October is out...
- Thread starter Greg Amy
- Start date
planet6racing
New member
So, the Saturn SL2 is classed in FP (prep level 1), but with 15X6 wheels and 9.5:1 compression. Hmm... Why run FP like that? I can run wider wheels with the same compression in ITA... Basically, the re-classification got me the ability to switch letters on the side of my car and run slicks (albeit on stock wheels) that cost about the same as DOT tires.
I really need to re-think this whole racing thing...
I really need to re-think this whole racing thing...
77ITA
New member
It's really pleasing to see some actual explanations for reasoning from the CRB on the "Not Recommended" items instead of the usual blanket response of "not within class philosphy".
Great examples from this FasTrack:
"This would cause an unnecessary cost increase"
"This would create a model that
was not built"
It's about damn time.
Great examples from this FasTrack:
"This would cause an unnecessary cost increase"
"This would create a model that
was not built"
It's about damn time.
planet6racing
New member
Wait, holy crap I missed that. Level 1? I had requested Level 1 for EP... I'll have to see if that changes things... (I mean about the way I feel. I know it changes everything about the engine, suspension, steering, etc.).
lateapex911
Super Moderator
lateapex911
Super Moderator
yea, and we've been talking and trying to do that for awhile...
but...I bet money next month will have a letter debating our response for something!
planet6racing
New member
You REALLY want to go Production???
Yes. For the given rulesets, FP offers more freedom for making changes. IT is a great class, but I want to be able to do more with the car eventually. Being and engineer and a technology junkie, FP was the next step.
Plus, Road America is hosting the Runoffs next year and I should be able to qualify (even with the car as it is now)...
Speed Raycer
New member
Woohoo... no more drilling holes in cages! Wait... are they providing the Tech Chiefs an ultrasonic tester???? My guess is no....
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Well, I was more surprised because of the , well, to put it nicely, the mess that is Prod classing. I know you like to engineer!
What if IT were national??
planet6racing
New member
Let's not start that discussion again. For all of you who are thinking of answering it - please don't. We don't need to foul up yet another thread about that...
shwah
New member
Bill. The point is moot as you are classed as 'full prep', but anyone who thinks level 2 aka 'limited prep' production is IT with slicks really needs to not jump into that pond.
Remember that the limits in the engines are cylinder head porting, compression and cam lift. You will still be developing a custom cam profile, still be getting a light balanced knifed crank, still be doing almost every trick peice of machine work on Level 2 as Level 1. Still running way more cage than IT and still using lightweight body panels to help improve weight distribution.
It may be cheaper to race with Level 2, but not cheaper to win.
When/if I go that route it will be Level 1 FP.
Remember that the limits in the engines are cylinder head porting, compression and cam lift. You will still be developing a custom cam profile, still be getting a light balanced knifed crank, still be doing almost every trick peice of machine work on Level 2 as Level 1. Still running way more cage than IT and still using lightweight body panels to help improve weight distribution.
It may be cheaper to race with Level 2, but not cheaper to win.
When/if I go that route it will be Level 1 FP.
planet6racing
New member
Chris:
Level 2 with a 9.5:1 CR, IT rules for porting, 15X6 wheels, and IT weight doesn't make a big enough difference in my head. Level 1, I'm still processing. A lot more rules are opened, but the 9.5:1 is really limiting.
But, since it is Level 1 in FP, I can understand the restriction a little bit more.
Level 2 with a 9.5:1 CR, IT rules for porting, 15X6 wheels, and IT weight doesn't make a big enough difference in my head. Level 1, I'm still processing. A lot more rules are opened, but the 9.5:1 is really limiting.
But, since it is Level 1 in FP, I can understand the restriction a little bit more.
Dave Gomberg
New member
There are at least three errors in that listing. It should be Level 2; the CR should be 11:1 and the max cam lift should be .450". (And, no, you cannot ask how these things happen!) We'll get it corrected next month.
Dave
planet6racing
New member
Wait, what? Seriously? I filed this on May 22nd, 2008, and it just gets out, and it is WRONG?
Last edited:
JoshS
New member
That sounds like a challenge.
Let's see ...
How do these things happen??
Yes! I did it. I *can* ask how these things happen!
(I was also curious due to the flaring errors in the new EP Z3 listing, which got corrected this month.)
We run an Level 2 fp 91 civic and seem to be doing very well at the regional level ( won every race netered except one due to mouse click to allow timing to advnace) .. and all we have is a team of engineers to make up for the lack money. We have very little money invested. We built the car to FP rules and have been waiting on money for the double adjustable konis and adjsutable bits and rod ends.. currently running the old IT konis off the IT car with stiffer springs. and waiting for money to build the motor right. currently just an IT motor with a .380" lift cam.(old spec line.. currently allowed .450 lift).
We were to go national racing next year.. but if they make our car level 1 with the added weight.. we will not be able to build a true Level 1 prepared engine nor will it have the relability as a Level 2 prep engine. With the current Level 1 rules I can spend as much money we have in the car in the motor alone.
We were to go national racing next year.. but if they make our car level 1 with the added weight.. we will not be able to build a true Level 1 prepared engine nor will it have the relability as a Level 2 prep engine. With the current Level 1 rules I can spend as much money we have in the car in the motor alone.
Last edited:
dickita15
New member
So the October Fastrack says:
Either an inspection hold between 3/16 and 1/4 inch diameter must be drilled in a non-critical area of the front and rear hoops, as well as one of the supplemental braces to facilitate verification of wall thickness; or alternatively, wall thickness may be determined by non-invasive means and noted in the log book as inspected by such means.
Does this mean as a tech inspector I have to measure with a noninvasive device if the car owner insists of does it mean that is a permitted method at the discretion of the inspector?
Either an inspection hold between 3/16 and 1/4 inch diameter must be drilled in a non-critical area of the front and rear hoops, as well as one of the supplemental braces to facilitate verification of wall thickness; or alternatively, wall thickness may be determined by non-invasive means and noted in the log book as inspected by such means.
Does this mean as a tech inspector I have to measure with a noninvasive device if the car owner insists of does it mean that is a permitted method at the discretion of the inspector?
Dave Gomberg
New member
The latter. If we had intended to make this a competitor option, we would have said so. This allows the use of non-invasive methods if the tools are available.
Dave
Dave