "fits" ITR is the fact that there is only a limited Mazda presence in ITR. RX8 should be there.
If anyone wants to participate in the proposal write up, e-mail me at [email protected]. It will take me a month or so, but I'm going to talk to Speedsource and get them involved as well.
Thanks.
Jeff
It was left off because of fear of too much power, and also because it was new. I am adding it to the proposal for the second "wave" of cars based on a couple of points:
1. Lack of torque.
2. Dyno numbers I have from a Grand Am car that shows little gains for the motor. I'm told (and I'm sure there will be people who do not believe it) that the car's stock exhaust is nearly maximized.
3. Bolstering the facts that the car "fits" ITR is the fact that there is only a limited Mazda presence in ITR. RX8 should be there.
If anyone wants to participate in the proposal write up, e-mail me at [email protected]. It will take me a month or so, but I'm going to talk to Speedsource and get them involved as well.
Thanks.
Jeff
lateapex911
Super Moderator
The RX8 is NOT an RX-7! Look at the stock hp numbers from the same engine!! Think they got more out of it already??
The classic big HP maker on the rotary is the header...but in the RX8's case, the two rotors exhaust from the sides, which means the the header is a three tube unit, and the middle tube shares both rotors. The exhaust is siamesed in the housing. The GA guys are seeing some marginal gains from a header, but it's nothing like the old days.
Point being that applying the standard "rotary factor" when classing this car is totally wrong, IMO.
Lets look at the car when the class is on it's feet.
The classic big HP maker on the rotary is the header...but in the RX8's case, the two rotors exhaust from the sides, which means the the header is a three tube unit, and the middle tube shares both rotors. The exhaust is siamesed in the housing. The GA guys are seeing some marginal gains from a header, but it's nothing like the old days.
Point being that applying the standard "rotary factor" when classing this car is totally wrong, IMO.
Lets look at the car when the class is on it's feet.
anthony1k
New member
I was very disappointed to see that SCCA continues to shut out turbos. There are many turbocharged cars that could have found a home in ITR including my own. I’ve heard of the reason why and I just don’t buy it. Adherence to the rules is as easy or as difficult as with normally aspirated cars.
Anthony
Anthony
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Well, of course the pat answer is ITE....
But, lets forget that for the sake of discussion and run with this concept.
HOW is it easy? What methods would you use (with the existing regional tech budget..$0) to esure that the cars run legally?
I submit that it is not as simple as pulling a head and checking compression, displacement and so on.
But obviously I am missing something. Educate me, please.
anthony1k
New member
Jake, ITE is the pat answer. I've been running in that for the past couple of years and I'm fine with it. My hope is that at some point SCCA will begin to consider ways to be more accommodating. It makes things more interesting and it helps the club grow.
On the point of enforcing the rules, I would argue with you that it is easier to catch cheaters in turbocharged cars. In most cases HP modifications are bolt-ons and are easily detectable to the trained eye. Also, the main source of higher HP is higher boost and that is easily detectable as well. In any case, other racing series accept turbos and have been able to police the rules (PCA comes to mind).
Anthony
On the point of enforcing the rules, I would argue with you that it is easier to catch cheaters in turbocharged cars. In most cases HP modifications are bolt-ons and are easily detectable to the trained eye. Also, the main source of higher HP is higher boost and that is easily detectable as well. In any case, other racing series accept turbos and have been able to police the rules (PCA comes to mind).
Anthony
JoshS
New member
Well, the Touring and SS classes are now allowing AWD and turbochargers/superchargers. I haven't seen a lot of cheating there. There are no turbos in SS, just supers. In Touring, software is free inside the stock housing (just like IT) so a lot of boost could be legally made there, so classing has to take that into account.
But there really hasn't been an issue. I'd argue that it's just as easy to determine that "hard parts" are still stock as it's ever been. We can check heads, we can check turbos, etc. Since software is free, there's no need to check it.
seckerich
New member
I am also waiting for the RX8 to be classed. It is a perfect fit for the class and races most weekends against the same cars that are on the ITR list. The motor is close to maxed from the factory and SCCA has years of experience with this motor in Star Mazda to know the facts. If people are to build cars for a new class they need to be added as soon as possible. Looking forward to the RX8 proposal and searching for a donor! 
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I know an RX-8 will come out of our shop should they be allowed at some point. I was the driving force behind the 'conservativism' on the car as I wanted to be wary of the Renisis and it's power potential. The more we learn about it, the more it is seeminly an easy fit.
As far as Turbo's are concerned, cheating is NOT the issue. The issue is that when you combine the IT ruleset (open ECU's and open exhaust), it becomes VERY difficult to estimate power potential. Not only can a car like yours make HUGE power, the potential between models is so varied that each car becomes an adventure (read potential overdog) of it's own. The only solution is to class VERY conservatively at first and then do a comp adjustment. 2 problems then stem from that - comp adjustments aren't done in IT as a rule and of course the chicken/egg issue. Who will build one if it is not going to be competitive and when can we see the true potential if nobody builds one?
I hear you...but I think the potential issues outweight the benefits at this time.
Anthony - given the IT rules, how much WHP would your car make? If you think it would be too much for the class, what limitations would you impose on it (or any turbo car) so they could be made to fit? Just because I don't see a solution on the horizon doesn't mean you don't have one.
AB
As far as Turbo's are concerned, cheating is NOT the issue. The issue is that when you combine the IT ruleset (open ECU's and open exhaust), it becomes VERY difficult to estimate power potential. Not only can a car like yours make HUGE power, the potential between models is so varied that each car becomes an adventure (read potential overdog) of it's own. The only solution is to class VERY conservatively at first and then do a comp adjustment. 2 problems then stem from that - comp adjustments aren't done in IT as a rule and of course the chicken/egg issue. Who will build one if it is not going to be competitive and when can we see the true potential if nobody builds one?
I hear you...but I think the potential issues outweight the benefits at this time.
Anthony - given the IT rules, how much WHP would your car make? If you think it would be too much for the class, what limitations would you impose on it (or any turbo car) so they could be made to fit? Just because I don't see a solution on the horizon doesn't mean you don't have one.
AB
anthony1k
New member
Andy,
My car has a dead stock motor running stock boost. In theory it has 220 HP or thereabouts. I run a straight exhaust that might be adding a couple of HP but not much. It is however fairly light compared to some others and that keeps it in the same stratosphere with the 400+ HP Vettes and Mustangs in ITE.
On the question on how would I achieve some sort of parity with other cars in the class? Requiring stock ECU’s on all turbocharged models is one option. PCA does that in all stock classes and so does the 44 Super Cup. That leaves weight as the only way address the issue of parity, same as with non-turbo IT cars.
Anthony
My car has a dead stock motor running stock boost. In theory it has 220 HP or thereabouts. I run a straight exhaust that might be adding a couple of HP but not much. It is however fairly light compared to some others and that keeps it in the same stratosphere with the 400+ HP Vettes and Mustangs in ITE.
On the question on how would I achieve some sort of parity with other cars in the class? Requiring stock ECU’s on all turbocharged models is one option. PCA does that in all stock classes and so does the 44 Super Cup. That leaves weight as the only way address the issue of parity, same as with non-turbo IT cars.
Anthony
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
And part of the reason we are where we are on teh ECU stuff is because cheating is un-policable. So we really must take that out of the equation and allow the same mods as IT. Given that, these cars will make more power than the classes can hold...or are you supporting different rules for different car WITHIN the same class? That is most certainly not within the IT philosophy - and very tough to get close to accurate in any kind of 'process'.
AB
AB
lateapex911
Super Moderator
This gets into big picture philisophical discussions..
Which is fine!
One of the things we've tried to determine is what makes IT "IT", and what makes it popular. It's fair to say it's one of SCCA's most popular categories.
We think that the general prep level, and the basic "equality" for all are the major cornerstones.
By "Equality", I mean that line item exceptions are kept to an absolute minimum. Two come immediately to mind: The Olds rear bearing/brake exception, and the E36 restrictor plate/SIR. Once the exception for one is made, the case becomes "If you allow the widget for XX, why not this fridget for YY?" (We get a letter like that every other month or so) Often the reasons for exceptions are very sound, but it's a very slippery slope, and before you know it the rule book looks like the Prod category!
(Semi related comment: The Olds thing was before this ITAC's time, so knowledge of the exact reasoning is tough to come by, and the BMW thing was not a road anyone on the ITAC really wanted to go down, and many of us would like the car moved to ITR and then declassed from ITS after a reasonable period to remove the exception. Putting the genie back in the bottle is tricky business.)
So, our philisophical base is to minimize exceptions as much as possible.
Allowing turbos/non naturally aspirated cars gets tricky from a classing standpoint, as Andy mentioned. if they are classed, we have to either:
-Allow software mods which will basically allow free boost, or..
-Restrict boost to stock levels.
IF we choose A, then we need to class the car assuming that it will be run at dangerously high boost levels, with all the tricks possible, and the weight will reflect that. With free exhausts, I can see custom manifolds being made to ensure a fast boost build, along with the fuel and software to aid in that and run ragged edge boost and timing programs. The average guy won't...or can't do that, but the car needs to be classed for the guy who will. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I think the differences between the "Haves" and the "Have nots" are far greater with turbos than with other cars.
If we choose B, stock level boost, how can we police it? With manifold pressure recorders? They sound cool, but who administers and who pays for them?? It shouldn't be the average racer...it needs to come out of the pockets of those who benefit..the drivers of the turbo cars. So the administration and expense are big issues there. (Not to mention the quasi line item excetion of software being free as long as it fits in the box ....EXCEPT for boost. I say quasi because it really would be more categorical as it relates to all non naturally aspirated cars, not just one model)
So, given that, and that the philosophical base of IT isn't likely to change anytime soon, whats the best move?
Which is fine!
One of the things we've tried to determine is what makes IT "IT", and what makes it popular. It's fair to say it's one of SCCA's most popular categories.
We think that the general prep level, and the basic "equality" for all are the major cornerstones.
By "Equality", I mean that line item exceptions are kept to an absolute minimum. Two come immediately to mind: The Olds rear bearing/brake exception, and the E36 restrictor plate/SIR. Once the exception for one is made, the case becomes "If you allow the widget for XX, why not this fridget for YY?" (We get a letter like that every other month or so) Often the reasons for exceptions are very sound, but it's a very slippery slope, and before you know it the rule book looks like the Prod category!
(Semi related comment: The Olds thing was before this ITAC's time, so knowledge of the exact reasoning is tough to come by, and the BMW thing was not a road anyone on the ITAC really wanted to go down, and many of us would like the car moved to ITR and then declassed from ITS after a reasonable period to remove the exception. Putting the genie back in the bottle is tricky business.)
So, our philisophical base is to minimize exceptions as much as possible.
Allowing turbos/non naturally aspirated cars gets tricky from a classing standpoint, as Andy mentioned. if they are classed, we have to either:
-Allow software mods which will basically allow free boost, or..
-Restrict boost to stock levels.
IF we choose A, then we need to class the car assuming that it will be run at dangerously high boost levels, with all the tricks possible, and the weight will reflect that. With free exhausts, I can see custom manifolds being made to ensure a fast boost build, along with the fuel and software to aid in that and run ragged edge boost and timing programs. The average guy won't...or can't do that, but the car needs to be classed for the guy who will. Maybe I'm wrong on this, but I think the differences between the "Haves" and the "Have nots" are far greater with turbos than with other cars.
If we choose B, stock level boost, how can we police it? With manifold pressure recorders? They sound cool, but who administers and who pays for them?? It shouldn't be the average racer...it needs to come out of the pockets of those who benefit..the drivers of the turbo cars. So the administration and expense are big issues there. (Not to mention the quasi line item excetion of software being free as long as it fits in the box ....EXCEPT for boost. I say quasi because it really would be more categorical as it relates to all non naturally aspirated cars, not just one model)
So, given that, and that the philosophical base of IT isn't likely to change anytime soon, whats the best move?
JoshS
New member
Well, I don't understand the first quoted line there -- we're talking about cars with stock turbos, not normally-aspirated cars with turbos added, right?
Anyway, I think that the world is moving towards fancy technology in cars that interest the membership, and that includes turbos, AWD, ABS, etc, etc. 20 years from now, the only cars without this stuff are going to be REALLY OLD, and therefore, not very interesting to new members of that day. So, we can't all put our heads in the sand and hope this problem goes away. Even if it takes a while to implement the solution, it's in the club's best interest to figure out the plan sooner rather than later, before the club is irrelevant to younger members.
I think it's not policeable to make the rules require stock boost. It can't be measured, and that makes it a bad rule. So, you allow software (already allowed), which will allow crazy boost levels. Yes, it's true that this might make some cars, especially when combined with other allowable IT mods, MUCH quicker than their stock lookalikes. So, you have to class assuming this will happen. But just because the difference between the haves and the have-nots might be large, doesn't mean you shouldn't allow the cars in at all.
BTW, I am racing a turbo car in T2 right now. It has lots more boost than stock, and it's tuned for 100 octane. Of course, in Touring, we're not allowed to change headers or cats, so in IT trim, it would make even more power, and might require more money than a non-turbo car to convert. But so what? If there were an IT class fast enough for this car, I think it would be an interesting race car, and I think so would a lot of enthusiasts that we'd like to get into the club.
We gotta find a way to allow turbos, AWD, ABS, and other technologies present in modern cars. I say, let 'em in, stick with the IT rules as written, and class conservatively.
I think what the boys are saying is that there is a place for turbo cars in IT, ITE. And without lots of difficult policing that the club is not able to do, its to hard to implement. I also wish there was an easy solution for policing turbo's as they are cheap HP. The club tried in the 1980's and failed. If my beloved GT classes fail in the next few years I will be turboing my Z and running in SPO. In mild trim the Nissan 3.5 puts out over 600hp. What a hoot that would be.
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Yes...turbos/non naturally aspirated cars...as in stock examples that are turbo or supercharged. (I left the "/" out on my fist post but your response was so fast it hit before I edited..sorry for the confusion)
OK, one vote for classed conservatively. So, for ITR that would include the 944 turbo, right? 2.7 litres, turbo, free exhaust, free electronics (sort of), boost essentially limited to what the stock internal components can take, and the fuel capability of the stock injectors.
What would you suggest it weigh?? (The 944 S2 is listed in this months FASTRACK at 2810...essentially the same chassis)
(I would assume such and "IT turbo" build would include careful design of the preturbo ehaust system to help get the boost up fast and high, a Motec to maximize the contol and extract the most power, {and perhaps have a "overboost" throttle detent for the extra help for passing and qualifying} as well as shortening of intercooler plumbing, and creative "Airdams" to help feed copious amounts of cold air to the intercooler and intake. What am I missing?)