September fastrack

***Pllease. If the RX-7 was as competitive in ITA now as it was 'then', Spec 7 wouldn't exist. And if it did, it would still only be a MARRS class. It's just like SSM. Only exists in our little patch.***

Andy, are you implying that Spec-RX7 started in the DC Region? By typing a sentence like this ^ your showing what you don't know about Spec-RX7. If you are saying that the Spec-RX7 class started in the DC Region then I must tell you that your talking out of your a$$. Oh, & I said that with a :D

[/b]
Click to expand...

No Dave, I worded it wrong as I was responding to Bill who was undoubtably talking about it WRT the MARRS series and his patch. We don't even have S7 in NER.

Bottom line? I believe Production-based spec classes are born from perceived or real batches of cars ready to race or be built that feel they have no shot in current class structure. And that isn't unique to SCCA...
 
Greg, if you saying that Spec-RX7 cars run as fast as your IT7 cars the IT7 must be a bunch..............you know what. Unless you people have basterdized the Spec-RX7 rules.
[/b]
Click to expand...
I've posted the DC Region's Spec-7 rules above.

Here's a quick rundown ITA vs. IT7 vs. Spec-7 race winners for all Summit Point MARRS races this year. Note that ITA runs w/ ITS and ITR. IT7 and Spec-7 run together w/ SSB and SSC

MARRS 1 (4/29/07)
ITA: 1:29.339, IT7: 1:30.980, Spec-7: 1:32.329

MARRS 4 (6/17/07)
ITA: 1:28.834, IT7: 1:32.778, Spec-7: 1:32.394

MARRS 7 (8/12/07)
ITA: 1:28.701, IT7: 1:32.209, Spec-7: 1:32.066

MARRS 8 (9/3/07)
ITA: 1:28.884, IT7: 1:31.435, Spec-7: 1:31.851

MARRS 9 (9/4/07)
ITA: 1:28.592, IT7: 1:32.008, Spec-7: 1:31.637 (new track record)

It should be noted that the IT7 driver who won MARRS 1 (and was last year's innaugural champ) has not run since. You can see what the drop is from that driver to the others in class.

For reference, here are fastest lap times for the highest finishing ITA Rx-7 during each of the 2005 MARRS races at Summit Point. Remember that the minimum weight for the chassis was 100lbs heavier than it is now:

MARRS 1 (4/24/05): 1:31.365
MARRS 4 (6/18/05): 1:31.238
MARRS 5 (7/10/05): 1:31.056
MARRS 7 (8/14/05): 1:30.856
MARRS 8 (9/4/05): 1:30.938
MARRS 9 (9/5/05): 1:31.093
MARRS 10 (10/9/05): 1:32.278

We've said time and again that we shouldn't be judging classing cars based on on-track performance but when when given a 100lb weight break the front-running IT7 cars have actually gotten slower in the DC Region. How do you explain that? How can they justify a change in the "process" for these cars and/or a move to ITB?
 
Travis,

I really didn't think you were such a quitter. I also thought you had a little more conviction in your position. Guess I was wrong on both counts.
[/b]
Click to expand...

quitter? ha. good one. if you knew anything about me, my situation, or my history in racing, you wouldn't ever give the first thought to associating me with that word.

i've come to the realization/accepted the fact that there are a LOT of people on this board and pretty much every racing web forum who are bitter/uneducated/uninformed/closed minded/etc, and use this medium as a tool to feel important and powerful in this world to make up for deficiencies in the real one.

i've also accepted that i would make a terrible politician/speach writer/public figure, as i do not spend near enough time to perfect my communication skills. in an environment where every word is poured over and scrutinized, the message that is intended to be delivered is not the message received.

it usually doesn't take more than a post or two to determine if someone is worth talking to or not. you didn't pass, so i'm not wasting my time arguing with you on this issue. besides, kirk shares my views on this and is far more eloquent.
 
... We've said time and again that we shouldn't be judging classing cars based on on-track performance but when when given a 100lb weight break the front-running IT7 cars have actually gotten slower in the DC Region. How do you explain that? How can they justify a change in the "process" for these cars and/or a move to ITB?[/b]
Click to expand...
A case can't be made for the RX7 move to B based on lap times. However, it's equally true that arguments AGAINST the move are not well founded if based on the same evidence.

K
 
Greg,

One explanation for the cars going slower is that they not the 10/10ths cars that they used to be, or they don't have the same drivers. Hard to say w/o know which cars/drivers ran from year to year.

Kirk makes a good point about lap times. But, as an aside, not one of those ITA RX7 lap times that Greg posted are faster than the current ITB track record at Summit Point. Some are close, and would be at pointy end of the field, but that's at their ITA weight.

Travis,

You crack me up!
 
Greg, after reading the WDC Region Spec-RX-7 rules all I can say is that there must be some really slow ITA/7 cars that race in your area.

Short list of what ITA/7 gets & Spec-RX7 don't get.

A. Blueprinted Niki carb or other carb. (OEM Niki with Grose jets ONLY)

B. Exhaust system of choice including header. (Cast iron header non-modified)

C. Rear end gear of choice, 4:88/5:12 (3:90 OEM)

D. Camber/castor to suite. (1 1/2 degree max./no adjustment)

E. Weight 2380 compared to 2530 IIRC. (150 pounds)

Your local, you tell me how the Spec-RX7 can turn times as close as they do to cars with lighter weight, ability for better chassis setup, a bunch taller rear end gear & 25% MORE hp. If the ITA/7 cars are not dogs, you tell me how to they race at near equal times to to the Spec-RX7 cars.

When is the last time anyone protested a Spec-RX7? :o
 
With all the realignment of the IT rules in the past few years we came real close to ending IT7 in the southeast this year. I doubt it will survive next year. These classes that exist to give small groups a trophy are fast loosing favor. Look at the classes at the ARRC and see how many are just about the same except for the letters on the car. How many "formula whatever" can you think up for no longer competitive cars. When it gets down to a few cars it needs to go away. Especially if there is another class they can reasonably run. Cold hearted but true. ;) [/b]
Click to expand...

well, if IT7 goes away, you won't see me dragging my RX-7 to the ARRCs ever again. Even the very fastest RX-7s ever there are not capable of a podium finish in ITA unless the leaders take each other out, and there is attrition.

Simple math:
NX 2000: north of 150hp, and 140 tq at the wheels, if my memory serves me regarding what I've read here.
Saturn: similar, but I think it's a bit stronger tq
Nissan 240 sx 150 tq, and 150s hp. again, if memory serves.
(This is all off the top of my head, and yes, we can argue exact numbers all day, vis a vis, "What kind of dyno", etc...but the gross point remains)

RX-7s: under 110 tq and maybe 130 hp.

Atlanta is a dragstrip connected by some very cool corners. If you don't have the ability to defend, or pass on the straight, you are dog meat.
 
For what it's worth, and I take no position on this, there will be significant resistance from the IT7 drivers in the SEDiv to:

1. Moving the RX7 to ITB.

2. Ending IT7.
 
Atlanta is a dragstrip connected by some very cool corners. If you don't have the ability to defend, or pass on the straight, you are dog meat.
[/b]
Click to expand...

do you really want everything adjusted according to results based on one track? As a 1.6 SM owner, i can tell you, you don't.

PS - 130whp and 110tq is right where a 1.6 ITA miata will be.
 
PS - 130whp and 110tq is right where a 1.6 ITA miata will be.[/b]
Click to expand...
Ouch. And it's twenty five pounder lighter, has IRS and a shorter wheelbase, larger brakes, and not to mention (but I will) scads more aftermarket support...

This ain't helpin', Travis. :)
 
i'm not trying to keep it out of ITB, i just think DC is dumb.

i didn't put that with the idea it will keep the RX7 in A, just threw it out there as a data point.
 
Atlanta is a dragstrip connected by some very cool corners. If you don't have the ability to defend, or pass on the straight, you are dog meat.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Amen to that. I even get pulled on the back-straight by IT7's that I'm lapping!
 
well, if IT7 goes away, you won't see me dragging my RX-7 to the ARRCs ever again. Even the very fastest RX-7s ever there are not capable of a podium finish in ITA unless the leaders take each other out, and there is attrition.

Simple math:
NX 2000: north of 150hp, and 140 tq at the wheels, if my memory serves me regarding what I've read here.
Saturn: similar, but I think it's a bit stronger tq
Nissan 240 sx 150 tq, and 150s hp. again, if memory serves.
(This is all off the top of my head, and yes, we can argue exact numbers all day, vis a vis, "What kind of dyno", etc...but the gross point remains)

RX-7s: under 110 tq and maybe 130 hp.

Atlanta is a dragstrip connected by some very cool corners. If you don't have the ability to defend, or pass on the straight, you are dog meat.
[/b]
Click to expand...

So, does this mean you are in favor of Dual Classification as it would keep our cars in ITA, IT7 and put them in ITB?

Ya, it means we get to have our cake and eat it too... I see this as the best compromise. The regions participating in IT7 can kill that class off as it suits them.
 
do you really want everything adjusted according to results based on one track? As a 1.6 SM owner, i can tell you, you don't.

PS - 130whp and 110tq is right where a 1.6 ITA miata will be. [/b]
Click to expand...

Oh yes! That's exactly what I said Travis, how astute of you!

Never mind the rest of my response, or the fact that i quoted someone to make that response, the entire point of my post was that we should be using Atlanta as the de-facto standard for classification, Yup, the Prod boys really did have it right,...what WERE we thinking?

(Oh, and sice I was just writing off the top of my head, I was conservative with the RX-7 tq. The numbers I've seen are well under 110. like 101 to 106 or so.)
 
So, does this mean you are in favor of Dual Classification as it would keep our cars in ITA, IT7 and put them in ITB?

Ya, it means we get to have our cake and eat it too... I see this as the best compromise. The regions participating in IT7 can kill that class off as it suits them.

[/b]
Click to expand...

Well, if you're asking my my views..and remember, there is nothing on the ITACs aganda on this subject, I would:

Not move it from ITA at this point.

Why? Because, as it stands, I feel the process fails that mechanical genre, and merely moving it down a class will only change the lettering on the side of the car. In some areas, the car would see success, as the ITB class is weaker(than that areas ITA class), and in other areas it might hurt the car, again depending on the strength of the regional classes. But all things equal, it should finish in the same percentile as it does now.

I would also not be a fan of dual classing, unless we can create a clear policy of when a car should be dual classed. I do think the RX7 and the MR2 are poster chiildren, as one of the qualifications in my mind for DC would be an existing classification. Due to the fact that the cars have been built, and are racing, and the very varied nature of regional racing, allowing the constiuents the option of remaining or moving is important. Now, if the car DOES get dual classed, I would also suggest that if the process is fine tuned for it in it's new class, then it should be fine tuned for it's current class.

But, as always, you can see that one thing leads to another, and a simple question such as this becomes a much broader policy issue when you look at the real core reasons.
 
Well, if you're asking my my views..and remember, there is nothing on the ITACs aganda on this subject, I would:

Not move it from ITA at this point.

Why? Because, as it stands, I feel the process fails that mechanical genre, and merely moving it down a class will only change the lettering on the side of the car. In some areas, the car would see success, as the ITB class is weaker(than that areas ITA class), and in other areas it might hurt the car, again depending on the strength of the regional classes. But all things equal, it should finish in the same percentile as it does now.

I would also not be a fan of dual classing, unless we can create a clear policy of when a car should be dual classed. I do think the RX7 and the MR2 are poster chiildren, as one of the qualifications in my mind for DC would be an existing classification. Due to the fact that the cars have been built, and are racing, and the very varied nature of regional racing, allowing the constiuents the option of remaining or moving is important. Now, if the car DOES get dual classed, I would also suggest that if the process is fine tuned for it in it's new class, then it should be fine tuned for it's current class.

But, as always, you can see that one thing leads to another, and a simple question such as this becomes a much broader policy issue when you look at the real core reasons.
[/b]
Click to expand...

Thanks for your answer.

I guess I am at a loss as I cannot think of a way to correct the ITA specifications for this car. Lowering it's minimum weight would be a token gesture at best. So what would we be looking at, port matching?

Seems to me that the car in ITB starting at 2550lbs allows for future adjustments to the car in areas that are support by the IT rule set. IE - a lower weight.

As a competitior seeking a positive change I believe we should continue to ask for a move to ITB and take our lumps moving forward.
 
Or we could take cars that ended up on the edges of the process and dual class them. Use the process to better class them with known numbers. These known numbers have been used in many cases (BMW, second gen RX7, and CRX) instead of the average IT gains. Keep the dual classing for a 2 year grace period then it goes in the new class. In 2 years we should know where it fits best and it gives drivers plenty of time to change wheels if necessary. Food for thought.
 
Oh yes! That's exactly what I said Travis, how astute of you!

Never mind the rest of my response, or the fact that i quoted someone to make that response, the entire point of my post was that we should be using Atlanta as the de-facto standard for classification, Yup, the Prod boys really did have it right,...what WERE we thinking?

[/b]
Click to expand...

sure read to me like you were building a case for the RX7 to be moved/DC in B and were using Atlanta as a data point.
 
sure read to me like you were building a case for the RX7 to be moved/DC in B and were using Atlanta as a data point.
[/b]
Click to expand...

That's pretty funny Travis, because his post didn't mention either moving the car or dual-classification. The way I read the post, was that he wouldn't take his car to the ARRC (which happens to be run at Road Atlanta) if IT7 went away. The dragstrip comments referred to the lack of torque of the RX7, and how it would get gobbled up in ITA.

And you talk about other people only reading what they want to.

BTW, it's nice to know that you think d-c is a dumb idea, not that there are any real risks involved. Certainly puts things in perspective. :happy204:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top