Fastrack 04-02

[Banzai240]

Latest Fastrack is up:

http://www.scca.org/news/tech/fastrack/04-...-02Fastrack.pdf (http://www.scca.org/news/tech/fastrack/04-02Fastrack.pdf)

Before you guys start shooting across the bow after reading it... Let me assure you that you are not the only ones who are unhappy with a few things...




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Knestis]

Golf III years are fixed - kuul.

I'm intrigued by the recommendation that the '94-95 Civic EX be moved from S to A effective 1/1/05 (emphasis mine). One the one hand, it's nice that the CB is willing to consider this obvious change - since it didn't require an adjustment, errr, weight change - but 2005?

K



[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 19, 2003).]

[planet6racing]

Hmm... Very interesting. Saturn Ion Redline classified in T2. FC may go to open engine formula like FA (can you say Saturn powered Formula car? I know you can!).

Curiously, though, no comments about the PCAs. This has been out for comment for at least 6 months now. Are they waiting for the January meeting to discuss it?

And, why are the FasTracks coming out so early now? I -just- got my January Sports Car this week and the next FasTrack is already out?


------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[Greg Amy]

"...the Competition Board still feels that the Neon would be too fast for ITA."

Well, there melts my snowball...


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...no comments about the PCAs...</font>

Why kill off the golden opportunity they have left to defer reclassification requests out of ITS?


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...why are the FasTracks coming out so early now?</font>

I'm guessing this is a one-time deal in order to get the last business of 2003 out to the membership prior to 1/1/04. I'm sure they don't want to re-experience the black eye that the club got from the Z4/SSB Runoffs debacle.

Anyone want to buy a very-well-built Nissan NX2000? It would make a hell of a nice autocross car...It's past time to pull the plug on this project, stop wasting my finances and energy, and go race Spec Miata.

GA

[Maddog]

Originally posted by planet6racing:
And, why are the FasTracks coming out so early now? I -just- got my January Sports Car this week and the next FasTrack is already out?




It goes up on the website about the same time it goes to the printer for the next magazine.

About 4 weeks before Sports Car hits the mail box is about normal.

[planet6racing]

Greg:

Doesn't it still go by the issue date, not the date published to the web? I remember them talking about changing it, but it, like everything else, got tabled (or forgotten about)...

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[Bill Miller]

Well, I see that the reclassification requests that I sent in in late October/early November didn't even get mentioned.

I find it amazing that they say that they can't adjust the weight of the Neon if they move it from ITS to ITA, yet they can correct the VR6 Golf and Jetta weights. Pretty funny that both the Golf and Jetta have the same spec weight now as well. Especially since the Jetta weighed more than the Golf. How can these people do this w/ straight faces? BTW, since they've corrected two more car's weights, I guess I need to write yet another letter asking for the basis of the correction.

I also find it funny that one request is shot done because the weight is 'correct as specified', yet two other cars are corrected.

I'm also puzzled by the need to wait until 1/05 for the Honda move. If they feel that the car is incorrectly classed, why does it have to wait another year?

As far as the Golf III goes, I didn't see any specs listed for the new cars.

On the upside though, I got a 100# early X-mas present. I get to take another 100# of my HP Rabbit. YES!!!!

And since we're on the subject of Prod cars, I can't believe they're moving the Lotus/Caterham 7's from FP to EP. Jerry Hinkle owns the EP record at Summit Point in a Lotus 7.

[Renaultfool]

Interesting, the 1.7 Renault Alliance in HP. In the specs you can mill the head to achive 10.5 to one compression, but this head is flat with no combustion chamber so you can mill all you want and nothing will happen compression wise. I wonder if you can mill the block, that would help.

[lateapex911]

My sources indicate that PCAs are still alive and kicking.

Keep in mind that there is a lot that occupies the CBs time other than IT issues. The recent Runoffs was very, umm , 'active'. and there have been some issues requiring copiuos amounts of CB time. Darin, care to enlighten me regarding your alluded to internal disention? I feel like I missed something.

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

[Greg Gauper]

Originally posted by Renaultfool:
Interesting, the 1.7 Renault Alliance in HP. In the specs you can mill the head to achive 10.5 to one compression, but this head is flat with no combustion chamber so you can mill all you want and nothing will happen compression wise. I wonder if you can mill the block, that would help.

FYI - the two legal methods of raising compression in production on a limited prep engine are to either a) mill the head or B) run alternate pistons with any profile i.e. dished/domed, etc to raise compression. The rules aren't like IT in which the exact same configuration/shape/type/etc are specified.

I don't know if that makes a difference with your particular engine or not, but unless you are running an old flathead Ford, I would think different pistons would help....

[BVNitta]

Hmm...most annoying..The Opel compression ratio gift given to us in August of 9:1 was reduced back down to 7.6:1, in the Tech Buletin Errors Omissions.. Section. Alright, who ratted ? Come on out !

Good thing I was lazy and didn't pull my engine yet..but seriously, is anyone winning or even being remotely competitive with Mantas any more ?

Bhima

[Knestis]

Ack. You're not suggesting that a car's spec CR should be based on whether or not it is winning, I hope? Please tell me that you're kidding.

K

[BVNitta]

The story behind the CR spec for the Mantas is long and complex (which means I know little of it...someone like Bob Legere can fill in) and has nothing to do with CA's. I was under the impression that the west coast Opel drivers (Bob Dennard ?) had successfuly petitioned SCCA with the legitimacy of the higher CR spec for Mantas. Apparently not..

Bhima

[Chris Wire]

Also interesting is a comment that they are considering a new D Prod class.



------------------
Chris Wire
Team Wire Racing
ITS Mazda RX7 #35
[email protected]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Chris Wire:
Also interesting is a comment that they are considering a new D Prod class.


I remember DP and CP. Lot of 924s in DP and the 240Z ruled CP. Hell, I even remember BP, but that was before I could even drive. I think some higher P classes would be a good thing - especially if it provided a more logical progression for IT cars to move up.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Knestis]

Amen.

[Bill Miller]

George,

You and I don't often agree, but I'm w/ you on this one. With the exception of GT1 and GT3 (and GT1 is a totally different animal anyway), the other GT classes had pretty low participation (two didn't make numbers for two years).

I'd love to see higher performance level Prod classes.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[itmanta]

I am too short on profanity to express my true feelings. I have a fresh 9:1 Opel motor on a stand ready to be installed and they change the rules back on me now! I have no recourse. I am at least $2000 down the hole. How can the SCCA do that? Pure B.S. I tell you.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by itmanta:
How can the SCCA do that? Pure B.S. I tell you.

The only way they are suppose to do this is if the documentation shows that the models and years in question had 7.6:1 compression from the factory. I know very little about Opels, but if there is factory documentation that shows the specifications were otherwise, you need to gather it and send it to the Technical department along with a letter explaining the error.

I went back and looked, and the ITAC received a letter way back last March asking that the specifications be corrected for valve sizes and compression. The CB was suppose to validate the data and correct it. They seem to have found something that caused them to change their minds. One can't really assume what that might have been, so the prudent thing to do would be to get whatever information you have that shows the factory compression ratios for all the years in question and send it to the appropriate people.

If the factory documents do indeed show the compression ratio as 7.6:1, then surely you must have questioned the change to 9.0 in the first place, and a red-flag would have had to been raised in your brain saying 'there is a conflict here... I should double check this before spending $2000'

Sorry, but the CRB, BoD, and ITAC can't possibly know the specs for EVERY car out there, and mistakes do get made when dealing with this much data... That's why you are required to have the factory manual for your car...

If the data exists to validate the compression ratio, I suggest you gather it and send it in with a letter to correct the correction. You'd be suprised how persuasive the correct documentation can be...

Feel free to contact me with any questions...

Good Luck,




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Knestis]

It is utterly crappy that you have to pay the price, Peter but c'mon - who honestly believes that there was a 9:1 CR ANYTHING imported into the U.S. in the early-mid '70s?

If I saw a FasTrack bulletin that said I could build an ITB GTI with a 11:1 engine, I sure wouldn't spend money on one today...

K

[ddewhurst]

They sure fixed the issue with the alternate lower control arm issue in Production. Leave the rule mistake alone so that none of the big boys in Production who have the fully adjustable control arms pi$$ed.

SSDD

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
They sure fixed the issue with the alternate lower control arm issue in Production... SSDD

I see it more like SGDD... (Same Gripe, Different Day...)

I also don't see all this as a lost cause, but rather a CRB who decided to wipe the slate clean before the coming of a new season... (not advocating that at all... just stating an opinion...)

As long as I'm here, I'll keep trying to get things done that make sense... I'd suggest you all tighten your belts and do the same.

As for Production control arms... there is only so much you can do when you can't move the inner pivots, and I don't see this as a problem because it doesn't take much to design and build a nice lower control arm in my opinion... If people are spending a $1000 each for these things, then let-em, because if it weren't legal, they'd spend that money on something else anyhow and I'd rather see them spend it there than somewhere where a real difference might be made... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Originally posted by Chris Wire:
Also interesting is a comment that they are considering a new D Prod class.



yes D/PROD is in the works, its the only reasonable thing to do if your about to drop 50 new overdogs into E/PROD, and they must in order to keep production classes from dwindling away, my guess is all current EP cars will eventually be dropped to DP and the 4 valve 2.2 to 2.6 ltr cars will make up EP. A good indication of things to come is the reclassification of the caterham 7 lotus replica to FP for 04. I wont be a bit surprised to see some small v6 cars dropped into EP the minute DP is launched.

[ddewhurst]

Darin, just what was the intent of LP. IIRC the intent was to allow a little more motor for straight line speed & to follow the suspension rules of IT so the LP cars were not as quick throught the turns. All in an effort to get more cars to race Production. The friken restricted suspension rules all read IIRC the same except two rules, one being this alternate control arm rule. Lets not go off on tangents about what if & all that crap.

In your memory/knowledge what was the intent of the LP (restricted suspension)Production when LP started ?

[itmanta]

When I read fast track in August I considered the Opel changes an adjustment. I must have just been blind with stupidity (after all I had been waiting ten years to see the changes). Well if they changed the compression ratio back when are they going to change the other concession?

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

[ddewhurst]

***there is only so much you can do when you can't move the inner pivots,***

Darin, the rule does not say "inner pivots".

The rule says:

Pickup points may be reinforced but not relocated.

Alternate control arms & pickup points. Let your mind wonder & see what you can design for a suspension.

[Bill Miller]

Peter,

I totally feel for you, and I think you got hosed, but ask how many folks on this board got hosed when they outlawed engine coatings?

And Darrel, whatever happend to putting reclassifications out for member input? They did it w/ the ITA -> ITB VW, why didn't they do it w/ the Lotus/Caterham 7? It's going to be interesting to see how much weight they throw at them. It'll also be interesting to see who's running them in '04.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Bildon]

>> I am at least $2000 down the hole.

Naw, you can get a thick copper or steel gasket (all the turbo boys use them) for around $200... custom made. Will drop you a point and a half easily.

...my question is...how'd you get your 9:1 in the first place without breaking the factory minimum on the head or running different pistons?

- Bill

[itmanta]

Hey Bill,

The Opel 1.9L engines came from the factory with 9:1 pistons, just not in the Manta. 9:1 would have put us in the same compression ratio "range" as most of our competitors. Most of the top cars in ITB however are still higher.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by itmanta:
When I read fast track in August I considered the Opel changes an adjustment.....


An adjustment??? Why? How?? Last I checked, we had no "adjustments" in IT. I'm confused....




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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

You and I don't often agree, but I'm w/ you on this one. With the exception of GT1 and GT3 (and GT1 is a totally different animal anyway), the other GT classes had pretty low participation (two didn't make numbers for two years).

I'd love to see higher performance level Prod classes.



And GT really has become quite an abomination from what it first was. Surely you remember Tom Davey's GT3 winning Sciroccos? All tub. It wasn't until the mid to late 80s IIRC that tube framed "funny cars" became the norm in GT.

As a personal opinion, get rid of GT except perhaps GT1 and bolster P. Consider a class between IT and P. Wow, like a real stepping stone of classes.

But, that's just one opinion and I'm sure there are as many as there are members.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Bill Miller]

Actually George, I don't think that getting rid of of GT2-5 is all that bad of an idea. But, I don't think you need a class between IT and Prod. What I think would be better is to have Prod be all full-prep, and have IT be what limited-prep Prod is now. Any car classed in IT would also be classed in Prod. And if you got rid of those 4 GT classes, you could add two more to both IT and Prod! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

Just think of it, ITGT and IT2, as well as CProd and DProd. Think of the possibilities! I bet even Darin could live w/ that one! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif


But, this is really just tilting at windmills, as the folks in Topeka have already thrown the rulebook away w.r.t. class participation numbers (I'm sure there are a few old SSA folks that wish they would have done that back in '99!).

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[x-ring]

Originally posted by Knestis:
...but c'mon - who honestly believes that there was a 9:1 CR ANYTHING imported into the U.S. in the early-mid '70s?

K

Gee Kirk, I do. The 240Z in '70 and '71 had a 9.0:1 CR engine. I think it dropped slightly (maybe to 8.8:1?) for '72 &'73.

Ty

[jlucas]

Originally posted by Knestis:

I'm intrigued by the recommendation that the '94-95 Civic EX be moved from S to A effective 1/1/05 (emphasis mine). One the one hand, it's nice that the CB is willing to consider this obvious change - since it didn't require an adjustment, errr, weight change - but 2005?

Kirk, maybe it's a typo. I'd inquire to National if your that interested. I'm sure Downing will be on the phone as soon as he see's this.


[This message has been edited by jlucas (edited December 23, 2003).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by jlucas:
Kirk, maybe it's a typo.

I don't think it's a typo, but I have no idea why the long lead time... For some reason, a lot of these things are being pushed out to '05 by the CRB, and I'm not sure why that is...


As for getting rid of GT... WHY?? That is the FINAL prep level. And WHY change IT??? IT doesn't have a problem with participation and most here don't have a problem with the prep level.

Sounds like someone is wanting everyone else to conform so that PRODUCTION can benefit while not making any drastic changes itself at all... I don't think it works that way...

The proper feeder system would have SS to IT, to some form of "IT on Steroids", to "IT on Steroids" with more engine prep and slicks, to GT... That way someone could start a car and develop it up through the classes...

Right now, that can't be done unless you pick a car that was hand selected for Production because it filled a need.

I find it interesting that Production seems to feel it's so special that everyone else should conform to it's needs, when, in reality, it's the one with the problem...

There is a wealth of cars out there for a supply, you just have to figure out how to accomodate them. AND, there are lots of drivers out there, fragmented into catch-all classes, who could be drawn to the fold if you just provided a level of prep beyond IT that fit their interests, and the cars they are driving... (street touring Hondas, Acuras, Subarus, Mitsus, etc...)

Solo seems to have it figured out... but Club just doesn't seem to be paying attention...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...start a car and develop it up through the classes...</font>

I agree with your position, with one clarification: there is no reality to the idea of "developing" a Prod car into a nationally-winning GT car.

I like GT - a lot - but there is very little value in trying to modify any tub-based car into a GT car if you want to be the top dog. Every top-flight GT car is a custom-built tube frame chassis with minimal "stock" parts. You start completely from scratch with your racing parts catalog to build it.

GT-1? Tube-frame car with fiberglass/carbon fiber Dzus-fastened panels, powered by a Roush-built engine going through a racing transmission to a racing third member. GT-3? Tube-frame car with fiberglass/carbon-fiber Dzus-fastened panels, powered by a Toyota Atlantic engine going through a racing transmission to a racing third member. All suspension parts are racing-only items, custom built for the wheelbase and track required by the rules. SCCA GT cars are to production-based cars like NASCARs are to the Ford Taurus (or whatever they're racing now...)

Once you divorce yourself from the idea that GT is a natural progression within the club tin-tops model, you quickly see that Production is the epitomy of production-based racing in SCCA Club racing.

Given this, any discussions in regards to GT should be taken on their own merit as a totally separate ideal within the club structure. The fact that a tub-based car "can" race in GT is irrelevant to the bottom line.

GA

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grega:
I agree with your position, with one clarification: there is no reality to the idea of "developing" a Prod car into a nationally-winning GT car.

Greg,
I can agree with what you are saying, but this club can afford to keep a place for purpose built race cars as well. The only real problem with GT isn't the chassis anyhow, it's the motor programs... You can get a nice rolling chassis, pretty much ready to go for $8,000 and up... The motors, however, are simply out of reach for most...

That being said, I'd like to clarify one thing I said ealier.... "IT on Steroids with more engine prep and slicks" was meant to convey the idea of Limited Prep Production style classes... The reason that any reference to IT was used here at all is because the current Production structure just doesn't accomodate the majority of even the most current IT cars, so something would need to be done to allow ALL cars classed in the lesser prepped classes to fit in...

I agree that Production is a good example of developed "Production" cars... unfortunately, it's the example from 20 years ago...

It would only take a few minor tweaks to bring it up to date (and NO, I don't mean allowing wings and body kits...!). Stabilize the Restricted Prep engine rules and allow for modern tire sizes and you'd be well on your way...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited December 23, 2003).]

[BVNitta]

Re the Opel CR, when I get the straight dope from Dennard and/or Legere I'll post it. It seemed like this petition has a lot of history behind it - more than the 10 yrs worth Peter suggests... BTW, Kirk, the Opel GT with the same 1.9L motor, comes stock with 9:1 CR. I'll go out on a limb and guess the scenario - when the Mantas were marketed in the US, some customers concerned with the anemic performance may have had Buick retrofit them with 9:1 pistons. Was there enough demand for Buick to offer the higher CR motor as an option ? Don't know.. The issue may have been partially resolved with Opel offering fuel injection in '75 Mantas (which is one thing Opel drivers can legitimately take advantage of and get a good bump in performance).

Bhima

PS: Looks like about 10 different discussions going on in this one topic. Let's create a new topic for the Manta CR if/when we get more data.

[RacerBill]

I don't know if there is any point to this particular fact, but I just counted the number of car models that are listed on the SCCA's searchable database of classified cars, including GT, SS, IT, Prod, AS, and Touring, counting only once cars classified in more than one group, and counting each line only once even if it lists like CRX and CRXsi - 394 different makes/models! Not counting Formula and Sports Racers!

IMHO, GT and to some extent Prod has evolved into what was formerly called Modified (when racers would cram V-8's in Austin 3000's, etc.). The Sedan classes were very close to what IT is today. Not saying it was a lot better, but it was more pure racing.

I also believe that there should be something for everyone - if you want showroom stock, pure race, or whatever in between. But I do think that we have too many classes where you have to spend a fortune to run anywhere near the front. If the club is going to grow, we need to develop the middle ground, which right now happens to be IT.

David D, PROD cars cannot change control arm mounts at all other than bracing them, if its a rx7 you can only cut the A arm pivot sleeve off and weld it to your own custom made arm which gets you nothing but a bunch of wasted time, some moron thought he was going to gain some advantage and asked for "any" control arm and the comp board laughed and wrote the rule like they did as a cruel joke.

[Greg Gauper]

FYI - 2.3L Fords during the 1976 model year (i.e. Carpi II's, Pintos, Mustang II's) had 9:1 motors.

The Mugen CRX driven by Peterson, Johnstone, etal, in GT4 during the mid 80's was a tub car, not a tube car. Kirk Olson's GT5 CRX is a tub car and set the track record during this year's runoffs in a very inspired drive!

[Greg Amy]

Hey, GregG, FYI I think there was a winning tub GT-1 car as late as the mid-70s or 80s, too. I'll bet someone sometime in SCCA club Racing history has won in GT-2, GT-3, GT-4, and GT-5 in production-based cars, as well.

Point? There's not too many things more irritating than someone coming up with single exceptions to refute the generalization...I don't think Kirk asserted that NO car had 9:1 compression in the mid-70s, and I certainly did not assert a tub car NEVER has and NEVER will win in any GT class. However, if your position is that based on your single exceptions a tub car can win *any* GT class *any* given year going forward, I encourage you to give it your best shot...

[Knestis]

It's funny that tube/tub issues in GT, the Sedan classes, and A-arms in Production should come together here. We are really going through the motorsports version of the "fashion cycle" here, where everything old is new again every 20-30 years...

TransAm (as the premier level GT racing in SCCA at the time) went through a transition in the late '70s when someone took the rule that said suspension pieces could be "lightened and reinforced" and extended it logically to "lightening" them completely away and "reinforcing" the resulting blank spot on the bench - to build bits from scratch.

At the same time, someone asked why they couldn't apply the same kind of thinking to the chassis and, rather than building a tube frame in a lightened tub (the ship-in-a-bottle approach), just build the damn chassis like the stock car guys were. Oftedahl and a couple of other key teams turned very economical short track kits into excellent racing cars, spending the savings on testing and kicked the bee-jeebers out of some fairly exotic hardware.

It WAS a more economical approach that extended to GT1, itself the melding of A Sedan (Camaros) and B Production (Corvettes) that used the "old technology." Utlimately, the same logic was applied to the lower GT classes - it is a heck of a lot more economical to build what is described above than try to make a FWD car work.

The march of progress (aka rules creep) has us right back to that time, with some folks advocating that Production rules let the genie out of the bottle. A current Prod car is conceptually and structurally a 30 year old TransAm car and, just like those old stock-framed T/A 'Vettes, they will not be able to make the transition to the next evolution.

Darin's "IT on steroids" could get very close to the old Sedan class if more open engine rules and slicks were applied to a current IT car.

I guess I wonder "why?" It seems obvious that this process is going to happen and it seems like a lot of spinning and wasted motion.

K

PS - my comment about 1970s compression ratios was incomplete: I was thinking "Opels" and am now very surprised to find out that the GT had that much squeeze. I had no idea.

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">You can get a nice rolling chassis, pretty much ready to go for $8,000 and up... </font>

The operative word being up.

Seriously Darin, for $8k, you'll get the shocks, maybe.

And as far as why get rid of GT2-5? With the exception of GT3, they're all on life support. GT2 and GT4 should both be Regional-only for '04 (if the GCR actually meant anything).

And you're so pissed at Production racing, you can't even say it. You call it "IT on steroids w/ more engine prep and slicks". I still think having cars classed as Stock, Limited Prep, and Full Prep would be a good thing. That's essentially SS, IT, and Prod. You want to stick one more layer in there, fine. But, I bet you'd be surprised at the migration from IT to Limited Prep (provided that it was a seperate category, and not part of Production), if all the IT cars were also classed as Limited-Prep cars.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Geo]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
As for getting rid of GT... WHY?? That is the FINAL prep level. And WHY change IT??? IT doesn't have a problem with participation and most here don't have a problem with the prep level.

If it were a matter of level of prep, I could understand, but GT is just tube framed "funny cars" and I don't see the point. Apparently neither do most others (re: participation).


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Bildon]

Aww heck...while we're all on our soap box....

How about aligning the SCCA with the REST of the Civilized world! FIA Group N = IT, World Challenge, etc and Grp A = Production and GT cars.

It sure would be nice if the factories could build racing/rally kits useful for every country.

- Bill

[Knestis]

Bill has my vote for CB chair! Even if the preparation rules were aligned it would be interesting. The homologation rules get problematic for US entrants, however...

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 23, 2003).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
But, I bet you'd be surprised at the migration from IT to Limited Prep (provided that it was a seperate category, and not part of Production), if all the IT cars were also classed as Limited-Prep cars.



Funny Bill, I was thinking about this on the way home from work today... What would happen if we (yes, WE...) sat down and wrote a request for EVERY car in IT to be classified into Production as LP? We wouldn't need a seperate VTS for each, because they are already suppose to be on file with the tech dept...

I don't disagree with you... I don't mind having Limited and Full Prep... I just don't think it makes sense for them to race each other...

What we've done here is taken SCCA back 10 or 20 years in prep level, which I think would be fine for anyone thinking of getting in the game, but would suck for those already there...

I'm not pissed at Production, I just can't stand trying to deal with a set of rules that really don't meet the needs of the membership...

Merry Christmas...

Darin

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:


I don't disagree with you... I don't mind having Limited and Full Prep... I just don't think it makes sense for them to race each other...


Darin, please pay attention. I said if L-P were a seperate category. That would imply that there would be classes w/in that category and those are where the cars would race.




I'm not pissed at Production, I just can't stand trying to deal with a set of rules that really don't meet the needs of the membership...

Merry Christmas...

Darin



Please show me data that supports that claim. There are quite a few Prod drivers out there, and it seems like more new ones emerging every day. I'm guessing that the Prod rules meet their needs.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Please show me data that supports that claim. There are quite a few Prod drivers out there, and it seems like more new ones emerging every day. I'm guessing that the Prod rules meet their needs.

Like I said before Bill... for the select few cars that are classified in Production, it certainly does...

Data? That's easy. Just look at the participation for SCCA races over the past year... How many are in Production compared to ITE???

And I was paying attention. I restated what you said to emphasize that we agree on that point.

Anything else you'd like to pick apart??? I'm game...

[ddewhurst]

Darin, being that your "game" please respond to this previous post as to what you beleive the philosophy of the Cpomp Board is with LP/restricted suspension. All requested with a http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

****Darin, just what was the intent of LP. IIRC the intent was to allow a little more motor for straight line speed & to follow the suspension rules of IT so the LP cars were not as quick throught the turns. All in an effort to get more cars to race Production. The friken restricted suspension rules all read IIRC the same except two rules, one being this alternate control arm rule. Lets not go off on tangents about what if & all that crap.

In your memory/knowledge what was the intent of the LP (restricted suspension)Production when LP started ?****

Happy Holidays to all & your family. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
In your memory/knowledge what was the intent of the LP (restricted suspension)Production when LP started ?****

David,
I'm not sure why you think I'd have any clue at all what the CRB is thinking these days, especially based on recent decisions, but I'll tell you what I originally thought, and still do think, about the LP suspension rules...

When I pulled my RX-3SP out of mothballs, it was an ITA car with 4-piston Wilwoods added and a true Monster-Bridged 12A and I ran it in GT-3... Realizing that this, while fun, was not a place to be competing, I was made aware of the then "new" Restricted Prep Production rules...

Well, it sounded GREAT! IT suspension, but enough motor to make the car fast, and allowances to correct most of the weaknesses inherrent in the suspensions...

I read the rules over and over and over. I have very clear memories of designing several versions of the lower control arms in an attempt to free up the front suspension, as this car happened to be the type where the front sway bar also acted as the T/C-Rods... I was certain then and am certain today, that this was just fine, because the rules specifically allow the use of "alternate control arms"...

It's a natural progression from IT to allow some minor suspension modifications to make the cars a little better than they were in their IT trim. That is what Production racing is about. Where they went wrong was by NOT defining a limitation on the relationship of the inner and outer pivots. They should have specified that the length of these arms must be within some dimension of stock. This would still allow some adjustment and optimization, but would reduce the ability to go too crazy....

That's all I would change. Include a dimensional restriction on the length. Otherwise, the rule is just fine, but then, I'm the type who has no problem designing and building my own stuff, so this appeals to me...

That's about all I can say about this... Not sure how helpful it was, but it's how I feel...

If you'd like to talk about it further, I'm still game. E-mail or respond if you like...


Good Night...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Bill has my vote for CB chair! Even if the preparation rules were aligned it would be interesting. The homologation rules get problematic for US entrants, however...

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 23, 2003).]

Well, before we get the crown out, how many older cars do you see in FIA racing? How many 20 year old cars? Or 30 year old cars?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

With a track specification, isn't that a defacto limit on how long you can make the LCA's? You can only correct track so much, w/ wheel offset/backspacing.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Geo:
...how many older cars do you see in FIA racing? How many 20 year old cars? Or 30 year old cars?

Exactly.

I don't make a big deal of this 'cause I know that it makes some people feel picked on but I truly believe that a huge part of the ongoing challenges with classes and specifications in Club Racing is grounded in efforts to keep old makes on competitive life support.

If DP happens I'll be able to build a full-prep '94 Civic VTEC coupe, right? Maybe attract new, younger members?

Wait - or is it supposed to give me somewhere to run a classic Datsun Z, with more than IT modifications? Give people who've been in the game a while someplace to grow to?

Both?

His engine is twice as big as mine!

He has variable valve timing!

Wah!

Wah!

This will also be a GREAT opportunity to see this culture war play out again, SOMEONE will get SOME gimme in the spec book and "rules kudzu" will be fertilized.

K



[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 24, 2003).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
isn't that a defacto limit on how long you can make the LCA's?

One would think... Like I said, I think the rule is fine just the way it is...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[x-ring]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Wait - or is it supposed to give me somewhere to run a classic Datsun Z, with more than IT modifications?

Uh, doesn't a Clasic Datsun Z with more than IT modifications already have a place to run?

Maybe we should check with Grayson Upchurch http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Ty

Edit: Did you mean '...more than IT suspenion modifications'? I suddenly realized that I wasn't sure exactly what you meant.

[This message has been edited by x-ring (edited December 24, 2003).]

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
One would think... Like I said, I think the rule is fine just the way it is...





<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">That's all I would change. Include a dimensional restriction on the length.</font>

Please make up your mind Darin. Either you'd change something, or it's fine the way it is. I'm not trying to pick on you, but you do this a lot. You say something, and then when somebody (me) says something about it, you say something else.


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Please make up your mind Darin. Either you'd change something, or it's fine the way it is.

Bill, you have to read the whole paragraph...


They should have specified that the length of these arms must be within some dimension of stock. This would still allow some adjustment and optimization, but would reduce the ability to go too crazy....

That's all I would change. Include a dimensional restriction on the length. Otherwise, the rule is just fine

Here... let me put it all together the best I can in type...

"I think the rule is fine the way it is... IF I were to change anything, it would be to add a restriction on the length dimension, but I don't really think it needs changing so I'd just leave it alone..."


Is that better???

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited December 24, 2003).]