Nov Fastrak out

Do your tires get to be wider with this 15" rule?

If not, why change? I don't want a tire with a larger rolling diameter as that will effective drop my R&P ratio.

------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
BMW E36 M3
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!
 
Originally posted by rlearp:
Do your tires get to be wider with this 15" rule?
Click to expand...

Tires can be whatever width you can fit... Wheels for ITB/ITC are still limited to 6" width...

I think it might be difficult to find 15x6" wheels for many cars, but no one says you have to change, and 14x6's are still plentiful...

Just a trade-off in trying to update the rules while still trying to protect the investments of those that have them...

Hopefully, this will give people more options to choose from...

Good Luck all...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Darin, just to clarify for Ron, the maximum wheel width for ITS will still be 7" correct?

If so, Ron, the widest wheels you can run in ITS are 13X7, 14X7 and 15X7. This will give you some cheap gearing choices (for example, I may buy a set of 15X7s for the rain and for Daytona and Charlotte) but maximum tread width (225 on a 7 inch rim) will not change.

Jeff
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
You can thank the CRB for that one... We had no idea they were going to do that...
Click to expand...

And what standard must a replacement lead acid battery meet? Alternate construction batteries must meet the new "approximate" verbage. I guess it would be 100% bone stock or one of alternate construction? My Batteries Plus replacement not being legal anymore? Look in my service manual (it calls for a 500 amp battery - no dimensions or group number.)?

Sounds like you (the ITAC) are already on the case?
 
Item 3, reclassifying:
"ITS 1991-93 Nissan Sentra SE-R to ITA at a weight of 2490lbs."
I assume the omission of the 1994 model year was an oversight that needs correction?

------------------
Steve
'92 ITA Sentra SE-R
www.indyscca.org
04_27_03b.jpg
 
Originally posted by Racerlinn:
Item 3, reclassifying:
"ITS 1991-93 Nissan Sentra SE-R to ITA at a weight of 2490lbs."
I assume the omission of the 1994 model year was an oversight that needs correction?
Click to expand...


Yes. I went into it quite a bit. Looks like I'll just write a letter to correct it, that way it won't fall off the radar screen. Slam dunk.



------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Good job guys. The shock rule and the wheel rule just flat out make sense. Now it's time to work on allowing all classes to run 7" wide wheels.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> They are in place to prevent OVERDOG situations</font>
Click to expand...

Darin,

This bothers me a bit. Why won't they also be used to help some of the bottom feeders in a class that are deemed 'too fast' to get moved down?

And ITA has now effectively become IT2. It's just that there are still a lot of true ITA cars (like the AW11 MR2 and 1st gen RX7) that just got pushed farther down the results sheet.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
It's just that there are still a lot of true ITA cars (like the AW11 MR2 and 1st gen RX7) that just got pushed farther down the results sheet.
Click to expand...


Yeah....It's not working out exactly as I had hoped!


On the battery thng..I looked into gel cels, etc, of "the same size" and man, are they HEAVY! And EXPENSIVE! So, I just put the crappiest battery that fit the description in. Turns out the cheap battery is also the lightest! For once, I don't have to pay more, for less!

The difference was going to be nearly 20 pounds heavier and $70 more! Oh well....


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:


And ITA has now effectively become IT2. It's just that there are still a lot of true ITA cars (like the AW11 MR2 and 1st gen RX7) that just got pushed farther down the results sheet.
Click to expand...

Except it isn't exclusionary. 2 seaters and RWD are still part of the class. IMHO, this is a way better solution (still a work in progress) than IT2 that was, in effect, it's own class and not really part of the IT fabric.

I'm just glad we can get some of the IT2-type cars into a fair spot.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Originally posted by Racerlinn:
Item 3, reclassifying:
"ITS 1991-93 Nissan Sentra SE-R to ITA at a weight of 2490lbs."
I assume the omission of the 1994 model year was an oversight that needs correction?
Click to expand...

Does this mean a logical progression of the 1.6L to ITB? I don't know the weight they run at in ITA currently.



------------------
ITB Escort GT
NER
 
So, I just put the crappiest battery that fit the description in.
[/B]
Click to expand...

Read the FasTrack again. They did away with the same size, type, and voltage verbage. There is no longer a desciption of what lead acid battery to use! You (and I) could well be illegal (as written).
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Why won't they also be used to help some of the bottom feeders in a class that are deemed 'too fast' to get moved down?
Click to expand...

Just to clarify what I was saying... Like with the Neons, which were reclassified PENDING PCAs, when you move a car down, you risk creating an overdog... That's where PCAs come in.

Of course, there are a few cars (very few, actually...) that are overdogs now, and PCAs are meant to deal with that as well...

The GCR/ITCS already cover adjusting weight with a reclassification... PCAs can then be used if that weight was misjudged...

There MAY be an initial effort (not promising anything, as I'm speaking only for my own wishes, and not necessarily those of the ITAC and CERTAINLY not for those on the CRB...) to adjust a few cars in class ("bottom feeders"), but this will be one of those "rare occasions" mentioned in the wording of the rule... It all depends on what conclusions the ITAC comes to as a committee, and then how the CRB receives those recomendations...

Hopefully this explains things a bit better...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited October 05, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Except it isn't exclusionary. 2 seaters and RWD are still part of the class. IMHO, this is a way better solution (still a work in progress) than IT2 that was, in effect, it's own class and not really part of the IT fabric.

I'm just glad we can get some of the IT2-type cars into a fair spot.

AB
Click to expand...

I guess I'm going to just have to stop using the term "IT2"

Andy,

I think that Kirk's original IT2 concept went by the boards almost 2 years ago. I've always used the term to refer to the top of ITA and the bottom of ITS, the place where we needed a new class. And a new class is what's essentially been created.

The bottom cars in ITS have been given redress, by being moved to ITA, but there are many cars in ITA that have not been given redress, they've just been pushed farther down the grid.

Andy, I'm sure you and the rest of the ITAC discussed the addition of a new class. I'm really curious as to what the major reasons that concept was rejected?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy, I'm sure you and the rest of the ITAC discussed the addition of a new class. I'm really curious as to what the major reasons that concept was rejected?
Click to expand...

From my standpoint, I just see no reason why these cars can't be made to be competitive in the 4 classes we have now...

But... remember that IT Intent statement before you guys go getting too riled up... We can't possibly make everyone happy...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by Diane:
Does this mean a logical progression of the 1.6L to ITB? I don't know the weight they run at in ITA currently.
Click to expand...

Have Tim write a letter to the CRB. I personally think it's a logical move.

[edit] No reason you can't, so no slight intended. It's just that Tim's the one with the car. Then again it's not IT legal anyway.

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

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited October 05, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
From my standpoint, I just see no reason why these cars can't be made to be competitive in the 4 classes we have now...

But... remember that IT Intent statement before you guys go getting too riled up... We can't possibly make everyone happy...
Click to expand...


Well Darin, you and others have gone to quite a lot of effort if IT is just "a place to race your car". As I've said before, the only reason that that archaic passage was kept was so that it could be trotted out as a reason not to deal w/ an issue.

As far as 4 classes being enough, we'll just have to agree to disagree. But, I'm sure that the folks that are driving AE86 Corollas, AW11 MR2s, and 1st gen RX7s would like to know how you're going to make their cars competitive.

I submit that there would be actually less work for you folks (ITAC and CRB) if a new class were introduced between S and A. I base that on the fact that you wouldn't need to look at moving as many cars from A to B, and from B to C.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Geo:
Have Tim write a letter to the CRB. I personally think it's a logical move.

[edit] No reason you can't, so no slight intended. It's just that Tim's the one with the car. Then again it's not IT legal anyway.
Click to expand...

No, that one is not IT legal in it's current state. It was a curiosity on my part.
smile.gif


Diane
 
The battery rule says similar not the same. Similar is so vague it really leaves you legal no matter what. If it still makes the car work than it is similar to the original one. Therefor it is legal. If it was not similar it wouldn't make the car work. Once again the ITC screws up and eventually someone will get protested for interpreting the rule. As far as I am concered your legal if the car works.

Stephen
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top