First, Cherokee, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I DO think that, in light of past classing mistakes, and the ongoing technical advances, that certain reclassing of cars is needed. Sending legions of active cars out to pasture with "tough luck, bub", is NOT what a member driven organization should be about. Remember, the class was MUCH different before certain cars were added, and the ECU rule was legalized. If the competitor can provide proper documentation that a particular model has enough development, and has been driven by good drivers in the right environment, then the CRB owes the competitor the consideration of either PCAs, or reclassification. Personally, I don't care if the car has a huge following or not, as long as there is proof that the homework has been done, and the car is NOT in the game where it is currently classed.
And yes, I do think you should beleive that thinner wheels and more weight will make a difference! Send me private email and I can show you my data regarding setup. They are pretty fussy about a good setup, and without it, they go slower.
David D-
What will it take to get a 7 to run at the front??? A combination of factors.
First, I am opposed to street porting of the intake and exhaust openings, for the same reason that they are disallowed in the first place, and the smae reason the ECU rule should have never been legalized. Too open ended. Too much potential. When cams are legal for piston engines, then we can look at it.
So...whats left? I submit that:
A weight break will help. Too bad these cars can't loose much more, but if you give me a weight break I will have 50 pounds or more off the car tomorrow. 2280 is a good goal.
We are allowed, as are other cars, to run an alternative carb. I suggest that carb choice be revisited, and in light of the after the classification fact of the ECU rule, this would be only fair. Precedent already exists for alternative carbs. Just change the carbs allowed.
Secondly, any port matching allowed on a piston engine should be allowed on a rotary. The gains are minimal, and the compliance check is easy.
Third, I submit that the interface of the rotor and the port be looked at, and that the rotor be allowed to be chamfered in this location. (Sort of equivivlent to a piston engines valve seat being triple angled). This will result in a small gain of power, (no torque though!) but I like this idea for its controllability. There is only so much that can be done here without damaging the rotor. Therefore, any gains are automatically capped. Builders claim this mod is worth 5 or so Hp.
I feel the above list is all grounded in allowances already given other car models in the ITCS, and are therefore logical and just. Unfortunately, I doubt that they alone will be enough.
The addition of weight to the front runners as well would be needed.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited March 28, 2004).]
