Logic - If X is in A, Y should be in S

[cherokee]

I still think that you remake all the classes from a clean sheet of paper or leave everything alone and let evolution take its toll. Anything else is not fixing the problem, including PCA's, it is just a band-aid. Two of the classes will get faster the other two will slowly die out...remember I have a B car.

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited May 24, 2004).]

 

[Jake]

Admittedly not an expert on either the 944 or the 240SX, but a quick look at the specs and your seems like more of a match for the 91-94 240SX that is classed in ITS.

 

[Jake]

And speaking of Porsche, I would think there would be more support for moving some of their cars from ITA to ITB. For instance:
924 - 115hp - 2600lbs
914 - 95hp - 2230lbs

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Jake:
And speaking of Porsche, I would think there would be more support for moving some of their cars from ITA to ITB. For instance:
924 - 115hp - 2600lbs
914 - 95hp - 2230lbs

(He-He-He...) Is the latest Fastrack out yet???

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[cherokee]

I just read the article in sports car that came to me today. It seems that they think that bigger changes are going to be needed down the road, the article talked about another class and a re-alignment. I put the magazine down with a positive outlook.

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Jake:
Admittedly not an expert on either the 944 or the 240SX, but a quick look at the specs and your seems like more of a match for the 91-94 240SX that is classed in ITS.

Hey Jake, I'm not looking for an argument in any way, but I'm curious what you are basing this on. Keep in mind the ITS 240SX is a twin cam and the 944 is a single cam 8v.

I'm sincerely interested in what brought you to this conclusion.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Jake]

I'm not looking for an argument either, and you probably know alot more about these cars than me. It's just that the HP and weight numbers seem closer. 153hp from a 2.5L for the Porsche and 155hp from a 2.4L for the Nissan. As I've had experience developing engines in the past, DOHC vs SOHC doesn't mean all that much if the HP numbers are the same.

 

[Catch22]

Dammit.

I originally thought all of the changes would be a good thing, but this thread (and others) has changed my mind. Seems we CAN'T actually have adjustablity in IT because folks are never going to be able to get over the "me me me" aspect of the whole thing. Things have to be done for the *right* reasons, not personal ones.

People, really. Cut it out before you ruin the whole thing (too late???). NO!!! Every car will not be competitive somewhere, not even with the "new rules." So stop babbling about silly crap like putting 944s in ITA. Its just too damned good for that class. It might be an underdog in ITS, but thats no reason to make it a big time overdog in ITA.
Don't like it? Don't like the difficulty of finding pistons? Then don't race a damned 944!!! Its not rocket science.

If we all just focus on the really, really stupid classifications (like the 125hp Civics in ITS while 140hp Integras sit in ITA at about the same weight) we can solve some issues. Bickering about fringe stuff like 944s is just clouding the issue and making things difficult.

I'm already worried about this 1.7 (and apparently 1.8) Scirocco in ITC stuff. The 1.6 cars are already capable of whipping ass down the straights (as the 2003 ARRC proved with two 1.6 Sciroccos running top 5), so the potential of 1.7s and 1.8s is kind of scarey.
Is this a case of someone with selfish interests getting a move made for the *wrong* reasons? Sure, maybe it was an underdog in ITB, but have we now made it a stupid fast ITC overdog???
Like the BMW in ITS?
Like the 944 would be in ITA?
So the question is... Is the 1.7/1.8 Scirocco REALLY an ITC car?
Or is it just not a good ITB car?
THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS!!!
Ask this about the 944 and you get "Not a good ITS car."
Ask it about an NX2000 and you get "An ITA Car."

See how simple it is? Really. It is.

This stuff really can work for the better of 90% of the IT world, but it has to be done right. Now I'm starting to already get worried that it won't be.

Scott, checking out arrive and drive endurance karting this evening, just in case.

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Catch22:
Don't like the difficulty of finding pistons?

Please tell me where I was complaining out it. You can't because I wasn't. Go back and reread.

Originally posted by Catch22:
I'm already worried about this 1.7 (and apparently 1.8) Scirocco in ITC stuff.

You got this wrong too. There are no 1.8 VWs going to ITC.

Originally posted by Catch22:
See how simple it is? Really. It is.

Thank you for your input.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Bill Miller]

You got this wrong too. There are no 1.8 VWs going to ITC.

Well, there you have it, George has spoken! As I said in another post, get the ITCS corrected then. The '84 Scirocco didn't come w/ a 1.7. Specing an '84 w/ a 1.7 is 'creating a model'. Also, re-read FasTrack George. It stated, in black and white, the reason the 1.8 cars weren't being moved was because they couldn't adjust the weight (legally). That implies, if there's a way to adjust the weight, the car will get moved!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[ITSRX7]

Clarifying the years aside, it is not currently the intent of the ITAC to move the 1.8's to ITC, just the 1.7's.

Bill, our documentation shows that the 1.7L "EN" (8.2:1 CR) motor was indeed available in the 81-84 models. The 1.8L "JH" 8V (8.5:1 CR) from 83-89. Is this not correct?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Catch22:
I'm already worried about this 1.7 (and apparently 1.8) Scirocco in ITC stuff. The 1.6 cars are already capable of whipping ass down the straights (as the 2003 ARRC proved with two 1.6 Sciroccos running top 5), so the potential of 1.7s and 1.8s is kind of scarey.
Is this a case of someone with selfish interests getting a move made for the *wrong* reasons? Sure, maybe it was an underdog in ITB, but have we now made it a stupid fast ITC overdog???

The 1.7 VWs make less HP than the 1.6 cars... Their specs make them a better fit in ITC than in ITB, that is why they are being moved. The ITAC never recommended the 1.8 be moved... doesn't want the 1.8 moved... doesn't think the 1.8 would be a good fit in ITC... etc. etc. etc...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[Greg Amy]

Guys, what documentation are you using? I suspect Bill may be correct.

I was working in Parts and Service at a VW dealership back in '83 to '85. VW initially shipped the Scirocco 2 (1983 model year) with the Scirocco 1's 1.7, but beginning with the Wolfsburg Edition started equipping it with the "new" 1.8 JH engine. Effective with the 1984 model year, I believe all Scirocco 2's had the 1.8.

This was in response to the model changeover in '85, where all Golf IIs (new in '85) got the 1.8. Once the supply of 1.7s was used up the 1.7 was discontinued. That, of course, was the US market. I have no clue what was available in Europe.

Greg

 

[ITSRX7]

We have multiple sources, including information sent in attched to requests.

Like I said before, we will get the years ironed out but the 1.7L is the only car being recommended for a move to ITC.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[Catch22]

Thanks for the Scirocco clarifications, but I was really just kind of using that situation to illustrate a point. Purely hypothetical as I know nothing about Scirocco specs (other than the 1.6s own my Civic on long straights).

And Geo,
You must realize that it doesn't matter if you ARE complaining about something if your reading audience percieves that you are. So instead of constant replies about how so many of us always misunderstand and misrepresent you, you might (might...) want to consider changing your style of written communication.
Or...
What you are doing is dead on and quite a few of us are just too stoopid to really understand what it is you are saying.

Scott, who reminds everyone that a person's perception is a person's reality.

 

[Karl Bocchieri]

Hey Geo,
The 944 belongs in ITS,
A few years ago (1999)a 944 run by Jim Nichols domonated the northeast and won the NARRC and the NYSRRC. The car was well prepared and driven well. It's the #28 944 on the opening page of this web site. The only reason it's still not kicking butt is because he now runs FM. That car had all the best, and he spent a ton on it, and he is also a very experienced driver. Now it may take all three things to make the 944 fast, but it can still run ITS times. That's not even the more powerfull "S" model.

It's more than the weight and the HP that make a car fast. The 944 is still thought to be the best handeling and balanced Porsche street car.

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Catch22:
And Geo,
You must realize that it doesn't matter if you ARE complaining about something if your reading audience percieves that you are. So instead of constant replies about how so many of us always misunderstand and misrepresent you, you might (might...) want to consider changing your style of written communication.
Or...
What you are doing is dead on and quite a few of us are just too stoopid to really understand what it is you are saying.

Well, as I said before, do me a favor then and look back at my comments about the 944 pistons. Please show me where anything I said could be rendered a complaint. I'm not trying to be confrontational.

I mentioned that the best 8v NA 944 engine builder in the country gets a published 183bhp, but that was with NLA 0.040" overbore pistsons. I was told that any piston could be recreated. I corrected this misconception about the 944 pistons and that it was due to a special coating. I don't think you'll find any complaining or whining on my part.

Actually, I fully accept that there are NLA parts for my car an others. It's a fact of life when you build/race cars that are no longer in production, let alone 20 years old. Furthermore, when I'm ready to build a no holds bared engine for my car, I suspect with some serious looking around I could find a set of these pistons, either NOS or used (which is not as awful as it sound for the 944). No whining here.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Karl Bocchieri:
Hey Geo,
The 944 belongs in ITS,
A few years ago (1999)a 944 run by Jim Nichols domonated the northeast and won the NARRC and the NYSRRC.

Yes, and not so many years ago the RX-7 was a winner in ITA. There have been discussions about moving it to ITB. Controversial? Yes, just like my bringing up the 944. I admitted as such.

Things do change over time. I think the IT community is probably not ready yet for a move of the RX-7 or the 944 and possibly a few other cars. But things evolve and I do believe at some point these cars will likely move as the landscape in IT will continue to change.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[Catch22]

Furthermore, when I'm ready to build a no holds bared engine for my car, I suspect with some serious looking around I could find a set of these pistons, either NOS or used (which is not as awful as it sound for the 944). No whining here.


Ok. I need some help on this one.

Now it sounds like you're saying that someone COULD get 180ish horsepower out of a 944 if they applied the effort and cash. But you also seem to be saying that you feel the 944 should be in ITA.

Am I following you?

Once more, just to be sure I'm clear...
Your position is that a car that you agree could potentially see 180hp should be reclassed to ITA?

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Clarifying the years aside, it is not currently the intent of the ITAC to move the 1.8's to ITC, just the 1.7's.

Bill, our documentation shows that the 1.7L "EN" (8.2:1 CR) motor was indeed available in the 81-84 models. The 1.8L "JH" 8V (8.5:1 CR) from 83-89. Is this not correct?

AB

Andy,

As I've stated before, the '81 (MkI) and '82 (MkII) Sciroccos only came w/ the 1.7 FI motor. This motor has the same bore, but a larger stroke, than the 1.6. This is the reason why the '81 Scirocco is not currently in ITC, even though it is the exact same body/chassis as the '80 version, which came w/ a 1.6.

I know that the 1.8 JH motor was available in the '83 Scirocco, but I am not sure about the 1.7. Greg is probably correct, that the early cars came w/ the 1.7, and the 1.8 was introduced later. All the information (including VW sales brochures) that I have, shows only the 1.8 JH motor in the '84 - '86 8v cars. The later 8v cars came w/ the RD engine (10:1, hydraulic lifters, CIS-E (I think)).

So, based on what you, Darin, and George are saying, as well as what was posted in FasTrack, the 1.7 cars will move to ITC, but with a weight increase? The 1.7 MkI Scirocco is alreay 70# heaver than the 1.6 Mk I, and the 1.7 Rabbit is 50# heavier than the 1.6 Rabbit.

As far as not moving the 1.8 cars goes, I'd like to hear an anlysis that shows why it shouldn't be moved. There seems to be no problem moving the ITS cars to ITA, and measuring the performance against the current top/overdog ITA cars. Compare a Rabbit GTI to a PL-510 from a spec/performance standpoint. Sure look like a couple of evenly matched cars to me. Or, look at the VWs. It's not ok to have two, essentially identical cars, that have 15 hp difference, stock, and have a 180# weight difference (solid vs. vented rotors, and close vs. wide ratio transmission are the only other two differences) race against each other, but it is ok to have two cars w/ a 25 hp difference (stock), and 4w vs. 2w disc brakes (not to mention that the 4w car has larger brakes), a programable ECU, w/ only a 170# weight difference race together. Explain that logic.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608