Nov Fastrak out

[Bill Miller]

C'mon Andy, you know very well there's not enough information there to determine if the data are significant. Driver could be just getting used to the tires, heat cycles, more rubber on the track, etc. I'm talking about a controlled experiment, that is designed to identify a real performance difference between a 6" and a 7" rim. BTW, I'm sure a 175/60/13 on a 7" wheel has that 'stretched' euro look.

And I'm not trying to be argumentative. If you want to shout me down, go right ahead. Darin's a big proponent of an alternate brake package as well as the airport box formula (oops, I meant "process"

) for wheels / tires. Or maybe that's for Prod. He bounces back and forth so much, I can't keep track of where he's at!

Seriously, give people the option. If you want to run 7" wheels in ITB/C, and your car didn't come w/ them, it's a 50# weight penalty. Lets all the ITA cars comming down keep there old wheels (and doesn't make them spend more money). It also addresses the issue of new cars comming into ITB/C that have wider than 6" wheels, while not making 'special exceptions'. Or, like I said earlier, just prohibit the 16" wheels.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Bill Miller]

Oh, and as far as the ECU rule goes, if the entire ITAC is against it, I would think that it would be a top priority to convince the CRB/BoD that it should be changed. They've put the genie back in the bottle before.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Seriously, give people the option. If you want to run 7" wheels in ITB/C, and your car didn't come w/ them, it's a 50# weight penalty.

In my best Bill Miller:

Please forward me the data you have that shows a 1" increase in wheel width = a 50lb minimum weight increase. Why would you suggest a rule cahnge that you can't back up with hard data? Aren't you afraid you will affect the competitive balance currently in the class?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[erlrich]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Oh, and as far as the ECU rule goes, if the entire ITAC is against it

Ok, that one got my attention too... Just for the record, what would the majority of the ITAC members do with the ECU rule, assuming something could be done?

Earl

[This message has been edited by erlrich (edited October 10, 2004).]

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
In my best Bill Miller:

Please forward me the data you have that shows a 1" increase in wheel width = a 50lb minimum weight increase. Why would you suggest a rule cahnge that you can't back up with hard data? Aren't you afraid you will affect the competitive balance currently in the class?

AB

Andy,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you and the rest of the ITAC arbitrarily (sp?) assign the weight values to the 'adders' you use in the car classification/specification 'process' [sic]? Isn't that why some of you are against publishing the formula, because you don't want people saying "Hey, how can xxx and yyy both be worth zzz pounds?"

And weren't you (or was it Darin or George?) the one that said that if you got the weight w/in 50-100 lbs, that was close enough? Talk about being argumentative. And please, making comments about people not worrying about upsetting the competitive balance of the class is disingenuous, in light of the way cars like the gen. 1 RX7, AW11 MR2, etc. have been further marginalized by pushing more ITS cars into ITA. Or, do you figure that since those cars aren't competitive currently, what does it matter if they finish 20th or 15th?

Also, I don't recall seeing this kind of concern about opening up the shock rule to allow threaded-body shocks. You've essentially made everyone go out and update their shock package, if they want to remain competitive. Tell me that's not going to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots.

Note: Please don't take this as me not supporting the new shock rule, because I do support it. But please don't pick and choose which advancements that you don't want to support, and claim that it will cost people more money.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[ITSRX7]

Earl,

I can't speak for the majority but *I* would like to return the rule to '100% fatory hardware'. For those cars that can flash in new parameters, that is a factor considered when minimum weight is set (or reset).

I know most of the ITAC isn't happy with the outcome of the 'open internals' rule but what they would do is unknown to me.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[Bill Miller]

It will EITHER cause everyone to get the better equipment to keep pace OR it will create a larger gap between the haves and the have-nots. NEITHER result is good for IT.

Your words Andy, please tell me how they aren't equally as applicable to the new shock rule.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Andy,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't you and the rest of the ITAC arbitrarily (sp?) assign the weight values to the 'adders' you use in the car classification/specification 'process' [sic]? Isn't that why some of you are against publishing the formula, because you don't want people saying "Hey, how can xxx and yyy both be worth zzz pounds?"

And weren't you (or was it Darin or George?) the one that said that if you got the weight w/in 50-100 lbs, that was close enough? Talk about being argumentative. And please, making comments about people not worrying about upsetting the competitive balance of the class is disingenuous, in light of the way cars like the gen. 1 RX7, AW11 MR2, etc. have been further marginalized by pushing more ITS cars into ITA. Or, do you figure that since those cars aren't competitive currently, what does it matter if they finish 20th or 15th?

Bill, my sarcasm was obviously lost on you. My post was meant to spoof EXACTLY how YOU would have responded to your own post. It's how you operate.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Also, I don't recall seeing this kind of concern about opening up the shock rule to allow threaded-body shocks.  You've essentially made everyone go out and update their shock package, if they want to remain competitive.  Tell me that's not going to widen the gap between the haves and have-nots.</font>

WHAT??? Why would you support a rule that you think is a bad idea? We absolutly HAVE NOT required everyone to update shock packages to stay competitive. The reversal of this rule is due to the reversal of the economics of the parts. Full coil-overs are not 'unobtainium' anymore. Frankly, we all know there is more cost in buying the coil overs, grinding off the threads and installing a sleeve. THIS is what I mean about being argumentative - you take a side JUST TO argue - and yet you state you believe in the rule. I can't figure you out.

Enough, please.

AB



------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Your words Andy, please tell me how they aren't equally as applicable to the new shock rule.

Beacause the shocks are the same in either configuration. It costs more to take a full coil-over and make it legal under the current rule than it does to just buy the coil-over under the new rule.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Beacause the shocks are the same in either configuration. It costs more to take a full coil-over and make it legal under the current rule than it does to just buy the coil-over under the new rule.

AB

Then we'll just have to agree to disagree Andy. Let me ask you this, just how many people do you know that went to the trouble (and expense) to have a set of coilovers machined, just to make them legal in IT? Yes, we all know that it's been done, and that they're out there.

My contention is, that there are not that many cases out there, and that the cost was still somewhat of a barrier, and that it had not gotten to the point where everyone had to go out and spend the money to have it done. Now, w/ the essentially 'open' shock rule, you've just lowered the barrier, and facilitated the increased penetration into the IT grid.

But tell you what, let's wait and see how many folks show up at the early races next year w/ new coilover shocks on their cars. I really can't believe that you think the new shock rule hasn't raised the ante in IT.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I really can't believe that you think the new shock rule hasn't raised the ante in IT.

Hmmm.... exactly the same shock rule change that was implemented in Production... Done in complete coordination with the ITAC, I might add...

This is simply a dillusional statement, Mr. Miller... The support for this rule change was overwhelming and makes total fiscal sense...

Just because YOU aren't aware of the "grinding the threads" off thing being done in large numbers, doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

You'd be suprised by how much you really don't know about the community that you USED to race with...



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

 

[lateapex911]

You guys are confusing me. Andy....stop arguing like Bill...it's scary and confusing. LOL

Bill forget about the 7" in B and C idea...so many reasons NOT to, not many TO do it. And adding a weight option? Again...why? Isn't the rulebook daunting enough already to a guy thinking about getting involved?

Options cost money...you either have to test both, or have great predictive software, or know someone who has done the testing that you trust if you want to be competitive.

Prod has plenty of options and intracacies. We don't need to follow that example.

And man, don't I wish we could reverse time! Yes, the ECU rule change WAS a monumentally bad decision, but the secenario wasn't great either. God knows we have a hard enough time policing the easy stuff already. But reverse the rule?? Even I have a hard time with that.

If you were to do that, it would really screw guys who spent a BOATload of money, and even more time. The ONLY way would be to announce it with plenty of lead time, but even that would suck.

It's a great example why rule changes need to be really well thought out, and made with extreme care.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

 

[apr67]

I see no way that full coilovers are a competitve advantage at all vs the old rules.

This just made it a bit cheaper for those who already have good shocks and struts, like the ground control stuff.

The old rule was so dumb. You can have a coil over, but you have to go through hoops to make it not a coil over.

Alan

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
And man, don't I wish we could reverse time! Yes, the ECU rule change WAS a monumentally bad decision, but the secenario wasn't great either. God knows we have a hard enough time policing the easy stuff already. But reverse the rule?? Even I have a hard time with that.

Interestingly enough, there was discussion about opening up the ECU rules for Showroom Stock, due to the policing issue...

I'm NOT in favor of allowing only STOCK ECUs, but, were I to totally rewrite this rule, I'd try (if it's even possible to get the wording right...) to make it such that one was required to use the stock mainboard, but allow EPROM mods, or even Daughterboards that add additional EPROMS, like the Wolf units do. I might even add an intent statement that would make the use of a stand-alone MOTEC unit illegal.

BUT, just try to word that to cover all situations...

Good or Bad, the ECU rule is the same as the Touring version of the rule, and it's what we have now.

My personal belief is that IF we can get the classes aligned a little better, given the new technology and introduction of newere cars, this won't be nearly the issue that it is today. But then, I've always been naively optimistic...

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

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And weren't you (or was it Darin or George?) the one that said that if you got the weight w/in 50-100 lbs, that was close enough?

No. You got this wrong.

I don't think anyone said "close enough."

A lot of guesses need to be made about what the impact of a variety of variables will be. My personal feeling is that getting any finer than 65-75lbs (or thereabouts) is about the limit of resolution of our guesses.

So far most people have been pretty satisfied with our guesses. Let's give them some time and we see how we did. If we have to adjust them using the new PCA rule, we will.


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

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I'm NOT in favor of allowing only STOCK ECUs, but, were I to totally rewrite this rule, I'd try (if it's even possible to get the wording right...) to make it such that one was required to use the stock mainboard, but allow EPROM mods, or even Daughterboards that add additional EPROMS, like the Wolf units do.

This is very close to what I'd like to see. Something that requires the stock board to be installed and function in the control of the EFI. But I have zero problem with only allowing the chip to be changed and allowing the installation of daughterboards to facilitate this. That is what I think would be in the spirit of IT.

And, as for the investment into MOTECs and what happens if we slam that genie int the bottle, it's not like MOTECs have a low value outside IT. I think they are wrong for IT and bad for IT.



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

 

[Bill Miller]

Just because YOU aren't aware of the "grinding the threads" off thing being done in large numbers, doesn't mean it doesn't exist...

You'd be suprised by how much you really don't know about the community that you USED to race with...

Darin,

I suppose you have the same evidence to support that claim as you did to support your claims of VW power output.

And, I see you continue to take shots at me because I don't race an IT car any more. Ok, here's a proposition for you. I'll stay out of rules/classification related discussions here if you stay out of the same on the Prod site. Deal?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[JohnRW]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

And, I see you continue to take shots at me because I don't race an IT car any more.

Unfortunately, this board has taken on the look of the Prod boards. Internet gas-bags rule.

Bill, are you racing anything, or are you only here for the arguments ? One race or so a year over a couple of years doesn't meet my standards of qualifications for input to Club Racing rules but, of course, I can choose what and who to listen to. Hopefully, others exercise those choices, too.

Harsh ? Yup (and I'm much worse in-person). Dues only get you a magazine. If you're contributing to the 'process' (that would be defined as the working business and working activities of the Club), then you have standing. If you're not, then your just yapping at the periphery.

Is there an internet equivalent of "rolled-up newspaper" ?

 

[JohnRW]

Urp.

[This message has been edited by JohnRW (edited October 10, 2004).]

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I suppose you have the same evidence to support that claim as you did to support your claims of VW power output.

No Bill, this time, the ITAC actually does have letters... I also have recall of a 240SX driver on THIS board, asking whether or not the rule would be passed and in place by the ARRC so he could decide whether he'd have to cut the threads off of his new shocks to be legal...

It's simply been a common practice. The rule was outdated, and it's now fixed.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And, I see you continue to take shots at me because I don't race an IT car any more.</font>

To my recollection, this is the FIRST time I've ever even mentioned this.

As for the deal you offer... no thanks... the Prod community can't seem to get it right to this point, so I think they could use a few forward thinkers around to help them get it straightened out...



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