View Full Version : Lay it on the line - Rear Wheel HP - ITS 2nd gen

05-01-2002, 01:58 PM
OK folks here is the deal: We just took our 2 7's to a chassis dyno. The 04 car has a boneyard (80K mile) motor with all the bolt ons. The 05 has a 1 season old Speedsource motor.

The purpose was to see how much more the SS motor put to the pavement than the boneyard motor to see if we wanted to swap units. We only have one "right" diff and we need to optimize one car...

My question is simple: what HP numbers are ITS 13B's putting to the wheels? SS says if they build one for you with exhaust and fuel tweaks, then you should see 175 RWHP...

Anyone close to that? Should be no reason to keep this info close to the vest if you are legal, right???

Andy Bettencourt
Nick Leverone
Steve Ulfelder
Steve Ostrovitz

NER #'s 04 and 05

05-01-2002, 03:02 PM
Just curious, which one had more horsepower and how much difference was there? I run a fairly stock motor with a few minor tweaks but I've never dyno tested it. However, I can pull the Z's that I race with on the straightaways.

05-01-2002, 03:17 PM
If you have never had your car on a chassis dyno, these numbers will mean nothing to you:

Boneyard motor: 171.1
Speedsource: 163.5

Yup, that is right!!! We were shocked!

Now about other cars in ITS:

I have called all the major engine builders and here is what they said an ITS legal motor can put to the ground if they built it - allow for some 'fudge factor':

Bimmer World: 210 RWHP E36 325
SpeedSource: 175 RWHP 2nd gen 13B
Rebello: 170 RWHP 240Z
Porsche guy (forget his name): 185 RWHP 944

So by pure power to weight, the Z and the E36 are right up there...



05-01-2002, 03:53 PM
Thanks for posting yours...

Sorry, mine are confidental.. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Just kidding!

Seriously, my car hasn't fired yet, so no dyno time obviously. I'll have numbers some time this summer I expect.

<jaw hanging open on your results>


05-01-2002, 05:22 PM
Remember that, since the data comes from different dynos, run by different people in different conditions, it is not entirely correct to compare, but this IS an interesting question. For the sake of comparison (second hand info, as well)...

** 88-91 Honda Si (CRX or Civic HB) in ITA = 121-125 whp (Jackson Racing)

** Nissan Sentra SE-R in ITS = 153 whp (Speakman-built, Sunbelt-tuned)

The relatively poor performance of your SS roto-motor might have been the result of failure to adapt a more narrowly tweaked engine to changed atmospheric conditions. As you optimize engine set-up to increase output, you may well tighten up the range of conditions that it will tolerate without readjustment... Just a thought.


05-01-2002, 07:29 PM
Interesting point. DynoJet dynomometers are supposed to be pretty well even - taking into all the variables and compensating for them.

As far as the SS motor, there are very few variables between set ups. Understand that we are talking legal IT motors here and with FI to boot. We tested at a variety of coolant/oil temps and can say CONCLUSIVELY that (with Mobil 1) anything over 200 degrees in oil temp HINDERED HP output.



05-01-2002, 08:53 PM
I here that the bone-yard motors WILL be better from all of the years of running, and not revving at high rpms. The long break-in time, and the years of smooth polishing of the apex seals to the housings will make the difference. I'm not surprised. Did you do a compression test on both engines to see the difference? Same exhausts used on both tests? If not there will be a difference. I've seen a used 1st gen engine with a compression in both chambers near 130, and it was used, warmed up to 180 degrees, and checked with the throttle wide open.

Shift @ 8000 RPM to win, or shift lower to make it last.

Any takers?

Corey L. Clough
Ex-1st Gen, Pre-2nd Gen
[email protected]

05-01-2002, 09:44 PM
Same headers, different straight pipe. We do feel the boneyard straight pipe is better designed but not 10 RWHP worth, that would be crazy.

Compression on the boneyard motor is lower than the SS motor. Mid 6's vs. mid 7's.


05-02-2002, 12:44 AM
Pardon my ignorance, but what is mid 6's? Is that 60 psi from the leading chambers warmed up and W.O.T.? Say it isn't so!

Corey L. Clough
Ex-1st Gen, Pre-2nd Gen
[email protected]

05-02-2002, 01:19 AM
Maybe the SS motor is "depressed" being in the 05 car and all!Does Andy drive the 05 car? Might be something there! I've got a JY motor with a layer of grime that says 175RWHP all over it!Willing to swap it for that SS and $500! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Brian B

05-02-2002, 01:38 AM
When I say mid 6's for compression, this is a way to read it on rotories. If you have a compression test at a Mazda dealership, that is the form they will give you the data in.

Low 9's are new, mid 3's are about dead.


05-02-2002, 01:57 AM
What are the factory compression gauges displaying? kg/cm^2? bar?

Anyone with knowledge of leakdown numbers on a rotary? Numbers on my friends 12a(my old car) were scary low...(high leakage). I want to assume that since the rotors are not spinning that the apex seals are not sealing as they would while running...where as a Pissed-on motor's rings will seal very well while static. Any logic to this?

05-02-2002, 02:25 AM
i'd rather go with the old compression scale. if is is below 90psi, it is about ready for rebuild. Suit yourselves. I'm new to this way of thinking, but what does a chamber that cranks out 100 psi rate on that scale?

Corey L. Clough
Ex-1st Gen, Pre-2nd Gen
[email protected]

05-02-2002, 08:44 AM
Andy. We need to talk. If you dont recognize my name, ask Nick. 407-889-7207 work, until 4pm. 407-889-7207 at home. Call me.

Marc Dana
#63 ITS Mazda Rx-7
#77 STS BMW 325I

Rob May
05-02-2002, 04:13 PM
My old ITS RX-7 used to put out 187 to the rear wheels. Completely legal. I spent over 40 hours on the dyno with it.

05-02-2002, 07:25 PM
I think it important to remember that you are comparing ,not just engines ,but complete drivetrains, fuel,ignition,exhaust and intake systems! I can think of at least 20 small things that could mean 10hp. I believe that Compression tests can be misleading, that rotary rngines seal better with RPMs.
The real question is what HP should a legal 13B develope at the RW's? Depends on the whole car. I think 175RWHP would be great and "affordable".Beyond that takes money and alot of massage time on the dyno. BB

05-03-2002, 06:05 AM
Dyno sheets for my SS built motor (when it was 1.5 years old) was right around 176. It sounds like SS is at least giving accurate estimates.

05-03-2002, 11:14 AM
I am VERY confident that SS is on the up and up. I have had a couple lengthy conversations with them and get a real good feeling that they know what they are talking about and are being straight.


05-03-2002, 12:10 PM
What RPM's do these figures come from? Any torque readings, and if so where do they peak? Just want to know.

Corey L. Clough
Ex-1st Gen, Pre-2nd Gen
[email protected]

Chris Wire
05-07-2002, 11:33 PM
Originally posted by Rob May:
My old ITS RX-7 used to put out 187 to the rear wheels. Completely legal. I spent over 40 hours on the dyno with it.


I am interested to know if you found most of your gains from the buildup of the motor itself, or from the tuning process on the dyno. Email me at [email protected] if you don't want anything online.

I'm not looking for specifics (or speed secrets!), I was just wondering if there was more potential in the motor than in the tuning. Thanks.

Chris Wire
Team Wire Racing
ITS Mazda RX7 #35

David Haskell
05-08-2002, 08:03 PM
Hey Rob give me a call too!! I was also wondering how to get that much HP. How built that motor??? What dyno??? Thanks in advance for your speedy reply, David Haskell

05-08-2002, 10:21 PM

You scoundrel- So that's where my 2000 season motor has been for the past 2 years!

I've been looking for that everywhere.

I'm next in line as soon as Mr Haskell gets through with you . . .er, ah, I mean, gets a chance to talk to you.


05-09-2002, 01:29 PM
What gear is everyone using when they dyno. There can be substantial differences dyno in 3rd gear compared to 4th gear. If you are going to compare dyno runs you need to check this first.

Joe Craven
05-09-2002, 01:43 PM
NASA did a dyno comparison of the 12A motors in the late 90s when their Pro7 program was going strong. Various builders brought their engines and the winner was a higher mileage junkyard motor that made 140+ hp with a stock exhaust manifold. The point of the article is that a $200 junkyard motor from pick your part in California could be faster than a pro built $3K motor.

Rotories seem to get faster as they age, and go the fastest just before they blow up.

05-10-2002, 12:02 AM
Off subject, but aimed at Joe Craven. You don't happen to also be a member on a Capri email list do ya?

GEO 46

Joe Craven
05-10-2002, 12:59 PM
Hey Geo, former ITA Capri racer - it's me. I'm testing the other side and bringing out my 71 ITB Capri to SCCA. I now have a 73 PS3 Capri and 83 GTI CUP which I continue to race with NASA. Looking forward to the SCCA experience and friendly racin

Originally posted by GEO46:
Off subject, but aimed at Joe Craven. You don't happen to also be a member on a Capri email list do ya?

GEO 46

05-10-2002, 02:10 PM
Good to hear from ya Joe. Yep, I'm the former ITA Capri racer. To bad there isn't more comprehesive sites out there for the capri racers like there is for us Mazda racers.

Good luck, have fun, and keep the shiney side up:-)


05-21-2002, 08:26 PM
I have to jump in on this subject. I have been working on RX-7 street cars for a few years now. I have yet to see a street non turbo pull more than 156RWHP. The setup was performance intake, Racing Beat headers, presilencer, 50MM catback.

How are you guys reaching 175+ when you can't do anything else to the motors except exhaust, intake, and removing the aux port sleeves?

It seems to me that an ECU remap is required but what else could you possibly do to get those big numbers?

Paul D'Angelo
Iridium Racing

05-30-2002, 06:24 PM
OK here's my $0.02 for what it's worth . . .

Max HP numbers don't really tell the whole story. You have to look at the HP and TQ curves. Where does each motor make the peak torque? Where does peak HP come into play? Which is better for the type of driving you're doing?

Here's a good article about this:

05-31-2002, 05:22 PM
Don't know what to tell you Paul...

Our motor (171 rwhp) is a boneyard 70,000 mile unit that has all the legal external mods + a custom straight pipe from the collector back. Made a Callaway Cars (Corvette guys) out of Stainless with welded and trimmed U and L bends. It is smoooooooth. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Other than Mobil 1 in the crankcase, what you see is what you get. Now about the 180+ hp quotes, even Speedsource hasn't seen that yet.

And how about the 275 crank HP (225 + RWHP) Bimmerworld is quoting on a cost no object 325 I6, you make the call... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/mad.gif


[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited May 31, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited May 31, 2002).]

C. Ludwig
05-31-2002, 06:18 PM
ITSRX7, can you "feel" any difference in the two motors? What about the plotted torque curves? Does one have a fatter curve? What year is the junkyard motor? Thanks!


Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv

05-31-2002, 10:30 PM
Both are 89's. Can't feel the difference due to different final drives.

It is only 7.5hp - tourque curves are similar and very fat. For a Wankel!


06-02-2002, 05:16 PM
I'm sure that the exhaust tuning and general optimizing you're doing will find that 7.5hp+!
The question is this.Can these cars find enough to be competitive with well tuned latter BMWs? I watched the Memorial day weekend races at Limerock.As you know, BMWs qualified on the front row and led some very good RX-7s around from start to finish. They didn't run away with the race, but then again, they were never really challenged. I would quess that there could be at least a 30hp disparity between these cars. Whereas,SCCA doesn't gaurrantee the competitiveness of any car in this class, do you think they've classified a "ringer"into what is a fairly competitive field of cars?

06-02-2002, 11:14 PM
My personal feeling is that the development of the E36 325 will show itself to be a dominant car this year. The BMW must weigh 180 lbs more but top of the line engines show 175 rwhp for the Mazda's and 225 rwhp for the BMW's (quote from BimmerWorld rep). That is a real large gap.

I was on the National Stock Class Advisory Board for Solo 2 and I know how to look at cars objectively for classification.

I have written a letter to HQ about my concern with some tangible data but until these cars start dominating across the country, you won't see a change - and maybe shouldn't.


[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited June 02, 2002).]

C. Ludwig
06-03-2002, 12:06 AM
Everyone (including myself) keeps saying, "when someone finally develops a BMW they'll dominate". It's not like I get out alot or have done this for a great length of time but I've never seen a 325 dominate. Evidently there are a few in the NE as the stories pop up from time to time. But as ITSRX7 kinda hinted at, when RX7s and 240s continue to dominate the ARRC (and the BMWs barely make a showing) it's hard to argue an unfair advantage. Just my $.02 and sorry for helping to highjack the thread. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv

06-03-2002, 09:29 AM
No problems Chris! It's a fact. If the specs say one thing and the results say another, we have a poor argument.

Luckily with the way we can look at the results for Road Racing, you can see fast lap as well as finishing position - so this takes a lot of guesswork out of the equation.

There are some real fast E36's here in the NE. I think you will see them hit the big events. The Import Challenge Series here at Lime Rock has some big prizes (including a seat in a Touring car at the following years race) and the fast guys and cars are in the mix.

As the BMW guys get the suspensions dialed in, the power will be more evident. But I still submit that 50 rwhp does not equal 180lbs...only time will tell. Keep on fighting!


Greg Amy
06-03-2002, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by C. Ludwig:
...but I've never seen a 325 dominate.

Uh, Chris, sweetie, come visit up north a little more. Last weekend's OMP Challenge was what I personally would call "dominated" by the BMW 325: http://www.limerock.com/LRP-News/articles/news204.html

A point of reference, the top 3 cars would have been on the pole for the SpeedWorld Touring race. They set a new track lap record of 1:01 and change while the Touring polesitter was 1:02 and change.

Another point of reference: ITS driver Kip van Steenburg drove his BMW 325 to pole position and victory in the first race. He also had a Bimmerworld-prepared Touring car. He was about one to one-and-one-half seconds slower per lap in his Touring car, same track, day, afternoon, etc.

Granted, Touring runs Toyo street tires while the ITS Bimmers were on Hooisers, but the Touring cars get to do just a *tad* bit more to their cars than ITS (namely, wings, compression, camshafts, suspension mods? and what else?) Are Hoosiers enough to overcome increased horsepower, rear wings, better suspension pickups, ad nausea?

Something t'ain't right there...

I'd suggest that the reason you're not seeing more 325s out there in the rest of the country is possibly because a vast majority of them were sold in the northeast US where the income is higher but the car costs the same as everywhere else. These cars are a dime a dozen up here, I hear you can buy them for single-digit thousands now, especially wrecked and/or salvaged/stolen ones. Just sit tight, your turn's a'comin'.

After last weekend's race, I've coined a new phrase, which you're free to use:

'They're ain't no "W" without a BMW.'

GregA, loser with a 2-liter, four-cylinder, front wheel drive car stuck in ITS because "it's too fast for ITA." HAH! I guess nothing's too fast for ITS!

06-03-2002, 12:34 PM
I guess I have to give my two cents worth... I won the second race at LR that grega is talking about. I disagree about his comparison between the Speed Touring cars and the ITS BMWs. I had the pole in the first race with a time of 1:01.3, this would have placed me in seventh place on the Touring car grid. I drove behind Will Turner in is his Touring car during a practice day and almost drove in the back of him in the exit of the corners because of his lack of grip. The Touring car record is in the 59 second range when they ran BFG tires, so yes tires do make a huge difference on a handling/momentum track like LR.

ITSRX7, I very much doubt that you can legally get anywhere near 275 crank HP from an engine that has 190 crank HP stock. It just doesn't make sense within the ITS rules.

It is also weird that the BMWs don't do well on tracks that require a lot of HP like at the ARRC. In the NE the tracks are small momentum tracks that require good handling, not big HP.

Jared Gaillard
91 ITS BMW E36

C. Ludwig
06-03-2002, 01:34 PM
Easy there guys. I qualified my remarks. Just commenting on my limited osservations.


Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv

06-03-2002, 02:50 PM

06-03-2002, 04:54 PM
I am with you in theory Jared! Just QUOTING numbers from BimmerWorld directly.

From the research I have done, the IT rules alow reciprocating piston engines to gain a lot more than the Wankels. Not a complaint, just facts from rules.


Greg Amy
06-03-2002, 09:15 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Easy there guys.</font>

No ill will intended. Just jealousies. <grin>

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I disagree about his comparison between the Speed Touring cars and the ITS BMWs....The Touring car record is in the 59 second range when they ran BFG tires.</font>

OK, I'll accept that at face value. I'm quite surprised, but there it is.

However, to the original point of the discussion: the perceived "dominance" of the E36. I didn't get to watch the race, as I finished almost a lap behind you guys <grin>, but as I understand it from my crew and video tapes, I didn't really see where you had much competition except among yourselves...

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I had the pole in the first race with a time of 1:01.3, this would have placed me in seventh place on the Touring car grid.</font>

Are you certain? I recall the grid sheet I saw on Saturday and the pole time for Touring was in the 1:02 range. I do recall several of us making the comparison and being quite impressed.

Besides, we agree it's an apples to oranges comparison, but an enlightening one nonetheless.

I'll renew that now and in the future, to be competitive in ITS will require the E36 BMW. I do wish you the best; I just wish SCCA would not classify my 2-liter four-cylinder FWD car in the same class using "no guarantee of competitiveness" as a blanket excuse.

I tooks my chances that I could get it re-classified, so I'll takes my punishment for having misguided faith in the system...now all I gotta do is figure out how to beat Tom Blaney and his 1:02-and-change ITA Honda CRX!! <grin>

Greg Amy
Milford CT

06-03-2002, 11:20 PM
SPEED Touring pole was a 1:01.137 and there were 20 cars in the 1:01s. 1:01.3 would indeed have been 7th (in qualifying) but the distinction is evidence only of how close things are on an ST grid.

That is all academic, however, since even if the e36 won every ITS race at every track in the nation, for a whole season, there is NO provision in the rules to allow anything to be done about it. The ITCS is specific that there will be no competition adjustments, other than reclassification - where are they going to put it, in AS? http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Those of you who are hoping that the RX7s and others will get some kind of relief have ordered a big reality sandwich, with no drink to wash it down.

This is a problem but it won't get addressed - let alone fixed - until there is a fundamental re-assessment of the philosophy and fundamental approach to the IT classes. The crime here is that Greg's car started life as a SS racer and the founding principle of IT was to give retired showroom stockers a place to race.

Having said that, Greg and his Nissan seem to have done a pretty damned good job, considering...


06-03-2002, 11:33 PM
Hey Greg....

Nice job! I understand you drive the car to the events.....I used to drive my ITA RX-7 to and from the races, loaded to the gills with tools tent and girlfriend...ah...those were the days! I saw your car at the event and I honestly thought that the board had classed you temporarily in ITS to see how it goes....they can't be serious...can they?

yes the BMWs were very quick....on one hand I have to wonder.... they sounded great too....some said too great. On the other hand, if a CRX can go solid 2s, the ITS cars had better go 1s! Too bad you couldn't see the races...it was fun watching those guys go after each other!

06-04-2002, 12:40 AM
Improved Touring is a popular class,with great potential for growth! Why not make few more classes .Why try and fit existing and future eligible cars into 4 classes? Why create frustration and disparity,when you can have close competition for a wide variety of cars? Why not preserve the competitiveness of cars that members have invested so much into?It can be as simple as adding an S to ITS(ITSS) for the newer more powerful cars, or to ITA(ITAS) for cars like Greg's Nissan.
Having a chance to win is what drives this sport!

06-04-2002, 09:42 AM
I respectfully have to disagree with Kirk here: Are you saying that there is no way that the SCCA can change the minimum weight for E36 ITS BMW's for the 2003 season?

HAS to be. I see in EVERY FASTRACK these requests either referred to their respective advisory committees or rejected without recommendation.


06-04-2002, 11:12 AM
The weight of the E36 325 was already increased by 100lbs and then this was overturned because it was considered a "Competition adjustment" which is not currently allowed.

The big question is how can we make all cars equally competitive? Look at how much work is required in World Challenge to get the cars "equal". Each car is allowed to make different modifications, and they also make constant adjustments to restrictor size, weight, etc. to make sure one car doesn't have an advantage.

This is probably why SCCA doesn't want to get into competition adjustments. Also, the disparity in driver skill is much greater in club racing than in pro racing. The top 10 drivers in World Challenge would be better matched in driving ability than the top 10 drivers in an ITS race. What I suggest we could do it add rewards weight to cars that finih in the top three. This would have the effect of slowing down good cars as well as good drivers and make it closer racing.

Greg Amy
06-04-2002, 11:30 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Hey Greg...Nice job!</font>

Well, thanks for the sentiment, but the congrats truly go to Jason and Kip. They are in the right equipment, prepared well.

Me? I showed up for my first gunfight with a knife...<very big grin>. To be honest, though, I was quite satisfied to do as we did in the first race for the car. I think there may be 2-3 seconds left in that car with some development and tires.

Watch out, Jason, I'm gunnin' for ya!

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> I understand you drive the car to the events....!</font>

I do, but we had the absolute luxury of the use of my brother-in-law's Plymouth Voyager, which doubled as driver evening accomodations...hell, I used to drive my SSA Shelby CSX all across the country with a little trailer in tow with tires and tools; LRP was my first real race since 1992 and I was AMAZED at the truck and trailers within the IT ranks.

I've also taken significant note that the ITCS has removed the statement about the philosophy of the class having to do with street-driven cars...oh, well.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...saw your car at the event and I honestly thought that the board had classed you temporarily in ITS to see how it goes....they can't be serious...can they?</font>

Dead serious. Take a look at the last few Fastrack and you'll see in there the consistent renewal that 'the request to move the NX2000 and Sentra SE-R (as well as other 4-cylinder cars) to ITA have repeatedly been requested rejected due to competition potential.'

I note with glee that I got TROUNCED by Tom's ITA CRX Si. Yeah, I'm gunnin' for you, too, baby!

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Why not make few more classes. Why try and fit existing and future eligible cars into 4 classes?</font>

Kirk is spearheading a grassroots movement to do just that: to find a place for the cars of my ilk, popular 90's 2-liter FWD coupes and sedans that are 'too fast' for ITA and too slow for ITS, to be placed in their own class, IT2. See details at:


Your support (letters and emails to Important Folks) is much appreciated. It worked for SM and IT7, I'd really like to see these cars placed in their own class.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I respectfully have to disagree with Kirk here: Are you saying that there is no way that the SCCA can change the minimum weight for E36 ITS BMW's for the 2003 season?</font>

The ITCS and the Comp Board have made it very clear: absolutely no weight adjustments for the purposes of competition potential and the only course of action is reclassification. Since they have repeatedly rejected moving the IT2-class cars to ITA (see repeated rejections of other cars such as the Neon) it leaves an entire class of popular foreign and domestic small sedans and coupes with no competitive place to play.

About those occasional weight adjustments you see? Those are "corrections" due to improper weight info, not competition adjustments.

To learn more, visit Kirk's site above, and peruse other letters that I have sent to that effect to SCCA:


And their responses:

"Reclassify Chrysler Neon from ITS to ITA. (Brown) This issue has been revisited numerous times and the decision is still to leave the car as an ITS."

"Reclassify 4 cylinder cars from ITS to ITA (Amy) There are too many exceptions to the proposed rule from a performance standpoint."

"Reclassify NX2000 to ITA (Amy) This has been reviewed previously and it has been determined that the car would be too fast for ITA."

"Reclassify all 4-cylinder cars from ITS to ITA (Gauldfelt) Reclassification of cars is done on a car-by-car evaluation"

Sorry for hijacking the topic, but you can tell it's a subject important to me. On topic: I estimate my NX2000 gets about 155-160 crank horsepower. I'll post dyno numbers when I get them (ain't planning on seeing 225 fwhp!!!)

Encourage competition: Long Live IT2!

Greg Amy
Milford CT

[This message has been edited by grega (edited June 04, 2002).]

06-04-2002, 02:15 PM
First off: Great thread.

I am really dissappointed that there can be nothing done. It just doesn't allow for 'mistakes' to be made. These kind of mistakes happen in all forms of racing.

I do love the additional weight ala Touring. Makes for really fair racing - and everyones investment is protected!


06-04-2002, 03:02 PM
Ah ......the dreaded "competition adjustment" phrase has been brought up....sooooo let's discuss the sitation in IT due to the recent rules change allowing electronic modifications.

Back in the stone age, IT was a great place to play...cheap (we DROVE our cars to and from (sometimes!) the track), competitive...any number of cars had a legit shot at the front...and it was FUN. Well, now it's not expensive (relatively!), but it's not dirt cheap either. That's just the nature of the deal though...and I think it's still fun.

But I take issue with the board relaxing a rule that affects cars already classified!!!!
THAT is a competition adjustment and absolutely has had an affect on parity. If the board wants to have no adjustments, fine.... but it shouldn't then change a rule that makes it possible for a certain number of cars to benefit at the expense of the rest of the class. I certainly understand the boards position....they couldn't effectively police the electronics of fuel injected cars.....fine, but just throwing in the towel effectively threw the affected cars a huge bone! And instantly made scores of other, popular cars uncompetitive.

The pandoras box has been opened and the board needs to repair the damage and restore the order. Solutions? Well I'm sure this would be hottly debated but something is better than nothing.....either give the rest of the cars that don't benefit from the rules change a weight break, or add weight to the affected cars.

Other options would include reclassification, or a restucturing of the classes (Popular in Solo, but they have to deal with STOCK cars, and the board has more options open to it when they classiy a car for roadracing) or more classes, but that gets crazy...where do you draw the line?

Also, I appreciate the earlier comments about how difficult it is in the Pro ranks to create parity, but keep in mind that they are dealing with much greater diversity...think about it...a Corvette and an Audi A4 in the same class??? Geeeez!

I agree that comp. adjustments would be a lot of work, but I think the time has come for them on a limited basis. IT is one of the most popular classes in the club and the board needs to spend a little more time with it.


Jake Gulick
ITA 57 RX-7

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 04, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 04, 2002).]

Allen Brown
06-04-2002, 04:10 PM
It looks like we have moved off thread a bit, but I'mm going to follow suit.

I'm on the rules committee for WCMA (Western Canada Motorsports Association). This past winter we have adopted the SCCA IT rules almost in it's entirety.

However, our car counts are quite a bit lower that that I here attending most events in the US. We have made some deviations for SCCA's rules....

No. 1, The rules can be changed if there is a need for it. Our organization is a lot smaller, which gives us the luxury of changing items (fine tuning) as required.

No. 2, because of low car counts, we are trying to use WEIGHT (add or subtract) as a means of evening out the field. You'll never have a perfect solution for everyone, but we hope to have a place where everyone can race, and if the car is prepped to the max of the rules. The rest is up to the driver...as it should be IMO.

But from what I can see, the SCCA IT rules are a great starting point...IMO, they just need tweeking in a few small areas.