Prep Differences Between SM and ITx

I think for some the SM rules may actually define some of the details of what some of these ragged-edge, tech shed-legal IT motors are doing.

Think about the valve allowance. It's possible you are right on the money for the reasoning behind the allowance. So if the spec is set so that you don't have to go after 100 heads and find the perfect one, you could surmise that the spec is a 'perfect stock' unit.

Guess what? You got to do that in IT to be at 100%. Right? (All based on the accuracy of your assumption in the hypothetical).
 
Late to the show but I think the original question has gotten spun around some here...

I think, Greg, that your original problem stems from people being sloppy and/or playing fast and loose in failing to 'declare' what they are running and under what rules. Right?

I'm reminded of when we used to run IT cars in Street Prepared solo classes. We technically couldn't pick and choose allowances from between the two rule sets but people quickly started coming up with all manor of wackdoodle hybrid things.

K
 
Right. Some mistakenly, some intentionally.

I've submitted a request to the CRB to require competitors to declare their prep level on the side of the car (e.g., "ITA/STL"). We'll see if they go for it. From there I continue to work on my knowledge articles so everyone's clear about the regs.

- GA, who forgot about the SP allowances in Solo II...used to run my ITB Scirocco in CSP, was it?
 
... 'cause the problem is that if you let it slide now, it creates a de facto standard, a la "Florida IT."

ITB did translate to CSP. We ran the Alliance in DSP every once in a while, on its ITC logbook. As I type that, it occurs to me that might be where your solution is. Even in the age of the double-dipper, a car has a logbook that references a particular class and GCR page. It's not as visible to competitors and tech inspectors but that *should* define the standard to which it's held.

This whole issue is going to require tech to attend to their own understandings of what's going on so they don't mistakenly encourage the silliness...

...but ultimately, once folks start building real STL Miatae and the low-hanging contingency fruit gets gobbled up, it ought to work itself out.

K

EDIT - The irony is that when we ran the Renault in DSP, it wasn't actually LISTED in ITC. Our Regional competition director said, "Yeah, go ahead - you'll never be competitive anyway" but it was flat illegal at the time, back in the wild, wild west of IT. :)
 
Last edited:
If a driver clearly has his prep level declared, then an open hood policy would resolve most of the problems.
 
FYI, don't think we did open hood during impound at POC and NHMS NARRC races though I was hoping we would. My point, open hood impound should be encouraged.
 
Easy for me to say, (since I don't have my car any more) but yes, I never understood why we would NOT have impound be open hood. ANd the EXCEPTION should be closed hood.

(Yes, I know, certain crafty types might not want their secrets on display, but it sure makes the crafty types make extra sure they are on the near side of the ragged edge.)

And Kirk, thats the second use of "Wackdoodle" from you in a week or so. It's also the second time I've heard it used. Ever. LOL.
 
Hi, good to see some of your faces on the forum. I found this thread right on time as I ran (1.6 Mazda Miata) ITA at Summit Point this past weekend and I really liked it.

I read ITA rules and there is that little sentence in 9.1.3.C:
Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a complete assembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, induction system, differential/axle housing).
Click to expand...

That sentence takes care of Torsen Diff, or buying manual power rack from another year as long as you swap the complete assembly.

Also, 9.1.3.9.f is tricky regarding the door panels. That renders many cars illegal.

As of now my 1.6 Mazda Miata (stock motor) is illegal only, because my steering rack was "depowered". Everything else is legit as long as the 5" ride height holds.

Very hard to be at min weight in ITA along with SM and stay legit unless you're small and skinny, with no fire system.
 
Last edited:
awegrzyn said:
I read ITA rules and there is that little sentence in 9.1.3.C:

That sentence takes care of Torsen Diff, or buying manual power rack from another year as long as you swap the complete assembly.
Click to expand...

Careful,
“updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted …… as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line”
You cannot take parts from a car on a different spec line.
 
awegrzyn said:
^ Correct. To be honest I would be happy to give up points, as long as I could race. I don't have a Torsen.
Click to expand...
So, based on your comments, you would have no problem with a GT1 car racing against you?.....as long as he gave up points???:shrug:
where do you drawer the line???
 
ner88 said:
Is there another example, from another car, similar to the Miata manual/de-powered rack?
Click to expand...

It's kind of a rare bird in that it did offer both via trim level. FWD cars almost never have manual steering and anything with any kind of weight would need it too.
 
different body style civics had power as standard, option, or NA.

looking at ITB 92-95 civic DX (incl. 93-95 del sol S) off the top of my head - the coupe, 3dr, and del sol S had power optional (came with autos only, so technically not on the ITCS spec line), the 4drs were power only.

they ARE on separate spec lines, but the weights are the same. So it's not apples::apples but it's similar enough to add to the discussion.

otherwise, yeah, PS is a pretty rare "optional" component.
 
Last edited:
Greg-

Perhaps I need to look a bit further but I'm not sure where you get the splitter 3" off the ground rule for IT.

9.1.3.8.c says that "No part of the car, except for the exhaust system and suspension components, shall be lower than the lowest part of the wheel rims."

There's no specific height off the ground listed in the IT rules.

Also, I think stuff like the updating/backdating of the diff housing and and subframe braces (ie. disallowance of update/backdate in IT between vehicles on separate spec lines) should find their way in there.
 
Greg, it all looks good to me!

Now, I'll put on my race chairman's hat...What's the down side of allowing the de-powered rack?
 
Gregg said:
...I'm not sure where you get the splitter 3" off the ground rule for IT....lower than the lowest part of the wheel rims."
Click to expand...
Absolutely correct. Got my regs mixed up. I'll adjust.

ner88 said:
What's the down side of allowing the de-powered rack?
Click to expand...
In IT? Nothing at all. In fact, over the last decade or so I've requested that to be allowed in IT at least three times I can recall. Each were rejected back as "not within the philosophy of the class".

Allowing depowered racks in STL? It is allowed. But we're not going to get into regs adjustments that mix-and-match category regs, such as "IT regs but you can still de-power the rack." That's not the purpose of the alternate category allowances; their purpose is to allow alternate categories to compete. If you have a Spec Miata, race it in STL as a Spec Miata; if you have an ITS Miata then race it in STL as an ITS Miata.

But if you want to race a Miata in STL without a restrictor plate but with a de-powered rack, build it to STL specs and slap on some poundage.

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