January Fastrack

Tristan Smith

Tristan Smith

New member
http://www.scca.org/documents/Fastrack/11/11-fastrack-jan-club.pdf

Yahooo


ITR
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]1. #2501 (Tristan Smith) Please re-examine weight for ITR 300zx
In 9.1.3, ITR, Nissan 300ZX (89-96), change the weight from 3250 to [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]3120[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]. [An error was made during the initial weight-assignment process.] [/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial][/FONT][/FONT]
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Thanks ITAC
[/FONT][/FONT]
 
Thanks for the Help!

I just wanted to say thank you to the people from the SCCA for clearly stating what I need to do to be able to run with you guys next year;

#3415 (Eric Nummelin) Classify 2002 Cougar Using WC VTS
The car is eligible for STU with the appropriate STU specifications and by bringing the compression ratio in compliance.

While I do find it a bit confusing that the car was still legal to run in World Challenge in 2010 and in STU as well, but the new direction of the class is to not allow that. Greg Amy did a very good job in keeping me informed as to the process and I want to thank him. While I am disappointed that I have to put my spare motor in the car and loose about 40 hp and make the car a ton heavier, I have nothing I can really complain about, rules is rules. I just need to change the bullet for a more stock one and bolt on about 150 lbs of weight, :blink:. With these changes I can expect to have my a$$ handed to me in the races, but I get to keep the car mostly in its original condition.

I just wanted to come down and run the car in a couple of races a year for kicks and giggles and I understand that the actual SCCA membership needs to understand and determine the direction the STU class proceeds in and not change for 1 car.

All I have to do now is work out the licensing issues, pick a region and see what weekends work the best for me. Thanks to the CRB for clearing up the questions very quickly and I while I wish that I could run to the WC VTS approved in 2009, it doesn't meet the direction of the class. I will need to think about things a bit to see if it all makes sense.

Eric
 
WOW!!!

#3394 (Josh Sirota) Reevaluate weight/class of ITB Dodge Daytona
In 9.1.3, ITB, Dodge Daytona 2.2 (84-89), reclassify from ITB to ITC at 2380 lbs. and classify the identical Chrysler Laser, effective 1/1/12. [Note separate Technical Bulletin item to reduce 2011 ITB weight to future ITC weight.]
 
I did the initial analysis on those cars. They are tough birds. No power (same motor as Omnis, etc.) and too much curb weight. I owned one of these turds back in the day (an 84 Laser).

In B, they'd have to lose something like 600 lbs off of curb to get to process weight. In C, they still probably can't make the weight but at least they have something of a chance....

Greg Amy said:
WOW!!!

#3394 (Josh Sirota) Reevaluate weight/class of ITB Dodge Daytona
In 9.1.3, ITB, Dodge Daytona 2.2 (84-89), reclassify from ITB to ITC at 2380 lbs. and classify the identical Chrysler Laser, effective 1/1/12. [Note separate Technical Bulletin item to reduce 2011 ITB weight to future ITC weight.]
Click to expand...
 
Tristan Smith said:
[FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]
In 9.1.3, ITR, Nissan 300ZX (89-96), change the weight from 3250 to [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]3120[/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]. [An error was made during the initial weight-assignment process.] [/FONT][/FONT]
Click to expand...

So what was the error? As I recall it was classed with an assumed gain of 30%, was that dropped to 25?
 
Steve, I understand the frustration. All I can tell you now is that we spent a lot of time discussing the car, and the data you and others provided.

I personally am in the camp of re running the weight at 25%. That's probably the best you are going to see. While I agree the evidence suggests (pretty strongly to me) that even 20% is tough for these motors, the fact is we don't have a full on IT build to evaluate.

In any event, the issue is still open. I (again personally) hope we get this done next meeting. We'll see.

quadzjr said:
no mk1 MR2... figures.
Click to expand...
 
Greg Amy said:
#3394 (Josh Sirota) Reevaluate weight/class of ITB Dodge Daytona
In 9.1.3, ITB, Dodge Daytona 2.2 (84-89), reclassify from ITB to ITC at 2380 lbs. and classify the identical Chrysler Laser, effective 1/1/12. [Note separate Technical Bulletin item to reduce 2011 ITB weight to future ITC weight.]
Click to expand...

In case it's a little confusing: the Operations Manual for the CRB states that reclassifications are not like weight adjustments -- reclassifications need to go through the rule-change process. That process involves a member input period, and the proposal is subsequently voted on by the BOD. Now that there is a "rules season", rule changes and reclassifications are "closed" for 2011, they will be voted on for 2012. So the ITAC/CRB is reducing the weight for 2011, which we can do now, and have submitted a request to reclass for 2012. I suspect there will be other examples like this as we work through our list.
 
Not knocking Johs, but I think the actual thinking was that basically ALL sixes in ITR were hit with a 30% gain (at least) whether there evidence to support it (like with the BMW 2.5 motors) or not (the Supra and the 300ZX).

In my personal opinion, the Supra should get a similar reduction, if requested.

JoshS said:
Correct. This was the only V6 in ITR done at 30%.
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
Steve, I understand the frustration. All I can tell you now is that we spent a lot of time discussing the car, and the data you and others provided.

I personally am in the camp of re running the weight at 25%. That's probably the best you are going to see. While I agree the evidence suggests (pretty strongly to me) that even 20% is tough for these motors, the fact is we don't have a full on IT build to evaluate.

In any event, the issue is still open. I (again personally) hope we get this done next meeting. We'll see.
Click to expand...

They dyno I gave you what made 108whp is a full tilt buggie motor that was built by TED componets. My motor, has every possible thing done to it that I could find, sans a header built on a dyno and made 106.75, others are in teh 103 to 104 range on a dyno that is not ego-inflated. All those numbers are below 15%, let alone 20 or 25%. Even the few inflated dyno's that you can find (though teh majority shows I am right) are below 20%. Stock rebuild dynos are around 97hp. I mean the cars are so un-competitive it is rediculous. How much more time and money do I need to invest in my car before someone looks?

I am not going to make a mod list, but you name it it has it. Custom made struts housing DA konis, Bearing LCA's, custom header, intake tube, spent hours on the dyno, custom rings, and alot more setting and testing the suspension than actually racing this year. light wheels, sticky tires, aero data, tuned exhaust, tested brake pads, etc. what more?

What more information does the ITAC need? Seriously? 100lbs or 200lbs isn't going to make it a "class killer". we would have to make something like 125-130 something hp to the wheels at the current weight.

This is just like this year at sebring, when a guy came up with no knoledge on MR2 and told me my motor should be making 130hp. I told him more than he cared to hear, but no mater how much facts I told him he said "well your missing something", and I watched him balk up in the corners then mutilate me in the straights. I talked to a few others and their solutions were cheating. I am not going to do that. I would change class before that.

At roebling I got lucky and snuck into the lead after the leaders had an issue on lap 1. I had a 3 car length lead coming out of 9. By turn 1 I was a car or so behind them. same class.
 
Last edited:
Steve, we are looking. I would say that other than perhaps the ITA Miata, this car has gotten more discussion than any other over the last year or so.

I don't remember any of they dyno plots you sent Josh and I being represented as IT builds. They were N/A builds for various different applications, if I recall correctly.

I remember you saying a guy named Ted built one full on IT and made 108 or 110? Which was 15%? If we could get that sheet it would be very helpful.

We'd need to see the sheet and the list of what was done.

Look, I told you before I personally think the car needs help. I should be a popular car in ITB and it's not, and I (personally) know that is because of the weight.

I'll keep pushing for what I think is right. That is all I can do.
 
RE: the 300ZX

I hope you guys asked the MYRIAD of builders who know them from Prod and GT. AND learned what they made in stock form in the old SSA.

Ya blew it. Sorry Tristan, what information did you submit to refute the 30%?
 
#3422 (Sean Sweeney) Allow Mazda 13B Non ported motor in STL at appropriate weight
In 9.1.4.3.G.2 change Mazda 12A weight from 2365 to [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]2225[/FONT][/FONT]. Add the [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]Mazda 13B at 2615[/FONT][/FONT]. [FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]No porting is permitted in either [/FONT][/FONT][FONT=Arial,Arial][FONT=Arial,Arial]engine. The 5th and 6th intake port actuators and valves may be removed or disabled.
[/FONT][/FONT]
Does this mean what I think it means? My ITS RX-7 in STL?
 
No, I'm pretty sure we got this right.

The rule is 25% default unless there is compelling evidence to the contrary.

All we have is a dyno sheet for (my car) showing a lot of wheel hp on an SSA "build." That car has some visibly illegal stuff on the suspension, so who knows about the motor.

The N/A build information we were able to find in no way supports a 30% gain on this motor. Admittedly, it's not an IT build, but basic stuff (headers, etc.) doesn't result in big power gains on it.

Prod and GT have no bearing on an IT build -- you know that.

The BIG problem we have with this car is it was tagged with 30% with no real evidentiary trail of why, other than a very suspect dyno sheet. That's not how we do things. It's 25% unless we have a lot of evidence of IT builds either on the high side or low side.

P.S. - I recused myself from the vote AND am selling the car I have.
Andy Bettencourt said:
RE: the 300ZX

I hope you guys asked the MYRIAD of builders who know them from Prod and GT. AND learned what they made in stock form in the old SSA.

Ya blew it. Sorry Tristan, what information did you submit to refute the 30%?
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
Prod and GT have no bearing on an IT build -- you know that.

.
Click to expand...

Except there are a ton of builders that have experience with modified variants of that 3.0. THEY know how certain allowances in IT prep can increase HP.

I sure hoped you talked with at least one builder familiar with them. You would do the same thing on a new classification (assuming the car was old enough and not a 5 year old 'new' car).
 
Actually, no, we wouldn't. We'd assume 25% unless there was strong evidence to the contrary. Speculation on what an IT build might make wouldn't cut it.

There's no evidence this car will make 30%. When and if there is, I would support a change to 30%.

This is probably an area of how classification works that has changed since you left the ITAC. We have a STRONG preference for classing at 25% initially until proven wrong with actual evidence.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top