October fastrack is out

Sorry I don't mean to spread misinformation.....

I go that bit about the motor from:
http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ultimat...26;t=000229;p=0

I guess there just aren't any used ones out there :P

A local preparer says they only build on the 1.6.... and they're front runners in the San Fran section.... I suspect the IT tune will prove to be more potent than the SM tuning. After all in SM the 1.8's are limited to the stock air box. But now there'l be no limits on sway bars, springs, shocks, air box....

James
 
Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 22 2005, 05:11 PM
The cage rules are fine, really... there needs to be a breaking point somewhere... these cars just happen to all on the line...  I think we can work within the framework we have...  Just takes a little time to get everything in place...
Click to expand...

I am actually suprised to hear that.

I think that from an overall perspective of the classes the cage rules need to be addressed from the point of view of makeing a more logical progression between the different catagories. In the past changes specific to one category has made contridictions with other rules. It would seem a clean sheet of paper approach to cages from the CRB is in order. Yes I know that is a huge project.

in the specific situation we are discussing, the ITAC not be able to add weight to tweeners and move them down a class, I can not understand why this would not frustrate you. What are the alternatives. lower the weight to a almost unatainable level.
 
Originally posted by GregAmy@Aug 20 2005, 06:29 PM

Darin, most of the SM development has been on the 1.6s. Reliable wheel power on that car has been rumored to be from 95 on a crate engine to somewhere in the 105+ range on a Sunbelt engine. The 1.8s came with 10 more ponies stock and more torque, so your power-to-weight is close.
Click to expand...

I know with Andy on the ITAC they know the numbers....and I know it's all dependent on the dyno you want to talk about.....but I can say that a 1.6 can (will) turn out about 111 RWHP with a fresh crate motor, 114.6 HP with a "broken in" (2 season old) crate motor with a freshened head, and close to 118 from a Sunbelt.

1.6 cars, same dyno, same day. (Dynojet 248HS)

Jarrod
 
Originally posted by dickita15@Aug 23 2005, 12:43 PM

in the specific situation we are discussing, the ITAC not be able to add weight to tweeners and move them down a class, I can not understand why this would not frustrate you. What are the alternatives. lower the weight to a almost unatainable level.
[snapback]58878[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Dick,

It is frustrating, but here's the deal... the break has to occur SOMEWHERE... Where do you make it??? Right now it's at 2200lbs... Do we make it 2300lbs??? Ooops... now suddenly a new group of cars have a problem.... That's the deal...

The CRB is working on revised cage rules for the SCCA right now... But, which way do you think they'll go as far as tubing size goes??? Lighter? Not likely...

I'm not sure exactly how much simpler people want it as far as continuity between classes goes... We currently share the same tubing size rules at SS AND Touring, which is where we draw most of our cars from... The fact that SM decided to go off in another direction is NOT something we have any control over... They obviously were not thinking into the future....

We've been told that, in the revised cage rules, the tubing sizes will likely be more SS/Touring/IT-like than they will be GT/Production like, so look for the requirements to be on the heavier tubing size...

The bottom line is this... If you car is between 1501lbs and 2200lbs, you can use 1.5 x .095" tubing... After that, it's .120" or greater (or larger diameter, etc...)...

In reality, this really only effects a handful of classifications, so I don't see it as THAT big of an issue... Again, the break has to be somewhere. You can't move it down, of you accentuate the problem, and if you move it up, you are going to affect MANY more classifications...

The cars that are most prominently affected by this issue are the MR-2 MKI and the 1st gen RX-7. The Miata isn't REALLY an issue, because it fits the process at it's currently classified weight.

Like I said, I don't really see a problem with any of this, because the break has to be somewhere, and it's been in the same place for MANY years and hasn't traditionally been an issue... Further, these values were put into place for a reason, which is to ensure the safety of our drivers... They aren't something that we should consider "moveable" for the purposes of making classifying a few cars easier...

That's the best I can explain my position right now and why I think the cage rules are fine... I don't see them as being the problem... There are a few "tweener" cars out there that bump up against the limits, and they are the real issue. How we deal with those is the real trick, and it may not have an elegant answer... We are trying, however...
 
Originally posted by JIgou@Aug 23 2005, 02:05 PM
I know with Andy on the ITAC they know the numbers....and I know it's all dependent on the dyno you want to talk about.....but I can say that a 1.6 can (will) turn out about 111 RWHP with a fresh crate motor, 114.6 HP with a "broken in" (2 season old) crate motor with a freshened head, and close to 118 from a Sunbelt.

1.6 cars, same dyno, same day. (Dynojet 248HS)

Jarrod
[snapback]58885[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Based on those numbers (and figuring in some additional gain for IT-Prep) I think we have both Miatas classified about ideally for IT...
 
Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 23 2005, 02:15 PM
Dick,

It is frustrating, but here's the deal...  the break has to occur SOMEWHERE...  Where do you make it???  Right now it's at 2200lbs... 

....most prominently affected by this issue are the MR-2 MKI and the 1st gen RX-7. 
[snapback]58887[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

The MR2 is classed at 2370, the RX-7 at 2380. Probably at least 99% of both of those cars were built with the larger tubing anyway. There's such a tiny margin of error if someone were to built a car at under 2200lbs and still be over the minimum weight with the driver.
 
Originally posted by Jake@Aug 23 2005, 03:01 PM
The MR2 is classed at 2370, the RX-7 at 2380.  Probably at least 99% of both of those cars were built with the larger tubing anyway.  There's such a tiny margin of error if someone were to built a car at under 2200lbs and still be over the minimum weight with the driver.
[snapback]58895[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


The tubing size is determined WITHOUT the driver... and is based on the spec weight... NOT the actual weight as raced...

Therefore, the tubing size for the RX-7 is determined using 2380 - 180 = 2200lbs, and for the MR-2 it's 2190lbs...

Any of these cars that were built at 10/10ths would be built using the minimum required tubing sizes...

We can't work from what we THINK that everyone has done... We have to work from a standpoint that there are cars out there built at a maximum competitive effort, which would mean that they've taken every advantage they can...

Again, the break has to be somewhere, and this is where it is... We'll have to work with it for now, unless the CRB decides to move it, in which case, we'll still have to work with it wherever it is...
 
Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 23 2005, 03:24 PM

Therefore, the tubing size for the RX-7 is determined using 2380 - 180 = 2200lbs, and for the MR-2 it's 2190lbs...

Any of these cars that were built at 10/10ths would be built using the minimum required tubing sizes...

We can't work from what we THINK that everyone has done...  We have to work from a standpoint that there are cars out there built at a maximum competitive effort, which would mean that they've taken every advantage they can...

[snapback]58898[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Darin,
You've made a lot of assumptions on potential, you've used shared info on HP to base your decisions, why CAN'T you ask what everyone (or as many as you can find) have done, and then make your decision? Also, do your classification changes have to benefit 100% of the population, or else the majority suffers?

I looked at the rules, read "under 2200 lbs", thought that the RX7 was AT 2200, and decided that I'd rather be safe than sorry. I too built my cage with 1.5 x .120. And as Jake suggested, maybe we could ASK if this is common, instead of assumming?

Don't take this as criticism, as it isn't - it really is just a (self serving) suggestion.

And a deeper reach: can a car be classed in two classes at different weights, to appease those made with two different cage specifications? I know that this immediately sounds like 'slippery slope', but as a last resort, I could see HEAVY RX7s in ITB, and lighter in ITA; everyone has a place to race, and it would be 'more fair' for more, but not all.

I assume this can't be done, but it can't hurt to ask.
 
Originally posted by dyoungre@Aug 29 2005, 07:40 PM
...can a car be classed in two classes at different weights...HEAVY RX7s in ITB, and lighter in ITA...
Click to expand...

A very clever idea...
 
Ack. ICSCC used to classify cars in their "Production" classes based on what had been done to them - smog stuff in place, smog stuff removed, race tires, street tires, etc. You'd look at a group on the track and see a bunch of, say, 240z's and not have the faintest idea who was racing whom.

If necessary, grandfather undersize cages just like is being done with ERM tubing. If that 100 pounds or whatever is the straw that breaks the camel's back then there are bigger issues with the cage in question.

K
 
Kirk, forget ICSCC (whatever that is), look at the MOST successful IT car in SCCA. The Miata can run in THREE classes just about anywhere in the country with just minor changes. I see this as a resounding success for the club!
 
Originally posted by Jake@Aug 30 2005, 02:46 PM
Kirk, forget ICSCC (whatever that is), look at the MOST successful IT car in SCCA.  The Miata can run in THREE classes just about anywhere in the country with just minor changes.  I see this as a resounding success for the club!
[snapback]59302[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Don't forget Production where a Miata can run in EP and or FP with different prep levels in each class and look pretty much the same doing it.

In Mid Div we have all IT cars (including IT7) and SM on the track at the same time at most races. In the mix with me are ITA RX7's and IT7 RX7's. I can read the entry list before the race and the backs and sides of the cars during the race to determine who I am racing with. So, I don't think it would be too hard to deal with one more variety of RX7 - one in ITB. Come to think of it if ITB became popular with RX7 pilots then maybe we could get rid of IT7.

Seems to me that various Volkswagens, Hondas, Acuras and Nissans have IT class options depending on engine type and size. The only way I can tell the difference is by their class designation stickers 'cause they all look alike to me!
 
Originally posted by mustanghammer@Aug 30 2005, 01:25 PM

In Mid Div we have all IT cars (including IT7) and SM on the track at the same time at most races. 
[snapback]59320[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Just IT and the SM's represent over 110 cars at a Regional here in NeDiv...

I see some merit in the idea. Wouldn't hurt to try it but does anyone want to run an RX-7 at well over 2600lbs in ITB?

AB
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Aug 30 2005, 06:46 PM
I see some merit in the idea.  Wouldn't hurt to try it but does anyone want to run an RX-7 at well over 2600lbs in ITB?
AB
[snapback]59324[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

The ITB weight chosen should make it more compatiable in ITB than it currently is in ITA. I think you'll find that at "well over" 2600lbs it is ouside current ITB classing parameters.
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Aug 30 2005, 06:46 PM
Just IT and the SM's represent over 110 cars at a Regional here in NeDiv...

I see some merit in the idea.  Wouldn't hurt to try it but does anyone want to run an RX-7 at well over 2600lbs in ITB?

AB
[snapback]59324[/snapback]​
Click to expand...


No, more like 2480lbs (remember we would be giving up an inch of rim width as well as a weight increase - but this is a debate for another time). But please do take a serious look at dual classing. The drivers will vote with their feet if you get the weights and or specs wrong.
 
OK, so I have a question (go figure).

Were ANY of the current ITAC members on board when the Neon was classified in ITS? If so, WTF was everyone smoking? :bash_1_:

I will admit, when I first saw the proposed Miata classification, I about flipped, but I'm starting to understand some of the reasoning (though I may not agree with all of it).

Unfortunately, this just adds to the questions I've always had about the ITS Neon fiasco. I'm sure this has been beaten to death, so this really is more of a rhetorical question, but one has to wonder... :rolleyes:

So, a comment on the roll cage vs. weight issue. I understand the reasoning of allowing the move and making an easy transition, but why would ultimate safety take a back seat to convenience? In this case, it was close, but I think it sets a bad precedent (and yes, I know, there's no such thing as a precedent in SCCA). Do this also mean that if a car on the high side of the break is too slow and you drop a few pounds, that you won't go under the break point? Please don't say that in that situation it's OK because it's more safe, because I'm constantly being told by people on this forum that if there's a performance advantage, you have essentially no choice but to do it, as you said above (which is why we can't just "allow" other things that make sense).

I guess I'm the only one who suddenly sees some guy bringing a Miata and running ITA in one group, SSM in another, and SM in a third, just by unbolting a few things... Then again, I'm not sure if that a horrible thing or not... Maybe it's just sour grapes since I don't own one or have one to sell... :P
 
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer@Aug 30 2005, 10:52 PM
I guess I'm the only one who suddenly sees some guy bringing a Miata and running ITA in one group, SSM in another, and SM in a third, just by unbolting a few things...  Then again, I'm not sure if that a horrible thing or not...  Maybe it's just sour grapes since I don't own one or have one to sell... :P
[snapback]59356[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
Most responses seem to indicate that they think this a good thing that the same car can run in so many classes in one weekend. I certainly have never seen anyone complain about it.
 
Originally posted by Jake@Aug 30 2005, 02:46 PM
Kirk, forget ICSCC (whatever that is), look at the MOST successful IT car in SCCA.  The Miata can run in THREE classes just about anywhere in the country with just minor changes.  I see this as a resounding success for the club!
[snapback]59302[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

ICSCC is the International Conference of Sports Car Clubs - an outfit that has pretty much eaten the SCCA's lunch in Washington (state) and Oregon. I suppose that it could be argued that silly stuff like multiple classings of a given model helped them do it but a better case can be made for the SCCA personalities involved during the "outlaw" group's formative years pretty much chasing participants in to the then-new group. In fact, "Conference" has largely appropriated ex-SCCA classes in the last 20 years, to the detriment of its traditional Production category, I think...

I don't buy that the Miata - in whatever form - has been the boom for the club that some suggest but, at the end of the day, it depends how you define the word. I'd LOVE to see participation figures that show how many SM/SSM entrants are new - compared the number of new participants pre-Miata wave. I have a suspicion that its success has been at the expense of participation in other Regional classes.

Second, ask yourself how much participation will be hurt when (not if) Mazda pulls the plug on its parts support program. The answer is "at least some," I'm pretty sure. Sports Renault was going to change the world, too until the class had to compete, unsubsidized in the marketplace.

Again, I'd have to see the figures but I also don't buy that the Miata is cheaper than other options available prior to its introduction - once the data is standardized against "competitiveness" (the cost to run at any particular place in the potential-to-win continuum. A hell of a lot of Miati are pro-built and maintained seats that are significantly more expensive - in terms of pure dollars - than would be similarly competitive ITC/ITB cars.

I may well be proved wrong - it happened once :) - but in 10 years, I suspect that the short-term benefits of SM will have translated into very little, if any, lasting value to Club Racing program success. The correction of ITA, moving the ITS orphans down, will have a much greater lasting value, I'll bet - including the Neon moving to A.

K
 
With SM now a national class i think the regional SM numbers will drop slightly as it did in AS...It gets real expensive when the rich start racing them dropping the big$$$ to be competitive...I think simply adding new cars competitively will bring better numbers to our sport...How many neons are out there that got sold or simply not raced at all because it went to ITS??? It is easy to see that it belongs in ITA from the beginning. So what if it may be an overdog...look how long the Integra has been classified in ITA and in just the last few years the grids are growing with them...lets not be so afraid of new cars coming in...it takes development time to make any car fast. If your car is not the fastest in class, at least you still have a place to race relatively cheaply...if it is too fast then make adjustments (BMW) if it is too slow adjust and move it into a different class.
 
If your car is not the fastest in class, at least you still have a place to race relatively cheaply...if it is too fast then make adjustments (BMW) if it is too slow adjust and move it into a different class.
Click to expand...

I suspose this is the rub, how do you adjust when you have to grandfather a cage setup. like moving the Rx7 down to ITB but you can't add weight cause you have to assume it's built to minimum spec. The only logical option is to do as was done in Autocross and scramble the classes. Form a new ITB class with all the cars too heavy or non-competitive in ITA and aren't being built or raced because of it. Then move all the ITB cars to ITC, ITC to a new class ITD and ect. In the end will be more classes with a smaller participation level in each.

James

BTW, not all BMW's are class overdogs.....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top