March 2014 Fastrack

After the 29 consistant years that my family has been active in IT I think the following 5 things in order should be used to determine if 2 spec lines are needed.

#1 Does the car use the same Unibody. (So an MX5 and RX8 would NOT be the same since they use the same platform but have a different Unibody. Likwise a 4 door jetta vs. a 2 door jetta would be on seperate lines because they have a different unibody, or another example is a hatch vs a trunk would be seperated)

#2 Does it use the same engine type with same HP ratings, same disp, and same HP ratings. If components that are not allowed to be changed per the ITCs are different then research is required to make a transparent decision with facts on why we would or would not consider them on the same spec line. The only reason we would create a seperate spec line would be that we percieve a competition advantage could be had by creating a frankenstien car that was never produced.

#3 Driveline compatibility. Can everything be swapped around between models with no apparent competitive advantage greater than either classificiation on its own.

#4 Suspension design as used to determine the classification of the car. If 1 design is of greater design to warrent an "adder" in the classification of the car than it would need to be seperated onto a seperate line

#5 brakes as used to determine the classification of the car. If 1 design is of greater design to warrent an "adder" in the classification of the car than it would need to be seperated onto a seperate line


That is my simple thought process from the "racer" side of the fence
Stephen


PS: I did mention that we have raced activly in Improved Touring for 29years so that you would know and understand that IT is something that I have followed and participated in for a better part of my life. I have witnesed it transform through the good and the bad... and been part of it all.
 
RX8 sniff test...

#1 Does the car use the same Unibody.
YES THEY ARE THE SAME

#2 Does it use the same engine type with same HP ratings, same disp, and same HP ratings.
If components that are not allowed to be changed per the ITCs are different then research is required to make a transparent decision with facts on why we would or would not consider them on the same spec line. The only reason we would create a seperate spec line would be that we percieve a competition advantage could be had by creating a frankenstien car that was never produced.
YES THEY ARE RATED THE SAME and use the SAME ENGINE with modifications made to it...SO WE DO HAVE SOME CHANGES HERE THAT WARRENT SOME INVESTIGATION.
Injectors are reduced to 4 from 6 but are bigger. Can't interchange them and some argue the 6 are better than the 4 and others argue teh other way. Net result is zero noticable advantage for IT from all the research I have done
Oil pumps are changed and more efficient for reliability.
Oil filter is relocated which involved some other random stuff to be changed but again no gains can be made with any of these modifications
Alternator is 110 vs 100. No gain in IT competitiveness
A few changes to some sensors that I don't see how could be advantages but I admit to now knowing a lot about this. I would think however if a positiveimpact could have been made Mazda would have done it or some tuner would have discovered it by now.

#3 Driveline compatibility. Can everything be swapped around between models with no apparent competitive advantage greater than either classificiation on its own.
YES everything can be interchanged with no real benifit. The transmission is improved for reliability and the rear diff has a 4.77 vs a 4.44 and larger cooling fins on the cover for heat displacment.

#4 Suspension design as used to determine the classification of the car. If 1 design is of greater design to warrent an "adder" in the classification of the car than it would need to be seperated onto a seperate line
YES both cars use the same suspension design however the rear suspension design is slighly different with about .5 inch ride height change. However it uses the same design and mounting points to the unibody. Cross brace subframe is slighly different to accomodate rear diff housing. No "Adder" would be used if we did use a seperate spec line so therfor no need to seperate on seperate spec lines.


#5 brakes as used to determine the classification of the car. If 1 design is of greater design to warrent an "adder" in the classification of the car than it would need to be seperated onto a seperate line
SAME BRAKE SYSTEM on both cars.

So in conclusion I would recomend they are on the same spec line in the GCR and was completly suprised to hear they would be seperated. If you have further modifications that you used to determine the car justified 2 spec lines please share them with me so I can do proper research to determine my thoughts about your concerns.

Thanks for reading,
Stephen Blethen
 
Lighten up Chip, how many smiley faces do I have to use for a joke man.

In the end this does not really hurt me a bit, I don't trust you guys to build a car for ITR yet. I will wait until you get done with all your jerking around and you still have ITB to piss off.

You are the one that came on here to explain your new direction for IT with a much stricter spec line policy going forward. You guys tell me to show you why you are wrong. I believe myself and others have done a pretty fair job doing that. I'm just racing and having fun and not getting all bent anymore about a club and a sport we do for fun.

Your job that you took is to class cars fairly given the system we have in place for IT. If you have to ask me to do your job for you then you made a classification you were not prepared to make. You classed the car based on press releases and minimal information that just keeps getting more twisted with each post J makes. Some of us come on here and call BS when it happens, others that just see the spec lines walk away. How many more customers do you think you still have to piss off? I stick with it and use every avenue available to get it right, or get proven wrong. Either way it's all good.
 
jjjanos said:
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!
Click to expand...

Then do it! I can say from my experience as a Steward SCCA is working very hard to make this club a fun, easy place to race. Stewards are specifically spoken to over and over on how to achieve this... I personally thing the "rule makers" much whom I have had frustrations with for years need to take some lessons.

Classify cars as simply as possible and as equal as possible in an effort to attract new racers, don't gocus on making some spreadsheet look so pritty. Splitting spec lines makes it WAY more expensive no matter what car it is. By doing this, you guys are pushing people away and making it more difficult, not easier.

Raymond
 
Last edited:
RSTPerformance said:
Then do it! I can say from my experience as a Steward SCCA is working very hard to make this club a fun, easy place to race. Stewards are specifically spoken to over and over on how to achieve this... I personally thing the "rule makers" much whom I have had frustrations with for years need to take some lessons.
Click to expand...

That means Hondas and VWs and Mazdas on the same line. Brakes not getting adder? Put em on the same line. Same HP? Put em on the same line. Struts? Same line. Gear ratios differ-same line. Etc. Hell, the extreme is - if the weight is the same, put em on the same line.

As for identical unibodies... You realize that has the potential of taking 5 years of cars and splitting them into 5 lines? The 2nd Generation CRX has 3 different curb weights. If ANY of that weight is due to strengthening the unibody, the cars no longer have identical unibodies.

Not what you intended? You meant substantially different? Define substantially so that when the 2009 Studebaker gets processed, there isn't bitching by the guys running the 2008. You're still in judgement call territory.

Oh, you mean if the external appearance differs? Still judgement call.

If the cars really are the same, it doesn't matter if they are on different lines. The Vin rule doesn't apply. If the difference is cosmetic or a new transmission, then all you have to do is slap on the cosmetic changes of bolt in the transmission.

What you wouldnt be able to do is run the pimpy brakes from the 2000 with the bitching tranny for. The 2001. So, this isn't about making it "easier", it's about going faster.
 
jjjanos said:
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!
Click to expand...

You know full well that isn't my point. There is no established process for putting cars on different spec lines. Should there be? Probably, but currently it's a know it when you see it sort of thing. And here, most people don't see it.

I'm quite certain their are bigger fish to fry in IT than classing the RX8 in ITR - the ITB re-alignment and ITR class adjustment comes to mind. That you have people actually wanting to build the RX8 and run them in ITR, well, their requests should bear some weight with the ITAC. It is unlikely to alter the balance of ITR as few people race in the class, and as Chip says, if the classification is off we can fix it.
 
Last edited:
I have no doubt, Steve, that you would tell me all of that in person. I left a couple of F2F conversations with you over the years with my ear hair smoking. :)

I have always argued - before i was on the ITAC, while I was in that role, and since I left - that the committee and its processes should apply the most broadly-applicable methods possible. "Repeatable and transparent" was the mantra. The competitive classing that IT is experiencing now is a direct result of that kind of thinking, I believe, and to their credit the current ITAC seems to be continuing that approach.

Many of them have been fixed by now but one place that individual listings historically got cloodged up has been in spec-line sloppiness. In and of itself, that hasn't been the death knell of the category but to get the kind of consistency that I think folks want, those wrinkles had to be ironed out - and processes put in place to try to prevent them from coming back.

I'm NOT arguing that the RX8 should be two spec lines. If the information presented here is accurate, they should be on ONE spec line but that's not my point. My argument is that, if you (y'all, collectively, not just Steve) LIKE that transparency and repeatability, you should be VERY GLAD that the default position of the current ITAC is a conservative one, intended to err on the side of avoiding unintended consequences and letting horses out of barns. You do NOT want someone with "skin in the game" to have enough power to get what they think is right - for their one car. That was SOP for a long time and it could easily go that way again, given the culture of the Club.

The NEXT request might be for something that looks like it should be on an existing spec line but creates an unanticipated advantage that's hard to undo.

Now, regarding me leaving IT, that's kind of a separate thread, but I'll say this much - with IT stuck in perma-Regional status, consistency and the resistance to individual make/model/person shenanigans is about the only structural advantage that the category has going for it, compared to the Majors-eligible options. I would think that y'all would want to do everydamnedthing you can to maintain that bulwark and thank Chip, Jeff, and the guys for taking the approach that they do.

K
 
Last edited:
Ron Earp said:
You know full well that isn't my point. There is no established process for putting cars on different spec lines. Should there be? Probably, but currently it's a know it when you see it sort of thing. And here, most people don't see it.
Click to expand...

Let's take a look at at what Dr. Frankenstein has to say about his creation...

1. "For 2009, RX-8 receives improved body rigidity with structural reinforcements..."
- Perhaps I'm wrong, but would that not mean the two years cannot have the same Unibody?
2. "Refinements for the 2009 model year include restyled front and rear bumpers and front fascia, sporty, high quality finish front LED taillights and rear headlights..."
- It doesn't look the same externally, c'est pas?
3. "...the rear suspension geometry has been reconfigured.."
- It doesn't have the same suspension, c'est pas?
4. From the Wiki, "The Renesis II motor iteration that launched with the 2009 model year included a third oil injection port in each rotor housing..."
- It doesn't have the engine, c'est pas?

Dayum! The Civic and the CRX satisfy two that the RX8 doesn't!

And for all the bitching about putting it on two different lines... where's the rub? It's been claimed that this will impose some form of hardship on those wanting to build the car, but if they are the same damn car, it doesn't matter if you split them on 43 different spec lines -- the VIN doesn't matter. Call your 2008 a 2009.
 
StephenB said:
RX8 sniff test...

#1 Does the car use the same Unibody.
YES THEY ARE THE SAME

#2 Does it use the same engine type with same HP ratings, same disp, and same HP ratings.
If components that are not allowed to be changed per the ITCs are different then research is required to make a transparent decision with facts on why we would or would not consider them on the same spec line. The only reason we would create a seperate spec line would be that we percieve a competition advantage could be had by creating a frankenstien car that was never produced.
YES THEY ARE RATED THE SAME and use the SAME ENGINE with modifications made to it...SO WE DO HAVE SOME CHANGES HERE THAT WARRENT SOME INVESTIGATION.
Injectors are reduced to 4 from 6 but are bigger. Can't interchange them and some argue the 6 are better than the 4 and others argue teh other way. Net result is zero noticable advantage for IT from all the research I have done
Oil pumps are changed and more efficient for reliability.
Oil filter is relocated which involved some other random stuff to be changed but again no gains can be made with any of these modifications
Alternator is 110 vs 100. No gain in IT competitiveness
A few changes to some sensors that I don't see how could be advantages but I admit to now knowing a lot about this. I would think however if a positiveimpact could have been made Mazda would have done it or some tuner would have discovered it by now.

#3 Driveline compatibility. Can everything be swapped around between models with no apparent competitive advantage greater than either classificiation on its own.
YES everything can be interchanged with no real benifit. The transmission is improved for reliability and the rear diff has a 4.77 vs a 4.44 and larger cooling fins on the cover for heat displacment.

#4 Suspension design as used to determine the classification of the car. If 1 design is of greater design to warrent an "adder" in the classification of the car than it would need to be seperated onto a seperate line
YES both cars use the same suspension design however the rear suspension design is slighly different with about .5 inch ride height change. However it uses the same design and mounting points to the unibody. Cross brace subframe is slighly different to accomodate rear diff housing. No "Adder" would be used if we did use a seperate spec line so therfor no need to seperate on seperate spec lines.


#5 brakes as used to determine the classification of the car. If 1 design is of greater design to warrent an "adder" in the classification of the car than it would need to be seperated onto a seperate line
SAME BRAKE SYSTEM on both cars.

So in conclusion I would recomend they are on the same spec line in the GCR and was completly suprised to hear they would be seperated. If you have further modifications that you used to determine the car justified 2 spec lines please share them with me so I can do proper research to determine my thoughts about your concerns.

Thanks for reading,
Stephen Blethen
Click to expand...

THIS is what I'm talking about. thanks Stephen.

and Steve, I'm not asking you to do my job for me, I'm asking for your opinion of how to do my job as you think it was done incorrectly. there is no single objective standard that creates a bureaucratically functional trigger to split speclines, so we have to be subjective. and we make mistakes. the good news is that "getting it wrong" conservatively sometimes gets us more information, faster, than getting it wrong the other way. in other words, no one ever sends a dyno sheet for a car OVER their classing gains, but damn do we get a flood when the car comes up heavy. that's not SOP, we try to get it close every time, but when in doubt...

Gathering information to support the cause is always on the backs of the people trying to have the classification changed, not the people who process that classification. we do research, we ferret out expertise, we can go to pretty ridiculous lengths when there's a doubt or burden of proof. but when cars are well published we find the basic search and review process for a new classification to be a pretty cut and dry affair, and as volunteers with a lot on our plates, we find it more imperative to get the car out there than to do onerous research to verify every nut and bolt. in other words, we have to make judgment calls. this car DID have a lot of conversation and discussion regarding adding to or creating a new spec line, but maybe NOT what YOU would consider adequate research. the above post is a good summary of why what changed likely doesn't matter, and we know most of that already.

I'm sorry you think that we are dicking with ITR, we're just trying to make sure the cart stays behind the horse and we appreciate that the class is not very attractive nor very far removed from ITS and are investigating WHAT and HOW to do about it, if anything. customer service is job one around here, but it means service to all of our customers and in that environment we risk pissing of individuals in order to keep the group happy.
 
Last edited:
jjjanos said:
Let's take a look at at what Dr. Frankenstein has to say
4. From the Wiki, "The Renesis II motor iteration that launched with the 2009 model year included a third oil injection port in each rotor housing..."
- It doesn't have the engine, c'est pas?
Click to expand...

and THIS was basically our rational for splitting the lines - we don't know if the changes can be combined in an IT legal way to cause a better set of gains than anticipated. we still don't. the rest of the changes are just icing. any one of them is normal water\bridge stuff, all at once is harder to justify.
 
Last edited:
Chip42 said:
and THIS was basically our rational for splitting the lines - we don't know if the changes can be combined in an IT legal way to cause a better set of gains than anticipated. we still don't. the rest of the changes are just icing. any one of them is normal waterbridge stuff, all at once is harder to justify.
Click to expand...

I am not an engine builder but from what I know this modification uses the exact same original housing that has been modified simply for more reliability. I think the thee are positioned in a triangle formation to better lubricate the apex seal. I know the original 04 & 05 models were blowing up seals at 50k or less creating poor compression and engine replacements. From what I understand they made changes to clearances on the seals and used a different spring rate to gain some reliability. Still not great but cars lasted to 80k. Still not great when trying to sell a car that may make it to 100k. This design in 09 was to try and fix that poor reliability concern. I say all this based on my own research and opportunity to talk to enthusiasts. I have zero inside knowledgable and I didn't pay a single bit attention to this car until 2010 when I got my first one. (Now we have had 6.... Just realized why my wife yells at me... Haha).

Anyway take it for what it is worth and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. You can PM me and I will try to find out answers. I want to try and be objective but you all know my personal investment into your final decision. (Just staying honest here)

Couple other things I forgot and didn't say before: I Think the reinforcements noted above are the Shinka cross braces and subframe that you can get starting in 05 and a new strut tower brace that connects to the firewall.

Lastly, I agree with you jjjanos. It is a hard thing to figure out. I just posted the 5 things that I would look at as a veteran to the class. Doesn't make them easy decisions just the things I think I would talk about. And your also right each line probably could be argued either way depending on how far left or right you are. Oh... 1 last thing, for me to make my car an 09 and run the 09 transmission i could swap the vin but also have to updating the entire car. Probably close to 10k to do that. I will still run in ITR but with my 04 transmission and a few less entries per year to get it rebuilt every few weekends.

Thanks, for all the replies... I think it is drawing attention not because it is an rx8 but because its a new look at how we move forward in IT, and nothing bad can come out of this.

Stephen
 
Cars are the same.
Every car line evolves with minor improvements each year to make them more reliable and a better product for the consumer.
But to argue that these cars have any performance difference is silly.

I hope common sense prevails
 
jjjanos said:
And for all the bitching about putting it on two different lines... where's the rub? It's been claimed that this will impose some form of hardship on those wanting to build the car, but if they are the same damn car, it doesn't matter if you split them on 43 different spec lines -- the VIN doesn't matter. Call your 2008 a 2009.
Click to expand...

We all don't have money trees like you... This class (IT in general) is designed to be an entry level affordable class for SCCA wheel to wheel racing. Today it is still is looked at as being one of the best, affordable racing options in the US. We need to remember that when making rules, as well as determining a cars classification. To UD/BD a car to a different spec line would cost thousands of dollars, even if all the parts are just cosmetic bolt on parts. Please DO NOT go in this direction.

I don't even know who is on the iTAC anymore, so many good people left because they got upset with things... no matter who is on it though they are all volunteers and everyone appreciates the hard work even if we don't agree with you or your direction. In this case IMO you could have helped yourselves by asking for more information before classifying the cars. If need be, use this site and the person making the request... Heck, you could have used the RX8 forum and probably received tons of unbiased responses. You might even attract some new racers who know nothing about SCCA and what they could do with that old RX8 that wont start in the driveway. IMO if anyone puts in a request for anything they should get a call, they have an agenda. Investigate that agenda and figuring out if would be in the best interest of the class or not. I know it opens it up to a gray area but we need to keep our members happy and attract new ones.

Raymond "considering STL ;)" Blethen
 
Well as a "glutton for punishment", I hope you guys address the bigger "readjustment" picture with ITR sooner, rather than later.

I, like Steve and Stephen, have a lot tied up in my car, both time and money.

While I would love to see the car's weight reduced, it would become problematic to get more than another 100lbs out of the car. And I really don't think that is going to make the car suddenly competitive.

So I am not sure what the answer is, other than selling the 300zx, or moving to another class or sanctioning body, both of which I would rather not do.
 
StephenB said:
I am not an engine builder but from what I know this modification uses the exact same original housing that has been modified simply for more reliability.
Click to expand...

Contradiction. It's either the same or it isn't. A rotary is the exact same motor as a V-8 except that it has been modified.....

That being said, if the only thing different was the engine, there wouldn't be justification for a new spec line if the IT-HP between the two is the same.


kevin22 said:
Cars are the same.
Every car line evolves with minor improvements each year to make them more reliable and a better product for the consumer.
But to argue that these cars have any performance difference is silly.
Click to expand...

Mazda adjusted the suspension geometry for no apparent purpose? Damn, that's a heap of money to spend on design, tooling and durability testing to get nothing.

Again, this alone does not justify a new spec line if the only thing different are the bits and pieces called the suspension. If, however, the mounting locations changed at all, the support for the 'same car' is lessened in my view. (Others may disagree... mount your 2008 suspension to the 2009 car without changing attachment points).

RSTPerformance said:
We all don't have money trees like you...
Click to expand...

Check.

To UD/BD a car to a different spec line would cost thousands of dollars, even if all the parts are just cosmetic bolt on parts.
Click to expand...

And if the cost is that great, doesn't that suggest that maybe the cars aren't the same car?

Heck, you could have used the RX8 forum and probably received tons of unbiased responses.
Click to expand...

UNbiased? You want to try that one again?

- 1. If the cars really are the same, then putting it on the same spec line or a different spec line won't make a damn bit of difference because the prevailing opinion among the (un)biased owners of the car is that it is too damn heavy at process weight.

- 2. It seems to me that Mazda, the ultimate authority on the car, seems to be telling everyone that the post-2009 car is a reboot. As in a different car. Or maybe I just am reading the materials the wrong way.

- 3. If the cars really are the same, then putting it on the same spec line or a different spec line won't make a damn bit of difference because the prevailing opinion among the (un)biased owners of the car is that it is too damn heavy at process weight. (repeated for emphasis.)
 
Jonas, (not sure your real name sorry if that is incorrect) A V8 would not use the same housing no matter how much you modify it. It's simply not possible. Send me your email and I will send a youtube video on how a rotary works vs a traditional combustion engine that uses pistons. They are significantly different. While on the subject for those that know about rotary engines You actually can't even use a 12a housing to make a renisis engine, totally different housings.

Stephen.

Ps: I have probably participated in as much ITR events in an rx8 as anybody and never complained about the weight. Not sure I can get it much lower than process weight. Currently I am about 60lbs over. If the performance envelop of ITR goes up I am in real trouble... I think I could get rid of some of the cage, the heater and some left over undercoating. But not much else.
 
Last edited:
I'd still like to discuss a parallel case with less emotional and fiscal involvement among the participating cognoscenti

02-04 and 05-06 Acura RSX-S (JUST moved down to ITS from R)
the 2 speclines have:
same chassis and suspension with largely same body (recontoured bumpers and lights), same brakes, same suspension, etc...

same engine long block (K20, same head, valve sizes, CR, etc..) with minor upgrades to exhaust (IT open), intake tube (not manifold - IT open), tuning (IT open), and cams (not open, but a small changes and improvements happen over the course of a model). Oh, and designation: K20A2 to K20Z1. the Z1 motor is rated 10hp higher in 05, then looses 9 under new SAE hp testing in 06 (200 in -04 to 210 in 05, 201 in 06). half the % gain as the S4-S5 FC RX7 (146 to 160).

slightly different trans case but same 6 ratios, different final drive (IT open).

they are on separate speclines. according to the logic of many in this discussion, they should be combined on one line. I'm honestly curious how those experienced IT veterans see this issue, and if it is seen as separate from the RX8 in any meaningful way (or the FC RX7)

to us, the HP change along with the engine designation change was the kicker, I mean, who really cares about the bumper covers and headlights? as a result, the later cars get 200# for their troubles, despite the adjustment made after only 1 year of existence. Note that the 02-04 cars are run using the same hp test standard (SAE net) as the 05 and most other similar cars in the ITCS, so this seemed fair. the unequal amount of change various manufacturers saw when they switched to SAE certified HP is a whol'nother discussion so discount it for now, consider the 06 to be equal to the 05, because in reality it is.
 
Last edited:
I will look at that tonight and give my opinion. Can you clarify exactly which 2 spec lines to look at. It also sounded like you said one car has a 200lb difference than the other. Can you explain what adders it received. or was that the difference from ITR to ITS?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top