PDA

View Full Version : Logic - If X is in A, Y should be in S



Knestis
05-20-2004, 09:48 AM
I think Darin sort of asked this question in the Thread That Ate IT.com but here's a chance to present those logic bomb classification oddities, wherein two cars with essentially the same specs are in different classes - or where a car with evidently inferior specs is in a higher class.

The question can be asked either way of course - the lower-classed being a rationale for moving the higher-classed one or vice-versa.

I'll start with the '94+ non-GSR Integra. If the earlier model is OK for A, it's nothing but anxiety about the newer body style that keeps it in S.

I KNOW there are more...

K

itracer
05-20-2004, 11:44 AM
I'll bite-- (not A/S; but still relevant?)

If ITB VW Scirocco (1.8) is going to ITC next year; why not 1.8 VW Rabbit GTI?

Same car, different body.

------------------
Jason
ITB 17 (NER SCCA)
VW Scirocco

[This message has been edited by itracer (edited May 20, 2004).]

Banzai240
05-20-2004, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by itracer:
If ITB VW Scirocco (1.8) is going to ITC next year; why not 1.8 VW Rabbit GTI?

I don't know where you got this impression... No one that I know has recommended that the 1.8 VWs get moved to ITC... Only the 1.7s...


There are quite a few cars that have yet to be announced in Fastrack as being considered/recommended for reclassification... We have discussed numerous Honda/Acura classifications, and If I recall correctly... the 94-95 Integras were amongst them...

Here's mine... The MR-2, when the CRB sees fit to move it's cousin, the FX-16, to ITB... Does anyone REALLY believe that a car that makes 110hp stock, and MIGHT be able to get 140hp in IT trim, that weighs 2300+ lbs, is going to be competitive with cars making 140+ stock HP, 175+ in IT trim and only weight 100lbs more??? The argument keeps going back to handling... but NO amount of handling is going to overcome this kind of wt/pwr difference...

Simply my opinion, of course...

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 20, 2004).]

itracer
05-20-2004, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I don't know where you got this impression... No one that I know has recommended that the 1.8 VWs get moved to ITC... Only the 1.7s...


Thanks for the clarification. Eithier I read it wrong, or the FastTrack was vague.

~Jason

Banzai240
05-20-2004, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by itracer:
Eithier I read it wrong, or the FastTrack was vague.
~Jason

No, you didn't read it wrong... it IS vague... It only says the '82-'84 VW Scirocco... The Fastracks seem to be running about 2-months behind some of these recommendations, and I'm certain we've recommended that all of the 1.7L VW ITB cars be reclassified to ITC.



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

dickita15
05-20-2004, 06:27 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Does anyone REALLY believe that a car that makes 110hp stock, and MIGHT be able to get 140hp in IT trim, that weighs 2300+ lbs, is going to be competitive with cars making 140+ stock HP, 175+ in IT trim and only weight 100lbs more???

oh for minute I thought you were back to
the Rx7, but it does not make that much power.
dick

Bill Miller
05-20-2004, 07:36 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
No, you didn't read it wrong... it IS vague... It only says the '82-'84 VW Scirocco... The Fastracks seem to be running about 2-months behind some of these recommendations, and I'm certain we've recommended that all of the 1.7L VW ITB cars be reclassified to ITC.




Well Darin, if they're moving the '84 Scirocco to ITC, that would mean they're moving the 1.8 version, as the '84 Scirocco never came w/ a 1.7. And, while I'm not 100% sure, I don't think the '83 did eiher. IIRC, the only year of the Mk II Scirocco that came w/ a 1.7 was the '82. But, I pointed out this error in the ITCS specs a while ago.

And, from the way the comment in FasTrack went, the 1.8 cars would be moved, so long as there was a legal way to adjust the weight. Which by the way, is already in place, and does not need to wait for PCA's to be implemented. But, you already knew that!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif


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

Jake
05-20-2004, 09:34 PM
Obviously I'm with Darin - I think all the Toyota 4AGE cars should follow the FX16 at the same weight. AE86 and MR2 to B @ 2445 is fine by me.

If the 94-95 Civic EX coupe moves from S to A, the 92-94 Si should move as well, considering it has a higher classed weight and the same engine.

Talking about ITS and MR2's, I honestly think the 2nd Gen MR2 would a great canditate to move from ITS to ITA. At 130hp and a 2545lbs spec weight, it seems like a great fit in the new ITA.

Also, if the 87 Prelude Si moves from A to B, the 86-88 LXi should as well. It has the same power and is speced heavier.

Geo
05-21-2004, 12:06 AM
Originally posted by Jake:
Talking about ITS and MR2's, I honestly think the 2nd Gen MR2 would a great canditate to move from ITS to ITA. At 130hp and a 2545lbs spec weight, it seems like a great fit in the new ITA.

I agree it's a fit with the new ITA. I'd have to look at the weight a little closer. Off the top of my head that weight seems fine, but I'd want a closer look. The car looks like an ITA car to me though.

My own personal controversy is the 944 now looks like an ITA car. It has nearly the same spec as the ITA 240SX. The 944 is a 2.5 while the 240 is a 2.4. Both are SOHC. The 944 has a little bigger brakes, but the 240 has a better rear suspension. To top it off, the 944 is already significantly heavier and it's in ITS at the moment.

I know some folks will think I'm smoking something or just trying to get my car a good deal, but that is NOT the case. On paper it's a good match. I think for those subjective, intangible things the ITAC talks about in setting weights, the 944 should be a bit heavier.

If you look at the power/weight of the 944S and the 944 (exact same chassis) the 944 doesn't seem to fit ITS anymore with the move to making it a bit faster class with the new cars coming along. Only one 944 seems to do well with any consistency (Chris Camedalla's).


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

Banzai240
05-21-2004, 01:19 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
It has nearly the same spec as the ITA 240SX. The 944 is a 2.5 while the 240 is a 2.4. Both are SOHC. The 944 has a little bigger brakes, but the 240 has a better rear suspension. To top it off, the 944 is already significantly heavier and it's in ITS at the moment.

Ummmm... The stock HP for the 240SX is 140, and the stock HP for a 1987 or so 944 is more like 157 or 163... depending on which spec sheet you are reading... Kind of a significant difference...

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

TBreu007
05-21-2004, 02:32 AM
I know it's tough if not impossible to factor this into a classification since there are so many differences in the level of prep on IT cars, but the ITA 240sx sees a significant HP improvement when fully prepped. Even with just the basics like intake, header and ecu the single cam 240 makes more HP than a stock 944. The 944 will not see the same HP gains with the same level of prep.

Banzai240
05-21-2004, 09:05 AM
Originally posted by TBreu007:
The 944 will not see the same HP gains with the same level of prep.

How do you qualify this statement? What factors of the 944 keep it from making the gains?

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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 21, 2004).]

Geo
05-21-2004, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Ummmm... The stock HP for the 240SX is 140, and the stock HP for a 1987 or so 944 is more like 157 or 163... depending on which spec sheet you are reading... Kind of a significant difference...



The early 944 makes 143 bhp stock. Late makes 158 bhp.

The 944 weighs almost 200 lbs more than the 240SX (SOHC) and the 944 is in ITS while the 240SX is in ITA. I already said the weight should be looked at, but the 944 would come in with most of the additional weight it would need.

Lastly, I'll be a Sunbelt or Rebello KA24 crate motor will put out pretty close to a Jon Milledge 944 crate motor. The 944 has negative cam overlap making it pretty unresonsive to headers. The flapper door AFM chokes the intake. Also, the Milledge crate motor uses unobtanium 0.040" pistons which are NLA according to a conversation I had with him a year and a half ago.


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


[This message has been edited by Geo (edited May 21, 2004).]

Tristan Smith
05-21-2004, 11:51 AM
Well as a owner of 240sx with a Sunbelt built motor, I can tell you that we are still not making more hp than the 944 with any improvement from the IT motor treatment. The torque rating may be better, but I don't know what the 944 makes. What's the rev limit on the 944? I know we are just making noise once we hit 6000+ rpms.
Like all things there are so many things that look the same on paper, but in reality may not translate to equality.

------------------
Tristan Smith
Buffalo's Southwest Cafe
ITA Nissan 240sx #56

Geo
05-21-2004, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by Tristan Smith:
Well as a owner of 240sx with a Sunbelt built motor, I can tell you that we are still not making more hp than the 944 with any improvement from the IT motor treatment. The torque rating may be better, but I don't know what the 944 makes.

I know this is going to sound snotty, but I assure you it's not meant to be.... If you don't know what the 944 is making, how can you tell if you're making more or less? That's not flip, but I'm really curious what you are basing it on.


Originally posted by Tristan Smith:
What's the rev limit on the 944? I know we are just making noise once we hit 6000+ rpms.
Like all things there are so many things that look the same on paper, but in reality may not translate to equality.

The rev limit of the 944 is about 6500, but most raise it to 7000. That's pretty much the same as the KA24 IIRC. And like the KA24, there's no additional power being made above 6000.

BTW, Jon Milledge advertises 183 bhp, but that's with pistons that are NLA. And you can't just use aftermarket pistons with the 944 because the block is not sleeved so the pistons must have an iron oxide coating. So, figure a few bhp off that figure.


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

Tristan Smith
05-22-2004, 09:36 AM
Well actually George, you stated what it made.

"The early 944 makes 143 bhp stock. Late makes 158 bhp."

If you made absolutely no improvements with a built up IT Late 944 Porsche motor then we would be close. But since I think that there would be some improvement, you got me beat. And if the following statement is true, well then, you are kicking my butt with horsepower.

"Jon Milledge advertises 183 bhp, but that's with pistons that are NLA. And you can't just use aftermarket pistons with the 944 because the block is not sleeved so the pistons must have an iron oxide coating. So, figure a few bhp off that figure."

The fact remains, money being no limit, that you COULD get that kind of power out the 944. If the 944 were classed in "A" and became a winner there, I guarantee someone will spend what ever it takes to make that kind of horsepower. I mean, heck I would.

------------------
Tristan Smith
Buffalo's Southwest Cafe
ITA Nissan 240sx #56

[This message has been edited by Tristan Smith (edited May 22, 2004).]

Geo
05-22-2004, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by Tristan Smith:
If you made absolutely no improvements with a built up IT Late 944 Porsche motor then we would be close. But since I think that there would be some improvement, you got me beat. And if the following statement is true, well then, you are kicking my butt with horsepower.

Well, something is wrong then. If a Sunbelt KA24 only makes 158 bhp, something sounds very wrong. A JWT ECU (IT tune for race gas) and Hotshot header should get that in an otherwise stock engine.

I've been in the same race with Bob Stretch where he was duking it out for the overall lead (with an ITS car). So, if we want to take the best 944 engine, we need to take the best 240SX engine.

And I agree that the 944 can make nearly 180 bhp (since the 40 over pistons are NLA, 183 is not possible). Also, don't forget the 944 is nearly 200 lbs heavier than the ITA 240SX already.


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

Bill Miller
05-22-2004, 07:54 PM
George,

I don't understand the .040 over pistons being NLA. Can't you get ones from Weisco or JE (or any of the other custom piston vendors)?

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

Greg Amy
05-22-2004, 08:06 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...Stretch...was duking it out for the overall lead (with an ITS car).</font>

What, and who, was the ITS car? I've beaten an occasional E36, that don't make my NX2000 a better car than the BMW...

And, fact remains, pistons are available for the 944, just not "off the shelf." You can have pistons made in any design and specification you want.

If "off the shelf" race parts were a prerequisite for classifications, me and my NX2000 would be in ITC...

JeffYoung
05-22-2004, 08:42 PM
Seems to me that if we moved all cars with 160-180 hp weighing in the 2400 to 2800 lb range to ITA, we'd have what, 3 cars left in S -- BMW, Mazda and Datsun?

Geo
05-23-2004, 03:08 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

I don't understand the .040 over pistons being NLA. Can't you get ones from Weisco or JE (or any of the other custom piston vendors)?



Actually, I explained that before. The 944 block is Alusil, an aluminum/silica alloy and the pistons must be coated with an iron oxide coating. Nobody is making them. There is rumor that a manufacturer is thinking of making them available again, but that was 6 months ago and I've seen nothing else yet.

At the moment, they truly are NLA.


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

Geo
05-23-2004, 03:10 AM
Originally posted by grega:
And, fact remains, pistons are available for the 944, just not "off the shelf." You can have pistons made in any design and specification you want.

It would be nice if it were true, but it is not. They require a special coating and NOBODY is producing them. The rest of process of getting pistons is easy. Nobody is doing the coatings. People have looked into this.


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

Bill Miller
05-23-2004, 11:21 AM
George,

And just what happens if you don't coat the pistons? Also, per the engine coating rule, how would the coated pistons even be legal?

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

Geo
05-23-2004, 12:56 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

And just what happens if you don't coat the pistons? Also, per the engine coating rule, how would the coated pistons even be legal?



The coatings are OEM Bill.

If you don't coat them you make it quite likely that the pistons will gall. Aluminum doesn't like sliding on aluminum.


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

Banzai240
05-23-2004, 01:54 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
The coatings are OEM Bill.

If you don't coat them you make it quite likely that the pistons will gall.

If you DON'T coat them... they won't be "exact equivalents" and would therefore not be legal! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

Eagle7
05-23-2004, 06:03 PM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Seems to me that if we moved all cars with 160-180 hp weighing in the 2400 to 2800 lb range to ITA, we'd have what, 3 cars left in S -- BMW, Mazda and Datsun?

I'm pretty sure the Mazda tops out at about 170 to the wheels - 2680 lbs.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR

Bill Miller
05-23-2004, 07:11 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
If you DON'T coat them... they won't be "exact equivalents" and would therefore not be legal! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



Nice try Darin, but a forged piston is hardly an 'exact equivalent' of a cast piston, yet forged pistons have been deemed legal. So, it's already been established that, at least in the case of pistons, the replacement parts don't have to be 'exact equivalents' of the OEM parts.

As far as the coating question, I was playing devil's advocate. It would seem that a coating would be required, in this case. Yet, the ITCS expressley prohibts coating of internal engine components. Quandry? Could be...

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

JeffYoung
05-23-2004, 08:31 PM
Marty, should have been clearer. I meant 160-180 at the crank with IT mods. I only know a couple of cars (due to development or potential) that go higher, BMW (240 at the crank?), Mazda (200 at the crank?) and 240-300Z (190-210 at the crank?).

Everybody else is chasing those guys, again I think mostly because of development. I'm at about 170 at the crank (estimated, "S" car with 2560 min weight) and I know there is more there -- the bump in compression, .040 pistons, gasket matching, etc. Right now, I just have a good, well built, balanced and blueprinted stock motor.

My point is that based on Tristan and George's discussion above, there wouldn't be a good reason for whole lot cars to stay in S if we could justify moving the 944 to A.

George, usually agree with you, but I think Tristan is right. Not sure I can see moving the 944 to A.

Geo
05-24-2004, 12:27 AM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
George, usually agree with you, but I think Tristan is right. Not sure I can see moving the 944 to A.

I'm not trying to be argumentative in the least, but I'm curious why? Specs are pretty danged close, and I'll bet hp potential are pretty similar. And the 944 weighs in at 185 lbs more.

So, I guess I'd be curious what specific points you would have.

I'm stepping lightly here because of my position on the ITAC and the fact this affects me personally. But, I'm trying to look at this VERY objectively with sensitivity to specific subjectivity. From where I sit, the 185 lbs more than makes up for any additional power and intangible performance potential. But again, I'm interested in hearing the feedback.


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

JeffYoung
05-24-2004, 01:01 AM
George, appreciate the tone of your response.

Here's my thinking, and I invite you to respond so we can continue talking about this.

I'll start with my car, and then move to others. I drive a car that was, I have heard, perhaps the very first dominant S car, the TR8. Specs are: 135 hp stock, 160-170 pretty easy to obtain with headers and emissions off, and a good blueprint and balance. 180 to 200 ft lbs of torque, which is the primary advantage of the car. Terrible brakes, small discs in front, drums in rear. Live rear axle. 2560 min weight.

Stack that up against a 944....other than the torque figures, and the weight, the 944 is a far "superior" car. So does my car belong in A? I'm not sure that anyone would agree that it does.

Move on to the rest of S. Preludes, Calais, Integras, Celicas, 2nd Gen MR2s, VR6s, etc. etc. etc. All about 2300 to 2600 lbs. All about 130-150 stock crank hp.

All very much like the 944 and the TR8.

Do we move all of these cars to A? I guess that was my point. If we start moving cars like the 944 and the TR8, which are outclassed but not totally out of place in S to A, I'm not sure where we stop. Do we end up with just 325s, 2nd Gen RX7s and 240zs in S?

While I'm knew to the club and racing, I've pretty quickly picked up on the fact that Prod is dying and I can see the reasons why -- PCAs to keep the enfranchised group competitive. So I'm very leery of PCAs because what I love most about IT is large, varied fields.

But maybe it is simple and limited weight adjustments that can resolve the issues we have raised here for week and weeks. Say you took 200 lbs off the 944 and the TR8, and the MR2 and the Celica and the VR6 and the Volvo 850......I don't know.

But what I am pretty sure about is that moving higher hp rear drive GT/Sports cars to A is probably a mistake; as much a mistake as classing the Bimmer at the weight they did in S.

And that's really the issue in S isn't it? Without the BMW, most cars are much closer to the front.

Banzai240
05-24-2004, 01:15 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
So, it's already been established that, at least in the case of pistons, the replacement parts don't have to be 'exact equivalents' of the OEM parts.



ITCS 17.1.4.D.1.j
Factory oversize replacement pistons or their exact equivalent shall be used. Cast or forged equivalent pistons shall provide the same dome/dish/valve relief configuration, ring thickness and spacing, pin height relationship, weight, and compression ratio as factory replacement oversize pistons.

Ummmm.... YES... as a matter of fact they do...



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

Bill Miller
05-24-2004, 07:47 AM
Well Darin, I stand corrected. Could invoke the Don Horner rule though, and say that the rule goes on to operationalize what 'equivalent' is. Gives lots of areas that have to match OEM, but says nothing of coatings. However, I'll concede that you probably would be legal using coated, aftermarket pistons. Although, I'd not want to have to argue that one in the tech shed.

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

Geo
05-24-2004, 10:42 AM
However, I'll concede that you probably would be legal using coated, aftermarket pistons. Although, I'd not want to have to argue that one in the tech shed.
[/B]

I don't think anyone would have a problem with aftermarket pistons with the factory coatings. Unfortunately this is purely a theoretical discussion because they don't exist. (assuming we are still talking about the 944 pistons here)


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

Greg Amy
05-24-2004, 10:58 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...because they don't exist...</font>

George, you cannot hide behind that as a defense for moving the car to ITA.

- A race-quality rear swaybar does not exist for my car. We fabricated it.
- Good adjustable upper strut mounts, front and rear, do not exist for my car. We fabricated them.
- Proper geometry struts do not exist for my car. We fabricated them.
- A good ECU doesn't exist for my car. We're reprograming one.

I could go on and on, but I suspect you get my point: lack of off-the-shelf parts for *any* car cannot be used as a crutch for claiming lack of performance, thus reclassification. You can have anything you want fabricated; maybe not cheap, but it definitely can be done. Until the day you are willing to add into the ITCS a price limit on parts, then as long as fabricators exist, legal parts can be made to order.

You, yourself, have long stood behind the target that read 'until you've done all you can on your car you cannot claim to need reclassification.' I did exactly that, now it's your turn.

Have the pistons made. Don't give me that BS, George, they *can* be made. When you then cannot keep up in ITS, only then will it be time to follow your own advice and send a letter to the ITAC and Comp Board requesting reclassification.

Until then, please stop with the 944. I think it's obvious to everyone - except you - that the car belongs in ITS for now.

GregA

Jake
05-24-2004, 11:02 AM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Move on to the rest of S. Preludes, Calais, Integras, Celicas, 2nd Gen MR2s, VR6s, etc. etc. etc. All about 2300 to 2600 lbs. All about 130-150 stock crank hp.

All very much like the 944 and the TR8.

Do we move all of these cars to A?

I for one say yes. Honestly I think about 3/4 of the ITS feild can move to NEW-ITA, 3/4 of the ITA field can move to ITB, and 3/4 of ITB can move to ITC. This would go a LONG way to making more compatable fields, evening out the class subscriptions, and allowing newer cars a place to run.

Geo
05-24-2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by grega:
George, you cannot hide behind that as a defense for moving the car to ITA.

OK Greg this is getting bloody tiring.

Find one place where I used this or lack of any part as a justification for moving the car. Do you not read carefully or do you just make up what you need to make your point?


Originally posted by grega:
Have the pistons made. Don't give me that BS, George, they *can* be made.

Really? Well you're ignorant on this topic. Others have looked into it. Like other things, your saying it doesn't make it true.


Originally posted by grega:
Until then, please stop with the 944. I think it's obvious to everyone - except you - that the car belongs in ITS for now.

Really? You were quite verbose about all the reasons your NX should be moved.

Show me how different the 944 is from the SOHC 240SX, an ITA car that weighs 185lbs less. Give me something solid rather that just spewing.


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

Tristan Smith
05-24-2004, 11:52 AM
Geo,

First for the record. I am not taking a stand one way or the other for moving the 944 to "A". I am so slow lately, due to driver incompetence, I have bigger issues to worry about.

Couple of things to think about. I would say that a well prepped IT 944 motor is simply making more horsepower than an equivilant 240sx motor. Period. Bob Stretch aside, 240sx's while quick in various regions are not an overdog in "A". And most of Bob Stretch's speed is due to his excellent driving skills. So he may not be an accurant benchmark to use.

Second, I personally know of no 240sx's that are making minimum weight. Everyone I talk to is 50lbs to 100lbs overweight, and there aren't many places to legally take it away. So your 180lbs weight difference is propably less than you think. Just some things to add to the discussion.

------------------
Tristan Smith
Buffalo's Southwest Cafe
ITA Nissan 240sx #56

Greg Amy
05-24-2004, 12:04 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...Find one place where I used this or lack of any part as a justification for moving the car...</font>

"...the Milledge crate motor uses unobtanium 0.040" pistons which are NLA..."

"Jon Milledge advertises 183 bhp, but that's with pistons that are NLA."

"And I agree that the 944 can make nearly 180 bhp (since the 40 over pistons are NLA, 183 is not possible)"

"...the pistons must be coated with an iron oxide coating. Nobody is making them."

"At the moment, they truly are NLA."

"They require a special coating and NOBODY is producing them."

"Nobody is doing the coatings."

"Unfortunately this is purely a theoretical discussion because they don't exist. (assuming we are still talking about the 944 pistons here)"

...and that's just from this thread.

The bottom line is that you will make more horsepower with .040 pistons; just because "no one makes" them doesn't mean you get a PCA.

If you want support on this issue, find out what the performance would be if someone did make them, and use that in your arguments. At that point you'd have some legitimacy to your position.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">You were quite verbose about all the reasons your NX should be moved.</font>

Exactly, and detailed. I wrote several letters over several years providing evidence as to why the car should be moved. Further, as is usually required, I spent a shitload of money to prep the car to the Nth degree to prove it; all I'm asking is that you do the same.

Oh, and let's not forget that up to about a year ago you were still quite adamant that the Sentra SE-R and NX2000 should be competitive in ITS, despite having never attended an SCCA Regional race outside south Texas...

And you still have not told us what ITS car and driver was duking it out for the overall lead with Bob Stretch in the 240SX.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">..Give me something solid rather that just spewing...</font>

To paraphrase you over the years, George, it is up to the competitor to prove the car should be moved, not to everyone else to prove it should not be.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...this is getting bloody tiring.</font>

I totally agree with you, George, which is why most people usually choose to simply stop arguing with you.

Me? I'm ignorant. But I do have my limits...

Geo
05-24-2004, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by Tristan Smith:
First for the record. I am not taking a stand one way or the other for moving the 944 to "A".

I appreciate that. And I'm not making a big push either. All I've tried to do is open up a discussion looking at objective specs and questioning the "fit."


Originally posted by Tristan Smith:
Couple of things to think about. I would say that a well prepped IT 944 motor is simply making more horsepower than an equivilant 240sx motor. Period.

Are you willing to discuss approximately how much more? If you aren't, I understand. Unlike some, I believe that is your own business.


Originally posted by Tristan Smith:
Bob Stretch aside, 240sx's while quick in various regions are not an overdog in "A". And most of Bob Stretch's speed is due to his excellent driving skills. So he may not be an accurant benchmark to use.

True. My point, and one in this case was not "apples to apples" was that if you're going to compare the best of one, it should be compared against the best of another.


Originally posted by Tristan Smith:
Second, I personally know of no 240sx's that are making minimum weight. Everyone I talk to is 50lbs to 100lbs overweight, and there aren't many places to legally take it away. So your 180lbs weight difference is propably less than you think. Just some things to add to the discussion.


Good point. I appreciate the thoughtful discussion about the similarities and differences.


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

Geo
05-24-2004, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by grega:
The bottom line is that you will make more horsepower with .040 pistons; just because "no one makes" them doesn't mean you get a PCA.

Greg, slow down boy. Go back and reread. Where did I use any of those things you quoted to specifically justify a reclassification? The answer is no where. There was a discussion of the hp made by a 944 vs a 240SX. I quoted the number Jon Milledge published and noted that it was with NLA pistons, so the number now would be less. But I never used that anywhere as a justification of moving the 944.


Originally posted by grega:
Exactly, and detailed. I wrote several letters over several years providing evidence as to why the car should be moved. Further, as is usually required, I spent a shitload of money to prep the car to the Nth degree to prove it; all I'm asking is that you do the same.

Your car was moved because the technical specs were so close to some cars already in A, not because of how much money you spent. That is all I'm doing here. I'm comparing the 944 with the 240SX. This has absolutely nothing to do with money.


Originally posted by grega:
Oh, and let's not forget that up to about a year ago you were still quite adamant that the Sentra SE-R and NX2000 should be competitive in ITS, despite having never attended an SCCA Regional race outside south Texas...

Where I've raced is not germane to the discussion, and since this is a regional class, not having raced outside my region is a stupid point anyway.

But to address your point about my position on the NX2000 and Sentra SE-R, yes, I did have a different opinion of where they belonged (not necessarily about competitiveness). My positioin changed with some recent classifications and reclassifications that made those cars a closer fit technically with other cars in A. Again, in my discussions about the comparisons of the 240SX and the 944, that is all I'm discussing. You have an axe to grind for some reason (perhaps because I disagreed with you in the past?) so you're bringing all sorts of other stuff into this.


Originally posted by grega:
And you still have not told us what ITS car and driver was duking it out for the overall lead with Bob Stretch in the 240SX.

Fine. YOU want to know.

John Banks in his 300ZX. But this is really not germane to the discussion either, but I'm sure you'll find something to latch onto here.



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

cherokee
05-24-2004, 01:59 PM
I still think that you remake all the classes from a clean sheet of paper or leave everything alone and let evolution take its toll. Anything else is not fixing the problem, including PCA's, it is just a band-aid. Two of the classes will get faster the other two will slowly die out...remember I have a B car.

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited May 24, 2004).]

Jake
05-24-2004, 02:39 PM
Admittedly not an expert on either the 944 or the 240SX, but a quick look at the specs and your seems like more of a match for the 91-94 240SX that is classed in ITS.

Jake
05-24-2004, 02:43 PM
And speaking of Porsche, I would think there would be more support for moving some of their cars from ITA to ITB. For instance:
924 - 115hp - 2600lbs
914 - 95hp - 2230lbs

Banzai240
05-24-2004, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
And speaking of Porsche, I would think there would be more support for moving some of their cars from ITA to ITB. For instance:
924 - 115hp - 2600lbs
914 - 95hp - 2230lbs


(He-He-He...) Is the latest Fastrack out yet??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

cherokee
05-24-2004, 07:10 PM
I just read the article in sports car that came to me today. It seems that they think that bigger changes are going to be needed down the road, the article talked about another class and a re-alignment. I put the magazine down with a positive outlook.

Geo
05-24-2004, 08:06 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Admittedly not an expert on either the 944 or the 240SX, but a quick look at the specs and your seems like more of a match for the 91-94 240SX that is classed in ITS.

Hey Jake, I'm not looking for an argument in any way, but I'm curious what you are basing this on. Keep in mind the ITS 240SX is a twin cam and the 944 is a single cam 8v.

I'm sincerely interested in what brought you to this conclusion.



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

Jake
05-24-2004, 10:09 PM
I'm not looking for an argument either, and you probably know alot more about these cars than me. It's just that the HP and weight numbers seem closer. 153hp from a 2.5L for the Porsche and 155hp from a 2.4L for the Nissan. As I've had experience developing engines in the past, DOHC vs SOHC doesn't mean all that much if the HP numbers are the same.

Catch22
05-25-2004, 01:24 AM
Dammit.

I originally thought all of the changes would be a good thing, but this thread (and others) has changed my mind. Seems we CAN'T actually have adjustablity in IT because folks are never going to be able to get over the "me me me" aspect of the whole thing. Things have to be done for the *right* reasons, not personal ones.

People, really. Cut it out before you ruin the whole thing (too late???). NO!!! Every car will not be competitive somewhere, not even with the "new rules." So stop babbling about silly crap like putting 944s in ITA. Its just too damned good for that class. It might be an underdog in ITS, but thats no reason to make it a big time overdog in ITA.
Don't like it? Don't like the difficulty of finding pistons? Then don't race a damned 944!!! Its not rocket science.

If we all just focus on the really, really stupid classifications (like the 125hp Civics in ITS while 140hp Integras sit in ITA at about the same weight) we can solve some issues. Bickering about fringe stuff like 944s is just clouding the issue and making things difficult.

I'm already worried about this 1.7 (and apparently 1.8) Scirocco in ITC stuff. The 1.6 cars are already capable of whipping ass down the straights (as the 2003 ARRC proved with two 1.6 Sciroccos running top 5), so the potential of 1.7s and 1.8s is kind of scarey.
Is this a case of someone with selfish interests getting a move made for the *wrong* reasons? Sure, maybe it was an underdog in ITB, but have we now made it a stupid fast ITC overdog???
Like the BMW in ITS?
Like the 944 would be in ITA?
So the question is... Is the 1.7/1.8 Scirocco REALLY an ITC car?
Or is it just not a good ITB car?
THOSE ARE THE QUESTIONS!!!
Ask this about the 944 and you get "Not a good ITS car."
Ask it about an NX2000 and you get "An ITA Car."

See how simple it is? Really. It is.

This stuff really can work for the better of 90% of the IT world, but it has to be done right. Now I'm starting to already get worried that it won't be.

Scott, checking out arrive and drive endurance karting this evening, just in case.

Geo
05-25-2004, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by Catch22:
Don't like the difficulty of finding pistons?

Please tell me where I was complaining out it. You can't because I wasn't. Go back and reread.


Originally posted by Catch22:
I'm already worried about this 1.7 (and apparently 1.8) Scirocco in ITC stuff.

You got this wrong too. There are no 1.8 VWs going to ITC.


Originally posted by Catch22:
See how simple it is? Really. It is.

Thank you for your input. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


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

Bill Miller
05-25-2004, 07:51 AM
You got this wrong too. There are no 1.8 VWs going to ITC.



Well, there you have it, George has spoken! As I said in another post, get the ITCS corrected then. The '84 Scirocco didn't come w/ a 1.7. Specing an '84 w/ a 1.7 is 'creating a model'. Also, re-read FasTrack George. It stated, in black and white, the reason the 1.8 cars weren't being moved was because they couldn't adjust the weight (legally). That implies, if there's a way to adjust the weight, the car will get moved!

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

ITSRX7
05-25-2004, 09:16 AM
Clarifying the years aside, it is not currently the intent of the ITAC to move the 1.8's to ITC, just the 1.7's.

Bill, our documentation shows that the 1.7L "EN" (8.2:1 CR) motor was indeed available in the 81-84 models. The 1.8L "JH" 8V (8.5:1 CR) from 83-89. Is this not correct?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Banzai240
05-25-2004, 09:23 AM
Originally posted by Catch22:
I'm already worried about this 1.7 (and apparently 1.8) Scirocco in ITC stuff. The 1.6 cars are already capable of whipping ass down the straights (as the 2003 ARRC proved with two 1.6 Sciroccos running top 5), so the potential of 1.7s and 1.8s is kind of scarey.
Is this a case of someone with selfish interests getting a move made for the *wrong* reasons? Sure, maybe it was an underdog in ITB, but have we now made it a stupid fast ITC overdog???


The 1.7 VWs make less HP than the 1.6 cars... Their specs make them a better fit in ITC than in ITB, that is why they are being moved. The ITAC never recommended the 1.8 be moved... doesn't want the 1.8 moved... doesn't think the 1.8 would be a good fit in ITC... etc. etc. etc...


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

Greg Amy
05-25-2004, 10:14 AM
Guys, what documentation are you using? I suspect Bill may be correct.

I was working in Parts and Service at a VW dealership back in '83 to '85. VW initially shipped the Scirocco 2 (1983 model year) with the Scirocco 1's 1.7, but beginning with the Wolfsburg Edition started equipping it with the "new" 1.8 JH engine. Effective with the 1984 model year, I believe all Scirocco 2's had the 1.8.

This was in response to the model changeover in '85, where all Golf IIs (new in '85) got the 1.8. Once the supply of 1.7s was used up the 1.7 was discontinued. That, of course, was the US market. I have no clue what was available in Europe.

Greg

ITSRX7
05-25-2004, 10:22 AM
We have multiple sources, including information sent in attched to requests.

Like I said before, we will get the years ironed out but the 1.7L is the only car being recommended for a move to ITC.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Catch22
05-25-2004, 10:51 AM
Thanks for the Scirocco clarifications, but I was really just kind of using that situation to illustrate a point. Purely hypothetical as I know nothing about Scirocco specs (other than the 1.6s own my Civic on long straights).

And Geo,
You must realize that it doesn't matter if you ARE complaining about something if your reading audience percieves that you are. So instead of constant replies about how so many of us always misunderstand and misrepresent you, you might (might...) want to consider changing your style of written communication.
Or...
What you are doing is dead on and quite a few of us are just too stoopid to really understand what it is you are saying.

Scott, who reminds everyone that a person's perception is a person's reality.

Karl Bocchieri
05-25-2004, 11:56 AM
Hey Geo,
The 944 belongs in ITS,
A few years ago (1999)a 944 run by Jim Nichols domonated the northeast and won the NARRC and the NYSRRC. The car was well prepared and driven well. It's the #28 944 on the opening page of this web site. The only reason it's still not kicking butt is because he now runs FM. That car had all the best, and he spent a ton on it, and he is also a very experienced driver. Now it may take all three things to make the 944 fast, but it can still run ITS times. That's not even the more powerfull "S" model.

It's more than the weight and the HP that make a car fast. The 944 is still thought to be the best handeling and balanced Porsche street car.

Geo
05-25-2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Catch22:
And Geo,
You must realize that it doesn't matter if you ARE complaining about something if your reading audience percieves that you are. So instead of constant replies about how so many of us always misunderstand and misrepresent you, you might (might...) want to consider changing your style of written communication.
Or...
What you are doing is dead on and quite a few of us are just too stoopid to really understand what it is you are saying.

Well, as I said before, do me a favor then and look back at my comments about the 944 pistons. Please show me where anything I said could be rendered a complaint. I'm not trying to be confrontational.

I mentioned that the best 8v NA 944 engine builder in the country gets a published 183bhp, but that was with NLA 0.040" overbore pistsons. I was told that any piston could be recreated. I corrected this misconception about the 944 pistons and that it was due to a special coating. I don't think you'll find any complaining or whining on my part.

Actually, I fully accept that there are NLA parts for my car an others. It's a fact of life when you build/race cars that are no longer in production, let alone 20 years old. Furthermore, when I'm ready to build a no holds bared engine for my car, I suspect with some serious looking around I could find a set of these pistons, either NOS or used (which is not as awful as it sound for the 944). No whining here.


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

Geo
05-25-2004, 05:23 PM
Originally posted by Karl Bocchieri:
Hey Geo,
The 944 belongs in ITS,
A few years ago (1999)a 944 run by Jim Nichols domonated the northeast and won the NARRC and the NYSRRC.

Yes, and not so many years ago the RX-7 was a winner in ITA. There have been discussions about moving it to ITB. Controversial? Yes, just like my bringing up the 944. I admitted as such.

Things do change over time. I think the IT community is probably not ready yet for a move of the RX-7 or the 944 and possibly a few other cars. But things evolve and I do believe at some point these cars will likely move as the landscape in IT will continue to change.


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

Catch22
05-25-2004, 05:47 PM
Furthermore, when I'm ready to build a no holds bared engine for my car, I suspect with some serious looking around I could find a set of these pistons, either NOS or used (which is not as awful as it sound for the 944). No whining here.


Ok. I need some help on this one.

Now it sounds like you're saying that someone COULD get 180ish horsepower out of a 944 if they applied the effort and cash. But you also seem to be saying that you feel the 944 should be in ITA.

Am I following you?

Once more, just to be sure I'm clear...
Your position is that a car that you agree could potentially see 180hp should be reclassed to ITA?

Bill Miller
05-25-2004, 07:56 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Clarifying the years aside, it is not currently the intent of the ITAC to move the 1.8's to ITC, just the 1.7's.

Bill, our documentation shows that the 1.7L "EN" (8.2:1 CR) motor was indeed available in the 81-84 models. The 1.8L "JH" 8V (8.5:1 CR) from 83-89. Is this not correct?

AB




Andy,

As I've stated before, the '81 (MkI) and '82 (MkII) Sciroccos only came w/ the 1.7 FI motor. This motor has the same bore, but a larger stroke, than the 1.6. This is the reason why the '81 Scirocco is not currently in ITC, even though it is the exact same body/chassis as the '80 version, which came w/ a 1.6.

I know that the 1.8 JH motor was available in the '83 Scirocco, but I am not sure about the 1.7. Greg is probably correct, that the early cars came w/ the 1.7, and the 1.8 was introduced later. All the information (including VW sales brochures) that I have, shows only the 1.8 JH motor in the '84 - '86 8v cars. The later 8v cars came w/ the RD engine (10:1, hydraulic lifters, CIS-E (I think)).

So, based on what you, Darin, and George are saying, as well as what was posted in FasTrack, the 1.7 cars will move to ITC, but with a weight increase? The 1.7 MkI Scirocco is alreay 70# heaver than the 1.6 Mk I, and the 1.7 Rabbit is 50# heavier than the 1.6 Rabbit.

As far as not moving the 1.8 cars goes, I'd like to hear an anlysis that shows why it shouldn't be moved. There seems to be no problem moving the ITS cars to ITA, and measuring the performance against the current top/overdog ITA cars. Compare a Rabbit GTI to a PL-510 from a spec/performance standpoint. Sure look like a couple of evenly matched cars to me. Or, look at the VWs. It's not ok to have two, essentially identical cars, that have 15 hp difference, stock, and have a 180# weight difference (solid vs. vented rotors, and close vs. wide ratio transmission are the only other two differences) race against each other, but it is ok to have two cars w/ a 25 hp difference (stock), and 4w vs. 2w disc brakes (not to mention that the 4w car has larger brakes), a programable ECU, w/ only a 170# weight difference race together. Explain that logic.


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

Geo
05-25-2004, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by Catch22:
Ok. I need some help on this one.

You're changing the subject and not following up on what I asked, but OK.


Originally posted by Catch22:
Now it sounds like you're saying that someone COULD get 180ish horsepower out of a 944 if they applied the effort and cash. But you also seem to be saying that you feel the 944 should be in ITA.

Am I following you?

Once more, just to be sure I'm clear...
Your position is that a car that you agree could potentially see 180hp should be reclassed to ITA?


Yes. First of all, there are already cars there that will a full-on build will probably see near enough to that at a LOT less weight. I don't know the exact hp potential of the Acura Integra or the Nissan 240SX, but I'll bet it's easily 165 and possibly closer to 170. I do know the SR20DE in the SE-R and NX2000 and I know it's in the 160s.

The 944 weighs in at 185lbs more than the 240SX, a car whose specs are pretty close to the 944. I've even said that I could see the 944 gaining a little weight if this happened.

But lastly, all of my suggestion has been based upon comparing specs of the 944 to the 240SX. Taking it a step further, the twin cam 240SX is in ITS as is the twin cam 944. The single cam 240SX is in ITA and the single cam 944 is in.... ITS.

Comparison with similar cars is totally what drove me to support moving the Neon, SE-R, and NX2000 to ITA. So, if nothing else, you ought to at least recognize consistency.

That said, I can see where you and others are coming from. I'm not going to stomp my feet and throw a tantrum if you disagree. But I don't think it's insane and it's not without some comparison and thought.


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

Jake
05-25-2004, 10:39 PM
We should try to get back on topic here and stop arguing over cars on the fringe. To paraphrase Catch22 - what are the low hanging fruit that we CAN agree on? I thru out a pair of silly Porsches, lets work on a list!

Catch22
05-26-2004, 12:27 AM
lets work on a list!

OK. I agree.
Andy, Darrin??? Taking notes?

Hondas are my thing, so I'll throw some out there...

94+ Integra LS/RS to ITA (2550lbs)
94+ Integra GSR to 2590lbs in ITS
88-91 Civic/CRX DX to ITB (2175lbs)
86-89 Integra RS/LS to ITB (2440lbs)
88-91 CRX HF to ITC (2140lbs)

And thats just the tip of the iceberg as far as low hanging fruit is concerned. Why in the world that poor CRX HF, with its whopping 65 stock HP, gas mileage gearing, and 8v head is in ITB... God himself doesn't even know. It isn't even a good ITC car.

The Integra GSR is wayyyyy overweight. Many of them are carrying 100ish pounds or more of ballast. Want to reel in the E36 BMWs? Start by pulling some lead out of the Integras.

The 94+ non-GSR Integra really has no discernable advantage over the Integra thats already in ITA. AND it weighs more. Duh... Move it to ITA. It isn't even a very good car there, its too heavy.

The 88-91 Civic/CRX DX cars match up almost perfectly to the ITB GTI hoard, yet they sit in ITA with nobody racing them. This is a shame because they are great cars that are cheap, sturdy, and plentiful. Lots of aftermarket support out there as well due to sharing alot of parts with the ITA cars.
Move this car to ITB and I'll build one immediately, cheap.

The 86-89 1.6 Integra also looks good in ITB. Like the DX CRX/Civics, a reclass could breath life into a car nobody currently holds an interest in because its useless in ITA. This could in turn breathe some life, and youth, into ITB.

And move the damned Accord back to ITB where it belongs. The board should be ashamed of moving that thing to ITA in the first place.

There's more, but just this stuff alone would make the Honda crowd happy.

Scott, who created NASAs Honda Challenge series in 2001 (really, I did) and from all indications did a damned good job.

PS - George, I do see what you are saying, but please understand that stuff like that does cloud the opportunity to really get stuff done with the gross misclassifications.
Again, thats potentially creating a big time ITA overdog (sure, its heavy, but it also potentially has the most power, best handling, and best brakes in the class (ITA), thats not fruit thats even remotely low on the tree), which is not at all the purpose of this exercise.

lateapex911
05-26-2004, 01:38 AM
First, I did a little number crunching.

ITA Acura...(a solid ITA car, set fast race lap at the ARRCs in '03) 2480 lbs, 135 whp, =p/w of 18.5

ITS 944.. 2715 lbs, 158 whp (183 minus driveline losses), = p/w of 17

Second, who said the ITA 240SX was such a good idea in the first place for ITA?? ITA is fast enough thankyou, no need to add yet another overdog and continue the madness.

The 944s solution (and I agree that it isn't a good fit right now) has got to be weight loss. Or weight gain at the top of the class. (Highly recommended, with a bit of a restrictor) Or all three.


Big picture? I think some wholesale changes would be fine. Just a statistical analysis shows that ITC needs more cars, and lord knows there are plenty of dogs in B. Same goes for A, which around here has huge fields.

Third. The RX-7 won more than its share of races in ITA, not because of its performance, but because of it's popularity and numbers. There were plenty of models that could beat the 7, but there weren't showing up in enough quantity.

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

Geo
05-26-2004, 05:12 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
First, I did a little number crunching.

ITA Acura...(a solid ITA car, set fast race lap at the ARRCs in '03) 2480 lbs, 135 whp, =p/w of 18.5

ITS 944.. 2715 lbs, 158 whp (183 minus driveline losses), = p/w of 17

OK, this is a good point. I think the decent (not BMW or 944S) ITS cars are much lower, but you're right, this does look like it would create a prickly situation, at least as the category is configured today. But, IT as a category is speeding up. That's one reason I think we're seeing a bunch of movement right now. Who knows what the future holds?


Originally posted by lateapex911:
Second, who said the ITA 240SX was such a good idea in the first place for ITA??

240SX owners? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


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

Jake
05-26-2004, 08:02 AM
Catch - GREAT STUFF!! - now we're getting somewhere!

ITSRX7
05-26-2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by Catch22:
lets work on a list!

The Integra GSR is wayyyyy overweight. Many of them are carrying 100ish pounds or more of ballast. Want to reel in the E36 BMWs? Start by pulling some lead out of the Integras.

I don't see where you are coming from here. The GS-R 1.8 is already developed enough to produce 170FWHP. This puts it EXACTLY at the power to weight of the 2nd gen RX-7. Well built cars of this ilk are FAST...TRUST me. I think you know that with your Honda experience. The second gen RX-7 also needs 50-100lbs to make weight.

This doesn't reel in the BMW at all. Adding weight to them does that. It just gets one car closer. I have new reports that thay are making more power than ever.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The 94+ non-GSR Integra really has no discernable advantage over the Integra thats already in ITA. AND it weighs more. Duh... Move it to ITA. It isn't even a very good car there, its too heavy.</font>

Agreed. You should see an ITAC recommendation on this as soon as it makes it through the 'publishing pipeline'.


The 88-91 Civic/CRX DX cars match up almost perfectly to the ITB GTI hoard, yet they sit in ITA with nobody racing them. This is a shame because they are great cars that are cheap, sturdy, and plentiful. Lots of aftermarket support out there as well due to sharing alot of parts with the ITA cars.
Move this car to ITB and I'll build one immediately, cheap.


It's that statement that scares me a little. If you would build one immediately, then I think you think it could win the class out of the box. Is that a good thing for ITB? I hope that the moves you have seen lately from ITS (Neon and SE-R) at the recommended weight add more legitimate COMPETITION, not a class winner...

All good brainstorming IMHO. Great job.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

oanglade
05-26-2004, 10:19 AM
Remember a few months ago when I said that there are ITS BMWs already comfortably under 12 lbs/hp?

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


Can the 86-89 Integra lose some weight? I mean, those of you that have built one, have you had to ballast them? I think those cars are not that different than an 84-87 Civic, but with bigger brakes and motor. If they can lose the "80" out of the listed 2380, I think that they would make a decent ITA car. On paper they would not look worse than say, a Miata, but you can probably squeeze more power out of the Honda than out of the Mazda. Both are similar to the MR2, but as I understand it, the MR2 can't lose the weight, right?

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

Catch22
05-26-2004, 10:49 AM
It's that statement that scares me a little. If you would build one immediately, then I think you think it could win the class out of the box. Is that a good thing for ITB? I hope that the moves you have seen lately from ITS (Neon and SE-R) at the recommended weight add more legitimate COMPETITION, not a class winner...

I would build one immediately because I could do so incredibly cheaply and have a competitive car. Nice, running examples of these cars can be had all over the SE for $1000 or less.
The car is a great match-up (on paper) with the ever popular GTI models. It has a 16valve motor, but it is also hindered by crappy Dual Point fuel injection.
In short, its a perfect ITB car. Not too fast... Just right.

And I never said that the ITS RX7 doesn't need a weight reduction as well. It does.
I was just focusing on the things that fall in my wheelhouse... Hondas.

I know the Acuras are fast, but they need to be faster in the current ITS world. Even if you add 100lbs to the E36 and maybe a little bit of a restrictor, the other current S cars still need some help. The BMWs were showing about a 3 second gap over the rest of the field at VIR last month, and word is that the infamous 2:12 (over 4 seconds under the previous track record)
BMW had a busted shock and a stock ECU. If I were an ITS driver in anything but a BMW that knowledge would put a "For Sale" sign on my car.

So the ITS field needs help. Its more than just adding weight to the BMW, other cars need to lose some.

And I know the GSR Integras can be fast. I also know exactly what kind of power they can put down with a fully built IT motor. And I also know that the brakes are just plain crap. I know this because I used to own one http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif.
If you want to know some IT GSR numbers and general info Andy, email me and we'll discuss it.
[email protected]

PS - For the record I don't own any of the cars I mentioned above. I drive an ITC Civic.

Greg Amy
05-26-2004, 10:52 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The GS-R (is) EXACTLY at the power to weight of the 2nd gen RX-7.</font>

BUT, it's front-wheel-drive. Which would you choose? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

I know "parity" is not the goal in IT (I read the article, and agree with it) but to make any FWD car attractive versus a RWD, you've got to toss the front driver a weight advantage bone. Without it, there's no comparison. - GA

ITSRX7
05-26-2004, 11:11 AM
I guess where I am coming from is this:

It is much easier (and smarter) to lop the head off the monster rather than trying to give all the warriors slightly better weapons so they can all attack at once.

Doing the latter is like full-blown comp-adjustments IMHO - and NOT what the SCCA wants to do.

And Greggie - I would always choose RWD, some would always choose FWD. The 'bone' the Integra needs is more development. The 240Z and RX-7 are all done!

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Geo
05-26-2004, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
First, I did a little number crunching.

ITA Acura...(a solid ITA car, set fast race lap at the ARRCs in '03) 2480 lbs, 135 whp, =p/w of 18.5

ITS 944.. 2715 lbs, 158 whp (183 minus driveline losses), = p/w of 17

BTW, do the math on the ITS GS-R and Gen II RX-7 as mentioned below. You will find them under/around 14. Doesn't the 944 look a bit more like an ITS car when you do that? Again, probably with some additional weight as I mentioned before.


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

lateapex911
05-26-2004, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
BTW, do the math on the ITS GS-R and Gen II RX-7 as mentioned below. You will find them under/around 14. Doesn't the 944 look a bit more like an ITS car when you do that? Again, probably with some additional weight as I mentioned before.




(Laughing...) Hey George...you should re-read your post...so, you're saying that the 944 looks like an ITS car?? Hee hee...

Yes, of course I did my math and I know that you are in a pickle there. Two thoughts...a year or so ago, you were saying that the 944 could be a winner in ITS. The E-36 was storming around the country at that point, as were the known quantities of the 7 and the Z.

Now, you're hedging on that. Why? Have you had yours out yet?

Second I will quote myself-

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> Originally posted by Lateapex911 The 944's solution (and I agree that it isn't a good fit right now) has got to be weight loss. Or weight gain at the top of the class. (Highly recommended, with a bit of a restrictor) Or all three. </font>

And finally, IF the 944 were to move to A would you want to make it weigh 2945?? (183 hp minus driveline = about 160, 2945 / 160 = 18.4) Sorry, the 944 gets a knock in the ratio of a couple tenths of a point due to great handling, and rear wheel dive.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited May 26, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited May 26, 2004).]

Catch22
05-26-2004, 07:00 PM
It is much easier (and smarter) to lop the head off the monster rather than trying to give all the warriors slightly better weapons so they can all attack at once.

We are not disagreeing Andy.
I am just of the opinion, from what I know of the GSR and the BMW (which is a good bit), that the adjustments are going to need to be made at both ends. The monster needs its head chopped off AND the warriors need better weapons. I truly believe thats what its going to take, the BMW is that good and quite simply shouldn't have been ITS classed in the first place.

Again... 2:12s at VIR, 3 to 4 seconds faster than the rest of the field (which included some very fast RX7s and GSRs), with stock engine management. Yes, the monster can go even faster, and will be doing so by the time the ARRC rolls around.

So if the GSRs and RX7s are already carrying lead... Just take it out.
Why is it there in the first place?
You can't make every ITS car capable of running with the BMW, but why the hell wouldn't you speed up a couple of cars that have a legit chance???

Karl Bocchieri
05-26-2004, 07:33 PM
Wait untill some one has the cash to build a fast 944 S. Then there will be 2 monsters.

JeffYoung
05-26-2004, 10:17 PM
I was on track with the two fast BMWs (Ed York and Chet Wittel). Hard to describe what it was like being passed by them (I'm a slow driver in a slow S car) on the backstraight during practice. They went by nose to tail like two Speed Challenge cars. Whole different league.

And the problem is they are the complete package. Great brakes. Great handling (check out the picture of Wittel running the uphill esses in the SEDiv forum). Great motor.

I never really thought that the BMW was that much of an overdog until this weekend. RX7s are fully developed and have great drivers, and run 2:15s max. Wittel beat that by 3 seconds and York (not even his home track) by 2. Other BMWs were not as fast, so it clearly is driver dependent as well, but man are those things fast.

So what can compete? Best 240z lap times I've seen are 2:17s. 300zx at 2:19. GSRs around 2:19 or 2:20. There's a Alfa Milano that has motor to run with the BMWs, he's about the same I think. I'm at 2:24 (TR8) in my second season, with lots of development left in the car and driver (anticipate 2:20 being the car's upper limit).

So in reality, at VIR, the best BMW is three seonds a lap faster than the second best, completely developed, well driven RX7. It's 5 seconds ahead of the best 240, and there aren't many fast 240s out there any more. Everything else is EIGHT+ seconds behind. In a 10 lap SARRC race, that's 1 minute and twenty seconds, or over half a lap on a 3.27 mile course.

I never really thought that the BMW itself was the issue when the Bimmerworld cars where dominating. I always thought that the RX7s were close and the drivers of the BMW were top notch. After May at VIR though, I think the writing is on the wall. At least at horsepower tracks, a well-driven BMW will dominate.

I do know of one 944s in the SEDiv. He ran last fall at VIR but has not been back in the spring. I think the car is still in development - looked and sounded great but not in the BMW's league yet.

Eagle7
05-26-2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
BTW, do the math on the ITS GS-R and Gen II RX-7 as mentioned below. You will find them under/around 14.
Gen II RX-7 - 2680 lb / 170 RWHP = 15.8

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX-7 #13
CenDiv WMR

Bill Miller
05-26-2004, 11:32 PM
Andy,

Not sure why I didn't think of this before, but VW differentiated the 1.7 cars from the 1.8 cars, in 1984, w/ different letters in the VIN#. I don't remember which digit, but it's easy enough to find out. This is one of the reasons why you can't use an '83 or '84 non-GTI tub to build an ITB GTI. For all the folks that are providing evidence that the '84 Scirocco came w/ a 1.7, have them produce a VIN tag or title that doesn't have the 1.8 liter engine digit.

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

lateapex911
05-26-2004, 11:51 PM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
..... After May at VIR though, I think the writing is on the wall. At least at horsepower tracks, a well-driven BMW will dominate.....

Well, the writing was on the wall last year, but this year it's on the track.

The math: A top notch RX-7 is 2670 lbs, and puts 170 down at the wheels, for a p/w ratio of 15.7

A BMW E36 is 2850lbs, and while I haven't seen the dyno sheets, the word is they are putting enough power down to have a p/w ratio of high 12s. No exaggeration.

3 lbs LESS per hp than the next best.

Now IF the package had crappy brakes, a floppy chassis, a live rear axle, or other disadvantages, this wouldn't be the huge problem it is.

What to do?

Well, to bring it in line with the other front runners, it would have to weigh, are you ready??.....3500lbs!!!

Now of course, that weight would hurt it in all the other parameters, so it isn't needed to go nearly that high, but it points out the gulf that exists. I can hear the howls of protest if even 3000 (an increase of 5%) was suggested.

I don't know about the mood of the directors, but another class above ITS would be a solution, and the BMW and 944S might be good initial candidates....



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

Geo
05-27-2004, 03:53 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
(Laughing...) Hey George...you should re-read your post...so, you're saying that the 944 looks like an ITS car?? Hee hee...

DOH!

You know... That is funny. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


Originally posted by lateapex911:
Yes, of course I did my math and I know that you are in a pickle there. Two thoughts...a year or so ago, you were saying that the 944 could be a winner in ITS. The E-36 was storming around the country at that point, as were the known quantities of the 7 and the Z.

Now, you're hedging on that. Why? Have you had yours out yet?

First of all, no I haven't. Cage is 99% complete (just needs misc tabs and the rest of the mounting plates).

Second, all I ever talked about here was comparison with other cars technically (one of Kirk's favorites) and not on-track performance. FWIW, an SE-R has already been a winner in ITS at The Glen. It's moving too.

Hedging? Don't know. All I'm saying is when you look at the 944 compared with the 240SX it looks like an ITA car. Looking at pwr/wt which is certainly nowhere near the whole picture, it's in between, but clearly closer to ITA. That is one reason I conceed that if it were to be considered, additional weight would be part of the program.

I know you understand what I'm talking about here. You drive a car in much the same boat as the 944.


Originally posted by lateapex911:
Second I will quote myself-

Originally posted by Lateapex911 The 944's solution (and I agree that it isn't a good fit right now) has got to be weight loss. Or weight gain at the top of the class. (Highly recommended, with a bit of a restrictor) Or all three. (italics mine just to differentiate quotes - Geo)

And finally, IF the 944 were to move to A would you want to make it weigh 2945?? (183 hp minus driveline = about 160, 2945 / 160 = 18.4) Sorry, the 944 gets a knock in the ratio of a couple tenths of a point due to great handling, and rear wheel dive.



Also a good point Jake and one that has been on my mind. It would make on hell of a heavy ITA car. However, it would NOT be the heaviest ITA car. That distinction belongs to the Mustang. OK, it would be second heaviest. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif Followed closely by the Supra at 15lbs less than you mention. And no, I don't mind at all adding a fudge factor for intangibles that cannot be calculated. The 944 is indeed a car that would need that if it did go to ITA.

BTW, I'll have to send you a few photos of the cage. Once that last 1% is done the harness will be bagged up and the interior painted.


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

Geo
05-27-2004, 03:56 AM
Originally posted by Karl Bocchieri:
Wait untill some one has the cash to build a fast 944 S. Then there will be 2 monsters.

Perhaps, but I bet not. I think the Bimmer will still be a hotter car because the ECU in the Bimmer can mess with cam timing as I understand it. Shoot, it gives the Bimmer something nobody else can mess with, even mechanically (other than offset keys at the crank that won't even come close to what the Bimmer can do).


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

Geo
05-27-2004, 04:04 AM
Originally posted by Eagle7:
Gen II RX-7 - 2680 lb / 170 RWHP = 15.8


DOH! You're right. I mixed whp with bhp.

Thanks for the correction.


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

Bill Miller
05-27-2004, 07:36 AM
Hey George, do the same analysis that you did w/ the 944 and the S13 240SX with a Rabbit GTI and a PL-510, and let me know what you find.

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

RFloyd
05-27-2004, 02:00 PM
Can the 86-89 Integra lose some weight? I mean, those of you that have built one, have you had to ballast them? I think those cars are not that different than an 84-87 Civic, but with bigger brakes and motor. If they can lose the "80" out of the listed 2380, I think that they would make a decent ITA car. On paper they would not look worse than say, a Miata, but you can probably squeeze more power out of the Honda than out of the Mazda. Both are similar to the MR2, but as I understand it, the MR2 can't lose the weight, right?

[/B]

Nah, I think 2380 is pretty unrealistic for the 1g Integra. Mine was stripped bare and still had about 100 lbs to lose. Best I ever got was about 2460ish, but that was with an almost dry fuel tank. For Honda Challenge, the minimum weight for the 1g Integra is 2500 and it is classed against the used to be ITB Accords, and the 84-87 CRX Si and 3g Civic Si, all of which should be in ITB. The other thing that makes the 1g a bad choice for ITA is the D16A1 engine doesn't respond nearly as well to IT allowed prep as a D16A6 like in the 88-91 CRX Si, even though it is a twin cam. Had a discussion with Adam Malley about that issue not long after I built my car. Seems a lot of what holds that engine back has to do with cylinder head geometry, and there is only so much blood that you'll ever get out of that turnip. Combine that with no available alternate FD ratios (other than a $1600 Houseman unit if you've got a really deep wallet) and you can understand why the old Integra got pushed down the long straights by ITB cars and LEFT by the IT7 cars in a straight line like I was dragging the QE2's anchor!

It sure was a fun and reliable car though, just as long as you liked racing in the back third of the class!

------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

Karl Bocchieri
05-27-2004, 09:44 PM
I agree with Jake, there needs to be another class above S. There are alot of new cars that will soon be ready for IT, but they will all be too fast for S. What do you do? Make them weight 3500 lbs? Make them breath through an inlet restrictor the size of a soda straw? I would love to run a 350Z in IT when it becomes 5 years old, or a Boxter, or the numerous other sports cars that can't be clasified because of their "competition potental".

sgraves
05-28-2004, 06:42 PM
I'm getting in to this a little late, but I have to say something because it hits close to home.

I was in the race in my 944 at Texas Motor Speedway that George is reffering to. I came in 5th in ITS. There were 9 or 10 ITS cars. The only ITA car that finished ahead of me was Bob Stretch, however, the car I raced with during the whole race was the 2nd place ITA CRX. All of the ITS cars in front of me were Nissan 300Zs, or Datsun 240s. The ITS cars behind me were a Honda, an Alfa, George's Nissan Sentra and a few others. The ITS winner was about 2 seconds per lap faster, so was the Bob in his ITA car.

I could keep up with, or even gain on the lead ITS car in the turns and braking, but he would drive away from me on the straights.

I've been racing my 944 for 6 years and have done a lot of work to make the car better. However, I always run in to the same thing wherever I go. The lead ITS car is usually 2 to 3 seconds per lap faster. I have raced at TMS, TWS, Memphis, Grattan, Mid-Ohio and Hallett. It has always been the same result, a Datsun, BMW, or 2nd generation RX7 wins ITS. Some days I get lucky and only one of the 3 will show up, so I get a shot at a top 3.

I don't necesarilly agree with George that the 944 should go to ITA. I think it is a mid pack ITS car and there are others that are even a lot worse off. I do believe there are a whole bunch of ITS cars that should be adjusted to have a competitive chance. Hopefully PCAs will do something for us.

S Graves
1984 ITS 944

05-28-2004, 11:27 PM
I've posted this reply in previous threads, and I still stand by my statement that the ITS class had some great, close racing up until the E-36 was introduced.
944's, 240Z's, RX-7's, Integras are all turning similar laps in the DC region, it's too bad they are all 2+ seconds behind the top E-36's.


Get rid of that car and you'd have a very close field needing only very minor weight changes to even everyone up.

I heard a rumour at Marrs 1 that Ed York is asking all the Marrs ITS drivers to write letters to the CRB asking that the E-36 be classed in a Production class so he can have some competition. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif
The Production racers don't want the car as it is already turning regional EP times in IT trim. It would be an overdog even in EP more than likely.

Knestis
05-29-2004, 09:31 AM
That's the best argument that I've heard yet for the revival of DP.

K