March 2014 Fastrack
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
a lot of the reason for the 09+ RX8 being separated was to put a stop to clustering cars of a single "generation" or silhouette onto a single line that includes a variety of changes that might inadvertently result in a better than expected combination using UD/BD allowances. the poster child of this is the ITB mustang but there are a lot of spec lines that have this going on. hard to fix those, but that doesn't mean we should repeat "mistakes." that's not to say that we wouldn't merge them (RX8 lines) back if we were shown that we over-reacted, but it's better to start with a restriction than to try and put the genie back in the bottle IMHO.
Jeff misspoke - it's the TSX that is under construction and requested to move to ITS. the RSX was also in R and as Andy guessed, the conversation about dual classing, the ITS-R civic request, and a lot of follow on discussion about the lack of R cars on track and the speed creep in production cars meant we chose to effectively start "dropping the bottom out" of R. I don't know if moving S up is in the cards, it's stable even if it's vintage, but speeding up R would be a good thing as far as I'm concerned. in any change there are winners and losers, and we'll not make any decision like this lightly, so for right now, it's a discussion. but yeah, cars like the 350Z really should be allowed in ITR, philosophically.
the 16V VWs are not a real threat to ITB IMHO. they gained weight and are among the (if not THE) heaviest cars in the class and suffer a lot of "non gains" according to the people that know them. also, please everyone remember that a 12A RX7 would gain a fair amount of weight as well as a wheel size drop if moved to B so current on track performance isn't a very good indicator of its potential competitiveness. similar to ITR, there's some real bottom feeders in A and S that should be looked at for a nudge down. again, a request and a good review is needed for any change.
and please stop it with "the Hondas in ITB".
Jeff misspoke - it's the TSX that is under construction and requested to move to ITS. the RSX was also in R and as Andy guessed, the conversation about dual classing, the ITS-R civic request, and a lot of follow on discussion about the lack of R cars on track and the speed creep in production cars meant we chose to effectively start "dropping the bottom out" of R. I don't know if moving S up is in the cards, it's stable even if it's vintage, but speeding up R would be a good thing as far as I'm concerned. in any change there are winners and losers, and we'll not make any decision like this lightly, so for right now, it's a discussion. but yeah, cars like the 350Z really should be allowed in ITR, philosophically.
the 16V VWs are not a real threat to ITB IMHO. they gained weight and are among the (if not THE) heaviest cars in the class and suffer a lot of "non gains" according to the people that know them. also, please everyone remember that a 12A RX7 would gain a fair amount of weight as well as a wheel size drop if moved to B so current on track performance isn't a very good indicator of its potential competitiveness. similar to ITR, there's some real bottom feeders in A and S that should be looked at for a nudge down. again, a request and a good review is needed for any change.
and please stop it with "the Hondas in ITB".
seckerich
New member
a lot of the reason for the 09+ RX8 being separated was to put a stop to clustering cars of a single "generation" or silhouette onto a single line that includes a variety of changes that might inadvertently result in a better than expected combination using UD/BD allowances. the poster child of this is the ITB mustang but there are a lot of spec lines that have this going on. hard to fix those, but that doesn't mean we should repeat "mistakes." that's not to say that we wouldn't merge them (RX8 lines) back if we were shown that we over-reacted, but it's better to start with a restriction than to try and put the genie back in the bottle IMHO.
It will be hard to say you overreacted when nobody is really building or racing many ITR cars. When you wish to fix perceived problems from the past, you either do it to everyone, or do not treat new classifications differently. If you were talking AX classing then you would most definitely keep them seperate. For IT you have a hard time being justified to class this car on a seperate line because of the minor changes that have nothing to do with IT specifications. Can you please list a combination of parts for the RX8 that would make it faster? Is this just another in the long list of overreactions on this car? Was this a move to stop the huge number of overdog builds now in progress since we thought we could now use the good trans?
Just tweaking you
StephenB
New member
I guess my concern with this new philosophy in IT is that it will get confusing on where we draw the line on alternate classification lines. For example in my driveway is an 05 shinka edition of the rx8 with stiffer chassis components to my racecar. Would that justify a separate line for that model? Why our why not? What if the 09 was exactly the same other than the body was different?
I guess what we need to decide is what components justify a separate spec line. I was always under the impression that for the last 25 years it required something that created a different weight. For example in the early 90s the ITAC felt that brakes made a big difference and the audi coupe and coupe gt got separated into two lines with one getting a 50lb adder. Brakes are no longer given that same consideration... (Current ITAC took that away and made them equal).
I personally think that IF you could Frankenstein a car together to make a better than ever existed model then we need to separate it or if the classification model used spit out a different weight we should storage it. The RX8 is an example of a situation where both are about the same but you couldn't create a better version if on the same spec line.
Stephen
Ps: thanks for responding even though it hasn't posted to fast track yet.
I guess what we need to decide is what components justify a separate spec line. I was always under the impression that for the last 25 years it required something that created a different weight. For example in the early 90s the ITAC felt that brakes made a big difference and the audi coupe and coupe gt got separated into two lines with one getting a 50lb adder. Brakes are no longer given that same consideration... (Current ITAC took that away and made them equal).
I personally think that IF you could Frankenstein a car together to make a better than ever existed model then we need to separate it or if the classification model used spit out a different weight we should storage it. The RX8 is an example of a situation where both are about the same but you couldn't create a better version if on the same spec line.
Stephen
Ps: thanks for responding even though it hasn't posted to fast track yet.
Last edited:
RSTPerformance
New member
Question 1: Are there a lot of cars dominating because of this UD/BD ability?
Question 2: I have not noticed the Mustang dominating... has anyone else? I have seen a bunch built online though...
Question 3: Do you think that the ability to UD/BD encouraged those that did build them to do so? I personally think that when people look at building a car the UD/BD rule is something that is looked at. I know I did when I started building my RX8 (should finally be ready this year!). Bummed that the RX8 it is on a separate spec line.
Question 4: sort of a repeat from #1 do you really think this is a problem, or do you think this is a solution to actually getting more people to build cars? I wouldn't be so quick to say that they are mistakes.
Agreed 100%... so here is my feedback/thoughts on ALL cars, not just the RX8.
Every year car manufactures change things to make the car better. It could be a simple wire harness change to a new part design for better reliability. To me, you should not separate different years of the same chassis car unless the parts changed make it significantly "faster" (examples would be a "new" motor with increased HP or different throttle body that adds HP, or maybe a car that was originally built with a solid rear beam axle and got an upgraded independent rear suspension). If you really think that you need to be separating lines due to improvements to a car over time then you also should be looking at a lot of other things with respect to models, such as if a car has a sunroof or not. For real... a "real builder" goes to great lengths for a non-sunroof car... should a sunroof car really be on a separate line with lower weight?
People should be able to buy the cheap version of a car (sometimes its the older years) and bring it up to speed with the newer/different parts so long as the parts are not something not considered in the classification process as making it "faster." Basically all cars on same spec line unless the parts would justify a different weight.
When adding spec years IF the UD/BD rule makes a model faster then maybe we should just add some weight to the spec line.
Raymond "Keep things simple" Blethen
JeffYoung
New member
It's a good discussion (no worries Steve and STeve) and one that needs to be had.
What constitutes a separate model? When I first started, we had several different BODY styles on a single spec line if I remember correctly.
I'm not sure if I have a good answer at this point. I have zero issues with the parts mixing nad matching that the 2nd Gen RX7s do. The Mustang concerns me some, since (the ITB one) stretches over 15 years which is a long time with a LOT of different combinations.
Different suspension pick up points? Don't we already have that on the same line with the Fiero?
Thoughts everyone?
What constitutes a separate model? When I first started, we had several different BODY styles on a single spec line if I remember correctly.
I'm not sure if I have a good answer at this point. I have zero issues with the parts mixing nad matching that the 2nd Gen RX7s do. The Mustang concerns me some, since (the ITB one) stretches over 15 years which is a long time with a LOT of different combinations.
Different suspension pick up points? Don't we already have that on the same line with the Fiero?
Thoughts everyone?
It will be hard to say you overreacted when nobody is really building or racing many ITR cars. When you wish to fix perceived problems from the past, you either do it to everyone, or do not treat new classifications differently. If you were talking AX classing then you would most definitely keep them seperate. For IT you have a hard time being justified to class this car on a seperate line because of the minor changes that have nothing to do with IT specifications. Can you please list a combination of parts for the RX8 that would make it faster? Is this just another in the long list of overreactions on this car? Was this a move to stop the huge number of overdog builds now in progress since we thought we could now use the good trans?
Just tweaking you
I know you're as serious as you are ribbing...
so wait - the ITAC recommends a car have a specline that is NO DIFFERENT from the prior year car, which doesn't hurt either car at all, relatively speaking, and suddenly we're over reacting to the overdog and limiting what can be done? I read a huge laundry list of changes between Series I and II - and yes, some of it is 100% irrelevant to IT, but some isn't - like injectors and intake manifold. we don't KNOW the combinations that could or couldn't be made, or be helpful, but that's not our job. we can't be expert on all things. what we have decided to do is to play it safe IN GENERAL rather than just clumping cars together when major changes are rolled out. I guarantee you this exact same discussion would be going on if we DIDN'T split the series I and II cars.
there are a lot of cars with weak transmissions or other parts. warts an all. The Blethens are making it through 13 hour races in their pre-09 RX8, so the transmission can't be THAT bad.
it's a philosophical thing in this case - we saw substantial changes and made a separate classification. if you disagree with that decision that's fine, you know a LOT more about the car than we do. tell us why what DID change doesn't matter to performance EVEN WITH UD/BD allowances and make a case for that being irrelevant in IT terms.
to answer your questions:
1 - maybe, maybe not. does it matter? all it take sis one car and everyone will scream about how it should have been handled differently. you can't have it both ways, so we went with conservative on the front end, and I thank you for agreeing with that sentiment.
2 - mustang is only the poster child for the MANY changes captured on a single spec line, NOT because of the demonstrable effect the various combinations have had on their performance. I know one that's pretty good, but just pretty good, and with a lot of work to get it there.
3 - maybe. I know when a weak part is fixed that can certainly be a benefit. with the way classifications have existed for a while, there exists some examples where UD/BD really pays off - like I get to run 2mm wider and slightly larger diameter rotors on my 85 MR2 that came online in late 86. that was a benefit. there's always small changes made over the years. they usually aren't regarded as "series changes" like this one, and usually don't also come with body work changes and other things we'd usually associate with a model generation change.
4 - this is a philosophical question. is UD/BD a problem, I don't think so in it's intended form, no. it's not STL though, we aren't trying to allow people to build whatever they want. there are demarcations in generations and whatnot and sometimes they are vague and sometimes they are not. this one seemd less vague than say the head improvements on a 93 integra - a change that has demonstrable on-track effects BUT in a package that is largely unchanged. this case appears to be more of a largely changes package with a net benefit of zero. in THAT sense, it's more in line with historic use of a separate specline. again, better to start conservatively.
we don't have "rules" for when a specline is split, but make, model, generation, trim, engine designation, displacement, etc... can all be factors. no one would lump a 95 and 96 civic together, and they do have different engines with the same short block architecture and ratings but ignoring that, they LOOK different. that seems to have been one historic way of splitting things. I can't explain the mustang - it DID have a single platform and displacement over the years covered, but so do the civics I mentioned.
Last edited:
StephenB
New member
Steve is the most knowledgeable. But I can do some digging as well. Just FYI, I do know my shinka 05 has stiffer under chassis parts.
For the long races we ran in ITE and or used NASA classification. We ran the 09 transmission, and coolers for the trans and rear end. All of which are not legal in ITR hence the reason we changed classes.
Sadly I have already broken 2 04 transmissions (developed a 3rd gear crunch). I honestly didn't believe they would be that bad and thought I could just be careful when I decided to build, also thinking in a few years I could just use the 09 if it was that bad. So yes I do want the 09 transmission which is why I requested it.
1 broken Tran equals 2 entry fees 
For the long races we ran in ITE and or used NASA classification. We ran the 09 transmission, and coolers for the trans and rear end. All of which are not legal in ITR hence the reason we changed classes.
Sadly I have already broken 2 04 transmissions (developed a 3rd gear crunch). I honestly didn't believe they would be that bad and thought I could just be careful when I decided to build, also thinking in a few years I could just use the 09 if it was that bad. So yes I do want the 09 transmission which is why I requested it.
1 broken Tran equals 2 entry fees
Last edited:
I think the transmission reliability discussion is a separate one from the 09 RX8 being separate from the -08 cars. I appreciate why those of you WITH -08 cars would want them to be grouped together in order to have that improved transmission, but the question is S1 vs S2 cars first. addressing it from the "-08 has a weak transmission" position definitely hurts objectivity.
seckerich
New member
You are correct Chip, I am semi serious. BEFORE you make these classifications is the time to ask, not after. As said before, unless it is a change that makes the car faster for IT and changes the process weight then it is wrong. Like I said the vin rule lets me make an 09 out of any shell so I can still get there, you (the ITAC) just make it harder for no good reason. More than happy to go over the differences, nothing to hide. It is all out there with a simple google search for anyone interested. As for the transmission and objectivity lets be real. The only reason anyone ever asks for something on a given make is to get the best they can, nobody is objective. Yes, we have been patiently waiting for the better trans to be legal. Guilty as charged. That said, have you ever had information from me that was found to be false? I have provided many different adhocs with info on Mazda's over the years. Mainly because I have worked on them and have the parts available to measure and give accurate info.
The 09 on had a 4.77 gear, changed from 4.44 , open in IT.
Dropped to 4 injectors from 6, no change to intake other than injector boss. No change in rated power and none found with IT mods, we are already way high as is on perceived power. The peak Grand Am numbers used were with the 09 setup, same as the early intake.
New, beafier trans built for the car insted of a MX5 drop in. Irrelevant to IT process.
Brakes the same.
Supposed to be better rear suspension, but still no better than an 04 with IT mods.
Lip spoiler on nose, open in IT anyway.
Rear bumper slight change, you argue the aero if you want, but not considered in IT prep.
Stiffer front shock tower, but also used on the 05 in some models so already legal under the rules.
Slightly lighter, but still nothing with our porky #2850.
Letter going in today to request it be added to current line in GCR, suggest others do the same.
Just looking through ITR and there are plenty of cars that have very long spec lines for components of different years. Precedent is definitely there. You are fixing a nonextent problem.
The 09 on had a 4.77 gear, changed from 4.44 , open in IT.
Dropped to 4 injectors from 6, no change to intake other than injector boss. No change in rated power and none found with IT mods, we are already way high as is on perceived power. The peak Grand Am numbers used were with the 09 setup, same as the early intake.
New, beafier trans built for the car insted of a MX5 drop in. Irrelevant to IT process.
Brakes the same.
Supposed to be better rear suspension, but still no better than an 04 with IT mods.
Lip spoiler on nose, open in IT anyway.
Rear bumper slight change, you argue the aero if you want, but not considered in IT prep.
Stiffer front shock tower, but also used on the 05 in some models so already legal under the rules.
Slightly lighter, but still nothing with our porky #2850.
Letter going in today to request it be added to current line in GCR, suggest others do the same.
Just looking through ITR and there are plenty of cars that have very long spec lines for components of different years. Precedent is definitely there. You are fixing a nonextent problem.
Last edited:
steve - of course no one is doubting you, this discussion is less than 3 days old...
are the 09+ injectors a higher rating? could those be installed into an -08 intake to create more fuel volume capability? etc... you say you can VIN rule the -08 to an -09. OK, what's stopping you? then you get the trans you want and you already have the chassis, and the raced weight is the same. I'm not trying to be snarky, I realize that's probably an expensive proposition, but I think that fact also supports our position here.
I could care less that the body looks different, that happens. tail lights and tweaked body contours are common. if the car only had sheet metal changes, or just the beefed up suspension components, or just the electronics changes, or just the transmission, or just.... it would have been an easy "yup, add that to the specline" but it's all of that. we decided that there was enough difference to deserve its own line.
as far as other speclines already having a lot of changes on them: so what? 2 wrongs and all that.
I have some questions for everyone here:
what defines the model for a specline? when are there enough changes to warrant a new specline?
why is the RX8 S1/S2 split NOT a model change, but the same year and all relevant mechanical parts Honda civic DX coupe and DX hatch on separate lines? (AFAIK, it's power steering - but the effect of that is not captured in the spec line weight.)
Where do we as a community draw the line over "what matters" and "doesn't matter" in IT prep? - and I'll offer that "being the same under the process" is NOT the same thing as being the same for the purposes of classification. if it were, I could theoretically stuff some kias and mazdas with the same valve sizes, bore, stroke, engine architecture, rated power, gear ratios, brake sizes, and suspension architecture on the same line, despite a decade of age and completely different manufacturers, because mazda sold engine designs to kia and everyone makes their small cars with a strut front.
are the 09+ injectors a higher rating? could those be installed into an -08 intake to create more fuel volume capability? etc... you say you can VIN rule the -08 to an -09. OK, what's stopping you? then you get the trans you want and you already have the chassis, and the raced weight is the same. I'm not trying to be snarky, I realize that's probably an expensive proposition, but I think that fact also supports our position here.
I could care less that the body looks different, that happens. tail lights and tweaked body contours are common. if the car only had sheet metal changes, or just the beefed up suspension components, or just the electronics changes, or just the transmission, or just.... it would have been an easy "yup, add that to the specline" but it's all of that. we decided that there was enough difference to deserve its own line.
as far as other speclines already having a lot of changes on them: so what? 2 wrongs and all that.
I have some questions for everyone here:
what defines the model for a specline? when are there enough changes to warrant a new specline?
why is the RX8 S1/S2 split NOT a model change, but the same year and all relevant mechanical parts Honda civic DX coupe and DX hatch on separate lines? (AFAIK, it's power steering - but the effect of that is not captured in the spec line weight.)
Where do we as a community draw the line over "what matters" and "doesn't matter" in IT prep? - and I'll offer that "being the same under the process" is NOT the same thing as being the same for the purposes of classification. if it were, I could theoretically stuff some kias and mazdas with the same valve sizes, bore, stroke, engine architecture, rated power, gear ratios, brake sizes, and suspension architecture on the same line, despite a decade of age and completely different manufacturers, because mazda sold engine designs to kia and everyone makes their small cars with a strut front.
Last edited:
Of course not but it strikes me that if the suspension design were substantially different (I don't actually know), then it's a place where update/backdate might become problematic.
My bias reflects what our resident ITAC members are saying about update/backdate in general. As we've gradually tried to get more repeatable and transparent in practices over the years, the sloppy lumping of cars onto spec lines becomes an increasingly problematic situation. I started to type up a response about the ITB Mustangs the other day, too, but decided I'd leave that to the guys who really have to deal with it.
That something has been loosey goosey in the past should NEVER be a de facto reason for continuing the practice with new additions.
Another example to chew on. The MkIII Golf came with the "alternate" gear ratios (which, though a spurious CA-only anomaly, do seem to be a pretty handy advantage on the track). The MkIII Jetta was never shown in any documentation we could find as having benefited as-delivered from that spec. Since it's a first principle that update/backdate is allowed just within a spec line, and the "stuff that matters" to set the IT weight is otherwise identical for both cars, what should be done?
Again, I'm inclined toward being more conservative which is - I think - the logic behind this decision on the RX8.
K
Ya know I've been thinking about this change and I see one major problem, Wheels! You go from 15 X 7 to 15 X 6 and 100-150 lbs heavier then what I was running at. I see the car being no more competitive in B then in A with these changes. Well if I wanted to win a race I'd get something else.
seckerich
New member
09 injectors are higher volume, 2 now do the work of 4. Rules require update and backdate as entire assembly so not a performance difference , besides we are usually over fueled in these. I run 50% or less duty cycle.
If you want us to buy an 09 just to strip for everything to build an 04 you really have to see how stupid that arguement is. We changed the vin rule to allow drivers to build ITB cars out of ITC cars (Honda) that are similar, but much more different than the RX8 tub differences. Do you not see the complete failure in your logic that now drives our RX8 shell cost out the roof now that the early cars are getting as cheap as the RX7 was?
Your list of changes is a little lame. Bumpers do not make a model change. Electronics are free with ECU rule anyway. Do you even have a clue what is different in the rear suspension or are you chasing the same unicorn that got this car over 3000# originally? Not being snarky either, but lets use facts, not myth. Trans, yes, and plenty of cars in IT have 2 or 3 seperate ones listed on their spec line, different lights, bumpers, etc. Two wrongs don't make it right is fine, unless we have to race against them, then it is just wrong to set a different bar to meet half way through the game. Sometimes you guys over think all this to solve what???? A perceived problem you have yet to identify of any car that is an overdog because of update/backdate. All it does is give us options to build cheaper cars.
DX coupe and hatch, not really a valid comparison. Can you bolt the hatch to a coupe??
The Kia/Ford, etc is not even worth answering, really???
I respect you Chip, but your arguements do not really hold water with what has been accepted practice in IT for many years, and now gets changed for one car.
Agree to disagree.
StephenB
New member
I was just trying to be transparent in why I actually put in the request, I don't want to fool anyone, I wasnt being "objective" in my request.
Stephen
Regardless of the RX8 this is a good discusion to think about.
09 injectors are higher volume, 2 now do the work of 4. Rules require update and backdate as entire assembly so not a performance difference , besides we are usually over fueled in these. I run 50% or less duty cycle.
If you want us to buy an 09 just to strip for everything to build an 04 you really have to see how stupid that arguement is. We changed the vin rule to allow drivers to build ITB cars out of ITC cars (Honda) that are similar, but much more different than the RX8 tub differences. Do you not see the complete failure in your logic that now drives our RX8 shell cost out the roof now that the early cars are getting as cheap as the RX7 was?
Your list of changes is a little lame. Bumpers do not make a model change. Electronics are free with ECU rule anyway. Do you even have a clue what is different in the rear suspension or are you chasing the same unicorn that got this car over 3000# originally? Not being snarky either, but lets use facts, not myth. Trans, yes, and plenty of cars in IT have 2 or 3 seperate ones listed on their spec line, different lights, bumpers, etc. Two wrongs don't make it right is fine, unless we have to race against them, then it is just wrong to set a different bar to meet half way through the game. Sometimes you guys over think all this to solve what???? A perceived problem you have yet to identify of any car that is an overdog because of update/backdate. All it does is give us options to build cheaper cars.
DX coupe and hatch, not really a valid comparison. Can you bolt the hatch to a coupe??
The Kia/Ford, etc is not even worth answering, really???
I respect you Chip, but your arguements do not really hold water with what has been accepted practice in IT for many years, and now gets changed for one car.
Agree to disagree.
this isn't defying precedent. we just moved 2 RSX-S listings to ITS. they have minor bodywork and engine differences between them, nothing drastic. They have different K20 engine designations but the actual part changes are minor, different hp ratings (actually, the 05-06 have 2, thanks to SAE certified HP coming into play) but really aren't all that different compared to say, the S4 and S5 ITS RX7. again, just because THAT pair of cars was allowed, before the VIN rule, before a lot of more modern allowances, and before IT started having pro level build energies spent on it, doesn't mean we SHOULD do the same when we class cars now. we are much less interested in "fixing" old classifications that would obsolete or cause expense to existing race cars than we are in preventing new mistakes now.
the argument about updating the car to the 09 spec using the VIN rule was semantic, I said as much. I'm not OPPOSED to including this car on the same specline, so you are arguing against a firm position I don't hold, nor do I think anyone on the committee holds. we read the lists of changes for 09 and decided the cars were different enough to call it a separate car. I haven't agreed to disagree with you, but we did make a decision that you disagree with, and *I* am stating only WHY we made that decision. *I* suggest we be very careful to make sure we don't change it just "because X said to". that said, IF WE ARE WRONG WE CAN FIX IT. the discussion, however, is a good one to have regardless of the outcome of the RX8.
as I understand it, the bolt-on bits of the suspension were beefed up a bit and there were some tweaks to the geometry, heavier duty hubs, different exhaust sensors, a second knock sensor (tuning advantage? I don't know). each of these, hell all of these, would pass the sniff test. when coupled with the sheet metal, lots of interior and nav system type crap that doesn't matter, and the IT-open parts you already pointed out, shocks and final drive and the like, and the engine changes, new trans (not ratios, new transmission family) official designation change to "series 2".... maybe we should have punted. maybe the CRB rejected it and that's why it's not in the fastrack. but we chose to make a new specline. again, read above - if we are wrong, we can fix it. that isn't unprecedented either. I assure you there was no malice, no campfire stories of world-beating RX8s on the prowl killing off ITR, it was a purely procedural decision.
re: Hondas and the VIN rule - those cars are identical to each other but for the bolt ons that change their spec line (and thus, class). the rule was intended to allow a cheaper and more available source of bodies. Since we are debating a single specline (or the argument for making one) UD/BD is the real issue here, not the VIN rule.
Last edited:
It would be nice - for the 1000th time in the last 15 years I've said it - if people with a horse in any particular race would take the broader view on the ITAC's efforts to get procedures squared away in a general sense, rather than judging the effectiveness of a policy, practice, or standard in terms of whether their particular horsey gets beat.
Most of the inequities and simple goofy crap that we've had to deal with came about because a *vast* majority of classing and specification decisions in the category were made based on a view through a soda straw, powered by individual lobbying efforts.
K
Most of the inequities and simple goofy crap that we've had to deal with came about because a *vast* majority of classing and specification decisions in the category were made based on a view through a soda straw, powered by individual lobbying efforts.
K
Ron Earp
Administrator
I believe these are 200hp rated stock cars aren't they? Does this open the door for 190-200hp cars in ITS? I know folks interested in asking for the classification of a 191hp car and a 200hp car in ITS, if it is now possible I'll advise them to write letters.
we really need to NOT look at base hp on cars as the "what fits" number, because cars weights are on the rise, we will see more whp on newer cars, but they will often come with a lot more mass, too. so they will fit the power/weight "miller ratio" of a lower class than one might expect due to JUST the OEM hp number.
so yea, have the requests sent in. if we decide it doesn't fit S, we may recommend R, or vice versa, just as we always have.
so yea, have the requests sent in. if we decide it doesn't fit S, we may recommend R, or vice versa, just as we always have.