March 2014 Fastrack

Greg Amy said:
"'Cause Better".

Remember, we have separate spec lines now.
Click to expand...

It's the 'best' of the spec line but it's the weight the process tells it to be. It's the poster child for how UD/BD should work. Again, you could pull a spec line out (S4) and add a version at a lighter weight...but it allows people to create a GTUs if they want to.

Should be the same with the RX8. UD to the best RX8 'stuff' because it all bolts on and the effect is no extra weight per the process.
 
One controversial consideration in determining if a separate spec line is needed is cost. If an updated piece 'requires' the established racing community to spend a ton of money to 'keep pace' then it's for a sure a talking point.
 
if we are going to rely on UD/BD and VIN rules, and their correct application as supervised by the protest and appeals process, which we certainly may, then I have a few issues with Jeff's list.

1 - ITB civics (EG) why separate body types, so what? if an option from one was available or standard equipment on the other, fair game to UD/BD. if that option came standard on one and not the other (say, PS from the EG DX) then to remove it from the body style it was standard equipment on would be to create a model in direct contradiction to the VIN rule. I see no issue then in merging spec lines. and worrying about a hatch bolted to the coupe... that's just silly. see note***

2 - RSX-S. one line, call it a 02-06, argue over 200, 210, or 201 hp later (call it 210 for now).

3 - ITB mustang - screw it, leave it alone. certainly hasn't been a problem yet other than being the poster child for UD/BD options.

4 - RX8 - one line

basically, if I can see the changes when I squint from 100 ft, new specline. if the motor is a fully different thing (i.e. D15 vs D16 vs B16) new spec line. otherwise - go play.

is that about what everyone is thinking? if not, WHY not? it seems consistent to me.


***by the same token, why the hell would we keep a guy in a coupe from removing the PS the guy in the hatch may run without, or running the larger 4 wheel disk brakes from the LX 4dr off of the 2/3dr DX's (doing so on the 4dr DX magically transforms it into an LX)? all have the same motor and other process inputs, and rated hp despite the standard equipment nature of options like PS which we know had a ~7hp affect in stock trim that OBVIOUSLY wasn't accounted for in the literature. other than the trim letters, wheelbase, and brake sizes it's the same specline with the same weight. we have FIVE (5) spec lines for this one motor between 2 dr DX, 3dr DX, 4dr DX, 4dr LX, and Del Sol S. I need to know WHY someone would have issue with this and NOT with the FC RX7. I know chunks of the community think it is inconstant to allow S4-S5 updating but not making the best D15B7 civic

And yes, *I* get that it is incompatible with the VIN rule. I understand that there was no ABS equipped no power steering D15 coupe in the US, but to many it seems "unfair" that the 4dr with PS and ABS is the same weight as the hatch or Del Sol without ABS and without PS, and the PS and small brake coupe, too. If "all that matters" is process output and weight... where does this slope level out?
 
Last edited:
I have always wondered why any car is forced to keep the power steering, instead of allowing the lines to be looped. Nowhere in the process do you look at the power drag of accessories. Yes, most have "special" pullies that make it spin but is it really such a big deal to drop it?

ABS has to be disabled and can be removed so why is that an issue?
 
Chip42 said:
other than the trim letters, wheelbase, and brake sizes it's the same specline with the same weight. we have FIVE (5) spec lines for this one motor between 2 dr DX, 3dr DX, 4dr DX, 4dr LX, and Del Sol S. I need to know WHY someone would have issue with this and NOT with the FC RX7. I know chunks of the community think it is inconstant to allow S4-S5 updating but not making the best D15B7 civic
Click to expand...

Because it's not the same. The FC's are the same chassis, same wheelbase, same body, same suspension, same everything...just trim levels within...plus the engine output.

When we talk about Frankenstein cars, we talk about mixing and matching to create a combination that is better than what was available from the factory. If X wheelbase plus X body style plus X brakes plus X steering rack ratio plus X, X, X equals the best combination that was never a 'real' car, then it's not appropriate.

Like have been stated, people take their FC's and build them into a actual car that was actually produced. Not the same.
 
seckerich said:
I have always wondered why any car is forced to keep the power steering, instead of allowing the lines to be looped. Nowhere in the process do you look at the power drag of accessories. Yes, most have "special" pullies that make it spin but is it really such a big deal to drop it?

ABS has to be disabled and can be removed so why is that an issue?
Click to expand...

because IN THEORY the SAE net HP is derived WITH the accessory in place, and removal of that accessory would create a power gain outside of the default for the process.

the civics all used the same engine and were all sold under one moniker, so they all got the rating of the base engine WITHOUT power steering, even though that was standard equipment on some body styles. so the cars that were only available WITH PS are starting off at a disadvantage to those that were available without it, and that is BY PROCESS, though we don't have manufacturer data to base a new output on nor submitted data sufficient to adjust for "what we know". we don't know how little you can get the PS pump drag with underdrive, assuming bearing-centered pulleys are illegal (they are, IMHO), but there is still a non zero contribution. separate but equal is usually not.

ABS on the civic in that generation bumped you up to the larger front rotor and caliper and rear discs over drums (Si and EX cars classed in ITA are allowed this - the Si came with rear discs anyhow the EX required ABS). ABS was only available on the 4dr LX among D15B7 cars, which are those classed in ITB.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
Because it's not the same. The FC's are the same chassis, same wheelbase, same body, same suspension, same everything...just trim levels within...plus the engine output.

When we talk about Frankenstein cars, we talk about mixing and matching to create a combination that is better than what was available from the factory. If X wheelbase plus X body style plus X brakes plus X steering rack ratio plus X, X, X equals the best combination that was never a 'real' car, then it's not appropriate.

Like have been stated, people take their FC's and build them into a actual car that was actually produced. Not the same.
Click to expand...

but why does that matter? its all in the same shop manual and all the cars with that variety of shape and equipment wind up with the same spec line and weight. it's not like I'm talking about putting the brakes from a Volvo on a mustang.

seriously - in terms that effect on-track performance potential, they should be allowed to be equalized as they are the same damn car "in our eyes". or so the saying goes. if the equipment being mentioned was an option, the SAME spec line we already have would suddenly include these things and the weight would STILL be the same. if we're going to pear down the specline to include the stock engines of the era with similar HP and matching displacement and designation and very little else as the driving factor, then we should do just that.

merging the LX and DX 4dr seems like a no brainer, at least in the context of the FC 7 and RX8. difference in ABS model larger brakes, and power windows.
 
Last edited:
Chip42 said:
merging the LX and DX 4dr seems like a no brainer, at least in the context of the FC 7 and RX8. difference in ABS model larger brakes, and power windows.
Click to expand...

Agreed. As long as the cars has the same engine, chassis, body and pick up points...should be the same spec line as a default.
 
another fun one to mull over.

MR2. 85-89. one specline.

same car, same model, same engine (4A-GE DOHC 16v, port injected) 4cyl.

changes:
brake sizes, front and rear
block casting
crank shaft and rod big end diameters
rod small and piston gudgeon diameters, and the pin. press fit to floating too.

rear firewall chassis stamping. moved the air box inlet to the trunk, wire harness pass through to the center of the wall from the far right, relocated attachment bosses for the LCA/toe link bracket. that forced a redesign of the engine room harness, and redesigned LCA/toe link bracket was also used, with longer toe links and revised geometry. updated knuckles with longer steering arms and 2mm wider attachment area to the rear strut (between the ears) using larger bolts, the sturt also changed in diameter. NONE OF THIS will cross bolt to the previous stamping, though the strut can be adapted to fit the older cars with shims and reducing collars.

updated bumpers, tail lights, interior. moved parking brake to the right side of the tunnel, master cylinder grew additional bolt holes on the flange, front stut upper mounts went from 3 bolt holes to 4 (3 used previously were 3 of the later 4, so parts DO cross over). updated front valance, new grill, and new vertical support piece to hold it all. new side inlet and revised ducting adding a split off to the airbox which corresponds to the chassis stamping changes.

updated trans casting to add a VIN plate

updated input shaft to address 5th gear popout. current part catalog actually redirects to the 5th gear assembly from the paseo (same ratio) so there's a 3rd change floating around legal per the manufacturer part update allowance.

flywheel changed along with clutch disk and plate (200 to 212mm disk). flywheel lost a few lbs in the process.

rear wings, which were optional, went from a 2-piece to 1 piece design and lost a few lbs in the process

radiator was reclined, upper and lower support panels are unaffected, brackets changed.

changed to high-Z fuel injectors and deleted of the resistor box and associated wiring

updated air flow meter


all 112hp rated. all on the same specline, and would be nearly impossible to split due to the timing of the various changes.

and we have to keep the civics separate because of # of doors.

there's a line. I don't know where it is, or how to define it, but its there, and I think it's actually more frustrating than helpful to EVERYONE from the ITAC to the scrutineers and the racers to the potential racers.
 
My line in the sand includes the body. Different body, different spec line. UD/BD is meant to allow lesser versions of the same car to be updated to the 'best' model. MR2 is a good example of how it should work because the latest MR2 would be the best version with the improvements.
 
Chip42 said:
scratch body and this is true for the del sol, coupe, 3dr, and 4dr
Click to expand...

Same is true for the e-36 318ti and four cylinder Z3... Actually, if you go by the chassis codes all BMW 3-series from '92-'98 plus Z3's to '02 are the same, and should only be split out by installed motor (even though the later Z3's shared motors with the first two iterations of e46 chassis).
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
My line in the sand includes the body. Different body, different spec line. UD/BD is meant to allow lesser versions of the same car to be updated to the 'best' model. MR2 is a good example of how it should work because the latest MR2 would be the best version with the improvements.
Click to expand...

In practice, thiugh its later brakes, early chassis, later trans, and middle engine with later internals and older, lighter block. So specifically NOT a real car as could be found in a showrooM, BUT legal per UD/BD
 
Chip42 said:
In practice, thiugh its later brakes, early chassis, later trans, and middle engine with later internals and older, lighter block. So specifically NOT a real car as could be found in a showrooM, BUT legal per UD/BD
Click to expand...

And in practical application not a real advantage over an older car because the early chassis and block are just about weight and the car needs to ballast up anyway. If there is something better about the mid-run engine than the late engine then there needs to be a split....but since they never changed the HP rating, I am doubting it's significant to the process.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
And in practical application not a real advantage over an older car because the early chassis and block are just about weight and the car needs to ballast up anyway. If there is something better about the mid-run engine than the late engine then there needs to be a split....but since they never changed the HP rating, I am doubting it's significant to the process.
Click to expand...

strength only. early cars are the only ones that seem to MAKE weight, the rest are heavy. the MR2 that is the best never showed up in a dealership. but no, no HP advantage. the damn car flat refuses to make HP.
 
Chip42 said:
In practice, thiugh its later brakes, early chassis, later trans, and middle engine with later internals and older, lighter block. So specifically NOT a real car as could be found in a showrooM, BUT legal per UD/BD
Click to expand...

This doesn't change the real vs fabricated model debate but did we drop the part of the UD/BD rule that requires updates as an assembly? If not that precludes the idea of early block with later internals.
 
We should find out more in march, I forgot that I specifically asked for same spec line and offered info in helping make a decision. :-)

Stephen Blethen,
Your letter has been reviewed by the Club Racing Board and a response will appear in the March Fastrack. Here are your letter details:

Letter: #13448*
Category: IT*
Class: ITR*
Title: Classify 2009 RX8 in ITR*
Request: I would like to expand the eligibility of the Mazda RX8 through 2009 on the same spec line as the 2004-2008.* thanks for your time, if you need additional info on the car please let me know and I can provide any information you are looking for.
Stephen Blethen*
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top