March 2014 Fastrack

[seckerich]

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

I had to wait a day to respond to this so it would be more level headed.

Many of us have been in IT through multiple ITAC groups, all with different perspectives on IT nervana. The rules and processes we have in place today are by far some of the best I have seen. One of the tenents of IT has always been update/backdate that allowed racers a wide range of cars to scavange parts from. The z cars know the lightest doors and bumpers, the BMW guys know the proper subframe, diff, etc. The RX7 guys know the best shell and the best intake/motor combo. This has been done in every class and make of car for over 15 years.

Has it hurt IT? Do we not have some of the closest racing between models in recent history?

With all due respect Kirk, get off your high horse and lecture someone who gives a crap. I say this the same way I would if we were standing at the track talking. You support these new directions where we change perceived problems that do not exist for the sake of a cleaner spreadsheet. You and I had this discussion when you helped class the RX8 over #3000 originally and I told you it was dead. Only one crazy enough to build one was Buzz Marcus by Speedsource and he sold it for pennies on the dollar for a track day car. Did that long term view help IT? Was he selfish? How many ITR cars not displaced BMW's do you see? Not exactly taking off is it? Now you tell me I do not have a 1000 ft view and am selfish for asking that you maintain a reasonable update/backdate?

Kirk I guess IT was so good right now that you had Cameron build an STU car and you drop in to the forum to share all the reasons. You leave the catagory and tout how stupid we are for building regional only cars and lecture us on how selfish we are to ask for things when we actually have money invested and skin in the game. I have personally put more drivers in IT cars in the last 2 years than you have ever owned I would imagine. Now you support "caution" from your point of wisdom as past ITAC member. Really?

This is not just about the RX8, but I would support the Honda's being on the same line too if the tubs are near the same and just the driveline options are different. If the best you can build is still the benchmark car at the same weight, what is the big deal.

I was over this BS a few years ago when you guys first classed the car and packed the motor with atf and put it away. Saw fastrack and pulled it out this weekend and gave it a bath and started it up. Then I went home and saw this BS about a seperate spec line and had Chip tell me about this new direction of better seperation of spec lines going forward.

If this post comes off mad, I'm not and it is hard to put tone into this. I know most of you guys and respect you. I firmly disagree with some of your views and believe you are getting to the point of micromanaging IT and fail to see the big picture. Unfortunately you fail to see how you change the overall landscape of the catagory when you do these changes midstream. Step back and ask why and who told you that you should or could do this.

 

[Flyinglizard]

For a specline change the question should be; do the UD/BD make the car faster or just last longer?
And.. Why are coolers not allowed? They dont go faster.

Re Mk 3 Golf, maybe the Cal gear set should not be allowed.

 

[Chip42]

steve - please answer this question:

what makes the series 2 RX8 NOT a separate model from a series 1? by the same token, what would you consider a clear and operable line of seperation between vehicle generations or trims that would present a need for a separate specline?

basic points we hold to:
engine designation - a B16A2 Civic Si =/= a D16Y8 Civic EX - they look the same and have 1.6L 16V 4cyls but the similarities stop there. in such cases we use separate lines (many examples to pull from)
major generational change - no one would argue that an 82 and 84 corvette are the same car, though they at least mostly share a motor and many other "details". many such examples.
2 mechanically identical cars badge engineered into different brands - some sheet metal or cosmetic differences aside, and illegal to swap by UD/BD unless the whole set of changes is made to completely change "brands". we class these on separate lines. example firebird and camaro of many different generations.
major sweeping updates including engine parts, full transmission, sheet metal and bolt-ons to a carry-over frame/tub, manufacturer identified transition point established by a naming system (i.e. series 1, series 2), and cosmetic and driver comfort appointments. new spec line?

again - this isn't a fortified position, it was the CONSIDERED OPINION of the committee that the cars were different enough to need a new specline. I implore you to tell us why we are wrong and to do so with details that are both specific to the RX8 and justified from an objective view of IT norms. if we messed up, we WILL fix it. if we didn't, please don't get sour grapes. no one is trying to HURT any car, there are NO politics at play here, and we ARE ACTIVELY discussing how to make ITR more attractive and more clearly separate ITS and R. We just try to make classifications and rules that remain consistent with IT philosophy and put the cars where they make the most sense, which I'll agree is subjective.

we've all dealt with cars getting the shaft for real or perceived issues - when we care enough to see them set right, we settle down and do the hard work of convincing the PTB / yahoos on a con call of the correct answer. at least in this case you are arguing with interpretation and understanding, NOT conviction and ego.

 

[Greg Amy]

My 2 cents...if the make/model/drivetrain (and in most cases, body style) is the same, and the standard formula calcs result in the same weight, then it has traditionally been a "same spec line" car. In a quick cursory review of the ITCS, I didn't see a same make/model/drivetrain/body style that was split among multiple lines (didn't review in detail).

what defines the model for a specline?

STAC struggles with this one on occasion due to engine swap allowances; see last year's Miata M2 '99-vs-'02 debate. While we have not codified anything (and there's nothing in process to do so) generally speaking we rely on the manufacturer's chassis codes for reference. An M2 Miata is the same car '99-'02 (chassis code N and the '95 Integra RS is the same car as the '98 Type R (chassis code DC).

Not an all-encompassing regulation, just a general guideline.

...when are there enough changes to warrant a new specline? ... Where do we as a community draw the line over "what matters" and "doesn't matter" in IT prep?

The crux of the matter.

Regardless of what you decide, you need to be consistent. Historically, that argument was moot and not considered; witness many cases of mixing-and-matching to get something more than what the manufacturer provided (cough, ITS RX-7, cough). We've had that argument many, many times on this very board, and the agree-to-disagree answer has always been "warts and all".

But now, with the separate spec line on the RX-8 you're moving the target.

Which is fine -- as long as you're consistent. And consistency mean going back and re-classifying all existing cars that may possess a potential mix-and-match advantage. But to do it by suddenly picking a point in time and saying "ok, from here on out we'll classify them separately" is not consistent.

GA

 

[JeffYoung]

Kirk asks a fair question.

What SHOULD teh criteria for different spec lines be?

Steve gives us good background -- update backdate is a part of our culture.

We need to find the balance in there somewhere.

 

[StephenB]

Would you prefer opinions on here, brown board, scca.com or letters sent in?

Thanks,
Stephen

 

[JeffYoung]

Here first, if that is ok.

Stuff gets lost on the brown board in the noise sometimes, or turns into pooh flinging.

Greg also raises a good point. If we cahnge the approach, do we go back and correct things?

Logically yes, but that could cause huge problems.

 

[seckerich]

As Greg states Chip, it is a change in philosophy to now decide to be more granular in your spec line seperation. It has always been a staple in IT that you could go buy the oldest, and cheapest version of a car and then update it to the newer spec with parts, rather than starting over with a much newer chassis. See Kips 944 as an example. It has been an ITS car with 2 different engine packages, and then an ITR car with yet another. Now EP if that gives you a clue to trends.

The Renesis is a Renesis, no cams or other goodies to change. Same as the 13B was a 13B in the second gen RX7. Contrary to Gregs statement the 90 GTUS was the target and nothing else was ever combined to be faster than the car as classed. Those cars had many variations over the years, but it all bolted on with no change to the chassis. That was always the restriction with update/backdate, as well as changes to the entire assembly when it came to motors, trans, etc. Honda, Porsche, BMW, etc have all made use of this to build cars out of from early tubs.

If you guys in good faith decide to take it upon yourselves to change this and be more particular, what future ITAC has to come back and clean up the mess you make by moving the bar. You should have experience in this as you are now doing with the reclassification/cleanup process in ITB? You need to think this through.

 

[Chip42]

The 944 is not the eample you want to use, its just like the hondas, a VIN allowance, NOT UD/BD. You want us to treat this like the ITS RX7 and we are debating the validity of that WRT other IT classifications.

The crux is, is the series 2 the same car, or not. Is it a 944S vs 944 or a S4 vs S5 RX7?

 

[Ron Earp]

The crux is, is the series 2 the same car, or not. Is it a 944S vs 944 or a S4 vs S5 RX7?

None of this:

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

New, beafier trans built for the car insted of a MX5 drop in.

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.

Looks like a new car or spec line. I know you guys don't want to repeat mistakes of the past, but I don't think there is any danger here. Same horsepower, same chassis, minor parts improvements that we see on many IT classifications.

I can understand wanting a codified process and wishing to apply it in all instances though. I like logical processes myself. But because of that I'm a proponent of applying the processes across the board and being consistently consistent. That means applying The Process to ITB, ITS, ITA, ITC to re-align all of those classes, then coming back through and splitting out into separate lines all the models that would, by the logic applied to the RX8, require separating out. I doubt anyone wants to go there, but the ITAC needs to choose - be consistent with rule applications or fly by the seat of the pants.

 

[seckerich]

It is exactly the same as S4 vs S5, both are FC RX7's. RX8 is S1 vs S2, but still same vin code.

Logic used in the past was that the S5 was the car to have and as such most every RX7 is updated to S5. Both were on the same spec line because the end result was a legal version under the rules. Either way you could seperate them on seperate lines and still build all to an S5 as they are now per the vin rule.

Step forward to now and we have the same situation with the RX8. You just classed the RX8 with the specs of the 09 at the exact same weight as an 04-08. Motor the same, and that is always the first item considered in spec lines. Shell the same and that is item number 2 on spec line. Driveline the same, yes, but newer transmission, but driveline layout the same. Miatas are listed with both a 5 speed and a 6 speed in some cases. Some spec lines have 3 seperate transmissions listed.

The performance bar is set so updating an 04 to 09 specs under the vin rule would allow any RX8 to use all the 09 parts and race at that weight. Under IT rules there is no difference taken into the "process" with this car that would have spit out a different number.

What do you hope to gain? You have a choice, make it harder to build a car that is listed by splitting the lines for what? Cue the unicorn, because that bus left the station years ago.

 

[Chip42]

steve, the concern was merging 2 equal but different cars (in terms of process) into something unforeseen that is better than either. yeah - long range this CAN be a wash on some cars, and other cars there's gains outside of what we expected with just the known hardware. it's not a perfect system. the objective is to create classifications for cars as delivered from the factory and within some not always clearly defined "generation".

write a letter, we'll discuss it. it sounds like you have a valid argument, but we need to consider the facts. same process inputs do not equal same car, just same weight. you know that.

we haven't made anything harder, the 04-08 RX8 is just as easy (or hard) to build today as it was yesterday, but we also haven't thrown anyone a bone. it sounds to me like you are more angry about the latter.

and you still haven't answered the 10,000 ft question, the answer for which is important to me due to your considerable tenure as ... well everything, to some extent or another. In generic terms, how do you decide to split a specline or not? is it as simple as silhouette and engine? what changes trigger a split, what changes are acceptable? should we just make all cars the best trim, and abandon lower classing of that chassis? what about badge engineered cars? I'm dead serious. if the line is so obvious, please tell me where it is.

 

[seckerich]

Read my previous reply Chip, I listed the basics in my opinion. Would you please list the items you use in the process that you treated differently for the 2 cars? I missed that info.

Renesis motor with same hp as previous models, check.
Independent suspension, check.
Decent gearing, check.
Same brakes, check.

Did I miss something, really serious when asking.


I will write the letter with backing documentation.

Appreciate the bone, just you put it on a 10 foot shelf and expect a yorkie to get it.

 

[jjjanos]

Renesis motor with same hp as previous models, check.
Independent suspension, check.
Decent gearing, check.
Same brakes, check.

Using that list, you could combine different models on the same spec line even though the cars don't look the same at all. Hell, if I looked hard, I probably could find cars made by different manufacturers!

Just because it isn't in the process doesn't automatically mean that they should be on the same spec line.

#URstillpissedoffaboutprocessweight.

 

[seckerich]

#URstillpissedoffaboutprocessweight.

That good, I like that.

No, I believe your original weight ran so many possible builders off that it will be after our second gen cars all die that we really look hard at the RX8. No cars have been built from scratch except the one Speedsource did for Buzz Marcus. ,and just a few from the remains of Grand Am cars. Everyone else pulled the plug. Too bad as it was a rare chance for the Mazda faithful to have a replacement for their RX7's. Now they have moved to STL/STU, etc. Tom Neil took his cars to NASA almost immediately. But the "process" worked.

Did it ever dawn on anybody that more than 50% of all ITS cars running today are Mazda RX7's? Ever wonder why? They are easy to source parts for because so many options exist. Same with all the first gen RX7's on the same spec line, except GSLSE that had a different motor (13. I thought that was the purpose of update/backdate. I get a Speedsource RX7 in the shop and rebuild it to new and it lasts a week before it has a new home.

It is good that the ITAC is looking at all the porky weights in ITR because of the E36 bogie. It is hard for me to believe anyone would build most of them. Tristan is a glutton with the 300Z and it is a very nice build, just way heavy.

I just have to laugh at Chip and I having this debate and my angle is ease of build and cheap parts, and his is just buy the more expensive 09 and go. This from the street tire king and cheap racing.

 

[jjjanos]

I'm not saying your wrong about the weight or the car being on 1 spec line. I, and, I think others are asking for criteria; criteria that couldn't be used to put different models and manufacturers on the same spec line.

Maybe the RX7s shouldn't be on 1 line. Maybe they should. Maybe they shouldn't.

The changes I can find between 2008 and 2009 are external appearance, a different motor, a different oil pump, different suspension different chassis internally, anything else?

Sounds like a 2nd generation to me.

How different looking must the car be?

 

[gpeluso]

I'm still confused about the e36 and it's weight..... Obviously the process under estimated the potential. I truly believe 230 whp is reality for that car now... Legal or not... That's what's running around. 2778 lbs on 8.5 inch rims....

Weight seems to be truly a killer for many builds in my option. It destroys tires, brakes, wheel bearing faster than lighter cars. This equals more$$$$$$$$$$. Maybe some of the porky weights could get larger sized rims in ITS. 3000lb cars on 7 in rims doesn't sound fun . I recently sold a great ITS car (rx7)... The only reason was due to the concern of aging parts that are becoming harder to get.... I currently have a e46 with bunch of different engine combo's.... Non have proven to be a winner for me... Spent $46 k.... Legal power seems hard to come by... This is a great conversation and can see many peoples points. No easy solution.. Maybe just tackle one car at a time.. Do rules only change if letters are written or does the powers to be look at results and make changes independently ?

Greg

 

[Chip42]

I just have to laugh at Chip and I having this debate and my angle is ease of build and cheap parts, and his is just buy the more expensive 09 and go. This from the street tire king and cheap racing.

come on steve - you know how this works and you MIGHT still be a bit sensitive about the shafting the RX8 received in the past. this is not an attempt to do harm, it is an attempt to satisfy a request - to classify the 09 RX8 - while minimizing potential unknowns from combining the changes with the -08 cars. you have an intimate knowledge of the car, so it may seem like an idiot move TO YOU. tell US whey WE are wrong, through the channel we all see, ans stop with the anti-mazda conspiracy crap. affordability and availability are awesome, but they aren't the driving goals of improved touring classifcations, just the modification allowances.

the solution was NEVER actually to buy an 09 (unless you want to...), the solution is to convince US (I'm 17% of the committee, remember - I just happen to be a glutton for punishment and come on here and attempt to help explain our intentions and motives and try and find consensus with the community) that the S2 is simply an upgrade to the S1. pretend I'm sold. get down off the cross and convince the rest of the committee.

the discussion that this needs to breed is still being addressed from the POV of the RX8. address it for the borgwald. when do we split the specline?

if you want a case study, use the S4/S5 and RSX-S speclines as your ying and yang as they are substantially simillar situations with different classification outcomes (combined and split)

 

[Ron Earp]

How about the IT advisory committee, using the IT Classification Process, or other defined processes, convince the membership that the RX8 S2 is a different car to the RX8 S1?

I don't think it passes the test, whatever test that might be. The IT classification process looks at horsepower, double wishbone suspensions, struts, live axles, and arbitrary FWD, torque, and maybe solid axle modifiers. None of that changed with the second generation RX8.

The separate lines for cars is like porn, "I know it when I see it situation". I'd understand it if Mazda put a 4 cylinder in for the 2009 RX8 that made exactly the same hp and tq as the rotary, then yes, you need to have a separate line for the car. But that didn't happen. The car is basically the same as far as IT is concerned. put it in the same line and move on.

 

[jjjanos]

I don't think it passes the test, whatever test that might be. The IT classification process looks at horsepower, double wishbone suspensions, struts, live axles, and arbitrary FWD, torque, and maybe solid axle modifiers. None of that changed with the second generation RX8.

Then put the CRX and the Civic on the same line.... Just saying.

The car is basically the same as far as IT is concerned. put it in the same line and move on.

So the only thing that makes a car different is if the difference is in something contained within the process? Hell, we can do a shit load of consolidation!