PDA

View Full Version : Stay in A or move to B?



titanium
02-25-2004, 03:04 PM
Several post in the Mazda section have mentioned the first gen RX-7 could possibly be moving from ITA to ITB.
The reason (of course) is were too slow to be competitive in ITA. How about, instead of moving 'us' to 'B', give us the same rules as the piston enginge cars in IT and allow port matching on the 12A rotary?
********************************************
Rodney Williamson
#93 IT7
www.titaniummotorsports.com (http://www.titaniummotorsports.com)

joeg
02-25-2004, 03:15 PM
Don't think it would happen. The SCCA has a long "tech" history with the Rotary and knows its great power potential occassioned by relatively simple porting.

They are not likely going to change on that.

Actually, I believe Rotary-fear is much older (and justified) than Turbo-fear, which came out of mid-eighties to early 90(s) SS racing.

whenry
02-25-2004, 04:40 PM
Ironically, rotaries were probably(and may still be) more hated than even Honda's in the IT culture. Primarily due to the simple ease of building power. Then the CRX was introduced and several "adjustments" were made that brought the RX's back to the pack. Of course eventually the CRX outstripped the potential for RX's and it is rare that a real RX ever shows at a race.
With the lollypop, it is realitively easy to determine if a rotary has been ported. The only way that you could allow porting would be to allow open porting just like open computers.

dickita15
02-25-2004, 05:02 PM
I understand not allowing porting on the block but does anyone have any idea what the gain could be if we could match the intake manifold within 1" of the gasket.
also what would it do if they gave us a deent alternate carb.
dick

JeffYoung
02-25-2004, 08:01 PM
I posted this on another thread, and have no real interest in the debate, but I am wondering about the one or two IT7 RX7s here in the SEDiv that hold track records as fast or faster than any ITA car? Is it truly the car that is the problem? It seems from my real world experience that the RX7s can compete, but maybe it is an aberration, I don't know.

ITSRX7
02-25-2004, 08:46 PM
Jeff,

A legal ITA RX-7 vs. a legal CRX has the Honda in a hands down romp given like preparation and like drivers. Lighter, more advanced suspension and MORE power.

I will not speak for the IT7 class as I do not know the rules.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

Bill Miller
02-25-2004, 09:16 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Jeff,

A legal ITA RX-7 vs. a legal CRX has the Honda in a hands down romp given like preparation and like drivers. Lighter, more advanced suspension and MORE power.

I will not speak for the IT7 class as I do not know the rules.

AB



Andy, wasn't that the deal w/ IT7, RX7's prepped to ITA rules, just not running against any of the other ITA cars? I know Spec7/SRX7/Pro7 have different rules, but IIRC, from the conversations a couple years ago, that's what the folks from the SEDiv said about IT7.

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

lateapex911
02-25-2004, 09:51 PM
Yes, IT-7s are ITA RX-7s. No difference, it's just an option excercised by some regions that want to get more cars out to race, knowing that folks will sit home rather than getting their tails whipped. So, give 'em a class, and see if they show. Generally, from what I understand, it has helped entries. I would prefer it wasn't needed.

In NER, we have a perpetual "Mazda Cup" that goes to the fstest RX-7 of the event.

Porting is a fast way to the front, and the temptation is great. And there are other internal tricks that are not lolipop detectable that have some of the same benifits as porting. Illegal, of course.

I have heard rumours of fast RX-7s whipping the CRXs in certain areas, but they are isolated.

The facts: A CRX weighs about 200 pounds less than a 7. And it puts out about 125 HP. Some say the 7 engine can match the overall number in IT trim, but not the torque. And the 7 carries a live rear axle. IF the 7 had the same power it is still an uphill battle to match a car with a better suspension, better throttle response, and nearly 10% less weight.

I would be interested to hear how these RX-7s are making their power, as it is a prodigious amount, to be sure.

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

ITSRX7
02-25-2004, 10:16 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy, wasn't that the deal w/ IT7, RX7's prepped to ITA rules, just not running against any of the other ITA cars? I know Spec7/SRX7/Pro7 have different rules, but IIRC, from the conversations a couple years ago, that's what the folks from the SEDiv said about IT7.



Bill,

I'm up here in NeDiv so the fact I don't know 100% of what I am talking about with regard to IT7 prompted me to keep my mouth shut. Jake has enlightened me. Tough to keep track of all the Regional-only classes and their specific rules.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

ddewhurst
02-25-2004, 10:30 PM
Just to add some information the IT7 class is a South East Division, CenDiv & Mid west Division class. It's more than a Regional only here & there class.

I beleive in the CenDiv thay get a good race group at Mid Ohio mainly because the folks took the time to set up a series of 6 or 7 races with sponsers & awards. G-Force Engineering is the top sponsor IIRC.

Have Fun http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

02-26-2004, 12:04 PM
Jake, check the Mazda forum.

RX767
02-26-2004, 12:44 PM
Rodney,
Congratulations on the birth of your daughter. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

To all,

I have recently been lost in a professional abyss. I have not followed many of the threads here, and reading Fastrack is generally aggravating. Most, if not all, of the IT requests are met with the same interpretation of the same rules to give the same standard "NO".

- Along with this thread of reclassing the first generation RX7 from ITA to ITB, and others regarding the RX7 in HP, and one mention of going from 7" to 6" wheels, what is the source of these conversations? Are any of these changes being discussed within the structure of SCCA or are these the product of bench racing during a long Winter?

- Does anyone have an update regarding the IT competition adjustment initiative that SCCA began last year or has it died a political death?

- Granted, the RX7 could be viewed as symptomatic of the larger problems facing IT, yet, if your division is fortunate to have healthy IT7 fields, why would anyone care where it is moved?

To 1st gen. RX7 drivers,
If you totaled your current race car, would you build/buy another RX7 or switch to something else?

To other IT drivers,
If you totaled your current race car, would you consider a 1st gen. RX7 as your next race car?

Bill Emery
Glen Region
ITA#23

Weaver7
02-26-2004, 03:47 PM
I agree allow us to do some porting to at least make it somewhat interesting. I'm not complaining but lets stop fooling ourselves the 1st gen can't run with a CRX. To fast for B to slow for A I think the NE should start an IT-7 class does anyone know why we haven't??

Bill are you planning on running at Poconos??

Bill Weaver
#63 ITA RX-7

RX767
02-26-2004, 04:59 PM
Bill,
How are things in the the Northern Tier? Maybe we seen the last of this ice and snow.

I was planning to start the season at Nelson Ledges 5/22-23 and return to NL on June 12-13 for a Central Division regional with IT7. Part of June and July is going to be messed up with grad. school, and I am not sure how the rest of the Summer race schedule will shape up.
Have you raced at NL yet? It is a fun track and they continue to make needed improvements.

Bill Emery
Glen Region
ITA#23

RSTPerformance
02-26-2004, 09:26 PM
No I wouldn't build a RX-7 for any class, Miata would be the Mazda of my choice, 2 spec classes this year and probably close to 50 total miata entries at the big events... Although many of the drivers can be a pain, most probably are not (hummm it might be close http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif). The class is probably the most successful and challenging.

Sorry RX-7 guys...

we probably don't have a RX-7 car specific class because I don't think that anyone is confident enough to get a consistant 6 cars (isn't that the requirement?).

Raymond Blethen

PS: I am against the RX-7 cars moving to ITB, they would be to fast legal not to mention many of them that I have seen are a little... ummm fast and I don't think it is all driver. From what people have posted it seems much to easy to cheet and get away with it.

ITSRX7
02-26-2004, 09:32 PM
Come 'on Ray! You race for the fun of it, remember! (I still remember you blasting anyone who complained about the BMW's in ITS...) :0

The ITA RX-7 could never move to ITB without some weight change. Detecting a bogus rotary is easy, you just have to do it.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

titanium
02-27-2004, 12:05 AM
Originally posted by RX767:
Rodney,
Congratulations on the birth of your daughter. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


Thank You Bill. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


what is the source of these conversations? Are any of these changes being discussed within the structure of SCCA or are these the product of bench racing during a long Winter?


Mike Cox and I were at the National/Regional at Sebring in January dicussing this because we had only THREE IT7's show up. If the IT7 turnout remains that low, we'll be put back in 'A' before the Runoffs.
So, this is a 'what if' question.
If IT7 dies in the Southeast Region, what do I do?

To 1st gen. RX7 drivers,
If you totaled your current race car, would you build/buy another RX7 or switch to something else?

Switch to something else.
I got into IT to use as a stepping-stone to somthing faster. In 2 to 5 years, I hope to be racing in SPO or GT1. So, if I total the car, I'll start earlier.

******************************************
Rodney Williamson
#93 IT7
www.titaniummotorsports.com (http://www.titaniummotorsports.com)

dickita15
02-27-2004, 08:43 AM
[quote]Originally posted by Weaver7:
I think the NE should start an IT-7 class does anyone know why we haven't??

we have talked about it in narrc a few times. most of the proponents i belive have decided to wait and see what comp adjustments will bring. i for one like racing against lots of brands with large fields. My guess if comp adjustment fail to provde us any hope we will make IT7 happen here.
dick patullo
ner ita rx7

cherokee
02-27-2004, 09:50 AM
Just tossing something out for you to think about....Is the RX7 the problem? or is another car that is above all others the problem? I ran ITA last year and those honda's are FAST...everywhere. I don't think that the 7 belongs in ITB, so there are two fixes that I see. Speed up the 7 and everyone else, or slow down the honda.

ITSRX7
02-27-2004, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by cherokee:
so there are two fixes that I see. Speed up the 7 and everyone else, or slow down the honda.

IMHO, it ain't just the CRX. I think you will find that the Acura and 240SX are better than the 1st gen RX-7 given like driver and prep. I also think that the Miata is about to spring on the scene.

Without engine allowances, bringing the RX-7 down to a lower weight is virtually impossible I hear...so what if the RX-7 were in ITB at say...2490 with 6" wheels?

Just a SWAS(suggestion) - but you get the idea.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

Weaver7
02-27-2004, 11:27 AM
Originally posted by RX767:
Bill,
How are things in the the Northern Tier? Maybe we seen the last of this ice and snow.

I was planning to start the season at Nelson Ledges 5/22-23 and return to NL on June 12-13 for a Central Division regional with IT7. Part of June and July is going to be messed up with grad. school, and I am not sure how the rest of the Summer race schedule will shape up.
Have you raced at NL yet? It is a fun track and they continue to make needed improvements.

Bill Emery
Glen Region
ITA#23


Bill glad everything is going well I agree I'm sick of this weather. Will plan on going to NL in June maybe we can paddock together. If you want e-mail me at [email protected].

02-27-2004, 12:30 PM
I read one of Darins post that mentioned that ongoing competition adjustments will not be applied to IT, all they are going to do is set a limited weight adjustment on newly classed cars, therefore I am converting my ITA rx7 I was saving for my son to EP. I have a 89 240 SX I will build for the kid.

cherokee
02-27-2004, 01:17 PM
Us folks with older cars are going to be back markers, but they never guaranteed us anything but a place to race. That is just the way IT is and I think that is the way it is going to stay. You can't bring in the new and expect the old to run with them...it ain't gonna happen...unless you give the older dogs a bone...but that ain't gonna happen eather, no computer to play with and your stuck with a carb, the new cars get all the bones.

Banzai240
02-27-2004, 01:56 PM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
...all they are going to do is set a limited weight adjustment on newly classed cars

That is wrong... I'm not sure which post you are referring to, but perhaps you took it out of context...

PCAs are NOT limited to "newly classed cars"... AND, they are NOT your "Production" style CA either...

There are two things happening here.

First, I have argued, and have the backing of most of the ITAC, that the ITCS and the CGR do INDEED have allowances to change the specifications of a vehicle if it is reclassified. This goes against the traditional thinking that resulted in recent Fastrack announcements. The ITCS specifically states that "...competition adjustments, other than reclassification, are not allowed." (ITCS 17.1.4.B-Intent) When you then consider what "reclassification" means, as well as look at GCR 17.1.12 - Change of Specifications, it becomes clear that moving a car AND changing it's specifications are logical, and allowed. This is being discussed by the CRB and BoD currently and we are waiting to hear their response. We (the ITAC) need this to be realized before we can do any reclassification of current cars. Since we can't reclassify any cars now until the August BoD voting, we will have to wait until then to see what is going to happen.

Second, we have PCAs... These are nothing more than a mechanism to allow the CRB to change the specifications of cars that are NOT going to be reclassified. While there may be a few instances where they could be applied to cars that are too slow (i.e.: speed cars up...), they are intended to be used to correct overdog situations in cases where a car is in a class and proves to be too fast. This applies to ANY car, not just new classifications.

So, in any instance where I have said that CAs are NOT going to be used in IT, I'm referring to other allowances, such as special allowances for cams, carbs, brakes, venturiis, compression, etc., etc., etc...

The ITAC had a con-call last night, and I assure you that the RX-7, as well as many other cars were discussed in terms of what should/could be done to get these cars back into the mix. We are continuing discussions and are working on coming up with solutions.

It's not as simple as many of you might think, because whatever we do has to preserve the Intent and spirit of the IT class. We can't start having special allowances for specific cars, or we will soon be on the road to becoming Prod2...

Another problem, speaking specifically of the RX-7 (keep in mind that I raced and RX-3SP for several years, and was a Mazda NUT up until recently when I went back to my Nissan roots... so I have a little background with the Rotary...), is exactly WHAT people consider developed... If you plug in your standard Rotary crate motor, bolt on an over the counter Racing-Beat Header and the same exhaust that such and such said worked really well for him, then are you truely developed? Many (MANY!!) of the RX guys up here aren't... They run motors for several seasons, and run whatever the next guy runs. Once in awhile, a really nice RX shows up and simply blows there doors off. If Tony Rivera (of E-Production Mazda fame...) built an ITA RX-7, would it still be a mid-packer???

So, we understand that there are cars like this that need to get some help, and I can promise you that we are working on solutions for this. Even if we had them tomorrow, however, the BoD doesn't even vote on rule changes until August, which includes reclassifications, so we have some time to try to do this right.

As for moving to EP...
I don't fault anyone for wanting to go run EP... that's what I was doing with my RX-3 prior to getting my current car. But don't expect that your racing experience will suddenly improve with a simple change in class... especially when you change to the prep level that's required to compete at the Production level... because, even though there are a LOT of RXs racing in EP, there are only a handful in the country that are capable of running in the top 5 at the Runoffs... And if you are only aiming to develop your car to the level that those drivers admit to, you are going to be one step behind them all the way...

Give us some time to get this done and do it right...

Good Luck,




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

Bill Miller
02-27-2004, 02:25 PM
We can't start having special allowances for specific cars, or we will soon be on the road to becoming Prod2...


But they've already done that Darin...

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

Banzai240
02-27-2004, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
But they've already done that Darin...



Be specific please...


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

Bill Miller
02-27-2004, 05:22 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Be specific please...




Open ECU's Darin, but I'm not really interested in debating it w/ you.

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

ITSRX7
02-27-2004, 07:06 PM
Darin is speaking of model-specific adjustments like in Prod. The is not - and hopefully never will be that type of adjustment in IT.

Right now, think WEIGHT additions or subtractions.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

Bill Miller
02-27-2004, 09:30 PM
Gee Andy, I didn't realize you guys were interchangable now. And ya know, I'm really sorry I even mentioned it. Back to working on the car!

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

Knestis
02-27-2004, 10:20 PM
It might be because I am just in a good mood but Darin's summary above describes a pretty reasonable solution, in my mind. If the PTB (powers that be) can keep their eye on that clause about NOT going to car-specific allowances we are a long way toward OK.

If they can TRULY address the issue of what is allowed to "trigger" the PCA process AND establish a system of transparency to out anyone who tries to back-door the process, the world will be fine...

K

Jake
02-27-2004, 10:49 PM
Hmmm... dust settling, people getting along, agreement in the air. Maybe we all can actually get along!

lateapex911
02-28-2004, 02:01 AM
Thanks Darin, now I don't have to read between the lines putting bits of info together. Nice post.

I think that we should remember that the RX-7 is not the only car with issues, but it is perhaps one of the more "classic" examples. It has done well, but really, it was never an overdog either. But it has had a large following, and the mere odds stacked the deck and it has seen some success. But other cars were classed in such a way as to render it uncompetitive, and then rules changes dealt another death blow. And once one car was classified and was too fast, others were classed to break it's stranglehold. And the RX-7 slipped further and further down the results sheets.

But for every RX-7, there is another car, a BMW 2002, or a Fiero, or something that becomes more and more marginialized with every new addition to the class.

To me, the big picture needs to be kept in view, and from my discussions and from what I read here, it is being done. We have 4 classes, but really the numbers don't distribute evenly. We are wasting space in the lower IT classes.

Solving the problems in ITS (the NEON, et al) excaberates the problems in ITA. The end result looks to be a trickle down strategy, moving the backmarkers down a class and adjusting them accordingly. It could result in a more even distribution of cars, and, as more cars would have a fairer shot at success, more should come out to race.

Utilizing the ability to reclassify and adjust weight at the same time, along with PCAs is a great two prong strategy. And does away with the addition of a new class.

Will it cure all? No. The ITC backmarkers will remain backmarkers in all probibility, and those guys racing unique cars without a lot of numbers will ahave a tough time proving a need to be moved or adjusted. In theory, though, the needs of the many will outweigh the needs of the few, and IT will be a better place.

And to those who say that there are no guarantees, I would submit that that clause doesn't mean that an attempt shouldn't be made to make IT the best it can be.

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

lateapex911
02-28-2004, 02:13 AM
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:


we probably don't have a RX-7 car specific class because I don't think that anyone is confident enough to get a consistant 6 cars (isn't that the requirement?).

Raymond Blethen

PS: I am against the RX-7 cars moving to ITB, they would be to fast legal not to mention many of them that I have seen are a little... ummm fast and I don't think it is all driver. From what people have posted it seems much to easy to cheet and get away with it.

Interesting comments, Raymond.

First, I think we have a pretty good showing of first gens in the NE, some events see more than 6 most are 4 minimum.

Secondly, most "cheats" you refer to in a rotary that are 'easy' require the engine coming apart, and parts being modified. Same as a piston engine. If someone wants to improve their position badly enough, the differences between the two are insignificant relative to the act itself.

Finally, I see most of the races that you see, but I must be missing something....
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> .... not to mention many of them that I have seen (RX-7s) are a little... ummm fast and I don't think it is all driver..... </font>

"Many"? I've thought this over, and I can't agree with you on this. Care to elaborate?

Shoot me a private email to my address below if you don't want to names names in public.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 28, 2004).]

RSTPerformance
03-03-2004, 08:43 PM
I remember back a few recent years RX-7's were winning ITA in the Northeast. The point is that their are multiple ITA cars that can not even keep up with the RX-7's.

If the RX-7 is moved then I would question how many other ITA cars should/would be moved... will we have any cars left?

The RX-7 is one of the top ITA cars classified. I am not saying it is a top 5 car as their are 3 Integra's and a few CRX's running that will blow its doors off if driven correct but I would still say that out off all ITA cars it is one of the faster cars classified (deffinatly top 1/2).

Andy-

"Come 'on Ray! You race for the fun of it, remember! (I still remember you blasting anyone who complained about the BMW's in ITS...) :0"

It is for the fun of it, but I will address my concerns... changing a car class to make it into a winning car just cause their are a lot of people racing them that "complain" isn't just. I think their needs to be some sort of comon sence when it comes to reclassifying cars and "stirring up the pot"... I am always a voter for the uncommon cars, and I think that their are a lot of cars that should be considered for moving before the RX-7.

Jake-

I havn't seen any cars that are fast because of the car rather than the driver in recent years... I would say that the RX-7's are putting on a good show at present time.

Raymond Blethen

ITSRX7
03-03-2004, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:

Andy-

It is for the fun of it, but I will address my concerns... changing a car class to make it into a winning car just cause their are a lot of people racing them that "complain" isn't just. I think their needs to be some sort of comon sence when it comes to reclassifying cars and "stirring up the pot"... I am always a voter for the uncommon cars, and I think that their are a lot of cars that should be considered for moving before the RX-7.


Raymond Blethen

Ray,

Big picture buddy, think big picture. The goal isn't to put a car into a class so it can WIN. The goal is to take a car, that is VERY popular, has THE BEST manufacturer support, has a HUGE pocket of built and ready to go examples - and give it a place to be competitive. Competitive is a lot different that 'winning'. Would some win? Yup. Would they dominate? That WOULD NOT BE THE GOAL.

Why would you move an uncommon, underdeveloped and hard to build car? THAT lacks common sense. The ITA RX-7 performance envelope is well documented and would be a much easier car to move ACCURATELY than somethiing that was rare and undeveloped.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

cherokee
03-03-2004, 09:27 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Ray,

Big picture buddy, think big picture. The goal isn't to put a car into a class so it can WIN. The goal is to take a car, that is VERY popular, has THE BEST manufacturer support, has a HUGE pocket of built and ready to go examples - and give it a place to be competitive. Competitive is a lot different that 'winning'. Would some win? Yup. Would they dominate? That WOULD NOT BE THE GOAL.

Why would you move an uncommon, underdeveloped and hard to build car? THAT lacks common sense. The ITA RX-7 performance envelope is well documented and would be a much easier car to move ACCURATELY than somethiing that was rare and undeveloped.

AB



And here is the scary part. MY car is not in the same position it was in 5yrs ago so I must have my car moved so I can be on top again....to hell with what is going on in any other class, what it will do to the mix there, all I care about is me, I have a very popular car, huge mfg support take care of me. All we would have to do is change RX-7 to Honda or Spitfire and we could be on the Prod site. And thats what worries me about any of this...I drive a popular car in the class so the class has to be built so that my car can remain at the top.

RSTPerformance
03-03-2004, 10:24 PM
Andy-

You said it correct, now just say it to yourself... Look at the big picture!!! The RX-7 is a middle of the class car... Moving it and not the other half of the field would not fix anything other than piss off the other half of the field... The entire class structure needs to be re-evaluated, not 1 car, especially not one that still does half way decent. If people such as yourself are looking to better the entire field of IT then you WONT forget about the "little/odd" guys running Capries, Fiaro's, Corvares, MR2's, 914's, RX-3's etc that once dominated the class.

Andy, you seem to be getting very much involved in the SCCA politics and you I think are taking it to another level by actually volunteering... I think that is absolutely wonderful and I am very happy that you are doing such. I am concerned though that you like others are concerned with a majority rather than what is correct... the easy road to being a favorite... I hope I am getting the wrong impression ("The goal is to take a car, that is VERY popular, has THE BEST manufacturer support, has a HUGE pocket of built and ready to go examples - and give it a place to be competitive")

I don't want to make that a personal attack, I just want you to see how some of the really old timers feel. I really do think that most of your ideas are making things better, and I thank you.

Raymond

Jake
03-03-2004, 10:25 PM
The truth is that the vast majority of RX7's aren't anywhere near top ITB times. In the NE, most of them run with that pokey ITA MR2 and Prelude. At LRP 1:07-1:08 is typical for the RX7 field. On 13x6 wheels they would probably fit pretty well in ITB. If the PCA initiative allows them to add a couple of pounds to keep the ITB status quo happier - I think that would be even better.

RSTPerformance
03-03-2004, 10:32 PM
ok, new view, move the RX-7 but move the rest of the underachievers as well http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

apr67
03-04-2004, 12:01 AM
Many of the other underachivers are so underdeveloped and so rare that moving them presents a danger of creating an overdog.

Has anyone really spent the $30k it would take to make a real MR2 race car?


Just food for thought.

Jake
03-04-2004, 12:02 AM
Ray, as you can tell we were writing at the same time so I didn't read your response before I wrote mine. I couldn't agree with you more. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Speed Raycer
03-04-2004, 12:34 AM
Boy am I glad I didn't just drop a load on a set of new Panasports.

I can't really comment on the move to B other than I think that a very well prepped RX7 with a very good driver will be fairly dominant (which is bad) in B, even with 6" wheels and more weight.

------------------
Scott
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/rudder_racing/images/RX7_Pictures/SRsRX/sig58.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com) http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/rudder_racing/images/IzzysImgs/IzzysLogoDSsmall.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)

Bill Miller
03-04-2004, 12:54 AM
Originally posted by Jake:
The truth is that the vast majority of RX7's aren't anywhere near top ITB times. In the NE, most of them run with that pokey ITA MR2 and Prelude. At LRP 1:07-1:08 is typical for the RX7 field. On 13x6 wheels they would probably fit pretty well in ITB. If the PCA initiative allows them to add a couple of pounds to keep the ITB status quo happier - I think that would be even better.


Jake,

You should come to Summit Point for a MARRS race. Several of the Spec 7's are running in the 1:33's, which would put them in the top5 to top10 of the ITB field. The track record for a Spec 7 is a 1:32. And there are a couple of ITA RX7's that run low 1:31's. The ITB track record is a 1:30.499, set by Kaj Bush in a Suzuki Swift. I haven't seen anybody in ITB under 1:31 in the past 4 years. And there's an RX3 that runs 1:29s.

Ask anybody that runs the MARRS series, all the IT fields are very competitive, and usually very well subscribed (15-25 cars per class). If the NE cars aren't "anywhere near top ITB times", either the cars or the drivers aren't that well developed.


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

RSTPerformance
03-04-2004, 02:14 AM
The IT7 cars would have qualified 3rd at the ARRC with their 1:49.1 and would have dominated the top 5 with the 1:47's in the race...

Look at the results, some of the best cars and drivers.

http://www.arrc-online.com/

Raymond Blethen

ITSRX7
03-04-2004, 02:41 AM
Ray,

We just have a fundamental difference of opinion on what is best for the SCCA as a whole. The ITA RX-7 is a popular car that is cheap to find, build and maintain. It is a GOOD CAR TO RACE - and there are plenty of them to be had.

The majority or SCCA members would tell you that when a large pocket of racers has to go off and create their own SPEC class, the SCCA has failed them. IT7, Spec RX-7, etc. I CAN NOT stress any more that the goal would be to put them in a position to be competitive, NOT TO DOMINATE. The SCCA would not be protecting anyones interest or any black-helicopter crap like that either.

Taking unpopular, hard to find and underdeveloped cars and moving them does not serve the interest of the club as a whole, it creates potential problems because there is limited data to make an educated decision. Looking at a fundamental re-org of the classes may, but there isn't much of an outcry for that right now - although the ITAC is looking at IT in a variety of ways.

Gotta say it again, I find it funny you blasted the ITS members here for complaining about the E36 BMW but when ITB gets a little heat, you are very protective. You can't have it both ways.

I am up for the critisism - keep the debate coming. Two reasonable people CAN disagree! Let's hash it out over some beers in April at NHIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Oh, BTW - lets also understand that IMHO the 7 would have to GAIN weight AND lose an inch of rim width to fit PROPERLY...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

Bill Miller
03-04-2004, 08:39 AM
Andy,

You and the other members of the ITAC that post here are championing this whole PCA concept. In addition, recent requests in FasTrack have been shot down (at least temporarily), pending the outcome of the PCA concept. Given that, and given the fact that the RX7s in ITA can, and are running near the front, wouldn't it make more sense to look at adjusting the weight and keeping them in ITA? At least people won't have to go out and buy 6" wheels.

Or what about the concept of adding lead to the Hondas/Acuras? I thought one of the main goals of PCAs was to provide a vehicle to rein in class overdogs?

How can you say that Spec7 is an indicator that the SCCA has 'failed' [sic] those drivers? I would contended that it has just the opposite. If anything, the SCCA (at least at the Regional level), as accomodated the Spec7 drivers by providing them what they wanted, a place to race like cars against each other w/in a limited set of prep rules. Or, would you also say that Spec Miata is another case of the SCCA 'failing' drivers?

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

cherokee
03-04-2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by apr67:
Many of the other underachivers are so underdeveloped and so rare that moving them presents a danger of creating an overdog.

Has anyone really spent the $30k it would take to make a real MR2 race car?


Just food for thought.

Yep...I think he is ITAMR2 and visits here from time to time. Real nice guy and a very good driver too. There are a couple of others but I don't know if they visit here much.

cherokee
03-04-2004, 09:52 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Or what about the concept of adding lead to the Hondas/Acuras? I thought one of the main goals of PCAs was to provide a vehicle to rein in class overdogs?

[/B]

There is an idea...if you take the Hondas and Acuras out how does the field stack up then? Me thinks RX would be back at the top.

I don't think that 6" tires and a little extra pounds is going to make the 7 fit in ITB....perhaps we should put 240# on them for starters and go from there http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

oanglade
03-04-2004, 10:03 AM
Spec 7 and Spec Miata tell me that it is easier to create a whole new class than it is to change something in IT.



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

oanglade
03-04-2004, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
The IT7 cars would have qualified 3rd at the ARRC with their 1:49.1 and would have dominated the top 5 with the 1:47's in the race...

Look at the results, some of the best cars and drivers.

http://www.arrc-online.com/

Raymond Blethen

The page that lists the track records for Road Atlanta, which I know is not really up to date at least in some cases, has:

ITB: Randy Pobst 1:47.916 Honda Accord
IT7: Atilla Lukacs 1:47.424 Mazda RX-7
ITA: Bob Stretch 1:43.757 Nissan 240SX

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

RSTPerformance
03-04-2004, 11:03 AM
Andy, move my Audi to ITA, I don't care... For me this isn't about a dominating car coming to ITB, it is about a car that IS classed correctly with most ITA cars being moved because it is a popular car being beat by 2 or 3 other cars that have NOT been classed correctly.

Raymond

RSTPerformance
03-04-2004, 11:09 AM
Ony-

Make a note that the car Randy Pobst was driving has been reclassed to ITA. Being a driver that Randy is I would suspect that the car was fully developed, however I do not remember ever seeing the car.

The 143 time is fast, and I can understand why the RX-7 guys/girls are complaining, that is unobtainable in a 7 (It also is in 90% of the other ITA cars).

If a class cant be added between ITA and ITS (move the top dogs up from ITA) then I think it would be beneficial to move a TON of the ITA cars to ITB add a little weight to them and ITB would probably become "the class" as most ITA cars are as slow or slower than a RX-7.

Raymond Blethen


[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited March 04, 2004).]

Jake
03-04-2004, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Jake,
You should come to Summit Point for a MARRS race.

I have and it was great! With Spec 7 there are a lot of RX7's down there because they don't all have to run in ITA. Heck if there was a Spec MR2 class, the MR2 probably wouldn't have virtually dissapeared from IT either. The sad truth is that more and more people I know are ditching their cheap to run RX-7's and buying expensive and newer Honda/Acuras.


Originally posted by Bill Miller:
The track record for a Spec 7 is a 1:32. And there are a couple of ITA RX7's that run low 1:31's. The ITB track record is a 1:30.499, set by Kaj Bush in a Suzuki Swift.

So it would seem that they aren't all that off the mark for ITB. Not to give the wrong idea, there are a few well-driven RX7's up here that are very quick and would probably take ITB without any other changes to their spec lines.

7racing
03-04-2004, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by cherokee:
There is an idea...if you take the Hondas and Acuras out how does the field stack up then? Me thinks RX would be back at the top.


Then the RX7 will be behind the 240sx, VW Golf and Mazda Miata. What else is out there that can beat an RX7?

Now, I don't mind the idea of slowing down the "overdogs", but who decides what the overdog is and how much to slow it down? Is the end result to make them as fast (or as slow) as a mid-pack car? Would need a lot of weight to do that with some of these cars.

I don't act like I know the answers. I chose the route to buy a car that has a chance - a 240sx. I like the idea of making all cars competitive, given that they take full advantage of the rules, though.

Also, I think we are beating up the RX7 here, when that is not the only car that is being questioned in the move to ITB. I would guess there are other cars that should be looked after, as well (maybe everything with a carb).

Jeremy

oanglade
03-04-2004, 11:46 AM
Raymond,

It was a yellow Accord coupe. I believe it was P. Keane's car, but I'm not sure.

In any case, I agree with you. The RX-7 is not the only one that should move. It just takes the others to make the same case that the RX-7 has made, I guess.

Maybe it would be easier to add the class between ITS and ITA than to move half of ITA down to ITB.

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

03-04-2004, 11:50 AM
"Maybe it would be easier to add the class between ITS and ITA than to move half of ITA down to ITB."


and we have a BINGO http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

ITSRX7
03-04-2004, 12:28 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

You and the other members of the ITAC that post here are championing this whole PCA concept. In addition, recent requests in FasTrack have been shot down (at least temporarily), pending the outcome of the PCA concept. Given that, and given the fact that the RX7s in ITA can, and are running near the front, wouldn't it make more sense to look at adjusting the weight and keeping them in ITA? At least people won't have to go out and buy 6" wheels.

Or what about the concept of adding lead to the Hondas/Acuras? I thought one of the main goals of PCAs was to provide a vehicle to rein in class overdogs?

How can you say that Spec7 is an indicator that the SCCA has 'failed' [sic] those drivers? I would contended that it has just the opposite. If anything, the SCCA (at least at the Regional level), as accomodated the Spec7 drivers by providing them what they wanted, a place to race like cars against each other w/in a limited set of prep rules. Or, would you also say that Spec Miata is another case of the SCCA 'failing' drivers?



Bill,

Excellent questions.

1. I would say both options are being considered. We are just debating, in theory, the merits of the RX-7 to ITB. I HAVE heard that it would be impossible to take the current ITA RX-7 down another 100-150 pounds therefor making that adjustment useless.

Since PCA's aren't a lock, and won't be available until 2005 if they go through, we haven't drilled down enough to say we would addweight to the top 4 cars in every class...besides, I don't think there is ONE or TWO cars in ITA that can't be beat, there are 3-4 REAL choices.

SPEC 7 and IT7 are a success for the SCCA in terms of the RESULT. The symptom is the considered failure. Just the NEED for such a class is the issue.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

cherokee
03-04-2004, 12:33 PM
Originally posted by 7racing:
Then the RX7 will be behind the 240sx, VW Golf and Mazda Miata. What else is out there that can beat an RX7?

Now, I don't mind the idea of slowing down the "overdogs", but who decides what the overdog is and how much to slow it down? Is the end result to make them as fast (or as slow) as a mid-pack car? Would need a lot of weight to do that with some of these cars.

I don't act like I know the answers. I chose the route to buy a car that has a chance - a 240sx. I like the idea of making all cars competitive, given that they take full advantage of the rules, though.

Jeremy


The 7 was the car to have in ITA at one time. On one hand we have the, we need new blood in racing, and on the other we have my car will not run at the front anymore with these new cars. And if we are going to limit adjustments to just adding pounds I don't think is the best idea to keep everyting in ballance.

You yourself chose a 240, cars come and go. At one time there where corvairs everywhere but they just kinda vanashied. What we do have to do is give that guy that wants to run the corvair,TR8, or any other odd duck a fighting chance, and I think that the 7 still has a fighting chance. But you are right it is going to be very very hard.

I also think that IT needs to be re-shuffled. Maybe ITD comes back and everything gets moved around and we will have room at the top for some real fast ITS cars, Supra's, 6cyl mustangs firebirds, 3000gt's, those kind of cars, I realy think that those kind of cars would attract the new blood that everyone seems to want so bad.

cherokee
03-04-2004, 12:46 PM
The only thing different between the 7 and Fiero's,MustangII's,Cavalier's,MR2's...., and anything eles is that they had a fighting chance so people built them they where the bee's knee's...The other cars are all slower then a 7 should we move them all to ITB also.
I agree that there is a problem in ITA but moving a once top car down because it is no longer the one to have is the exact wrong reason.

Phat-S
03-04-2004, 02:48 PM
I think you have to look beyond one track in any one region to make a determination how capable a car is:

Just for grins and I have NO idea the accuracy of these (and could not find Roebling Road or Lowes Motor Speedway) for SARRC North:

Lap Record (Kershaw from http://www.ccrsolo2.org/old/roadrace/world...cmprecords.htm) (http://www.ccrsolo2.org/old/roadrace/world/cmprecords.htm))
IT7 4/6/2002 RX7 1:54.864
ITA 5/27/2001 MIATA 1:55.980

Lap Record (Virginia Intl. Raceway http://www.ncrscca.com/Pdf/VIR%20Lap%20rec...07-24-2003.jpg) (http://www.ncrscca.com/Pdf/VIR%20Lap%20records%2007-24-2003.jpg))
IT7 11/02/02 RX7 2:17.583
ITA 05/11/03 CRX Si 2:19.169

Lap Record (Road Atlanta http://www.arrc-online.com/ra_laprecords.html)
IT7 1:47.424 Mazda RX-7 3/03
ITA 1:43.757 Nissan 240SX 2002 ARRC

------------------
Adam in Charlotte
#42 ITA CRX Si (http://www.ipsolve.com/RaceStuff)

Bill Miller
03-04-2004, 06:53 PM
SPEC 7 and IT7 are a success for the SCCA in terms of the RESULT. The symptom is the considered failure. Just the NEED for such a class is the issue.



Well, there we have it Andy (and who would have thought???). We finally agree on something. You're 110% correct, the symptom is the failure. That symptom being the fact that the IT PP&I is no longer valid. The 1st gen. RX7 folks were just lucky enough that they had enough critical mass to do something about it. And having a mfg that supports motorsports (even at the grassroots level) the way Mazda does, didn't hurt.

I've been saying this for ~ 3 years now.

Here's a thought for the ITA RX7 crowd. Keep 'em in ITA and let them street port the things and add 200# to them! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

That should make the Honda/Acura/Nissan crowd happy!

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

ddewhurst
03-04-2004, 09:08 PM
Being that I have a Spec-7 I have the option to convert to ITA/7 or bigger yet convert to E Production.

The Spec-7 & Spec Miata classes have flurished. Spec-7 in the SoPac, South West, South East & the DC Region. Spec-7 sucks in the CenDiv. Spec Miata has flurished throughout the country. People at the onset want to openly have the ability (they may not have the capability) to race up front. There are lessions to be learned from these Spec classes. Include SRF in this mess of Specs. IMHJ people in these Spec classes call the event "racing the car". In some other classes the event would appear to be "continious development" of the car or "BIG CASH to procure a car".

ITAC members dumping the ITA/7 to B & expecting the 7's folks to sell their 7 inch rims & procure 6 inch rims SUCKS. I happen to have 7" Panasports.

Again to try acheiving some sort of parity for the 7 in ITA what would happen if the 7 weighed 2100 pounds(if at could get there with a 180pound driver) with a lightened flywheel & a smaller diameter clutch & lighter than an OEM ?

Bill, IMHJ the street port is not the economical method to speed up the 7 for ITA.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

lateapex911
03-04-2004, 09:09 PM
Two years ago I was commenting on the need for the CRX, et al, to be reigned in, due to:

1- The CRBs mis estimating of the actual performance potential, and the setting of a weight that has proven to be significantly low, and....

2- The recent "competition adjustment" afforded all non carbureted cars that were classified before the ECU rule change.

Unfortunately, for ITA, it wasn't attended to, and actually other cars have been added to the class in such a way as to be competitive with the new top dog.

As a result, every new car built further bleakens the world for any RX-7, or Fiero, or 2002, or MR-2, or whatever driver.

I wish that giving the cars that are popular enough to have established performance benchmarks a weight would be effective, but I'm afraid were talking a heck of a weight break! As it is the CRX has 200 pounds on the RX-7, and is a better handler with a better suspension. I have no idea where I would go to get 150 of those 200 pounds out of my car if I were suddenly given the chance.

I would suggest that there are two scenarios with the RX-7.
A- Reaadjust weights in A. Give the RX-7 a break, and pile on more weight to the CRX, the 240SX, the Miata, and the Integra. IF there are other ITA cars that are well documented as being well developed by more than one talented driver, then they would be considered for a weight break as well. Net of this should benefit more that the RX-7. If the frontrunners are brought backwards, the entire class wins. And any other car that has the credentials to get a break moves up as well. In a perfect world, ALL ITA cars could be considered, but it just won't happen. Too many models with too little data. Again, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. It isn't as Ray suggests, a popularity contest, but an attempt to serve the greatest number of the membership.

Keep in mind, this scenario is HIGHLY unlikely to occur, as the ITAC and the CRB is faced with a huge problem in ITS: What to do with the Neon? (And all the other "tweeners") And the answer is: Move 'em to A. So, ain't no way to slow those cars down THAT much.....

.......or, plan B-
Move to B. Frankly, the RX-7 is off the pace at certain tracks, and seriously off the pace at others in A. As such, it could compete at the front of B with some changes. Ray, if I told you you had to run on 15% narrower rims, AND carry 40 more pounds, would you be happy and consider it an advantage? No, you'd scream holy hell, knowing your lap times would be taking a hit. As it is right now, the RX-7 could be dropped into B, AS IS, and have a fight for the front. Last year the fastest RX-7 at Lime Rock went a high 4, (and I don't think there was one other RX-7 that got into the 5s even once) and the ITB cars were around a 5 flat. A couple tenths isn't a pushover, thats for sure! Add weight and take away rim, and that picture would be different.

Personally, I don't relish the concept of a move to B, but taken in with the big picture, it might be the better move, for all of IT.

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

cherokee
03-04-2004, 11:29 PM
If it does move to B then it seems not quite right that it gets to keep it 7" wheels. Thats nuts, we all agreed that B has been frozen in time....so lets take a car from the same time period and drop it in with cars that where classed around the same time....but in a lower class, thats crazy....oh and we will let them run wider wheels too.

You are right...adding tonnage to cars is not the answer, it can't be, you will have to add 3-400# to some cars to bring them back in line. There are only a couple of hings that can happen.

1) Do nothing and let the 7 live on in it's spec classes or to duke it out with the fiero's, MR2's ect.

2) Move it to B and wait for drivers of other mid pack cars in A to chime in with that the precident has been set to move non-competive cars down a class.

3) Car specific CA's once this genie is out of the bottle it is out for good.

What it realy comes down to is should we let the old cars slowly fade away? Only people with true love for the make model run TR8's or GT6's,Chevy corvairs,Opels,240z,cosworth vega,2002...the list goes on and on. Perhaps the 7 is in this company...they are all fantastic cars and people love them but they are not or never where at the top of the field. It might just be evolution.

cherokee
03-04-2004, 11:43 PM
One more thing:

Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car...

Unless this changes it is all just a fun exercise.

lateapex911
03-05-2004, 04:23 AM
Originally posted by cherokee:
If it does move to B then it seems not quite right that it gets to keep it 7" wheels. Thats nuts,... ....but in a lower class, thats crazy....oh and we will let them run wider wheels too.

WHERE did you come up with that??? Go back and read my comments. Go back and read Andy's comments. He has NEVER even HINTED at the car going to B on 7" rims. Crazy? What's crazy is thinking a car that is currently turning lap times similar to many B frontrunners is going to speed up on narrower rims while running more weight!

Perhaps you weren't refering to mine or Andy's comments, but as your entry followed mine, I'm at a loss as to where the concept came from.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> What it realy comes down to is should we let the old cars slowly fade away? Only people with true love for the make model run TR8's or GT6's,Chevy corvairs,Opels,240z,cosworth vega,2002...the list goes on and on. Perhaps the 7 is in this company...they are all fantastic cars and people love them but they are not or never where at the top of the field. It might just be evolution.</font>

Wrong. The cars you list are not even close to the RX-7. A LOT of racers own the car, and it epitomizes the goals of IT! Sure the other cars are great cars, but none of them has the car counts currently, the maunfacturer support, or the aftermarket support that the 7 has.

And falling back on the old crutch is getting tired. No there are no guarantees of competiveness, just as there are none in life. The RX-7 was never dominant, although there was strength in numbers. But why shouldn't the CRB try to do better?? Screwing up, then ponting to the "no guarantees" clause isn't productive.

Nobody wants a free ride, just a chance to race hard, and when things actually go right, the stars align, and you don't screw up, to have your day in the sun.

(And I don't agree with the concept per se, of 'evolution' in rules controlled, competition controlled racing. No reason we can't have the old and the new duking it out if we control it properly.)



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

Bill Miller
03-05-2004, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Wrong. The cars you list are not even close to the RX-7. A LOT of racers own the car, and it epitomizes the goals of IT! Sure the other cars are great cars, but none of them has the car counts currently, the maunfacturer support, or the aftermarket support that the 7 has.

And falling back on the old crutch is getting tired. No there are no guarantees of competiveness, just as there are none in life. The RX-7 was never dominant, although there was strength in numbers. But why shouldn't the CRB try to do better?? Screwing up, then ponting to the "no guarantees" clause isn't productive.

Nobody wants a free ride, just a chance to race hard, and when things actually go right, the stars align, and you don't screw up, to have your day in the sun.

(And I don't agree with the concept per se, of 'evolution' in rules controlled, competition controlled racing. No reason we can't have the old and the new duking it out if we control it properly.)



Jake,

I think you and John have been spending too much time under the bridge!!! (inside joke).

RX7 never dominant in ITA? C'mon now. Let's not even get into this one.

And could it possibly be that the reason the car counts were up was due to the factory support (and the fact that they were dominant cars)? Kind of a self-fullfilling prophacey (sp?). I contend that the aftermarket for the Rabbit GTI is on par w/ that for the 1st gen RX7. Still a popular car, even though it was never dominant in ITB (can you say Volvo?), and hasn't had any factory support in almost 20 years.

And, are you saying that because the RX7 is in ITA, and that it isn't running at the front, that the CB screwed up?

And I agree, falling back on the IT PP&I is getting old. But here's a news flash, the CB does it all the time, and until the PP&I gets changed, they, and others, will continue to point to it.

And, the RX7 folks do have a chance to race hard, just not necessarily for the win. That my friend, is the story of IT racing. So, either fix the root problem (PP&I), live with it, or move on.

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

cherokee
03-05-2004, 09:58 AM
Sounds like I struck a nerve.
I am sorry that quoting the RULE BOOK is getting old, it's there in black and white, it is the IT Bible you don't like get it changed, did you know about this clause when you started? You knew the rules to the game when you came in...right? Maybe you should have read the book a little closer. Or maybe you should find a way to cheat that is impossible to police, that way they will re-wright the rules for you...just like they did for the ECU cars, after all there is a huge pool of cars out there. I also guess that if there where a huge amount of Triumphs out there you would be talking about them. Those cars are exactly like the 7...they are getting long in the tooth, sorry but that is a fact, News flash the 1gen RX7 is over 20yrs old,just like all the cars that I exampled. BTW I am running a 30+yr old car. Put the same guy in equally prepped VW's and my car and the VW will walk away, but I do know that I have "just a chance to race hard, and when things actually go right, the stars align, and you don't screw up, to have your day in the sun." Just like the 7 does.

"ITAC members dumping the ITA/7 to B & expecting the 7's folks to sell their 7 inch rims & procure 6 inch rims SUCKS. I happen to have 7" Panasports."

This is where that Idea came from, and I would be upset too if I was told I had to sell my new wheels for some 6",gee maybe if all classes got to run the same inch wheels this part would be a non-issue...oops there I go again.

ITSRX7
03-05-2004, 10:25 AM
We all know that there is no guarantee of competitivness (NGOC). But that doesn't preclude us from trying to make things better.

I find it hard to believe that given the choice, 1st gen RX-7 drivers would rather languish in ITA than add some weight and buy new wheels to have a chance amongst another class.

Is this a case of the vocal minority or are we way off here thinking that giving a large pocket of cars and drivers a better place to play is "right"?

What if each SCCA Region said no to IT7...isn't that the same thing as has been said in a way? "You can't have your own class, I don't care how many of you there are, IT says NGOC - you picked your class - didn't you read the rules you dopes?"

Plllease. We need to make an effort here. Doing it for everyone and every car is a MISTAKE. Doing it for a large group is the right thing IMHO.

If the Cosworth Vega club of America was running a RR series to IT rules and there was a couple hundred of them out there, I would say it would make sense to try and 're-fit' them into IT...

Maybe the big-picture view can be wrong, I don't think so, but I don't know anymore with some of the responses here.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

oanglade
03-05-2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
ITAC members dumping the ITA/7 to B & expecting the 7's folks to sell their 7 inch rims & procure 6 inch rims SUCKS. I happen to have 7" Panasports.



I don't think it would suck at all! For one set of 7" Panasports that you sell, you could probably get all the 6" wheels you would need! Well, I'm probably exagerating, but the point is that you would definitely make money on that deal of selling the 7" wheels to buy 6" wheels.


As for:

Originally posted by cherokee:
Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car...


I don't need them to guarantee it, but I want them to at least make the effort and to correct any gross miscalculation. Otherwise, why don't we just dump all the IT classes into one?

Everytime that line comes up, to me it sounds like "I'm tired and this is such a hassle..."

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

ddewhurst
03-05-2004, 10:59 AM
***If the Cosworth Vega club of America was running a RR series to IT rules and there was a couple hundred of them out there, I would say it would make sense to try and 're-fit' them into IT...***

Andy, this is not a whack at you. This is a whack at the SCCA.

To my humble knowledge the SCCA has zero FACTUAL DATA on how many cars of each model are raced. If that is a given how the smell can the ITAC, CRB or the BoD make quality decisions about the cars in the SCCA. & before some of you jump at your key board & start stuttering about the Purpose & Intent just maybe the SCCA should have some factual knowledge about the numbers of models of cars in each race class of the SCCA.

How high on the numbers list do you think the IT class would be. Oil the wheel that brings in the CASH. The hell with it's been like this from the get-go. With their typical responses they are still reminding we poor folks that the WEALTHY started the club. & when track costs got to high for them they let the poor folks in with a SCCA member as a sponser.

Sorry for the rant. If there is some FACTUAL DATA on the numbers of cars/class please post the info.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

RSTPerformance
03-05-2004, 11:18 AM
Andy-

"Maybe the big-picture view can be wrong, I don't think so, but I don't know anymore with some of the responses here."

I think that we/you/SCCA does need to look at the big picture of rebuilding IT. I think that you should refer to your view not as the big picture but a part of it, it is the large #'s picture.

I don't agree with the large #'s view in an effort to fix the big picture of IT, but I do think that it is a start (or rather a problem that should be part of the big picture that gets fixed). Don't get discouraged with the feedback; just use the feedback to maybe look at a bigger picture. Their are multiple ways to "fix" all of IT,
I think it is a mistake to concentrate only on small parts (even though it is large #'s the RX-& is still just a small part).

Thanks again for your ideas, and your efforts to fix things that need fixing.

Raymond Blethen

PS: I hate it when people think that I don’t want the RX-7 in “B” because I think it will beat me, I am not worried about that at all, I just want the ‘73 ITA Capri that once dominated the Northeast ITA that is in our basement to be moved as well… That would make a very fun ITB car, and I think my dad and crew would love to run that car again.

Dad- 1988 ITA NARRC Champion (Runoffs winner), ‘73 Ford Capri

cherokee
03-05-2004, 12:35 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:

Plllease. We need to make an effort here. Doing it for everyone and every car is a MISTAKE. Doing it for a large group is the right thing IMHO.


A quota system....reverse affermitive action as applied to race cars.

We will have to disagree on this point.

What number is the magic number 5,10,50,1000 cars?
That is my point, doing something to appease the masses is a very wrong reason. If I run a car that is equal to the 7 in every way but name they get to be moved and I don't. How do you write that rule "if more then 10 cars are run in country then you have the abaility to appeal to move classes"...that sounds nutty.

I also think that to have to sell your wheels because (if) your car moved classes is wrong. Sure you can get some of you money back, but not all. And why would I want to, I would need the 7"'s if I ever wanted to run IT7,spec7..., we are not talking about doing away with those classes are we? so I have 6" and 7" to run both places right?
I agree that there are cars in A&S that need to be "adjusted" to bring them in line with everything else that is running in that class. The mistake was made in classing the Honda,BMW... in the first place. Why can't we fix the problem in these cars insted of moving the other cars to different classes?
And I am sorry but I still think that throwing the mass of Rosie O'donnell in cars is the right way to adjust.

apology to Rosie fans http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

cherokee
03-05-2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:

PS: I hate it when people think that I don’t want the RX-7 in “B” because I think it will beat me, I am not worried about that at all, I just want the ‘73 ITA Capri that once dominated the Northeast ITA that is in our basement to be moved as well… That would make a very fun ITB car, and I think my dad and crew would love to run that car again.

Dad- 1988 ITA NARRC Champion (Runoffs winner), ‘73 Ford Capri

Dust that sucker off...it is a real fun car and I had a heck of a good time running with one at Gateway, both of us were having a ball, most fun I have had yet.

Someone suggested a "dionsaur" class be made up for the older cars. I don't think that this is a half bad idea. I think that we could get all the older cars pretty close with out having to spend big $$ on speeding some up and slowing some down.

ITSRX7
03-05-2004, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
Someone suggested a "dionsaur" class be made up for the older cars. I don't think that this is a half bad idea. I think that we could get all the older cars pretty close with out having to spend big $$ on speeding some up and slowing some down.


They already exist...ITB and ITC. Seriously.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

ITSRX7
03-05-2004, 01:26 PM
David,

You don't have to be a brain surgeon to know that there is a huge pocket of ITA prepared RX-7's racing out there. It doesn't take more than a 30 minute look at some of the larger Regional web results to know that there is no pocket of 'business' for Cosworth Vega's.

There may not be any hard and fast numbers (and they may be), but we aren't talking about setting up a hard and fast rule on who qualifies for consideration. There are VERY FEW pockets of cars like this. Try and name some others with numbers like the RX-7...

It isn't favoritism either - it's just what makes sense for the MEMBERSHIP AS A WHOLE. Just because 3 guys have dusty Capri's on battery tenders doesn't mean it makes sense to move them. You can't do it for everyone - you just can't. THEN the real move toward Production starts - and we all know we don't want that.

So - UNDERSTANDING that you CAN'T do it for everyone, the question I have for David, Cherokee, Ray-Ray, etc is simple:

If you can't do it for everyone, should you do it for SOME? I say there ARE cases when it makes sense to do so and IMHO, the ITA RX-7 is one that should be heavily considered.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

cherokee
03-05-2004, 01:33 PM
Well we will just end it with an "I don't" and I would doubt that many a non 7 driver would agree with it.

And is catering to the 7 drivers serving the membership as a whole?

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited March 05, 2004).]

Dave Ebersole
03-05-2004, 02:02 PM
So now you displace, or render completely uncompetitive the many (and there are many!) 2002, VW GTI, and other miscellaneous ITB owners who can run in the top 10.

Why not address the original problem instead of just pushing it off onto smaller collections of cars that don't have the same voice/support?

The RX7 is no longer competitive because of the CRX. So what to do? Make several other makes in another class uncompetitive to bail out the RX7 owners. So typical.
Dave Ebersole
O=00=O
ITB 2002(of course)

[This message has been edited by Dave Ebersole (edited March 05, 2004).]

RacerBill
03-05-2004, 02:05 PM
'Has anyone really spent the $30k it would take to make a real MR2 race car?'

It seems that if you spend that much, you should have a Prod or a GT car! I must have been wrong when I thought that one of the goals of IT was cost containment!

Well, my car will probably be mid-pack anyway, so if you want to spend $30k instead of only $5k to stay ahead of me, thanks for your support to the economy. I would think it really funny if one would spend that amount of money and still be behind me! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Banzai240
03-05-2004, 02:29 PM
I am not about to alter the basic IT rules in an effort to cater to ONE marque...

ITC and ITB have 6" wheel width limits. They always have, and, for the forseeable future, they will continue to have these limits. There would be very little right about allowing ONE car to run 7" wheels, while restricting everyone else to 6" widths.

EVERY car that has been reclassified to ITB from ITA has had to face this same challenge. That's the way the rules are written. If you don't like it, then do something to change it.

It would be unfair to those who are currently vested in ITB to suddenly allow one car in the class, that has every potential of being a front-runner, with a special allowance, just because they are a "popular" car.

I came from an RX background, so don't take this the wrong way, but if you don't like the way the IT rules are written, then you have SEVERAL others options for places to race. Choose one that makes you happy.

I have been a strong advocate for trying to get the IT7 cars back into IT racing, but I'm not willing to do it at the expense of current IT competitors. As far as I'm concerned, you can follow the same rules as the rest of us in every aspect, with the exception of the engine rules, or go race somewhere else...

Sorry, I know that is blunt, but this is about multi-marque racing, and is NOT Production. I am not interested in beginning a list of special allowances for specific platforms...

------------------
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 March 05, 2004).]

Geo
03-05-2004, 02:43 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
With their typical responses they are still reminding we poor folks that the WEALTHY started the club. & when track costs got to high for them they let the poor folks in with a SCCA member as a sponser.

You know what?

From where I sit, all of us who race can be considered wealthy. Sure wealth is relative, but my God, we spend thousands on a hobby. A bloody hobby.

If that is not considered wealthy, then perhaps we need to reconsider the definition.


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

ddewhurst
03-05-2004, 02:53 PM
***If you can't do it for everyone, should you do it for SOME? I say there ARE cases when it makes sense to do so and IMHO, the ITA RX-7 is one that should be heavily considered.***

Andy, I will jump back to my previous post with reference to the potential of the RX-7 being moved to B.

***How high on the numbers list do you think the IT class would be. Oil the wheel that brings in the CASH.***

I was not refering to a pocket of cars (RX-7 or any other model) in the IT group. I was refering to & I will guess that IT overall is one of the largest classes (factual numbers required please) in the SCCA. OIL THE WHEEL THAT BRINGS IN THE CASH. The SCCA is oiling the Spec Miata class. They oiled the SRF class.

On the other hand what are the total number of options looked at by the ITAC before you all started talking about moving the RX-7 to ITB with 6 inch wheels ?

& just to set things stright I don't beleive most of us could run at the point with equally prepared cars. Example, take a look at the Spec Miata races. Same same at the front. This past summer I was at a race with my car, paddocked with a friend with a 1st class Daniels Spec Miata, another driver was asked to do one Q run in the car & he went 2 plus seconds faster with the same setup & the first time in the car. Would be the same in any IT class.


Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

ddewhurst
03-05-2004, 03:23 PM
***I am not about to alter the basic IT rules in an effort to cater to ONE marque.***

Darin, all said with a http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif. IIRC this kind of thought process is exactly how Production ended up with cantilever tires.

***Posted by Geo***

***From where I sit, all of us who race can be considered wealthy. Sure wealth is relative, but my God, we spend thousands on a hobby. A bloody hobby.***

Geo, my sister & brother inlaw have more money tied up in a fishing boat that many of us have in a race car. A stinking fishing boat. The friken thing has a 200 plus hp motor. All they do with this boat is FISH.

My mom gave me some crap once when I started (1999) puting the race car together. Crap about all the money (wealth in your words) & I reminded my mom that I have a sister who owns a boat that is worth 3 plus times as much as my race car.

It's recerational money & we all spend our recreational money in different ways.

***If that is not considered wealthy, then perhaps we need to reconsider the definition.***

IMHJ, the cat that is driven to the paddock with attache in hand would be wealthy. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Continue the Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

ITSRX7
03-05-2004, 05:10 PM
Well, I will agree to disagree with some of you. No problems - just make sure your letters come in if/when any suggestions like this hit Fast Track.

I can't stress enough that the purpose isn't to put the RX-7 at the front - it's to get it back in the game - and it's just a consideration at this time.

You think all the ITA guys are going to feel the same way when the Neon hits their class???? (And I hope everyone realizes that with well prepared and top drivers, the CRX is NOT the only car that car win - the Integra and 240SX are RIGHT THERE, so it's not as simple as slowing down one model...)

I guess we need a thread on what's good for IT on the whole instead of "then MY car moves back another grid spot"...Where are all the people screaming NGOC now?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

cherokee
03-05-2004, 05:19 PM
Originally posted by Dave Ebersole:

Why not address the original problem instead of just pushing it off onto smaller collections of cars that don't have the same voice/support?



IMHO Because ITB&C are not the flashy IT classes, although I think my car is pretty flashy http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif even if it is still in primer.

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited March 05, 2004).]

RX767
03-05-2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:"I've been saying this for ~ 3 years now.
Here's a thought for the ITA RX7 crowd. Keep 'em in ITA and let them street port the things and add 200# to them!
That should make the Honda/Acura/Nissan crowd happy!"

I am all for this idea. I can get off this insane regiment of running, lifting, and a low carb diet. As Jake Gulick mentioned in another thread, it's a means of lightening things without opening the tool box.
Of course, these are the ravings of a man who misses cheesesteaks and full bodied beer. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

I am not in favor of going to 6" wheels since I dropped $900 in Circle Racing Wheels and plan on buy on buying a couple more to mount spares on. I suppose if that happens, maybe I will wonder into limited prep..

Bill Emery
Glen Region
ITA#23

cherokee
03-05-2004, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:

You think all the ITA guys are going to feel the same way when the Neon hits their class???? (And I hope everyone realizes that with well prepared and top drivers, the CRX is NOT the only car that car win - the Integra and 240SX are RIGHT THERE, so it's not as simple as slowing down one model...)



You are right...but should we do anything about it? There was a winning Capri a little further up this page. When newer and newer cars came in did this driver do the same thing, or did he build the next new car?
I said it before...it might just be evolution, and that might not be all bad. You still have a place to run, and your own class that you can win in unlike the Capri. If you still want to run up top with that car you can go to prod.

On one hand I like the no guarantee clause, it lets the Capri come out an play forever if it wants to. On the other if you change the clause that will be the first step to prod.

RSTPerformance
03-05-2004, 05:59 PM
Andy-

To specifically answer your question I think that yes it would make things better but not nearly as good as they could be.

Now to continue...

I think that moving 1 car make to a different class opens doors, and as mentioned before moving 1 car that was NOT classified wrong does not fix the problem of classifying cars incorrectly.

I have 4 scenarios of what I think could be done to fix the "IT" problem:

1: If we add weight to the 3 cars in ITA that are dominators on my list (Acura Integra, Honda CRX, and Nissan 240) in the other thread I think that we would have a very different list that would include the RX-7. That would fix all of the ITA problems and ITB would be a non-issue as most are satisfied with the current classifications. All we would have left is a major problem in ITS and a problem with classifying future cars.

2.If you move the RX-7 to ITB then we have not fixed the ITA problem (you will still need to have one of those 3 cars to win). I do agree and think that ITB would not be that badly effected, if anything ITB would be better as their would be more competition. We obviously would still also have the problems with ITS.

3. If a class was added between ITA and ITS the three top ITA cars could move up to "that" class. The underdogs such as the Neon and other IT2 classed cars (no idea how many) could be bumped down to "that" class and maybe have some weight added. This would fix ITS, fix ITA, make another great class of competition and winners, and it would not affect the already good ITB and ITC.

4. re classify all cars due to the changes that have occurred over the past 20yrs (This is the 20th anniversary of IT isn't it?).


Raymond "I am repeating myself" Blethen

Knestis
03-05-2004, 06:18 PM
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
...

3. If a class was added between ITA and ITS the three top ITA cars could move up to "that" class. The underdogs such as the Neon and other IT2 classed cars (no idea how many) could be bumped down to "that" class and maybe have some weight added. ...

Proposed it - twice, in essence - as did others and it didn't take. Looking at it again for the first time in a long while, it STILL amazes me how blind the club racing community is to this simple solution.

Now, if I were a 'conspiracy theorist' or 'evil conflict of interest crusader' (CT and ECIC for future brevity), I would think that the CRX Si cabal was behind quashing the idea, to protect their market domination.[1]

K

[1] This doesn't mean that I don't believe that ITA Honda people would oppose the move - many of them clearly did when I suggested it. I just don't believe they are any good at conspiring to oppose it... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

RSTPerformance
03-05-2004, 06:30 PM
(Sorry for the hijack, but I wanted to explain why we don't race the Capri... It has no bearing on the competitiveness of the car, it is a no-time factor)

We still have the Capri, but crashed it in the early 90's, back then frame machines were a lot more money and a Toyota dealership offered my dad 2 MR2's to be built for racing only. My father ran that for a few years successfully (back when MR2's and 914's had a fighting chance). Then my father got a fully paid ride for MT. Washington Hillclimb that included all NE SCCA Races. That has lasted for 10 years now in various cars. Now that MT. Washington is gone he will be running the National series in an AS.

When my brother and I started racing dad let us use his car and my brother crashed the MR2 bad in Canada. We could not afford to fix it so we don't have that anymore (sold it to someone who fixed it!!!).

My brother and I started to fix the Capri, but switched course to the Audi's shortly after fixing the frame. We would love to finish fixing the Capri (if we had time) for Vintage, and a few IT events. The Capri is a classic as it was one of the original IT cars raced when the class was introduced 83(?) 84(?).

Many people wanted to buy the car but it was my parents wedding gift and my dad’s baybe... We have such a problem with space and storage at the house, but somehow it manages to stay stored away in a hidden garage http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Raymond Blethen

Speed Raycer
03-05-2004, 06:31 PM
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
3. If a class was added between ITA and ITS the three top ITA cars could move up to "that" class. The underdogs such as the Neon and other IT2 classed cars (no idea how many) could be bumped down to "that" class and maybe have some weight added. This would fix ITS, fix ITA, make another great class of competition and winners, and it would not affect the already good ITB and ITC.


Nawww... that's way too simple! What was the response in fastrack last month to that proposal??? No need for an additional class if PCA's are passed.. or something like that. Hmmm which would be easier, PCA for the entire IT field or add a class for the fast miss-classed.

I'll race my 7 wherever they'll let me. I'm out there to race my hardest and enjoy some dicing with other mid-packers, whether they be in IT7,A,B,C or whatever. I feel sorry for anyone who just dropped a big chunk of change on 7" wheels though, but, just think of the guys that went out and bought RR shocks when they were legal... The rules sometimes change, that's part of racing.



------------------
Scott
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/rudder_racing/images/RX7_Pictures/SRsRX/sig58.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com) http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/rudder_racing/images/IzzysImgs/IzzysLogoDSsmall.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)

ITSRX7
03-05-2004, 06:31 PM
Glad Kirk jumped in here. The full-on class restructure is one of MANY things being seriously considered by some members for proposal.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

Bill Miller
03-05-2004, 07:07 PM
Andy,

Your comments regarding the RX7 and moving it to ITB show that you're too close to this issue and have lost your objectivity. Advocating something because of the popularity of one car, and then saying that it will be good for the entire membership???? How is moving the RX7 to ITB good for anyone but an RX7 driver?

Dave Ebersole,

Please email me millerwj _at_ yahoo.com

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

Banzai240
03-05-2004, 08:09 PM
Gentlemen and any Ladies that might be lurking...

What makes the most sense for IT is to get cars with similiar performance characteristics, both perceived and demonstrated, grouped into classes where they are competitive with one-another...

THAT is the goal here... and THAT is what the majority on the ITAC would like to see done...

HOW we get there is the issue at hand.

The way I see it, you take what you have now and evaluate it FIRST. We have been doing this as a group, as well as individually.

For example, I have a pretty good handle on what I think the performance standards are for ITC, ITA, and ITS... Not having lot of ITB cars up here (OR/WA area...), and not being familiar with the specifications of the Volvo, 2002, etc., I am still working on this class, though I THINK I have an idea of what the target will turn out to be.

Knowing the standards for each class, one can then evaluate the cars in that class, and how they relate to the standards. This is ongoing, but takes some time.

Based on some rough, and very unofficial calculations, a well-built RX-7 would currently need to weight about 2100lbs to be competitive in ITA, when compared to a CRX, Acura, or 240SX..., and would need to be about 2450lbs to fit into ITB. Both of these figures should put the car right in the lead pack for either group...

Now, I am certain that there is no way to get an RX-7 to 2100lbs in legal IT trim, so at that point, what do you do? The ITB guys, especially the Volvos and 2002s are going to "feel" as though they are being "dumped on" if this car, and others in similiar situations, get moved. However, if the move was done correctly, then everyone would have more competition, which "should" make the racing experience more fun... MORE of what it is suppose to be about.

I think the later part of this is what is GOOD for IT racing. The key is to have tools in place to help correct for mis-judgements or mis-calculations... i.e.: when we over/underestimate the performance. That's what PCAs are for. (As I've said before, I believe the language already exists to support moving cars WITH weight changes... so reclassifications aren't really an issue in my mind...)

In all of this, however, I can't think of anyone on the ITAC that is in favor of beginning a string of "special allowances" for IT cars... ESPECIALLY for competition purposes. If you want these kinds of allowances, maybe you should look at LP Production (I still chuckle everytime someone gets fed-up with IT and thinks that LP Prod is going to be the greener of the grasses... Have you READ those rules???).

If the intent and integrity is to continue in IT, then we have to do what we can do within the existing framework, perhaps with a couple of tweaks to that framework to smooth things out...

That's what's happening, and we welcome your comments.

Stay tuned...




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

Banzai240
03-05-2004, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Proposed it - twice, in essence - as did others and it didn't take. Looking at it again for the first time in a long while, it STILL amazes me how blind the club racing community is to this simple solution.

Kirk... the idea is not dead yet... It's being considered, along with several other options... It certainly hasn't been ruled out...

lateapex911
03-05-2004, 09:49 PM
There is NO DOUBT that one of ITs issues exists in the lower S and upper A area. Adding a class for the "tweeners" makes a lot of sense. But we all know how 'they' hate "New classes"...at least that's what they say, somehow new classes keep popping up!

I think we need to keeep in mind that a new class has little chance with the BoD. So, what's the next solution? OK, well the A cars have gotten lots faster than anybody ever figured, maybe the tweeners (ne: the NX2000, Sentra SeR, Neon, et al) should go to A. ........

NOW how do all the A folk who aren't in a 240SX, an Integra, a Miata, or a CRX feel? Further down the food chain, that's for sure! Don't think those cars are going to get moved down in such a way that they will be backmarkers in A just like they were in S either!

And so it trickles down. Neither Andy or Darin said that this was a done deal with the 7, and I would bet money that other cars are being discussed as well.

As for the B boys, I don't buy the fact that any front runners chances at a win are going to be damaged, except numerically. And any racer who wants better odds just isn't a real racer. Around here, I think the front running B guys would get their feathers ruffled by maybe 1 or 2 RX-7s, and it would be a race...a good race. Isn't that what it's all about?

But the backmarkers in B are the ones who have a right to complain, and perhaps they will see their cars recast as C cars.

We have FOUR classes, but the participation numbers are skewed to the top three clsses. We probably need to use the classes we have effectively before we ask for new classes.

If any of you have autocrossed with the SCCA, none of this should come as a surprise.

Finally, I'm sure there are those who consider my comments as self promoting, but I would remind you that for years I have been campaining for similar actions, not just for my car, but for others who have found themsleves in the same boat. I have been racing a 1st gen RX-7 in ITA since '93, long before the inclusion of many of the frontrunning cars, and before the advent of the ECU rule. I know about the class history. If there are large pockets of other cars with similar history and development data, I will champion their cause as well.

We race in a manipulated environment, with 4 performance slots, and not utilizing the mechanisms to balance the 4 classes is a waste.

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

lateapex911
03-05-2004, 10:03 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
David,

So - UNDERSTANDING that you CAN'T do it for everyone, the question I have for David, Cherokee, Ray-Ray, etc is simple:

If you can't do it for everyone, should you do it for SOME? I say there ARE cases when it makes sense to do so and IMHO, the ITA RX-7 is one that should be heavily considered.

AB



Of course you should, and you should do it for as many as you can as long as they can provide the data points required to prove that they can never be competitive in their present class. Which is to say, well prepared, well driven, and well documented programs. And more than one!

I haven't seen a Cosworth Vega (sorry Britt, where-ever you are!) or a Corvair on the track in IT since 1993. I'm sure there are SOME out there, but hey, moving the RX-7 actually HELPS them! They will move UP the grid with the counts of 7s gone!

In a way, it's like an ER, or a MASH hospital...if you have limited blood supplies, do you deny treatment to all because there isn't enough blood for all? No, you ration, you don't waste it on the longshots, and to some degree it's first come first served. You do the best you can with what you've got to help as many as possible.



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

lateapex911
03-05-2004, 10:27 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,

I think you and John have been spending too much time under the bridge!!! (inside joke).


Actually, we should think about that...when are you going to be passing thru again? Maybe Mexican this time?




RX7 never dominant in ITA? C'mon now. Let's not even get into this one.



Actually, it was a very successful car in IT, due to the population counts. It had better odds of doing well purely because of the percentage of entrants in RX-7s. But I would submit that it was never an overdog, never "THE" car to have over all others. A well driven RX-3SP for example, could give a 7 fits. Ask Kurt Weiss, CRB chairman for those who don't know that name) who, when I was thinking about getting a 7 for ITA said, and I quote, "Good car, but I've never been out qualified, or beaten by one." He drove an RX-3SP.



And, are you saying that because the RX7 is in ITA, and that it isn't running at the front, that the CB screwed up?

Well, they added one car to the class, and weren't aware of it's potential. Then, to molify that mis judgement, added one, then two more. On top of that, the first (and second? have to check the timeline) car got a post classification comp adjustment in the form of the legalization of the open ECU rule. (I know you're with me on that one...) And it isn't just the RX-7 that got boned! MOST of the class came up gasping after that one! But the RX-7 seems to be the standard bearer, for the rest of the class.


And I agree, falling back on the IT PP&I is getting old. But here's a news flash, the CB does it all the time, and until the PP&I gets changed, they, and others, will continue to point to it.

And, the RX7 folks do have a chance to race hard, just not necessarily for the win. That my friend, is the story of IT racing. So, either fix the root problem (PP&I), live with it, or move on.



I think we agree here, kinda, but I am asking that the CRB attempt to do better...while understanding that in many cases there isn't anything that can be done. But where there ARE solutions they should be excercized. No change in the PP&I needed, it just needs to be utilized less often as a crutch.

I think that the boys in the ITAC understand that, and are actually doing something , and I have to tell you it's refreshing.

Think about it Bill, two years ago, could we have had this discussion with the guys who are volunteering their time to work on the ITAC, and have had the chance to not only make our case but to debate and discuss it with them???

IT has turned a corner.



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

ITSRX7
03-06-2004, 12:22 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

Your comments regarding the RX7 and moving it to ITB show that you're too close to this issue and have lost your objectivity. Advocating something because of the popularity of one car, and then saying that it will be good for the entire membership???? How is moving the RX7 to ITB good for anyone but an RX7 driver?




How am I too close to the issue? I drive neither in ITA/ITB nor do I drive a 1st gen RX-7?

As far as it's being good for IT as a whole, if you can't see the benefit, then I can't argue it anymore. Giving a large group of drivers a place to feel good about their chances retains and ads members - and that is the ULTIMATE goal. Onsie-twosie 'fixs' for individual cars isn't feasable nor does it get the job done.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

03-06-2004, 01:20 AM
I only have one thing to say, have any of you EVER driven a rx7 on a racetrack with 6" wheels and 185x13 tires? its like ice racing.

Jake
03-06-2004, 09:50 AM
That's why you can run 205/60-13's.

I was going to post something profound, but I can't think of anything I could say that Andy, Darin, and Jake haven't said better. You guys got it 100%

Banzai240
03-06-2004, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by Jake:
That's why you can run 205/60-13's.

That's exactly what I was going to say... 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

Bill Miller
03-06-2004, 11:49 AM
Andy,

Just look at SRX7 in the DC Region, I think those guys have to run 13x6 wheels. Besides, most of the ITB guys run 205's anyway.

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

lateapex911
03-06-2004, 12:46 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
That's why you can run 205/60-13's.

I was going to post something profound, but I can't think of anything I could say that Andy, Darin, and Jake haven't said better. You guys got it 100%

True, those tires will work. BUT,they will screw the set up as the side wall height is higher, so there is a disadvantage there as well, in addition to the loss of contact patch.

And, the gearing gets hit, which, in a wind up toy like an RX-7 can be painful. That is solvable by going to the higher gear set, (most guys can still go to a 5.12), but it is an additional cost of $500 or so.

All of this is OK, and manageable, but if it's not accounted for in the first place, the goal could be missed.



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

Jake
03-06-2004, 01:51 PM
215/50?

Jake, actually I hope your point is taken -and I think it is. It boils down to this: "when a car goes from A to B, it will not have the same performance potential as it had in A because it has lost an inch in wheel width" In one way or another this will be true about any car that goes from ITA to ITB and needs to be taken into account when reclassifying cars.

ITSRX7
03-06-2004, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

Just look at SRX7 in the DC Region, I think those guys have to run 13x6 wheels. Besides, most of the ITB guys run 205's anyway.



Huh?

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

Bill Miller
03-06-2004, 09:21 PM
Andy,

You seemed to imply that if the RX7 folks had to go to 6" wheels, they'd have to run 185/60/13 tires. I was pointing out that the SRX7 guys run 13x6 (I think), and Kumhos, and regularly run w/ the top ITB folks. Also, the ITB folks run 6" wheels, and most run a 205mm wide tire, at a minimum. Point was, no requirement to run a 185/60/13.

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

Jake
03-07-2004, 12:33 AM
Totally OT (sorry) but I was at our tech inspection this morning and an ITB Wabbit had 225/50VR14 Hoosiers mounted on his 14x6 rims. ...not that that would be ideal...

jake7140
03-07-2004, 01:43 AM
Spec Rx can run 13" up to 7" wide; Sopac additionally apecs 4" backspace. Tires spec'd at 205/60-13.

------------------
Steve
[email protected]
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/jake7140" TARGET=_blank>My racing page
</A><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/elrss" TARGET=_blank>Elkhart Lake Racing_&_Sipping Society
</A>

03-07-2004, 02:24 AM
toyo recommends 7" rims for its 205's and they a narrower tread than hoosier so im sure hoosier would say nay. SCCA has to make rules like this "with" the safe recommendation from the MFG'ers.

Banzai240
03-07-2004, 04:35 AM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
toyo recommends 7" rims for its 205's and they a narrower tread than hoosier so im sure hoosier would say nay.

Funny... then WHY would Hoosier measure all their dimensions for the 205/60R13 R3S03 on a 6" rim???

Reference:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/Spec.jsp?mak...ier&model=R3S03 (http://www.tirerack.com/tires/Spec.jsp?make=Hoosier&model=R3S03)

They fit guys... That's the size I used to run on the 510 in ITC... And on my 610 street-car... and... and...

DISCLAIMER: this post has nothing to do with whether or not the RX-7 is getting moved to ITB... AT this point, it's only one of many topics of discussion.



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

dickita15
03-07-2004, 08:54 AM
The question of if a specific car gets moved is less the point than disbursment of cars in the total classes. some classes draw more cars. in Naarc (that is a 13 race northeast series)paticipation measured by number of different drivers who raced was
ITS 61
ITA 75
ITB 48
ITC 19
if we are looking to make 4 fair classes then it looks like you push slow cars down in the 3 faster classes. if we want 5 fair classes then cutting A and S into three classes would seem to work. it would seem with so few C cars we could do it with 4 but 5 would work and not p%$# off the B and C drivers
dick

Jake
03-07-2004, 10:54 AM
Darin - yeah I noticed that too. Funny how Hoosier measures tires on rims that it doesn't recommend for that size tire. The reason is that the "measured rim" data is from a rim that is speced by the tire industry for a certain width tire (as marked on sidewall). However, since Hoosiers are usually wider than they are marked, and I'm sure they have a good legal team, they often don't recommend their tires on a wheel as narrow as the tire industry specs.

Dick - good info. In the northeast we have the same type of distribution. Basically if a few ITS cars drop into ITA, a bunch of ITA cars drop into ITB, and several ITB cars drop into ITC - we're back in business.

There's no question that a class beween S +A would work too for many if the Miata, CRX, Integra, 240Z, were to move up out of A and a bunch of the 2liter cars for S would move down into the new class. But I think in the end, you would find that the new ITA times would be right on top of the existing ITB times - so there would be little reason to have 2 classes for cars at approximately the same performance. I think it would be better for IT to just have a larger fields of ITB than to add another class.

[This message has been edited by Jake (edited March 07, 2004).]

ITSRX7
03-07-2004, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

You seemed to imply that if the RX7 folks had to go to 6" wheels, they'd have to run 185/60/13 tires. I was pointing out that the SRX7 guys run 13x6 (I think), and Kumhos, and regularly run w/ the top ITB folks. Also, the ITB folks run 6" wheels, and most run a 205mm wide tire, at a minimum. Point was, no requirement to run a 185/60/13.



Wasn't me big boy. I haven't mentioned tires sizes in this thread...but your conclusion is correct.

AB

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

Knestis
03-07-2004, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
... Basically if a few ITS cars drop into ITA, a bunch of ITA cars drop into ITB, and several ITB cars drop into ITC - we're back in business. ...


That makes perfectly good sense until the political realities intervene: The only answer that will get passed is one that doesn't PO any stakeholder group and a complete restructuring will be cause a lot of shrieking among the frontrunners in A, B, and C. It'll never fly.

My IT2 proposal was specifically intended to get around this issue by upsetting only the frontrunners in A. In hindsight, I over-reached and should have simply asked for a new class for the S orphans and unlisted cars that were perceived as too quick for A but I had to go and try to actually change something by injecting a "standards-based" specification process...

K

RSTPerformance
03-07-2004, 02:52 PM
I know of a couple cars running 225 Hoosiers on 14 X 6 wheels... they fit fine. The 205 is the "normal" size I think.

Raymond Blethen

Bill Miller
03-07-2004, 02:59 PM
Sorry Andy, my bad. It was actually Daryl (7's Racing) that made the comment about the 185/60/13 tires. It was right after one of your posts, and I must have looked at your sig right above it.

Sorry for attributing that comment to you.

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

ITSRX7
03-07-2004, 04:25 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:


Sorry for attributing that comment to you.



No problem! For a minute, I thought I was losing it... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

03-07-2004, 09:04 PM
Even if 205's fit, I wouldnt go back to even 205's, for one thing hoosier dosnt make a 205x13 and the toyos are like driving on grease as soon as there warm. if your right about 225's fitting safely on a 6" rim I would consider a drop to ITB. Then there the added weight issue to compound the tire problem, add 100 pounds and switch to 205's?, no. if no new class is prefered by the majority and restructuring the existing classes is the way it goes, push all ITB cars back to the non-existent ITC class, put all ITA except the class killers in ITB, and start dropping neons and eclipes into ITA with the hondas.

Jake
03-07-2004, 10:33 PM
Kirk, on the contrary – you didn’t overreach, you didn’t go far enough. The proposal on the table cures much more than the ITS/ITA gap. And I don’t think the shrieking is going to as bad as you think - as you well know, your poster-child for IT2, the 94 Civic EX is already trickling down to ITA. And a certain ITA to B drop is even getting you back into racing. Yes, your Golf is the kind of reclassing that we are talking about, so don't write it off yet. Proposals for other cars dropping classes are starting to be taken very seriously. Your picture of IT2 is basically how I see ITA in years to come.

As for the stakeholders, PCA trickle-down has many more stakeholders than the IT2 initiative. Think about it: IT2 appeals mostly to people who haven’t built cars yet – thus haven’t invested a cent. Moving existing cars down the class structure appeals to MANY people actively racing.

Banzai240
03-07-2004, 10:38 PM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
Even if 205's fit, I wouldnt go back to even 205's, for one thing hoosier dosnt make a 205x13...

That's strange, because the Tire Rack still sells them...

http://www.tirerack.com/tires/Compare1.jsp?startIndex=0&width=205%2F&ratio=60&diameter=13&search=true&pagelen=20&pagenum=1&pagemark=1&performance=C&manufacturer=Hoosier&x=20&y =16

Where are you getting that they are NLA???


------------------
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 March 07, 2004).]

03-07-2004, 10:48 PM
your right, its toyo that dosnt make a 225/13, I had it backwards, knew it was either/or

Bill Miller
03-07-2004, 11:32 PM
[quote]push all ITB cars back to the non-existent ITC class[quote]

You can't possibly be serious?

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

03-08-2004, 12:31 AM
ITD, you still that extra class no matter what then, right? dont see any way around it.

dickita15
03-08-2004, 07:35 AM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
ITD, you still that extra class no matter what then, right? dont see any way around it.

I am afraid you are right. the advatage of a five class system is it blunts the protest of the b & c drivers. the bottom 75% of the A cars will like it, the bottom half of the S cars will like it. the only folks that will be concerned are the top 25% of the A cars. with the new S class the speed range would allow some of the new faster cars to be added with thoughtfull pca's.
there still may be some cars that should move from b to c or a to b but it would not be the wholesale shuffle that would terrify the existing stakeholders.
dick

Jake
03-08-2004, 09:29 AM
It's not about moving ALL ITB to ITC, just the some of the more challenged ones. At least in the NE region there are very few ITB cars that can keep up with the top ITC cars. ITC is also a very small group here (as I would guess it is most other places), so I would doubt that it would really need to be split into two groups.

cherokee
03-08-2004, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Jake:
It's not about moving ALL ITB to ITC, just the some of the more challenged ones. At least in the NE region there are very few ITB cars that can keep up with the top ITC cars. ITC is also a very small group here (as I would guess it is most other places), so I would doubt that it would really need to be split into two groups.

This is kinda like what I suggested a couple pages ago. There are not too many new cars comming down the pike that would fit into C. So could it happen that the Non-ecu. cars get lumped together. The cars have all been around and there are most likly examples of cars developed to 99% out there to see how fast they are. Could the real fast ones be slowed down enough and the slow ones speed up enough to lump them all together. The might get a little different set of rules (like wheel widths and such). Call it ITC and then re-shuffle the other computer cars....Just kinda thinking out loud. There is one or two cars out there that I don't think could fit (TR8) I don't know what we could do for it. On the other hand maybe it could.

ddewhurst
03-08-2004, 10:49 PM
Bill Miller, a bit of info on the SRX7 rim/tire at DC/Summit. Spec, stock rim or 13 x 7 rim with a spec tire RA-1 Toyo 205/60 R13. Typical rim for the Spec-7/SRX7 class in the SCCA all based on the SoPac rules since 1994.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

lateapex911
03-08-2004, 11:54 PM
David, interesting stuff. Can you speak to the lap times of the Spec 7 cars, vs the ITA/7 cars, vs the ITB cars? At whatever tracks you know. What weight do the Spec 7s run?

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