The new ITA class

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
My my my we have been busy havnt we, it'll take me 2 days to soak all this up and comment.
 
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Jake,

I think you have some good ideas. Ones that will help the Rx7's but not make huge gains--like a street port would.

The additional alternate carb deal concerns me.... If a 48IDA (for example) is added to the list, how much will some of the other cars benefit from the change? Or are you suggesting an alternate carb for the rx7 only?
Click to expand...


Off the top of my head, I wouldn't object to an additional carb being added to the list as is. That is, for use on all single carbed cars. Thinking about the current state, the cars at the front are all injected. (CRX, Integra, 240SX, Neon (!), NX 2000(!), 240SX, SER (!), and the Miata. As a result, all cars below that level are given help, I like that. They need it.

Chamfering the rotor housing/rotor interface (as I am interpreting it) is not quite like a valve job. I know you said sort of--but I disagree.

The port shape, size and location control the "cam timing"--when the "valve" opens, closes and therefore duration. It also is "valve size"--how wide open it is. "Cam Profile"--how fast it opens and closes. Doesn't changing the shape of the rotor effect one or more of the above? How does a valve job do the same?
Click to expand...


I can see that it is debatable! I was suggesting that the rotor ONLY be touched. Nothing at all on the housing. This aspect will be the restriction to HP gains. The parallel I drew is, perhaps more philosophical than physical. A good three angle valve job helps a piston engine breath better. It's a gain all piston engine builders can try to utilize for power gains. But those gains are limited, you can only do so much.


And lastly, I have got to disagree with the weight break you suggest--its not enough to run with the Hondas.
biggrin.gif


Click to expand...

I agree! But the way I see it, we're kind of screwed there. I can't see how we can get the car much lower legally. If we propose changing the rules to allow more component removal, we open up a rats nest. That just won't, and really, shouldn't happen. (Well, maybe I wouldn't mind losing the passenger door glass!) So, if we are limited in weight loss, whats left? That's where my other suggestions come from.

Bottom line? As it stands, ITA has gotten a whole lot uglier for the 7.

So, right now, I see four options:

Improve its potential in A, either by changing it, it's competiton, or both,...

Or, move to B. Lets hope that move doesn't result in a mid pack B car due to paranoia! Then 4 years later maybe its's got a fighting chance after a PCA adjustment. I don't relish the idea of buying rolling stock, testing and developing a new set up, just to run slower and in the same position in a new class!

Or, selling and getting a ______. (fill in the blank)

Or, waiting and seeing.....



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
Or push for IT7 to be available in all divisions. SEDiv has had it for quite a while, and I understand that some other divisions allow it also.

------------------
Doug "Lefty" Franklin
NutDriver Racing
www.nutdriver.org
 
I agree with a-lot of what has been said here, but my thinking is along with some others that if an older "A" car moves down to "B" it will take more then just skinny wheels and a few extra pounds to make it fit.

Jake you are 100% correct in that the 7 has a snow balls chance if a good Honda shows up along with just about 75% of other "A" cars far too much has changed, but bringing an "A" car down is not going to work with the adjustments being talked about. I realy think that the day is comming that we are going to have to let the older cars go no matter how painful, or re-write/re-wright the IT classes. Maybe if the LP rules where a little more (I guess I will say) friendly that would be a good place for the older IT cars to go.
 
So where do you all think this leaves my car? 1995 Eclipse RS, 140hp stock, 2700lbs. This is the car with the DOCH Neon head so it breathes really well, has good upper RPM punch, and good aftermarket support, can I make it competative? I'm not really looking to be a front runner, since this will be my first real racecar (I autocross my Protege5 regularly, class champion this year). I don't want to be lapped by Acura's either.

Should I just concentrate on suspension, ECU, engine bolt ons, and squeeze as much tire on there as possible?
 
The Eclipse comes to the fight without a major mechanical disadvantage on paper but also without a lot of knowledge base and - as far as I know - parts support. It sounds like an interesting project that can grow with you.

Kirk
 
Originally posted by cherokee:

Jake you are 100% correct in that the 7 has a snow balls chance if a good Honda shows up along with just about 75% of other "A" cars far too much has changed, but bringing an "A" car down is not going to work with the adjustments being talked about. I realy think that the day is comming that we are going to have to let the older cars go no matter how painful, or re-write/re-wright the IT classes. ]

The comments here suggest that there is no overlap in ITA/ITB lap times. Is this the case in many regions?

I don't understand the argument about 'letting older cars go' if supply/representation still shows that the durable RX7 is ideal for the philosophy of the class - an inexpensive way to experience racing. If the RX7 was not viable (lack of parts, expense, etc) then why would IT7 classes exist at all? What does age of the vehicle have anything to do with maintaining a chance to compete (especially when the vehicle WAS competitive).

It would be one thing if we were trying to get support for a vehicle that was never competitive. But if you look backwards in time, the RX7 was 'the car' in ITA, many were built, and then new cars were classified which had an obvious competitive advantage. 'Out with the old, in with the new' works if the cars are becoming expensive due to scarcity, and therefore no longer meet the intent of the class. That is not the case with the 1st gen RX7.

------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61
Click to expand...
 
It sounds like slowing down the ITA CRX would improve the competitiveness of 75% of the other cars. Let's see what SCCA does next year with this class. I'm planning to run it in my V6 Capri which would be in that 75%.

Joe Craven
37 ITB Capri
37 ITB VW GTI
37 ITA Capri V6
 
It's not as simple as slowing down the CRX. ITA has 3 1/2 cars that are on top and equally capable of winning.

240SX, CRX, Integra and soon to be the Miata.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Yes but...

It's not just the CRX. There are at least a half-dozen cars that can run with the CRX. In fact, in most regions (or at least in NER), if you remove the slower 75% of ITA, you still have a competive ITA with large fields.

I still think the solution is to drop the slow 75% of ITA into ITB, potentially w/more weight. Drop the slower ITB cars to ITC, and drop slower ITC to bring back ITD.
 
It's not going to get any easier for the RX-7 and the like next year if the Neon and other ITS cars are moved to ITA.

I think that they can be "made to fit" into ITB, but I know that there will always be people that complain.


(Andy, can't wait to see your ITA Miata...
smile.gif
)


------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA
 
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
240SX, CRX, Integra and soon to be the Miata.
Click to expand...

... and the Neon, the Sentra SE-R, and whatever else we've recommended moving in the last two months!
wink.gif





------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by CaptainWho:
Or push for IT7 to be available in all divisions. SEDiv has had it for quite a while, and I understand that some other divisions allow it also.
Click to expand...

I am philosophically against the IT7 concept, but, here in the real world, I support it.

I'm hoping that the guys at the big table make it so that it's not needed, and it goes away. Enough "spec" classes already exist.

If the 7 is left to rot in A as is, then I'm afraid I'll become a big supporter.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 07, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by Jake:

I still think the solution is to drop the slow 75% of ITA into ITB, potentially w/more weight. Drop the slower ITB cars to ITC, and drop slower ITC to bring back ITD.
Click to expand...

This is what I have been saying...all you have to add is "slow X% of the ITS cars to ITA" (there are problems there too....right)
Sounds like we are re-writing the IT class structure.

And I am not for putting any old cars out to pasture...the oldest 7 is 11yrs newer then my car. What I want is a place to run that car, might not be up front but I can run it. I think it would be VERY bad to take that away from anyone.
 
Originally posted by cherokee:
This is what I have been saying...all you have to add is "slow X% of the ITS cars to ITA" (there are problems there too....right)
Click to expand...

This was the first step. Read this month's fastrack again. I think they did a great job at choosing the mis-classed ITS cars to drop into A.
 
I am philosophically against the IT7 concept, but, here in the real world, I support it.

I'm hoping that the guys at the big table make it so that it's not needed, and it goes away. Enough "spec" classes already exist.

If the 7 is left to rot in A as is, then I'm afraid I'll become a big supporter.
Click to expand...

Then we are thinking alike on this topic. I don't really like the idea of another spec class, especially one that isn't really "spec", like IT7. OTOH, the Gen1 RX-7 is fairly popular in SEDiv, and it is rotting in ITA. It is nice to have a place to run where we're not "guaranteed" to be at the back of the pack, though.

------------------
Doug "Lefty" Franklin
NutDriver Racing
www.nutdriver.org

[This message has been edited by CaptainWho (edited April 07, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by CaptainWho (edited April 07, 2004).]
 
The more I think about this, the more I believe that the comp board has in fact approved my request to create IT2 - albeit without the formulaic weight leveling: I'm just going to have to wait 20 years for the bottom 2/3rds of the grid to rust away or the drivers to lose interest.

I'm still tending toward positive on the changes that are afoot - seriously - but it's a shame that our system makes real strategic thinking impossible.

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