RSTPerformance
New member
I think that moving cars from A to B will make ITB a much more compeditive class. It already is one of the best, so I think that more cars will only make it better... Bring it on!!!
I approve of moves such as the RX-7 now that anyone has an opertunity to have their car re-classified (or comp adjusted) on the basis of performace potential and not popularity
Raymond "an ITB driver" Blethen
RST Performance Racing
[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited March 25, 2004).]
I approve of moves such as the RX-7 now that anyone has an opertunity to have their car re-classified (or comp adjusted) on the basis of performace potential and not popularity
Raymond "an ITB driver" Blethen
RST Performance Racing
[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited March 25, 2004).]
lateapex911
Super Moderator
First, I doubt that any organization will allow a group with an agenda to decide their future! Thankfully!
Look, the ITB guys have no right to get POed if new cars come into the class that are competitive, any more than existing ITA guys have a right to be POed if new cars come into the class that push them even further down the food chain!
There is no doubt that this is a deathblow to nearly all the mid packers in ITA. They will become backmarkers. The problem with putting them in B isn't the B guys at the front, it's the B guys at the back, who will, if this all shakes out the way it should, end up in C. The biggest issue with this strategy is that the few, the lonely, and the slow C cars are the guys to pay the price. They can't go down any further. Fortunately, there aren't many of them left! Perhaps weight breaks for the few that are in popular, but uncompetitive cars are in order.
Rabbit 07- Tell us what your ITB Mustang has for power.
Heres the poop on the 7. 2380 lbs. Maybe a good one that is really well sorted (it aint easy!) will have 123 hp at the wheels. SOME guys who are engineers or just gurus may be putting out 10 more. So, lets say 128 hp to be generous. Legally you won't see many 7s with that kind of power. That's a P/W ratio of 19.
I'm assuming you have a non Mustang II 'stang with a 2.3L engine. I'd guess that puts down about 150 to the wheels. What are your numbers, and what are well developed examples doing?
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Look, the ITB guys have no right to get POed if new cars come into the class that are competitive, any more than existing ITA guys have a right to be POed if new cars come into the class that push them even further down the food chain!
There is no doubt that this is a deathblow to nearly all the mid packers in ITA. They will become backmarkers. The problem with putting them in B isn't the B guys at the front, it's the B guys at the back, who will, if this all shakes out the way it should, end up in C. The biggest issue with this strategy is that the few, the lonely, and the slow C cars are the guys to pay the price. They can't go down any further. Fortunately, there aren't many of them left! Perhaps weight breaks for the few that are in popular, but uncompetitive cars are in order.
Rabbit 07- Tell us what your ITB Mustang has for power.
Heres the poop on the 7. 2380 lbs. Maybe a good one that is really well sorted (it aint easy!) will have 123 hp at the wheels. SOME guys who are engineers or just gurus may be putting out 10 more. So, lets say 128 hp to be generous. Legally you won't see many 7s with that kind of power. That's a P/W ratio of 19.
I'm assuming you have a non Mustang II 'stang with a 2.3L engine. I'd guess that puts down about 150 to the wheels. What are your numbers, and what are well developed examples doing?
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
moto62
New member
There really isn't much left on these cars to take off legally. The driver, on the other hand...
This will help a little as far as helping these torqueless cars get off the turns a little better but won't do much in terms of bettering the lap times or trying to hang with Hondas.
Same as above.
Can't think of any right now.
Hellll No. Driven both 7's and girlie man Hondas. I'm almost two secs faster in the Acura (without any engine or tranny work, as in bone stock)than I was in the (developed 7)at any track.
Here's my take on the whole bit. The only thing left to do to these cars is to allow street porting. The cars suspensions have been developed almost to the point where they're becoming overdeveloped, because that's the only thing on these cars that we were allowed to do anything to, so, we can get these cars to handle pretty well. These cars lack torque and straightaway speed and the only cure will be to allow street porting. Before y'all start shakin in yo boots, street porting will not give the RX-7 new life, it won't be a honda killer by any means but it will give it enough juice to put up a fair fight or at least get it into the top 10 (if only 9 hondas show up)
Ray
Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!
Let's please not let the PCA Revolution go to our heads here. The INSTANT we start making rules allowances for specific cars - beyond tweaking the weights - it's Katie bar the door. I've been nice and polite during the PCA process, willing to wait it out but on this point? No, no, no, no, no. No.
That said, the rotaries suffer from exactly that practice in that they aren't allowed to port at all, while slug cars can. The real question that ought to be explored - again? - is how would the Mazdas benefit from the same exact rule that other cars currently enjoy? It could be asked about both the A and S versions...
K
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited March 26, 2004).]
Bill Miller
New member
Kirk,
I agree w/ you, but there in lies the problem. Porting on a rotary isn't really the same thing as port matching on a piston engine.
Jake,
The 1st gen. RX7 folks already got pissed enough to go form their own classes. And, not sure why people wouldn't have a right to be pissed???
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
I agree w/ you, but there in lies the problem. Porting on a rotary isn't really the same thing as port matching on a piston engine.
Jake,
The 1st gen. RX7 folks already got pissed enough to go form their own classes. And, not sure why people wouldn't have a right to be pissed???
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
dickita15
New member
AMEN. the last thing IT needs is prod style different prep level for different brands. the only change i can embrace is allowing the rotary some of the changes that other cars are allowed. IMHO porting the block is not a good idea as it has too large an effect. there may be some small gains fron 1" of porting on the intake manifold for matching. someone needs to do some dyno work and find out but my guess is it would not be enough. the only other thing i can think of is to add another alternate carb maybe a holley 400 or 450 for IT. if anyone can think of any other rotary only restrictions that might make a difference if lifted i would like to hear them.
dick patullo
ita rx7
Banzai240
New member
Whoa... SlOW DOWN GUYS... Street Porting?!!!
As a former Rotary guy, and someone who keeps up with the Production class... I can tell you right now that I will stand against allowing this in IT. A good E-Production engine, which is allowed a street-port, makes well over 200hp. This would be insane to allow anything remotely like this in IT, not to mention COMPLETELY against IT philosophy.
I might consider looking at port matching, which some of you are mistakenly referring to as the "porting" allowed by "slug" engines... As the owner of a modern Nissan, I can tell you right now that I'd likely cause more harm than do good by even attempting to do this on the Nissan, because these newer cars are matched pretty darn well from the factory. AND, we are only talking about an inch on either side... Hardly the kind of thing that is going to drastically improve airflow...
If this were allowed on the Rotary, I could see a benefit perhaps, however I recall the ports being pretty well matched to start with. I know that on the sideplate, there really isn't much distance between the mating surface and the intake port, so someone would likely be able to make some improvements...
The general philosophy is to adjust cars with weight. BUT, there is a special "dis-allowance" being made against the rotaries concerning the gasket matching, so it might be worth exploring as well... I can tell you, however, that no one on the ITAC is willing to go down some of the roads mentioned above... We are NOT about to start messing with the general philosophy of IT by allowing these customized adjustments. That would be the road to the end of this fine class. We'll work to make things "better", but there is still no guarantee that you'll be "competitive"...
That being said, I believe there is a good solution for this car, as well as some others, so give us a little time to work it all out...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 26, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 26, 2004).]
As a former Rotary guy, and someone who keeps up with the Production class... I can tell you right now that I will stand against allowing this in IT. A good E-Production engine, which is allowed a street-port, makes well over 200hp. This would be insane to allow anything remotely like this in IT, not to mention COMPLETELY against IT philosophy.
I might consider looking at port matching, which some of you are mistakenly referring to as the "porting" allowed by "slug" engines... As the owner of a modern Nissan, I can tell you right now that I'd likely cause more harm than do good by even attempting to do this on the Nissan, because these newer cars are matched pretty darn well from the factory. AND, we are only talking about an inch on either side... Hardly the kind of thing that is going to drastically improve airflow...
If this were allowed on the Rotary, I could see a benefit perhaps, however I recall the ports being pretty well matched to start with. I know that on the sideplate, there really isn't much distance between the mating surface and the intake port, so someone would likely be able to make some improvements...
The general philosophy is to adjust cars with weight. BUT, there is a special "dis-allowance" being made against the rotaries concerning the gasket matching, so it might be worth exploring as well... I can tell you, however, that no one on the ITAC is willing to go down some of the roads mentioned above... We are NOT about to start messing with the general philosophy of IT by allowing these customized adjustments. That would be the road to the end of this fine class. We'll work to make things "better", but there is still no guarantee that you'll be "competitive"...
That being said, I believe there is a good solution for this car, as well as some others, so give us a little time to work it all out...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 26, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 26, 2004).]
I agree with Darin. Let's not confuse port or gasket matching with porting. Big difference. I assume it's a difference where the rotary is concerned just like any other car. And Darin is right also IMHO about the fact that there already is a prep level difference between the rotory and other cars due to this point.
Lastly, I think from a big picture stand point most people would agree that it would be good for IT for the RX-7s to be reasonably competitive again.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Amen! Ray - VERY interesting data on the RX7/Honder stuff. For those who don't know, Ray ran one of the fastest (if not the fastest) RX7's in the country up until he got his Honda. They fact that his highly developed RX7 can't hold a candle to his new car without engine mods speaks volumes.
On another sad note, a student of mine at an HPDE had a stock '90 Miata with Azenis tires. When I drove his car at LRP, I was almost able to tie my best times there with my ITA MR2.
On another sad note, a student of mine at an HPDE had a stock '90 Miata with Azenis tires. When I drove his car at LRP, I was almost able to tie my best times there with my ITA MR2.
gran racing
Super Moderator
"I'm assuming you have a non Mustang II 'stang with a 2.3L engine. I'd guess that puts down about 150 to the wheels. What are your numbers, and what are well developed examples doing?"
150 HP at the wheels? WOW! What is the min. weight for that car. Is that really true? 150 at the wheels? I know it has bad handling characteristics, but that number seems very, very high. (Not at all complaining about its classification!)
Ray - your attitude is appreciated. I personally like having many cars in the class and good clean competition. Besides, isn't that why we are racing?
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
150 HP at the wheels? WOW! What is the min. weight for that car. Is that really true? 150 at the wheels? I know it has bad handling characteristics, but that number seems very, very high. (Not at all complaining about its classification!)
Ray - your attitude is appreciated. I personally like having many cars in the class and good clean competition. Besides, isn't that why we are racing?
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
Ah, so, the "trickle-down" theory of Sports Car Racing?
It's the only logical solution, IMO. A year before, that statement would be the jumping-off point for all kindsa nasty comments about the SCCA and Comp Board. Hopefully now that time is behind us...
------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
It's the only logical solution, IMO. A year before, that statement would be the jumping-off point for all kindsa nasty comments about the SCCA and Comp Board. Hopefully now that time is behind us...
------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
I disagree.
Being an owner of one of the cars recommended for movement into ITA from ITS (a Nissan NX2000) I believe the current ITA winners will continue to be so. And, I say that with direct experience.
IMNSHO, the car to beat in the future is the Acura Integra, with the CRX closely in pursuit. I've raced against both in my Nissan, and I've yet to beat Anthony Serra (Acura) or Tom Blaney (CRX) in a straight-up fight at Lime Rock Park. And, it's not just short tracks: Anthony and the winning CRX both ran significantly faster lap times than me at the 2003 ARRC.
There are several reasons that this will be the case. First, the cars are lighter, significantly so with the CRX; my car's current legal weight is 2490, with 2515 as the proposed ITA weight. Second, the power level of the Acura is on par with my Nissan: 135 whp is the accepted norm for a well-built Acura, mine is currently exactly 135 whp. Finally, and more importantly, the Acura and Honda enjoy a significant suspension design advantage; I have McPherson struts all the way around while the Acura has much better independent multi-link suspension. The Acura will be able to lower the car much more and control the suspension geometry better without teeth-jarring spring rates.
And, let's not forget the aftermarket support for Acuras. We've had to fabricate virtually everything for this NX, including suspension components (aftermarket only has crappy street stuff). There is only a single source for off-the-shelf ECUs for my car, and that source is not nearly optimal (it's street stuff). There is only crappy street aftermarket exhaust headers for the Nissan. Very few people build engines, no one even make a windage oil pan. The list goes on and on.
Obviously, I cannot speak for any of the other proposed ITA cars, as I've no experience with them, but looking over the list the only one that catches my attention is the BMW Z3 (a current SSB car). I'm going to go out on a limb, though, and suggest it will be classified very heavy.
So, to summarize, I don't see at this point how the sky is falling, and I don't think Tom, Anthony, Ray, and all the others have anything to worry about...
Greg
[This message has been edited by grega (edited March 26, 2004).]
I said this before....why move the cars around in classes. IMHO if you move cars down because they have no chance of winning if a Honda or whatever shows up is a bad idea. Guess what that old Capri in the barn has no chance of winning too, my MR2 has no chance Daytona's, Chargers,Vegas have no chance we going to move all of those to B also. If you move one car for this reason you are going to have to do it for a bunch of them. And I don't care what it looks like on paper, the Edsel looked great on paper, and the E36 looked ok on paper, you don't know until you get one out there, then it is too late.
It is just evolution of the class, newer cars come in and the older ones move lower and lower until no one runs one in IT anymore....unless you have a love for that car, then you still have a cheaper "not prod" place to go and play.
When I get home tonight I am going to hug my 32yr old car and tell her that I love her and she will have fun being a race car.
It is just evolution of the class, newer cars come in and the older ones move lower and lower until no one runs one in IT anymore....unless you have a love for that car, then you still have a cheaper "not prod" place to go and play.
When I get home tonight I am going to hug my 32yr old car and tell her that I love her and she will have fun being a race car.
Then I have no problem with it then...the rules need to apply to all not just one make/model.
So if the 7 was ok for B in 199x then why was it not put in there in the first place...when most of the other B cars where classified? And you expect me to think that skinner wheels and a little lbs. are going to make a difference on any of these cars.
[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited March 26, 2004).]
So if the 7 was ok for B in 199x then why was it not put in there in the first place...when most of the other B cars where classified? And you expect me to think that skinner wheels and a little lbs. are going to make a difference on any of these cars.
[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited March 26, 2004).]