Teach me about ITR 325's

We talked about how we'd tackle the "old Volvo question," as part of our ongoing discussion about how to reconcile a lot of requests that have been submitted about ITB cars. It was an example of how there seemed to be lots of different configurations on a given spec line (or split among spec lines) so it was a handy case study in clarifying how we think about them.

We got some input but we're not done with the question.

K
 
robits325is said:
The only problem with simple is that Frankenstein cars are created that exceed the classified model. The sum of the parts becomes greater than intended and an over dog is potentially created.
Click to expand...

I didn't mention the RX-7. Still, this scenario is possible when variations of a car are clumped together.
 
I think what Gary was referring to was the fact the 140 volvo came in different engine configurations. The high compression bottom ends were delivered carberated, and the lower compression bottem ends were fuel injected. The car never came with high compression and fuel injection. I was told this years ago, but never knew it was true or not.

But when you put all all those configurations on one spec line it allows you to mix and match. :017:


Derek
 
robits325is said:
I didn't mention the RX-7. Still, this scenario is possible when variations of a car are clumped together.
Click to expand...

Again, that's not the case if the best aspects of each system on that line are considered when classifying the car. The factors of the cars on the spec line are considered in the process. There were versions of my car with something like 10% less hp stock than the best of the spec line - and yeah I could build that car/motor, but the weight is based on 'doing it right'. So the only real risk is that some cars are slower than they ought to be, not faster.
 
Regarding the multiple models on the same spec line, an example came up recently about the ITS Porsche 911s. Each different listing had the E model and the T model on the same line. They have vastly different hp, although the engines are the same size. The weight was set for the higher powered car, making the T a dog with no home.

So we broke them apart. T's are vastly cheaper due to the E's relative scarcity, and the injection (mechanical) is rather finicky. However, certain year T engines are plentiful, as all the P car guys want to bump up to larger sizes, and the carbs are tunable. Once the weights were set properly, the T makes a more enticing proposition because of cheap plentiful parts.

And, if the weights are set correctly, they will run neck and neck.

The CRB put them both on the same line at the time because they felt nobody would bother racing the more utilitarian T.


As for building hybrids that have a better sum, one thing that needs to be kept in mind is that updating back dating requires whole assemblies. However, I do see a possible issue when a superior injection system can be used on a higher stock compression motor it was never paired with.
 
In regards to the 92 325 being on it's own spec line I am noticing that the 92's engines and the cars in general are much cheaper(maybe do to there less desirable engine) but it seems to me it would be nice if the 92 was on it's own spec line. Right now the 92 is basically pointless to buy and think about building do to the fact that you would have to update to all the 93 stuff.
 
lateapex911 said:
...I do see a possible issue when a superior injection system can be used on a higher stock compression motor it was never paired with.
Click to expand...
From GCR 9.1.3.C, the same paragraph that allows updating/backdating: "Additionally, it is not permitted to 'create' a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies."

Ergo, it is permissible to "update" to match the specs of a "superior" car, but you cannot create a car with a combination of equipment that the factory never delivered. What you describe above would be illegal.

To clarify my point from my prior post, all I'm saying is that by splitting out different-spec cars, such as the S4 and S5 RX-7, you create the opportunity for someone to race the "lesser" car competitively without being forced to upgrade to the "better" specs. Without that split no one can race the base S4 competitively.

If you think that's best for the category in pursuit of simplicity, I can understand. But, I respectively disagree: being forced to upgrade the lesser-expensive, easily-obtainable model to more-rare, more-expensive specs is most assuredly not "simpler" for anyone except the rulesmakers... - GA
 
madrabbit15 said:
I think what Gary was referring to was the fact the 140 volvo came in different engine configurations. The high compression bottom ends were delivered carberated, and the lower compression bottem ends were fuel injected. The car never came with high compression and fuel injection. I was told this years ago, but never knew it was true or not.

But when you put all all those configurations on one spec line it allows you to mix and match. :017:


Derek
Click to expand...
But as others have pointed out, if what you say were true, it would be illegal to put FI on the high compression engine, as you would be "...creating a model".

But just for the record, let's be perfectly clear; there was a high compression fuel injected engine, complete with the "right" head and the "right" cam, sold in the 140 series Volvo in the US... the 1971 142E. So purely from a horsepower perspective, everyone (via update/backdate) "builds" a '71 142E, regardless of which of the 6 model years they are using for a chassis. All perfectly legal, no gray area whatsoever.
 
madrabbit15 said:
I think what Gary was referring to was the fact the 140 volvo came in different engine configurations. The high compression bottom ends were delivered carberated, and the lower compression bottem ends were fuel injected. The car never came with high compression and fuel injection. I was told this years ago, but never knew it was true or not.

But when you put all all those configurations on one spec line it allows you to mix and match. :017:


Derek
Click to expand...

Does not.

Update/backdate defines "assemblies" in such a way that, while there will be some potential for mix-and-match, we can't completely cherry pick what we do. For example, we've got to use the entire short block as an assembly. I can't put the OBDII-spec head on my OBDI-spec block. In the Volvo example, the entire block/head assembly has got to stay in one piece. If the later FI "assembly" will bolt to that head, OK. If not, too bad.

(Taking your scenario as a given, for illustrative purposes.)

K
 
ekim952522000 said:
In regards to the 92 325 being on it's own spec line I am noticing that the 92's engines and the cars in general are much cheaper(maybe do to there less desirable engine) but it seems to me it would be nice if the 92 was on it's own spec line. Right now the 92 is basically pointless to buy and think about building do to the fact that you would have to update to all the 93 stuff.
Click to expand...

A good example - again, presuming that's all accurate.

...and I *personally* don't think the "can't create a model" language is helpful to the whole exercise. It's way too open to interpretation, and inconsistent with how many of us think about what we're doing. If there are particular things that we do or don't want the rules to allow, we need to make sure that the rules are internally consistent, at the level of detail at which we tend to use them, to make that so. This, instead of counting on an over-broad statement to handle it.

K
 
Knestis said:
...and I *personally* don't think the "can't create a model" language is helpful to the whole exercise...an over-broad statement to handle it.
Click to expand...
Hmmm, a rare moment of Knestis/Amy disagreement. I'm not clear what you mean by that, but don't we both agree that minimalist-wording rules that rely on common sense (i.e., non-torturated) interpretation are the best (e.g., IIDSYCTYC?)

That restriction has been there as long as updating/backdating has, Kirk, you know that. And, I think you agree that it was INTENTIONALLY put there along with UD/BD to specifically disallow Frankenstein cars. After all, what other purpose would it have, and, given that, how more specific does it need to be to meet its goals?

It may be that we disagree as to what you can do; in other words, you may be OK with Frankenstein cars (see above your "...[if] the later FI "assembly" will bolt to that head, OK...") But if so, you have disagreement from me, and I suspect you may be a victim of incrementalism of how we ARE doing things versus how we SHOULD HAVE been to the rules.

After all, that "can't create a model" language, while broad, is pretty darn clear...or it's irrelevant, needs to be removed, and let the subsequent results lay as they may...

GA
 
Greg Amy said:
And, if they were split out, then they'd also not have the bigger brakes, the rear wing, and the trick 5th gear, yes? Their only "parts bin" advantage versus the current ITS rocket is the lack of power steering.

Honestly, at the right weight, I think that would be a fine addition to ITA. And, it would give members the opportunity to race the 2nd-gen car competitively with minimal changes. A win-win as far as I'm concerned, and a great illustration of why it's a bad idea to put significantly different cars on the same spec line.


Same reason as the ITA 1.8L Miatas, and the E36s, and several other cars are: someone thought it was a good idea, that it would make for simplicity. In the end all it does is force preparation to the highest level in order to be competitive.

And that's not really what Improved Touring is supposed to be about.

GA
Click to expand...

This is a very interesting discussion and it really does follow the principles of IT. Breaking cars out and giving people more options is good.

For the record on the RX-7's: Many of the parts you see on ITS cars are NOT rare. The brakes also were available on the 86-88 cars as was the rear wing. The GXL and GTU were very common cars that had these items. There was no aluminum hood or 'better' 5th gear on any of the 86-88 cars as far as the documentation I have shows. The SE of that gen was a 4-lug, smaller brake car and was very entry level. It was not nearly as popular as the 3-4 other models.

It would be real interesting to have a 146hp S4 2nd gen car in ITA. If you extrapolate the power gains the S5 gets, I bet it could make 155whp (~30% gains) and about 125ftlbs. Around 2750lbs in ITA would make it interesting. Not my first choice, but certainly an option. I have never seen anyone 'IT-ize' the 146hp lump. The rotors have less compression.
 
Greg Amy said:
Hmmm, a rare moment of Knestis/Amy disagreement. I'm not clear what you mean by that, but don't we both agree that minimalist-wording rules that rely on common sense (i.e., non-torturated) interpretation are the best (e.g., IIDSYCTYC?)

That restriction has been there as long as updating/backdating has, Kirk, you know that. And, I think you agree that it was INTENTIONALLY put there along with UD/BD to specifically disallow Frankenstein cars. After all, what other purpose would it have, and, given that, how more specific does it need to be to meet its goals?

It may be that we disagree as to what you can do; in other words, you may be OK with Frankenstein cars (see above your "...[if] the later FI "assembly" will bolt to that head, OK...") But if so, you have disagreement from me, and I suspect you may be a victim of incrementalism of how we ARE doing things versus how we SHOULD HAVE been to the rules.

After all, that "can't create a model" language, while broad, is pretty darn clear...or it's irrelevant, needs to be removed, and let the subsequent results lay as they may...

GA
Click to expand...

I'm not sure yet if we disagree since I'm still honestly clarifying my own position...

Disclaimer of Bias: I am heavily influenced by my time dealing with FIA homologation rules and concepts (GrN, GrA, etc.). I very much believe - particularly post-VIN rule - that the spec line defines what we race. The question here is about the degree to which the spec line is consistent with what the manufacturers intended, with a dash of "philosophy of IT" sprinkeled on top. Ultiimately (here's the bias), I'm OK with whatever ends up on the spec lines, as long as the outcome makes sense and is consistent with first principles. That is to say, I'm far less worried about consistency - symbolic or otherwise - with "real models" than I am with the INTERNAL consistency of what ends up in the ITCS.

If that makes sense.

Part of my issue here is that I don't think there's any real consensus around a definition of "model." Unless we're all using the term the same way, we can't all agree with what a rule using hte term means. Is a GT a different model than a GXL, GL, XLS, SE, SL, GSL-XE or Sport, if they all came in the same shell with the same general name? I think we'd find some differences of opinion on that.

Do different specifications (e.g., OBDI/OBDII, Vanos/non-Vanos, carb/FI) define different models? How much difference is necessary before this is the case (e.g., different bumpers, like on the Golfs)?

Frankenstein either was or wasn't a monster, depending on whose story you read and from which character's position - if you take my meaning. If Chris puts "big bumpers" on a "small bumper" Golf, is it a Frankencar? We CANNOT fall back on differences in performance as our standard either, so don't anybody go grabbing at that straw.

I think I understand the intent of the "can't make a model" rule but I think it's a lousy piece of writing, in context. Going back to my bias, I've always fallen back on the ITCS as our ultimate definer-of-models. Remember that when the rules were invented, they prohibited any car more than about 20 years old. Our challenge here - and in other situations - is partially due to the fact that we've now got 40+ years worth of cars to consider.

K
 
Knestis said:
Does not.

Update/backdate defines "assemblies" in such a way that, while there will be some potential for mix-and-match, we can't completely cherry pick what we do. For example, we've got to use the entire short block as an assembly. I can't put the OBDII-spec head on my OBDI-spec block. In the Volvo example, the entire block/head assembly has got to stay in one piece. If the later FI "assembly" will bolt to that head, OK. If not, too bad.

(Taking your scenario as a given, for illustrative purposes.)

K
Click to expand...

agreed.....

I was merely stating what gets interpreted most of the time. I 100% agree that creating a model is not legal. When the GCR puts multiple models in the same spec line 99% of racers are going to take the best from all models on the same line. Its not right but we all know how racers are.

As for the Volvo, I am glad Gary clarified. I had only heard of that situation and had no personal knowledge myself.
 
Greg Amy said:
From GCR 9.1.3.C, the same paragraph that allows updating/backdating: "Additionally, it is not permitted to 'create' a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies."
Click to expand...

Ah, yes, i forgot about that..

To clarify my point from my prior post, all I'm saying is that by splitting out different-spec cars, such as the S4 and S5 RX-7, you create the opportunity for someone to race the "lesser" car competitively without being forced to upgrade to the "better" specs. Without that split no one can race the base S4 competitively.
Click to expand...
Yup, I agree, that's why i wrote teh letter to get the Porsches separated. More options, no downside.
 
And before you class that S4 I can tell you it does a lot more than you think with a "proper" ECU. Main limitation was the electronics and the intake can be made to work. The lower compression rotors are not a huge limiter.
 
While I certainly respect the valididy of the conversation, I do think that it would be real dangerous to start mucking around with the classification of the ITS RX7. It is classed really well right now, based as much on what we know the 'right' one can do (or more) than on the spec sheet of the OEM car. There is a real risk of getting the lower rated rotary wrong - in either direction - and doing a disservice to the class in the process.

Further to Kirk's question - can I turn my FRONT 'small bumper' assy to a 'big bumper' assy on my Golf, while leaving the REAR as is? I did, because I found a big bumper used cheap and wanted to try it. I believe I am within the rules to do so , because they are separate assemblies, and they were delivered at different times on my model (heck in model year 1990 the Golf was delvered with both styles). I'm sure this is the case in other places, Kirk's motor changed from the 'beefy' forged crank, piston oil squirter bottom end mid-model year if I recall for instance.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top