October fastrack is out

[jwalter]

http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/05-10-fastrack.pdf
http://www.scca.com/Garage/Index.asp?IdS=0...00&x=090|005&~= (http://www.scca.com/Garage/Index.asp?IdS=00446C-45CCE00&x=090|005&~=)

Didn't see a post on it yet.

The big thing for me is 1.8 miata in ITA at 2380lbs.

--Jeff
#79 Spec Miata

[dickita15]

in a section on ss/t cages there is a request from lipperini for a 9th cage attachment point that was tabled. I wonder that that is about.

[Bill Miller]

Won't publish performance parameters, but can say a car is in one envelope, but would exceed another. :rolleyes:

But we all knew that already. :happy204:

[dave parker]

October Fast track is out.

Excellent. Now the whole IT world can read why I am called "dangerous" dave parker. :happy204:

cheers
"dangerous" dave parker
wdcr ITC#97

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Aug 19 2005, 07:54 PM
Won't publish performance parameters, but can say a car is in one envelope, but would exceed another. :rolleyes:

But we all knew that already. :happy204:

58663



Sounded like a good enough explanation to me...

As we explained in Fastrack (more explanation than one would normally expect, I'd have to say...), these parameters are being refined and, therefore, it would accomplish NOTHING to publish them at this time...

You seem to forget that we've only been in this mode for one season, and there needs to be some time to see how things are working out... That would be the Prudent thing to do, anyhow...

Surely you don't have a problem with people being prudent, do you???

As for the ITB Rabbit, we have Chris Albin on our committee, as well as numerous other intelligent individuals, so we think we know what we are doing with respect to this, and many other cars... we have a plan... It's only about 25% implemented at this point, so perhaps you should wait to see if we are successful in implementing it before you sell us down the river...

You seem to think that you are the only person who wants things done RIGHT around here... :rolleyes:

[Knestis]

WOW. A "well founded appeal!" How often does that happen?

K

[Greg Amy]

Hey, Kirk, I had one back in 1990.... GA

[Jake]

Good move on the 94-95 Miata going to ITA.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 19 2005, 10:14 PM
Sounded like a good enough explanation to me...

As we explained in Fastrack (more explanation than one would normally expect, I'd have to say...), these parameters are being refined and, therefore, it would accomplish NOTHING to publish them at this time...

You seem to forget that we've only been in this mode for one season, and there needs to be some time to see how things are working out... That would be the Prudent thing to do, anyhow...

Surely you don't have a problem with people being prudent, do you???

As for the ITB Rabbit, we have Chris Albin on our committee, as well as numerous other intelligent individuals, so we think we know what we are doing with respect to this, and many other cars... we have a plan... It's only about 25% implemented at this point, so perhaps you should wait to see if we are successful in implementing it before you sell us down the river...

You seem to think that you are the only person who wants things done RIGHT around here... :rolleyes:

58672



Darin,

Didn't realize I was selling you down the river. Also, all I asked for were the performance parameters for the given classes to be published. I didn't say anything else about the Rabbit GTI.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Jake@Aug 19 2005, 09:05 PM
Good move on the 94-95 Miata going to ITA.

Yup, I agree. But, as I've said to others privately, I think it's too light. That car has a lot of potential to be a class-killer, but I hope I'm wrong.

And I'm peeved that I sold my '94 SM literally days before I got word about this change. Had I known this, especially given the weight, I would have dumped the NX in a heartbeat...sold it for a killer price, too...sigh...

[Jake]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Aug 20 2005, 12:13 PM
And I'm peeved that I sold my '94 SM literally days before I got word about this change. Had I known this, especially given the weight, I would have dumped the NX in a heartbeat...sold it for a killer price, too...sigh...

58693


Arrgh... that's tragic! I've got this thought in the back of my mind that if I sell the MR2 and get a SM or Spec Serra Integra, the MR2 will move to B instantly after.

[RP Performance]

Maybe time to convert some 1.8 SM cars to ITA. I have one but after converting my 1.6 last winter that might be too much work. Does anyone know if the 4.8 rear will work in the 1.8 housing? We need to keep my 1.8 in SM trim to try and win the 12 hour again in "06"

[RP Performance]

Also forgot, my ITA 1.6 Miata is for sale. I will put an ad in the classifieds soon.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Aug 20 2005, 12:13 PM
Yup, I agree. But, as I've said to others privately, I think it's too light. That car has a lot of potential to be a class-killer, but I hope I'm wrong.

58693



This one took a LOT of discussion by the ITAC... Based on the classification process for IT, this as classified is within 25lbs of where it should be... The problem with making it any heavier is that, because of the current SM cage rules, EVERY car out there built to the SM rules would have to replace the entire cage to come race ITA, because SM allows a lighter weight tubing than IT at the same weight...

So, this one WAS a bit of a compromise, which was made in an effort to help protect the investments of the competitors...

Keep in mind, however, that we have an Ace in the hole on this one... Because the 1.8 in SM is required to run a restrictor (43mm I believe), and we now have PCAs, which allow us to make adjustments... If it is proven that we've underestimated the performance potential of this car, we have the option of requiring that a restrictor be added back to the specs...

In doing the classification this way, we were able to get the car in at a legal weight for the cage, yet still protect the other competitors from a potential "class killer"...

Hopefully somewhat of a win-win for the class...

Also... I don't know if I'd go bailing on my car before the December BoD meetings... Some interesting things could happen at the end of the year...

[Jake]

Well, it certainly had no business being in ITS with only 128hp stock. Seems like the best decision that could have been made considering the restraints.

[charrbq]

I really felt that the performance potential of this car would never see it in ITA, but I was wrong. Not the first time. We&#39;ll see...but I don&#39;t see a bunch of them showing up immediately. However, it won&#39;t be long. They&#39;ve got what it takes to win in ITA...a big motor...same as the Integra. <_<

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 20 2005, 11:07 AM
...we have an Ace in the hole...a restrictor...
58701


Yeah, Darin (and you-know-who else), I&#39;d forgotten about that ace. I really hate restrictors, but I see it as an acceptable compromise. Though, I&#39;d have preferred that the car come into ITA *with* its associated SM restrictor, with consideration to remove it later, rather than vice versa. It&#39;s always easier to remove restrictions (weight or otherwise) than to add them.

Regardless, as I noted, this car belongs in ITA. I&#39;m sure it will add to the exitement in a class that has been completely transformed over the last 5 years, one that in my opinion is the best IT class we&#39;ve got... GA

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Aug 20 2005, 06:33 PM
Though, I&#39;d have preferred that the car come into ITA *with* its associated SM restrictor, with consideration to remove it later, rather than vice versa. It&#39;s always easier to remove restrictions (weight or otherwise) than to add them.
58710



Using the IT classification process, and also knowing some real output numbers for IT prepped 1.8L Mazda motors, the car is VERY close at the classified weight... The wt/pwr ratio is just about right for the class...

We are trying to NOT use restrictors, but in these special cases, they may be necessary... It might be in the best interests of IT for us to investigate the idea of using single-inlet-restrictors rather than flat plate restrictors, because, as the GT guys have discovered, the SIRs are an excellent way to absolutely limit the output...

After all the discussion, it is my believe that this Miata WILL be a competitive car in ITA, but not because of it&#39;s wt/pwr ratios... More likely because there are a TON of them out there, sharing development and ideas, and competiting in sheer numbers... Because, on paper, this car has about the same potential as the 1.6L already classified in ITA...

We&#39;ll see... I know it&#39;s a stretch for many of you, but I would hope you can see by now that there ARE people watching this kind of thing and ready to make adjustments if they are needed...

[RP Performance]

Don&#39;t forget that is still 175 lbs more then a 1.6. Not sure if you can get that much more out of it. I still think that the 1.6 might be a better car.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by RP Performance@Aug 20 2005, 10:00 PM
Don&#39;t forget that is still 175 lbs more then a 1.6. Not sure if you can get that much more out of it. I still think that the 1.6 might be a better car.

58714


Exactly... With the ONLY difference in IT being the displacement... I believe these cars will actually equate quite well... I think the 1.6 liter car is very close to idealy classified for this class...

Does anyone have any real data on what a 1.8 is capable of putting out in IT trim???

[Greg Amy]

Brett, my SM-prepped &#39;94 (C-package, no ABS, de-powered power steering) weighed exactly 2374 with me in it. I personally weigh about 190-200 in my driver&#39;s pretties. So, the car is *right there* with 13 pound Koseis and the spec suspension. You can see why I&#39;m pissed I sold it...<grin>

Darin, most of the SM development has been on the 1.6s. Reliable wheel power on that car has been rumored to be from 95 on a crate engine to somewhere in the 105+ range on a Sunbelt engine. The 1.8s came with 10 more ponies stock and more torque, so your power-to-weight is close. However, I base my concerns on the fact that the Spec Miatas have historically run pretty decent times compared to the ITA boys, especially at the slower tracks like LRP. Given the (crappy) stock header, inlet restrictor, the (less than optimal) spec suspension, Toyo 15" tires, limited rear end ratios, and 13-pound wheels, there&#39;s KEE-RAPLOAD of development left in that car. Get one of the SM hot shoes in that car (like Prince de Pedro) and that car has a damn fine shot at ITA glory.

Doncha worry, though: if I ever get my stuff together, you boys will be crying to Topeka for weight additions on the NX...<grin>

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Aug 20 2005, 11:29 PM
Get one of the SM hot shoes in that car (like Prince de Pedro) and that car has a damn fine shot at ITA glory.

Doncha worry, though: if I ever get my stuff together, you boys will be crying to Topeka for weight additions on the NX...<grin>

58718



If this is the attitude, then I think the ITAC and CRB are on the right track!! Our goal is to get IT back to a place where any number of cars could be considered this way...

Only time will tell if we will be successful...

[RP Performance]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 20 2005, 10:28 PM
Exactly... With the ONLY difference in IT being the displacement... I believe these cars will actually equate quite well... I think the 1.6 liter car is very close to idealy classified for this class...

Does anyone have any real data on what a 1.8 is capable of putting out in IT trim???

58716



My guess is that it is not going to be that much more then a 1.6. Just did not looking and maybe it will be better. The 94-95 had 128hp and 96-97 had 133 hp stock.

[R RACER]

Greg,

I think 1.8 should be real fast in A, I personally think its too light, almost 200 lbs
lighter than my new car, maybee you can help me write a letter to the comp board to knock the 100lbs of trophy on my floor! Its good to see some new cars in A.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 20 2005, 03:07 PM
... The problem with making it any heavier is that, because of the current SM cage rules, EVERY car out there built to the SM rules would have to replace the entire cage to come race ITA, because SM allows a lighter weight tubing than IT at the same weight...



Hmm. This sets a precedent that makes me a little concerned. I understand the logic but making IT spec decisions - irrespective of the restrictor option being available - to accommodate rules in other categories, seems like a very dangerous approach.

This step makes it evident that, in terms of policy, making it easier for 1.8 Miatas to migrate from SM to ITA is a bigger priority, than is consistency of application of policies and practices within the IT category. That smacks of reactive rather than strategic planning, which might seem appropriate given the rise in popularity of SM, but is likely to have unintended consequences.

Would the same response be applied if someone suggested (again) that they would run both IT and Prod, if the glass/headlight/lens rule in IT were eased?

Heck - if smaller tube is OK in an SM over 2500 pounds (or whatever it is), maybe the rollcage rules are the issue and should be addressed.

Kirk (for whom everything has potential policy implications)

[Daryl DeArman]

How about the comp adjustment that takes place prior to the runoffs? A certain FC car was given a 15% (+/-) weight adjustment. How&#39;d you like 400# added to your 2500# car on a months&#39; notice before the big one?

[Catch22]

And the thing that will always hold the Miata in check... Aero.
The 1.6 can&#39;t even hang with a good CRX down the back straight at Road Atlanta. I can&#39;t imagine that the 1.8 with the extra weight would do much better.

Pure speculation.

But I do think it was a good move. Weight looks good too.

[dickita15]

Kirk
i actually think that looking at the effect of our rules and and how they interact with other catagories is not all bad. we do need to mave to more consistant and progessive cage rules as you move up thru the catagories.

that said I am very concerned about the idea of not being able to set the weight of a car where it should be due to the arbtrary cage requirement for a given weight. because many of the cars we race are right near a cage rule break point this is keeping PCAs from being implemented, ie we can not move that car and add weight because many of the cars would not have a legal cage if we added 100 pounds (or 5 pounds) to the spec weight.

I wish the ITAC could do what they fell is right and maybe grandfather existing cars on cage tube diameter.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by dickita15@Aug 22 2005, 11:24 AM
I wish the ITAC could do what they fell is right and maybe grandfather existing cars on cage tube diameter.

58769


Guys... there are MAJOR LIABILITY issues that the ITAC has NO control over... We can NOT make decisions concerning true "safety" items such as this... It&#39;s NOT part of our charter... we have no place "grandfathering" in items such as this...

Also, the cage rules are controlled by the GCR, which is out of the scope of the ITAC... that&#39;s CRB teritory.

AND... we were told that the cage rules were getting revised across the catagory, and that they were likely going to be MORE IT-like in their tubing requirements, meaning that the IT tubing requirements (typically heavier tubing), would be more the norm...

As for the 1.8L needing to be 200lbs heavier than it is... Please, be real... the car is classified withing 25lbs or so of what the "process" says it should be... That&#39;s the same process that has been used to classify every car over the past year or so... the ITAC DID do what it felt was right. Classify the car in a manner that makes it competitive without being an overdog... make existing SM cars able to make the transition.... and KNOW that we can add a restrictor if this proves to be necessary....

Looking at the numbers, someones going to have to get a pretty big hp gain over stock to make this car the "overdog" that some think it will be...

[Greg Amy]

Darin, I don&#39;t think Anthony is specifically saying the car is 200 pounds light, I think he&#39;s simply pointing out that the 1.8L Miata will be 200 pounds lighter than his 1.8L (FWD) Honda... GA

[planet6racing]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Aug 22 2005, 07:28 AM
Darin, I don&#39;t think Anthony is specifically saying the car is 200 pounds light, I think he&#39;s simply pointing out that the 1.8L Miata will be 200 pounds lighter than his 1.8L (FWD) Honda... GA

58774



And the 1.8L Miata is classified ~40# heavier than the Saturn SC with the 1.9L engine...

So? Don&#39;t tell me you all want to add 200# to the Saturn now... :rolleyes:

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy+Aug 22 2005, 12:28 PM-->
Darin, I don&#39;t think Anthony is specifically saying the car is 200 pounds light, I think he&#39;s simply pointing out that the 1.8L Miata will be 200 pounds lighter than his 1.8L (FWD) Honda... GA

58774
[/b]


Guys... once again you are NOT listening to what I&#39;m typing... :blink: Classifications are done based on performance potential... That means wt/pwr ratios, plus other factors such as handling, etc...

The Miata handles great, but I don&#39;t believe for a moment that any of you really think that the 1.8L Miata motor in IT trim has the same performance potential as the 1.8L Honda V-Tech motor...

<!--QuoteBegin-Knestis
This step makes it evident that, in terms of policy, making it easier for 1.8 Miatas to migrate from SM to ITA is a bigger priority, than is consistency of application of policies and practices within the IT category. That smacks of reactive rather than strategic planning, which might seem appropriate given the rise in popularity of SM, but is likely to have unintended consequences.


Once again... the classification of the 1.8L Miata is within 25lbs... TWENTY-FIVE measly pounds.. of where the "process" says it should be... and THAT is assuming that the car is capable of achieving the type of HP gains that we calculated that it might... which we don&#39;t think it can...

WHY isn&#39;t anyone complaining about the 1.6L Miata, which handles EXACTLY the same, but is nearly 200lbs lighter? Is there that great a performance difference between these two cars??? The only difference is the HP/torque potential, and there isn&#39;t that great a difference between them in stock trim...

The ITAC has NOTHING to do with making cage rules... This is the job of the CRB and BoD... We have to work within the confines of the rules as they are written...

NOW, would you have us make these existing race cars RIP out their existing cages to come race IT over TWENTY-FIVE pounds?? I don&#39;t think so... Especially when, if developement proves that the potential is there, we can simply require that this car run a restrictor to get it back in line with the parameters of the class???

Compromise on the weight by 25lbs to allow HUNDREDS of existing cars to transition to IT, then require a restrictor if it is proven that we&#39;ve underestimated the performance potential of this car... I&#39;d think that sounds like we have a VERY good plan...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by planet6racing@Aug 22 2005, 12:35 PM
And the 1.8L Miata is classified ~40# heavier than the Saturn SC with the 1.9L engine...

So? Don&#39;t tell me you all want to add 200# to the Saturn now... :rolleyes:

58775



Based on the numbers I just looked at, the process shows that the Saturns are classified almost perfectly for ITA... The 1991-1996 Coupe and SC2 may have about a 30lbs advantage over the other Saturns... Not sure why, since they all make the same stock HP... but they are all WELL within the parameters for the class and should prove to be VERY competitive... at least they look that way on paper...

[ITANorm]

Wow - yet another car in ITA with about the same HP, stock, that you can get out of a legally prepped MR2 engine. Oh, wait - it&#39;s a whole 10# heavier - well . . . that&#39;ll make a big difference.

Everybody seems to be horribly worried about "rules creep", but it seems that for some strange reason there has been a total disregard for "performance envelope creep". SOHC Neons - and now 1.8 Miatas . . . ..

In case you guys hadn&#39;t noticed - a 1.8 Miata in SM trim is VERY competitive against ITA cars - never mind what it could do with a full IT package.

What does your "magic formula" tell you about the poor old MR2? We just keep sliding farther down the ladder.

:rolleyes:

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ITANorm@Aug 22 2005, 11:44 AM


What does your "magic formula" tell you about the poor old MR2? We just keep sliding farther down the ladder.

:rolleyes:

58795


Guys, Rome wasn&#39;t built in a day.

I think this Miata move was a big success, judging by the pro/con reaction here.

It could have been left in ITS until the CRB and the BoD examined the cage rules and made some possible ammendments, but while the ITAC was informed that such a process was ongoing, it wasn&#39;t informed as to the scope, the direction, nor the timetable. So waiting made little sense. Time moves quickly, racing seasons go by in a heartbeat, and NOT making a move is sometimes equivilant to deciding against something.

In terms of the actual final weight, I think the target number was even closer than the 25 pounds already mentioned, and honestly, that kind of granularity is about as good as we are likely to reasonable expect. It is the hope that the car, when raced against other top prep/top driver cars will score wins on certain tracks, be in the game on other tracks and be off the pace on other types of tracks.

I think that&#39;s all you can ask.

Also remember that a 1.8L engine from Honda is different than one from Mazda, or Saturn, or Nissan, or Chevy! Even the two Mazda engines discussed here, the 1.6 and the 1.8, won&#39;t likely show the same IT potential due to unique components.

A case in point is the E36. The CRB requested that it be slowed with a restrictor, but experts say that the restrictor will do little as there are further built in restrictions that are the real bottleneck, so the change is likely to do little. Each package has it&#39;s unique variables, so applying the same standards across the board isn&#39;t always the way to go.

Also, remenber that this is a work in progress. The ITAC is very aware that anytime decisions are made before the development is done that the actual numbers might not be in line with the predicted numbers. But we have to start someplace, and in the Miatas case, it seemd like a win win to get it

A- Out of ITS...it flat didn&#39;t belong there
B- Into a class that would require as little drama in the transition (Changes to the car) as possible
C- In a position where it has a solid chance.
D- In a position where it can be looked at and adjusted further in the future should it become necessary.

Having the restrictor option that has proven to be effective on Miatas was the key.

Also, remember, the ITAC is lucky to have a member of the SMAC on it&#39;s roster, so the change was discussed with some thoroughness.

Finally, back to the original point.

Rome wasn&#39;t built in a day...I doubt that this is an isolated move. I bet we&#39;ll be chatting about more than this down the road, LOL.

[tderonne]

All right. I&#39;ll say it.

Why would somebody take a Nationally legal SM and turn it into an Regional only IT car? What am I missing here? (Not that I&#39;m against an overall flow to the rules vs. prep level, I just don&#39;t see where SM fits in.)

If you&#39;re trying to encourage multiple entries of the same car at a regional, they can already do that, SM cars are legal in ITA and ITS now.

As for cages, weights, and safety, who said it&#39;s ok to build any spec miata to the 2095 weight requirement ? It would seem that bridge has already been crossed.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by ITANorm@Aug 22 2005, 03:44 PM
What does your "magic formula" tell you about the poor old MR2? We just keep sliding farther down the ladder.

:rolleyes:

58795


The "process" says that you need to be patient... you are not the only one who sees the descrepancies in the classifications and is trying to do something about it...

Should be noted, however, that the MR-2 and the RX-7 are both bound by the same cage rules as the Miata... Can&#39;t move them to ITB because you can&#39;t add ANY weight to them without making their current cages illegal... (we have to assume that the cars out there were built to the current rules and are using the minimum tubing sizes allowed)...

The "process" would also say that the MR-2 would need to have some "adders" for handling and brakes, so you can&#39;t look at just HP figures alone... It "should" be able to outhandle and outbrake a Miata given equal prep...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by tderonne@Aug 22 2005, 04:48 PM
As for cages, weights, and safety, who said it&#39;s ok to build any spec miata to the 2095 weight requirement ? It would seem that bridge has already been crossed.

58798


First, I can&#39;t recall anyone worrying about Multiple Entries... The ITAC is concerned with IT, not helping SM race in IT, 944 Cup race in IT, Sentra-Cup race in IT, etc...

That being said, there is a big up-side to classifying cars that exist in large numbers in a competitive configuration...

As for the SM weights... Surely you guys can reason this one out, right??? The SM rules have been in place for how long??? Hint: NOT LONG... The SS/IT cage rules have stood for some time... When NASA, or whoever, came up with the SM rules, and then the SCCA adopted them, or however it happened, THEY are the ones that choose to ignore the current rules...

As I&#39;ve said several times now... WE don&#39;t have the ability to do that... If the CRB/BoD decides to make an allowance, that is up to them, but we were told in pretty certain terms that the CRB would likely NOT make a special allowance for this car... They, like the ITAC, are trying to work from a point of consistancy... at least within the class, so we are trying VERY hard to avoid "special considerations" for individual cars...

Guys, this is NOT really a big issue... The Miata is competitively classed, but it&#39;s NOT an overdog...

Oh, and as for the MR-2 vs. the Miata... I think the MR-2 makes a LITTLE more than 128hp in IT Trim... I have it on pretty good authority that it&#39;s capable of a little more... but I&#39;ve made a promise to keep the exact numbers classified....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by ITANorm@Aug 22 2005, 10:44 AM

Everybody seems to be horribly worried about "rules creep", but it seems that for some strange reason there has been a total disregard for "performance envelope creep". SOHC Neons - and now 1.8 Miatas . . . ..

In case you guys hadn&#39;t noticed - a 1.8 Miata in SM trim is VERY competitive against ITA cars - never mind what it could do with a full IT package.


:rolleyes:

58795


I want to address this comment specifically. The performance envelope creep happened way before we made any moves in the last year or two. The &#39;creep&#39; you speek of is defined by the CRX and 240SX - and most recently bu the Integra. New classifications have been based, conservativly, on the envelope that these cars have created. Not to be dominant, but to fit well.

The 1.8 Miata&#39;s are equal to the 1.6&#39;s in Spec Miata. That is the nature of the class as you know. Where there are top IT cars, the SM&#39;s are not close. Use your backyard as an example Jake:

LRP: ITA runs LOW 1:02&#39;s and SM runs LOW 1:04&#39;s.
NHIS: ITA runs LOW 1:16&#39;s and SM runs LOW 1:18&#39;s

Then look at the ARRC:

ITA running Mid 1:43&#39;s and SM running Mid 1:46&#39;s.
Always remember to compare apples to apples.

AB

[planet6racing]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 22 2005, 10:23 AM
Based on the numbers I just looked at, the process shows that the Saturns are classified almost perfectly for ITA... The 1991-1996 Coupe and SC2 may have about a 30lbs advantage over the other Saturns... Not sure why, since they all make the same stock HP... but they are all WELL within the parameters for the class and should prove to be VERY competitive... at least they look that way on paper...

58793



Sorry, should have been more clear. By "...you guys..." I meant that the non-members of the ITAC that were saying that the 1.8L miata should be heavier because it has a 1.8...

The Saturns are classed perfectly. The only thing holding my car back is me!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by tderonne@Aug 22 2005, 11:48 AM
All right. I&#39;ll say it.

Why would somebody take a Nationally legal SM and turn it into an Regional only IT car? What am I missing here? (Not that I&#39;m against an overall flow to the rules vs. prep level, I just don&#39;t see where SM fits in.)

If you&#39;re trying to encourage multiple entries of the same car at a regional, they can already do that, SM cars are legal in ITA and ITS now.


58798


I will answer that:

The reputation that SM has for contact - AND the new National status, many think the affordability of the class will go away as you will need a pro motor to compete etc.

AB

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by planet6racing@Aug 22 2005, 05:46 PM
Sorry, should have been more clear. By "...you guys..." I meant that the non-members of the ITAC that were saying that the 1.8L miata should be heavier because it has a 1.8...

The Saturns are classed perfectly. The only thing holding my car back is me!

58809



Bill,

I posted that for the benefit of everyone else... I knew what you were trying to say! B)

[Jake]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 22 2005, 05:18 PM
Oh, and as for the MR-2 vs. the Miata... I think the MR-2 makes a LITTLE more than 128hp in IT Trim... I have it on pretty good authority that it&#39;s capable of a little more... but I&#39;ve made a promise to keep the exact numbers classified....

58805


I suppose it depends on what you consider for drivetrain losses - but the best builders in the country (...er Canada I should say) have only squeeked out a dyno-tuned 108 to the wheels in a legal, built to the hilt, ITA spec MR2. And that compares to about 140 to the wheels for an ITA Integra, and 125 to the wheels in the ITA CRX.

[Jake]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 22 2005, 05:05 PM
The "process" would also say that the MR-2 would need to have some "adders" for handling and brakes, so you can&#39;t look at just HP figures alone... It "should" be able to outhandle and outbrake a Miata given equal prep...

58801


I really don&#39;t understand why. Miata&#39;s have nearly a perfect 50/50 weight distribution and full double wishbone suspension. There&#39;s no reason why a Miata should be inferior in either braking or handling.

[DavidM]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 22 2005, 12:18 PM
First, I can&#39;t recall anyone worrying about Multiple Entries... The ITAC is concerned with IT, not helping SM race in IT, 944 Cup race in IT, Sentra-Cup race in IT, etc...

That being said, there is a big up-side to classifying cars that exist in large numbers in a competitive configuration...



I&#39;m still a relative newbie, but this particular classification process (not necessarily the end result) seems strange. If the ITAC is concerned with IT then why would the SM cage come into play at all? The ITAC should go about their business classifying the car and if it so happens that the weight makes it easy for SM cars to come into ITA then cool. However, the weight of the SM cage should only be an afterthought and should not have *any* influence on the classified weight. If this is how things went at the ITAC then good. The original post does not give that impression however.

The line about classifying cars that exist in large numbers is somewhat concerning as well. This somewhat implies that the 1.8 Miata was given special treatment. I hope and don&#39;t think that was the case, but I think the ITAC members should ask themselves if the process would have been the same if it were a different, less popular car. I&#39;m all for getting more cars into IT, but I don&#39;t think cars should be given special treatment to do it. That may have unintended consequences down the road.

David

[tderonne]

Thanks Andy and Darin. Some points I didn&#39;t consider. Making IT more attractive to anyone does make sense. Maybe "old" SM will find a home here. And SM weights coming from outsidethe SCCA doesn&#39;t really make a difference, but I do see how that was a Board call. Does kind of tie your hands though, eh?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by DavidM@Aug 22 2005, 01:28 PM
I&#39;m still a relative newbie, but this particular classification process (not necessarily the end result) seems strange. If the ITAC is concerned with IT then why would the SM cage come into play at all? The ITAC should go about their business classifying the car and if it so happens that the weight makes it easy for SM cars to come into ITA then cool. However, the weight of the SM cage should only be an afterthought and should not have *any* influence on the classified weight. If this is how things went at the ITAC then good. The original post does not give that impression however.

The line about classifying cars that exist in large numbers is somewhat concerning as well. This somewhat implies that the 1.8 Miata was given special treatment. I hope and don&#39;t think that was the case, but I think the ITAC members should ask themselves if the process would have been the same if it were a different, less popular car. I&#39;m all for getting more cars into IT, but I don&#39;t think cars should be given special treatment to do it. That may have unintended consequences down the road.

David

58815


The ultimate goals is to attract new cars and new drivers to IT without upsetting the competitive balance.

AB

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by DavidM@Aug 22 2005, 06:28 PM
This somewhat implies that the 1.8 Miata was given special treatment. I hope and don&#39;t think that was the case, but I think the ITAC members should ask themselves if the process would have been the same if it were a different, less popular car.
58815


That&#39;s easy to answer... YES... this car was given "special treatment"... But it was done within the process... You guys keep missing the point of all this... which is that these classifications are done with as much REAL data as we can get our hands on, but in the end, we have to make some estimations... The biggest estimation is how much HP output a car is capable of with IT-engine prep... In many cases, if you are off by 5-hp, your weight will be different by over 70lbs...

In many cases... actually MOST cases, we balance what real dyno or equivalent information we have available with making some estimations... So, is it better to underestimate or overestimate??? Does the Miata gain 25% or 30% with IT-Prep??? 35%??? 20%??? The difference for the Miata between a 25% increase and a 30% increase is almost 7hp... That&#39;s over 100lbs of weight difference using a wt/pwr scheme...

So, as part of the process, we look at info that&#39;s available, then analyze the level of development, and make an educated guess, usually... well, again, almost always, leaning on the side of overestimation, and we set a HP figure...

The Miata was classified using this as part of the process and I can again assure you that it is classified almost perfectly for ITA...

AND, the other part of this you keep missing is that we UNDERSTAND that there is a POSSIBILITY that we might have underestimated it&#39;s potential... If you looked at the real numbers, I think you&#39;d see that it&#39;s not really likely, and it&#39;s going to take a LOT of development for this to happen, but it is acknowledged that it&#39;s possible... and in the event that this proves to be the case, we have the option of giving the car a restrictor to get it back in line...

If you compare this classification to the CRX, or Integra, or 240SX, I think you&#39;ll find that it definately NOT the top dog in the class by any means...

Honestly, I&#39;ve explained all of this as best as I can, and I don&#39;t know what more I could say to make you all understand... The bottom line is that the car now is fit VERY nicely into ITA, and it was done using the same, consistant process that we&#39;ve used for all the other cars that were classified or moved over the past year... AND the way that cars will be done in the future...

Oh, and one more item... It&#39;s exactly THIS type of "confusion", or questioning of "my car vs. the newly classified one" that makes publishing an official classification "formula" counterproductive... There are very few racers out there who are objective enough to accept the "process" for what it is, and of course, everyone always seems to believe that their dyno doesn&#39;t lie... ;)

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Jake@Aug 22 2005, 06:18 PM
I really don&#39;t understand why. Miata&#39;s have nearly a perfect 50/50 weight distribution and full double wishbone suspension. There&#39;s no reason why a Miata should be inferior in either braking or handling.

58814



50/50 STATIC weight distribution... I&#39;m sure you understand the advantages of having the engine in the back of the chassis... What is the weight distribution of the MR-2???

Also, if the "best engine builders in the country" are only getting 108 at the wheels, they may be leaving something on the table... If you use a 15% factor for drivetrain losses, that&#39;s quite a bit lower than the dyno numbers we&#39;ve been given...

That being said... there is NO DOUBT that the MR-2 needs a lot of help in ITA... all I can tell you at this point is that the ITAC is aware of this and is working on it...

[gran racing]

Why would somebody take a Nationally legal SM and turn it into an Regional only IT car? What am I missing here? (Not that I&#39;m against an overall flow to the rules vs. prep level, I just don&#39;t see where SM fits in.)

National doesn’t mean that it is better then Regional. Many people would prefer to race with a group of cars that have their own strengths and weaknesses. I love the fact that some cars competing in a class might be faster down the straight but the other car can get them under braking or in the corners. It adds to the racing strategy games. To me, a spec class seems a bit more boring in this regard. The only thing I see that National has over Regional is the televised Runoffs. Get coverage of the ARRC…

It is too bad it isn&#39;t as simple as thowing a couple heavy sand bags in the boot of the MR2.

[lateapex911]

I think that we will see some Miatas "crossing over", not just in SM trim, but converted to ITA trim...the SM thing is VERY serious at the top levels....

Daniels ran, (and this is two years ago) over 200 dyno runs testing various configuratios of engine components, and hired a Trans Am suspension engineer to go test with him to help understand the strengths, the weaknesses and the best usage of the SM suspension.

I think that we&#39;ll see some guys who decide it&#39;a all just too much for them gladdly play in IT.....A

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by DavidM@Aug 22 2005, 02:28 PM
I&#39;m still a relative newbie, but this particular classification process (not necessarily the end result) seems strange. If the ITAC is concerned with IT then why would the SM cage come into play at all? The ITAC should go about their business classifying the car and if it so happens that the weight makes it easy for SM cars to come into ITA then cool. However, the weight of the SM cage should only be an afterthought and should not have *any* influence on the classified weight. If this is how things went at the ITAC then good. The original post does not give that impression however.

The line about classifying cars that exist in large numbers is somewhat concerning as well. This somewhat implies that the 1.8 Miata was given special treatment. I hope and don&#39;t think that was the case, but I think the ITAC members should ask themselves if the process would have been the same if it were a different, less popular car. I&#39;m all for getting more cars into IT, but I don&#39;t think cars should be given special treatment to do it. That may have unintended consequences down the road.

David

58815



Some comments on this...

The car was discussed without any regard for cage weights etc, and pure numbers were hashed out. It wasn&#39;t a short process...hours were probably spent over it. Once the dermination of the target weight was nailed down...(and trust me, "nailing" might not be the proper term, LOL) only then did the cage issue get discussed. If I recall correctly, our HP gain estimate was pretty conservative (in other words, it&#39;s doubtful that we&#39;ll see the number exceeded), and the amount of weight that was needed to make the car fit witout having them need to re-cage was 12 lbs. (IIRC)

At that point it seemed like with the numbers that close, it was worth discussing the desire to make the option exist for the SM guys. Remember, the ITAC has on its con calls, a liason from the CRB, and subjects like this are discussed, so that we are NOT operating in a vacuum....if the CRB thought this was not to their liking it would never have happened, but they are trying to make things "make sense" where it&#39;s possible..and this seems like a perfect opportunity.

I&#39;m not sure I see the downside...

IF it&#39;s a bad move and it cleans up, we can address it...and if it relieves some overcrowding in SM run groups, and adds car counts and to the fun in IT, its a big picture win win.

I agree that if it didn&#39;t fit the process it shouldn&#39;t have happened, but I think it did fit the process.

[whenry]

There are several forces at play in this process. 1) the &#39;99 miata has been approved for SM and in Pro SM, the &#39;06 MX5 will be the preferred model; 2) with National classification, SM will become even more competitive if the Runoffs is your goal(only the top 10 from each division will receive automatic invitations; otherwise send in your $$ to SCCA and see if you are permitted to attend); and 3) ITA status has changed dramatically in the last 10 yrs as the FI cars were introduced. This re-class merely gives Mazda a model that has a chance of competing.
It is funny that I was contemplating turning my SM into an A car even before the change.

[dickita15]

Originally posted by dickita15@Aug 22 2005, 07:24 AM
I wish the ITAC could do what they fell is right and maybe grandfather existing cars on cage tube diameter.

58769


darin please accept my apoligy for starting this storm.

to quote Richard Nixon " I know you think you know what you think I said but what you do not relize is what I said is not what I meant"

I do understand the process and I should have said I wish the ITAC had the freedom to do what they felt was right to make cars fit and maybe the CRB could consider grandfathering existing cages on cage tube diameter.

I know that this problem is frustrating the ITAC form making otherwise great classing decisions. As was pointed out tweeners like the MR2 and Rx7 could be dealt with effectivly if the CRB could be convinced to make changes here.

the CRB need to overhaul cges rules at some point and I would think this should be a point of discussion for them.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by dickita15@Aug 22 2005, 09:08 PM
darin please accept my apoligy for starting this storm.

58834



Dick,

NO worries dude... I&#39;m cool with all this... You guys deserve to have at least an attempt made to help you understand what&#39;s happening... That&#39;s all I&#39;m trying to do (and Jake, and Andy, etc...)...

The cage rules are fine, really... there needs to be a breaking point somewhere... these cars just happen to all on the line... I think we can work within the framework we have... Just takes a little time to get everything in place...

[Jake]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 22 2005, 07:52 PM
50/50 STATIC weight distribution... I&#39;m sure you understand the advantages of having the engine in the back of the chassis... What is the weight distribution of the MR-2???

Also, if the "best engine builders in the country" are only getting 108 at the wheels, they may be leaving something on the table... If you use a 15% factor for drivetrain losses, that&#39;s quite a bit lower than the dyno numbers we&#39;ve been given...

That being said... there is NO DOUBT that the MR-2 needs a lot of help in ITA... all I can tell you at this point is that the ITAC is aware of this and is working on it...

58824



1. MK1 MR2 is about 45/55 STATIC

2. 108 @ wheels. I think my source may be the same as yours, you just need to check some of the assumtions in your data.

3. Yes - and we appreciate the work you are doing. I think EVERY move that has been made has been EXCELLENT. And I apologize for bringing this thread down to a "what about me" thing again. Rome was not built in a day, and if they had tried to do it in a day - it would have fallen much sooner. :) Keep up the good work.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Jake@Aug 22 2005, 07:10 PM
And I apologize for bringing this thread down to a "what about me" thing again. Rome was not built in a day, and if they had tried to do it in a day - it would have fallen much sooner. :) Keep up the good work.

58849



No worries here either....

As the newest member of the ITAC, I am not as well versed as say, Darin, (just to choose one) as to the total workings and recent history, but I will say that I am very impressed at the attitude displayed by most of the members.

Our last con call, for example started at 8, and ended after 1AM.

The MR2 hasn&#39;t been forgotten, and I think that you will be impressed at the amount of attention it, and all the cars in IT are getting. It is a HUGE task, but the ITAC is working hard at it.

I am sure that mistakes may be made along the way, and I KNOW there will be perceived mistakes, LOL, but I think the big picture strategy is SUPER SOUND, and I am thrilled to see it being enacted.

Stay tuned.....

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Jake@Aug 22 2005, 11:10 PM
2. 108 @ wheels. I think my source may be the same as yours, you just need to check some of the assumtions in your data.

58849



The only assumption that I&#39;ve made has to do with drivetrain losses, but the numbers I have are flywheel, and they are considerably higher than what you are stating...

Again, we don&#39;t race dynos, so it&#39;s really hard to pin down the exact numbers, but I assure you that we are doing the best we can with what we have available... We all wish we could make it perfect, but that&#39;s just not possible, so the next best thing is to get things reasonably close...

[Z3_GoCar]

Maybe I&#39;m just to new, but it seems to me that the real problem is "tweeners," Cars that aren&#39;t competitive in the higher class and class blowers in the lower class. To bring an example from autocrossing, my car was reclasses last year from C-stock to E-stock, the only other car in that class is the 1.6 Miata. It seems like the real class blowers are the Honda/Acura&#39;s, althought I understand one of the few to break their donination was a 1.6 Miata. I understand that the 1.8 isn&#39;t competitive aginst the 1.6 in spec miata, at they don&#39;t have the adjustable rear sway bar, the intake restrictor chokes them down more than the 1.6&#39;ers, and besides Sunbelt doesn&#39;t make a 1.8 motor.

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Aug 22 2005, 07:59 PM
Maybe I&#39;m just to new, but it seems to me that the real problem is "tweeners," Cars that aren&#39;t competitive in the higher class and class blowers in the lower class. To bring an example from autocrossing, my car was reclasses last year from C-stock to E-stock, the only other car in that class is the 1.6 Miata. It seems like the real class blowers are the Honda/Acura&#39;s, althought I understand one of the few to break their donination was a 1.6 Miata. I understand that the 1.8 isn&#39;t competitive aginst the 1.6 in spec miata, at they don&#39;t have the adjustable rear sway bar, the intake restrictor chokes them down more than the 1.6&#39;ers, and besides Sunbelt doesn&#39;t make a 1.8 motor.

James

58860


The 1.8 in Spec Miata is competitive now. The FRONT bar is what isn&#39;t adjustable (but bigger than the 1.6&#39;s), the intake restrictor chokes them down to WHERE the 1.6&#39;s are and Sunbelt DOES build a 1.8. BSI has built and marketed plenty of them. They have a year of development under theor belts on that motor. A $6K bill will get you one at your door.

Having said that, tweeners are a problem. It&#39;s tough to work with them because they can&#39;t be built light enough to fit in a higher class and they are heavy and too &#39;powerful&#39; for lower classes...

AB

[Z3_GoCar]

Sorry I don&#39;t mean to spread misinformation.....

I go that bit about the motor from:
http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ultimat...26;t=000229;p=0 (http://forum.specmiata.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=26;t=000229;p=0)

I guess there just aren&#39;t any used ones out there :P

A local preparer says they only build on the 1.6.... and they&#39;re front runners in the San Fran section.... I suspect the IT tune will prove to be more potent than the SM tuning. After all in SM the 1.8&#39;s are limited to the stock air box. But now there&#39;l be no limits on sway bars, springs, shocks, air box....

James

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 22 2005, 05:11 PM
The cage rules are fine, really... there needs to be a breaking point somewhere... these cars just happen to all on the line... I think we can work within the framework we have... Just takes a little time to get everything in place...


I am actually suprised to hear that.

I think that from an overall perspective of the classes the cage rules need to be addressed from the point of view of makeing a more logical progression between the different catagories. In the past changes specific to one category has made contridictions with other rules. It would seem a clean sheet of paper approach to cages from the CRB is in order. Yes I know that is a huge project.

in the specific situation we are discussing, the ITAC not be able to add weight to tweeners and move them down a class, I can not understand why this would not frustrate you. What are the alternatives. lower the weight to a almost unatainable level.

[JIgou]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Aug 20 2005, 06:29 PM

Darin, most of the SM development has been on the 1.6s. Reliable wheel power on that car has been rumored to be from 95 on a crate engine to somewhere in the 105+ range on a Sunbelt engine. The 1.8s came with 10 more ponies stock and more torque, so your power-to-weight is close.

I know with Andy on the ITAC they know the numbers....and I know it&#39;s all dependent on the dyno you want to talk about.....but I can say that a 1.6 can (will) turn out about 111 RWHP with a fresh crate motor, 114.6 HP with a "broken in" (2 season old) crate motor with a freshened head, and close to 118 from a Sunbelt.

1.6 cars, same dyno, same day. (Dynojet 248HS)

Jarrod

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by dickita15@Aug 23 2005, 12:43 PM

in the specific situation we are discussing, the ITAC not be able to add weight to tweeners and move them down a class, I can not understand why this would not frustrate you. What are the alternatives. lower the weight to a almost unatainable level.

58878


Dick,

It is frustrating, but here&#39;s the deal... the break has to occur SOMEWHERE... Where do you make it??? Right now it&#39;s at 2200lbs... Do we make it 2300lbs??? Ooops... now suddenly a new group of cars have a problem.... That&#39;s the deal...

The CRB is working on revised cage rules for the SCCA right now... But, which way do you think they&#39;ll go as far as tubing size goes??? Lighter? Not likely...

I&#39;m not sure exactly how much simpler people want it as far as continuity between classes goes... We currently share the same tubing size rules at SS AND Touring, which is where we draw most of our cars from... The fact that SM decided to go off in another direction is NOT something we have any control over... They obviously were not thinking into the future....

We&#39;ve been told that, in the revised cage rules, the tubing sizes will likely be more SS/Touring/IT-like than they will be GT/Production like, so look for the requirements to be on the heavier tubing size...

The bottom line is this... If you car is between 1501lbs and 2200lbs, you can use 1.5 x .095" tubing... After that, it&#39;s .120" or greater (or larger diameter, etc...)...

In reality, this really only effects a handful of classifications, so I don&#39;t see it as THAT big of an issue... Again, the break has to be somewhere. You can&#39;t move it down, of you accentuate the problem, and if you move it up, you are going to affect MANY more classifications...

The cars that are most prominently affected by this issue are the MR-2 MKI and the 1st gen RX-7. The Miata isn&#39;t REALLY an issue, because it fits the process at it&#39;s currently classified weight.

Like I said, I don&#39;t really see a problem with any of this, because the break has to be somewhere, and it&#39;s been in the same place for MANY years and hasn&#39;t traditionally been an issue... Further, these values were put into place for a reason, which is to ensure the safety of our drivers... They aren&#39;t something that we should consider "moveable" for the purposes of making classifying a few cars easier...

That&#39;s the best I can explain my position right now and why I think the cage rules are fine... I don&#39;t see them as being the problem... There are a few "tweener" cars out there that bump up against the limits, and they are the real issue. How we deal with those is the real trick, and it may not have an elegant answer... We are trying, however...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by JIgou@Aug 23 2005, 02:05 PM
I know with Andy on the ITAC they know the numbers....and I know it&#39;s all dependent on the dyno you want to talk about.....but I can say that a 1.6 can (will) turn out about 111 RWHP with a fresh crate motor, 114.6 HP with a "broken in" (2 season old) crate motor with a freshened head, and close to 118 from a Sunbelt.

1.6 cars, same dyno, same day. (Dynojet 248HS)

Jarrod

58885


Based on those numbers (and figuring in some additional gain for IT-Prep) I think we have both Miatas classified about ideally for IT...

[Jake]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 23 2005, 02:15 PM
Dick,

It is frustrating, but here&#39;s the deal... the break has to occur SOMEWHERE... Where do you make it??? Right now it&#39;s at 2200lbs...

....most prominently affected by this issue are the MR-2 MKI and the 1st gen RX-7.
58887


The MR2 is classed at 2370, the RX-7 at 2380. Probably at least 99% of both of those cars were built with the larger tubing anyway. There&#39;s such a tiny margin of error if someone were to built a car at under 2200lbs and still be over the minimum weight with the driver.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Jake@Aug 23 2005, 03:01 PM
The MR2 is classed at 2370, the RX-7 at 2380. Probably at least 99% of both of those cars were built with the larger tubing anyway. There&#39;s such a tiny margin of error if someone were to built a car at under 2200lbs and still be over the minimum weight with the driver.

58895



The tubing size is determined WITHOUT the driver... and is based on the spec weight... NOT the actual weight as raced...

Therefore, the tubing size for the RX-7 is determined using 2380 - 180 = 2200lbs, and for the MR-2 it&#39;s 2190lbs...

Any of these cars that were built at 10/10ths would be built using the minimum required tubing sizes...

We can&#39;t work from what we THINK that everyone has done... We have to work from a standpoint that there are cars out there built at a maximum competitive effort, which would mean that they&#39;ve taken every advantage they can...

Again, the break has to be somewhere, and this is where it is... We&#39;ll have to work with it for now, unless the CRB decides to move it, in which case, we&#39;ll still have to work with it wherever it is...

[dyoungre]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 23 2005, 03:24 PM

Therefore, the tubing size for the RX-7 is determined using 2380 - 180 = 2200lbs, and for the MR-2 it&#39;s 2190lbs...

Any of these cars that were built at 10/10ths would be built using the minimum required tubing sizes...

We can&#39;t work from what we THINK that everyone has done... We have to work from a standpoint that there are cars out there built at a maximum competitive effort, which would mean that they&#39;ve taken every advantage they can...


58898


Darin,
You&#39;ve made a lot of assumptions on potential, you&#39;ve used shared info on HP to base your decisions, why CAN&#39;T you ask what everyone (or as many as you can find) have done, and then make your decision? Also, do your classification changes have to benefit 100% of the population, or else the majority suffers?

I looked at the rules, read "under 2200 lbs", thought that the RX7 was AT 2200, and decided that I&#39;d rather be safe than sorry. I too built my cage with 1.5 x .120. And as Jake suggested, maybe we could ASK if this is common, instead of assumming?

Don&#39;t take this as criticism, as it isn&#39;t - it really is just a (self serving) suggestion.

And a deeper reach: can a car be classed in two classes at different weights, to appease those made with two different cage specifications? I know that this immediately sounds like &#39;slippery slope&#39;, but as a last resort, I could see HEAVY RX7s in ITB, and lighter in ITA; everyone has a place to race, and it would be &#39;more fair&#39; for more, but not all.

I assume this can&#39;t be done, but it can&#39;t hurt to ask.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by dyoungre@Aug 29 2005, 07:40 PM
...can a car be classed in two classes at different weights...HEAVY RX7s in ITB, and lighter in ITA...

A very clever idea...

[Knestis]

Ack. ICSCC used to classify cars in their "Production" classes based on what had been done to them - smog stuff in place, smog stuff removed, race tires, street tires, etc. You&#39;d look at a group on the track and see a bunch of, say, 240z&#39;s and not have the faintest idea who was racing whom.

If necessary, grandfather undersize cages just like is being done with ERM tubing. If that 100 pounds or whatever is the straw that breaks the camel&#39;s back then there are bigger issues with the cage in question.

K

[Jake]

Kirk, forget ICSCC (whatever that is), look at the MOST successful IT car in SCCA. The Miata can run in THREE classes just about anywhere in the country with just minor changes. I see this as a resounding success for the club!

[mustanghammer]

Originally posted by Jake@Aug 30 2005, 02:46 PM
Kirk, forget ICSCC (whatever that is), look at the MOST successful IT car in SCCA. The Miata can run in THREE classes just about anywhere in the country with just minor changes. I see this as a resounding success for the club!

59302


Don&#39;t forget Production where a Miata can run in EP and or FP with different prep levels in each class and look pretty much the same doing it.

In Mid Div we have all IT cars (including IT7) and SM on the track at the same time at most races. In the mix with me are ITA RX7&#39;s and IT7 RX7&#39;s. I can read the entry list before the race and the backs and sides of the cars during the race to determine who I am racing with. So, I don&#39;t think it would be too hard to deal with one more variety of RX7 - one in ITB. Come to think of it if ITB became popular with RX7 pilots then maybe we could get rid of IT7.

Seems to me that various Volkswagens, Hondas, Acuras and Nissans have IT class options depending on engine type and size. The only way I can tell the difference is by their class designation stickers &#39;cause they all look alike to me!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by mustanghammer@Aug 30 2005, 01:25 PM

In Mid Div we have all IT cars (including IT7) and SM on the track at the same time at most races.
59320


Just IT and the SM&#39;s represent over 110 cars at a Regional here in NeDiv...

I see some merit in the idea. Wouldn&#39;t hurt to try it but does anyone want to run an RX-7 at well over 2600lbs in ITB?

AB

[Jake]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Aug 30 2005, 06:46 PM
I see some merit in the idea. Wouldn&#39;t hurt to try it but does anyone want to run an RX-7 at well over 2600lbs in ITB?
AB

59324


The ITB weight chosen should make it more compatiable in ITB than it currently is in ITA. I think you&#39;ll find that at "well over" 2600lbs it is ouside current ITB classing parameters.

[mustanghammer]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Aug 30 2005, 06:46 PM
Just IT and the SM&#39;s represent over 110 cars at a Regional here in NeDiv...

I see some merit in the idea. Wouldn&#39;t hurt to try it but does anyone want to run an RX-7 at well over 2600lbs in ITB?

AB

59324



No, more like 2480lbs (remember we would be giving up an inch of rim width as well as a weight increase - but this is a debate for another time). But please do take a serious look at dual classing. The drivers will vote with their feet if you get the weights and or specs wrong.

[ShelbyRacer]

OK, so I have a question (go figure).

Were ANY of the current ITAC members on board when the Neon was classified in ITS? If so, WTF was everyone smoking? :bash_1_:

I will admit, when I first saw the proposed Miata classification, I about flipped, but I&#39;m starting to understand some of the reasoning (though I may not agree with all of it).

Unfortunately, this just adds to the questions I&#39;ve always had about the ITS Neon fiasco. I&#39;m sure this has been beaten to death, so this really is more of a rhetorical question, but one has to wonder... :rolleyes:

So, a comment on the roll cage vs. weight issue. I understand the reasoning of allowing the move and making an easy transition, but why would ultimate safety take a back seat to convenience? In this case, it was close, but I think it sets a bad precedent (and yes, I know, there&#39;s no such thing as a precedent in SCCA). Do this also mean that if a car on the high side of the break is too slow and you drop a few pounds, that you won&#39;t go under the break point? Please don&#39;t say that in that situation it&#39;s OK because it&#39;s more safe, because I&#39;m constantly being told by people on this forum that if there&#39;s a performance advantage, you have essentially no choice but to do it, as you said above (which is why we can&#39;t just "allow" other things that make sense).

I guess I&#39;m the only one who suddenly sees some guy bringing a Miata and running ITA in one group, SSM in another, and SM in a third, just by unbolting a few things... Then again, I&#39;m not sure if that a horrible thing or not... Maybe it&#39;s just sour grapes since I don&#39;t own one or have one to sell... :P

[turboICE]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer@Aug 30 2005, 10:52 PM
I guess I&#39;m the only one who suddenly sees some guy bringing a Miata and running ITA in one group, SSM in another, and SM in a third, just by unbolting a few things... Then again, I&#39;m not sure if that a horrible thing or not... Maybe it&#39;s just sour grapes since I don&#39;t own one or have one to sell... :P

59356

Most responses seem to indicate that they think this a good thing that the same car can run in so many classes in one weekend. I certainly have never seen anyone complain about it.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Jake@Aug 30 2005, 02:46 PM
Kirk, forget ICSCC (whatever that is), look at the MOST successful IT car in SCCA. The Miata can run in THREE classes just about anywhere in the country with just minor changes. I see this as a resounding success for the club!

59302


ICSCC is the International Conference of Sports Car Clubs - an outfit that has pretty much eaten the SCCA&#39;s lunch in Washington (state) and Oregon. I suppose that it could be argued that silly stuff like multiple classings of a given model helped them do it but a better case can be made for the SCCA personalities involved during the "outlaw" group&#39;s formative years pretty much chasing participants in to the then-new group. In fact, "Conference" has largely appropriated ex-SCCA classes in the last 20 years, to the detriment of its traditional Production category, I think...

I don&#39;t buy that the Miata - in whatever form - has been the boom for the club that some suggest but, at the end of the day, it depends how you define the word. I&#39;d LOVE to see participation figures that show how many SM/SSM entrants are new - compared the number of new participants pre-Miata wave. I have a suspicion that its success has been at the expense of participation in other Regional classes.

Second, ask yourself how much participation will be hurt when (not if) Mazda pulls the plug on its parts support program. The answer is "at least some," I&#39;m pretty sure. Sports Renault was going to change the world, too until the class had to compete, unsubsidized in the marketplace.

Again, I&#39;d have to see the figures but I also don&#39;t buy that the Miata is cheaper than other options available prior to its introduction - once the data is standardized against "competitiveness" (the cost to run at any particular place in the potential-to-win continuum. A hell of a lot of Miati are pro-built and maintained seats that are significantly more expensive - in terms of pure dollars - than would be similarly competitive ITC/ITB cars.

I may well be proved wrong - it happened once :) - but in 10 years, I suspect that the short-term benefits of SM will have translated into very little, if any, lasting value to Club Racing program success. The correction of ITA, moving the ITS orphans down, will have a much greater lasting value, I&#39;ll bet - including the Neon moving to A.

K

[zracre]

With SM now a national class i think the regional SM numbers will drop slightly as it did in AS...It gets real expensive when the rich start racing them dropping the big$$$ to be competitive...I think simply adding new cars competitively will bring better numbers to our sport...How many neons are out there that got sold or simply not raced at all because it went to ITS??? It is easy to see that it belongs in ITA from the beginning. So what if it may be an overdog...look how long the Integra has been classified in ITA and in just the last few years the grids are growing with them...lets not be so afraid of new cars coming in...it takes development time to make any car fast. If your car is not the fastest in class, at least you still have a place to race relatively cheaply...if it is too fast then make adjustments (BMW) if it is too slow adjust and move it into a different class.

[Z3_GoCar]

If your car is not the fastest in class, at least you still have a place to race relatively cheaply...if it is too fast then make adjustments (BMW) if it is too slow adjust and move it into a different class.

I suspose this is the rub, how do you adjust when you have to grandfather a cage setup. like moving the Rx7 down to ITB but you can&#39;t add weight cause you have to assume it&#39;s built to minimum spec. The only logical option is to do as was done in Autocross and scramble the classes. Form a new ITB class with all the cars too heavy or non-competitive in ITA and aren&#39;t being built or raced because of it. Then move all the ITB cars to ITC, ITC to a new class ITD and ect. In the end will be more classes with a smaller participation level in each.

James

BTW, not all BMW&#39;s are class overdogs.....

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer@Aug 30 2005, 10:52 PM
OK, so I have a question (go figure).

Were ANY of the current ITAC members on board when the Neon was classified in ITS? If so, WTF was everyone smoking? :bash_1_:

Not sure of the exact ITAC configuration, but it safe to say that there have been some changes. Keep in ming though, that the old method, often put a car in S then moved it to it&#39;s proper class. THe 1st gen RX-7 was such a car.




I will admit, when I first saw the proposed Miata classification, I about flipped, but I&#39;m starting to understand some of the reasoning (though I may not agree with all of it).

I&#39;d like to respond, but sadly I don&#39;t know WHY you flipped. Too light? Too heavy? What?


Unfortunately, this just adds to the questions I&#39;ve always had about the ITS Neon fiasco. I&#39;m sure this has been beaten to death, so this really is more of a rhetorical question, but one has to wonder... :rolleyes:

Ummm so...what IS the question, rhetorical or otherwise?


So, a comment on the roll cage vs. weight issue. I understand the reasoning of allowing the move and making an easy transition, but why would ultimate safety take a back seat to convenience?

Ok, now that you put it that way, what DO you mean, LOL!?
How has safety taken a back seat??? The ITAC didn&#39;t decree that the car has a min weight of 2450 but runs a cage for a car that weighs 2200. It weighs the proper amount for the cage that is installed in many current SM cars. The issue is whether, at the speced weight of 2380, the car will fit the class..not too fast, not to slow. The ITAC thinks it will.

Here are a couple truths...the ITAC discussed these items, among others.
1- Race cars either get wrecked, parked, sold or built into another racing class&#39;s rules when an owner gets tired of them.
2- Spec Miata will get very serious, and we&#39;ll likely see fallout.
3- Some guys have tried SM and found it lacking.

Which means there could be 1.8 Spec Miatas looking for a different home.

So, why not give SM cars an option to race in IT when their owner tires of SM, or decides the class is too serious? It adds a viable bit of value to a car when selling that it be a future candidate for another class as well.

The 1.8 Miate could be a great ITA car...why not give it a place to race?


So, we proposed it be classed in A, where it fits the current process. Remember, any process that makes ANY kind of assumption will have a degree of granularity in it&#39;s output. Obviously, the ITAC doesn&#39;t have reams of dyno sheets and empirical data on the car, but the ITAC DOES have a lot of information at it&#39;s fingertips from the SMAC, which helps reduce the granularity, as well as real world data on 1.6 Miatas in IT trim. In the end, the math was very close, and the final weight was well within the granularity of the process.

Remember.....IF the math used proves to be wrong, the ITAC has options...and frankly, the future holds viable options other than weight. With no safety compromises.



I guess I&#39;m the only one who suddenly sees some guy bringing a Miata and running ITA in one group, SSM in another, and SM in a third, just by unbolting a few things... Then again, I&#39;m not sure if that a horrible thing or not... Maybe it&#39;s just sour grapes since I don&#39;t own one or have one to sell... :P

59356


That wasn&#39;t the major goal, and not many will actually do that, as the car won&#39;t be competitive in it&#39;s SM trim in a good ITA class, but why not let them try!?!

I think the move is a win win, so I am not sure I see the issues.

[zracre]

I was refering to the ITS BMW 325is when I said adjustments. I dont see why they cant grandfather cars in with 1.5X.095 tubing (dated logbook) or just require additional bars for those cars. Race cars get old and become less competitive sometimes. For example, as the ITB Rabbits became less competitive, they did not need to get moved...they can stay in ITB until maybe later down the road if there are enough people want to race them, they are not too far off now and they could get an adjustment, class change or their own class...I dont expect any car I build to be competitive forever...that is just rediculous considering the new technology coming into IT. Just look at Production...not too long ago they started letting "tin tops" and newer cars there and they had a small surge in numbers. Otherwise just look at the field numbers at your next regional.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Jake@Aug 30 2005, 02:30 PM
The ITB weight chosen should make it more compatiable in ITB than it currently is in ITA. I think you&#39;ll find that at "well over" 2600lbs it is ouside current ITB classing parameters.

59329


Ahhhh...you have hit on the hitch. If you think 2600-2625 is outside the &#39;classing parameters&#39; (of which there really are none), then you have hit on a tweener.

Top prep RX-7&#39;s make 130whp. The RX-7 would have to weigh in excess of 2600 to fit amongst the other cars currently classified.

In ITA, it may not be able to get down to the weight it would need to get to in order to hit the bullseye of the...so you have a car that is too heavy for a slower class and can&#39;t be made light enough for a faster class...

TWEENER.

As far as the Neon, SE-R, (insert your 140hp DOHC car in ITS here) in ITS...no idea how they got there. Makes no sense to me. Can&#39;t speak about history like that. Hopefully most think we are on the right track.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

I&#39;m confused. How would a car be &#39;too heavy&#39; for the lower class? Would it be because you&#39;d have to change the cage? If that&#39;s the case, and that&#39;s what you would want to avoid (which I think is a good thing), there are other ways around it. If you can&#39;t add any more lead, reduce the horsepower. If a current ITA-prep 12A makes ~130 whp, and you&#39;d have to throw too much lead at it to make it fit the ITB performance parameters, figure out what size restrictor you would need to reduce the whp to ~100 (or whatever it needed to be) to fit into ITB and not be so heavy as to require a new cage. IMHO, this is how &#39;tweeners&#39; should be dealt with.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Aug 31 2005, 02:41 AM
So, why not give SM cars an option to race in IT when their owner tires of SM, or decides the class is too serious? It adds a viable bit of value to a car when selling that it be a future candidate for another class as well.Emphasis added - is that one of the criteria for decisions now adding value to the cars? If so how do I sign up my car for that program?


The 1.8 Miate could be a great ITA car...why not give it a place to race?Why not give a lot of cars that could be great IT cars a place to race? For example the 1998 & 1999 Subaru Impreza RS?

It would seem that Miatas are being given a lot that everyone has been told not to expect by the SCCA.

- There is no guarantee your car will have a place to race, except for Miatas which will be assured 4 classes.

- There is no guarantee your car will be competitive, except for Miatas whose owners can&#39;t hang in SM will do just fine at the front of ITA.

- Added Miata bonus SCCA will make sure that the prepared car is treated so as to add a viable bit of value to the car.

But the Neon goes to ITS.... :blink:

There are some things that at some times give a lot of ammunition to people that think there are cars with favored status in the SCCA.

[Bill Miller]

Ed,

You&#39;re only now comming to this realization???? ;)

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Aug 31 2005, 09:13 AM
Ed,

You&#39;re only now comming to this realization???? ;)

59375

Always suspected but recently confirmed and an opportune time to vocalize it. The slowness comes from the universal internet forum IQ relationship. A forum poster&#39;s relative IQ level is generally inversely related to their relative membership number level... :lol:

[Knestis]

Did I miss a memo? Isn&#39;t the Neon in A now?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

Didn&#39;t explain it well I guess. Too heavy for a class would mean it wasn&#39;t able to actually get to a weight it would be competitive at. So:

The VW XXX would need to weigh 2000 to be in the mix in ITB but it can only get to 2200 at best. At the same time, the XXX would need to weigh 2500 in ITC to be competitive by not rock the class...

So a &#39;tweener&#39; as I define it is something like that, too heavy to get to target weight in a higher class and maybe too much weight for the chassis to carry to be at the target weight for the lower class.

Current tweeners IMHO - the 12A RX-7 and the MR2 in ITA and the 944 in ITS. YMMV.

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let&#39;s ease up on the favoritism thing. The Miata is a great car and it works well everywhere. Is that a classing issue? No. It&#39;s a design issue. How many Honda&#39;s are classed? How many BMW&#39;s? These cars work well and people build them.

A Subaru Impreza???? I have never seen a request to class one since I have been on the ITAC...you know why? Because there is no interest. If there was, people would be asking. If you want it classed, do it! It&#39;s gonna be ITS.

164 hp right?

2600lbs sound fair? Send in your VTS sheets.

Let&#39;s also get off the Neon thing. We have NO idea how it got classed like that. Since the newer guys started, we have put into place an infrastructure that can correct issues like this - and HAVE. If you have issues with ANY car and it&#39;s clasification, write in and get it on an agenda.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Aug 31 2005, 01:55 PM
Bill,

Didn&#39;t explain it well I guess. Too heavy for a class would mean it wasn&#39;t able to actually get to a weight it would be competitive at. So:

The VW XXX would need to weigh 2000 to be in the mix in ITB but it can only get to 2200 at best. At the same time, the XXX would need to weigh 2500 in ITC to be competitive by not rock the class...

So a &#39;tweener&#39; as I define it is something like that, too heavy to get to target weight in a higher class and maybe too much weight for the chassis to carry to be at the target weight for the lower class.

Current tweeners IMHO - the 12A RX-7 and the MR2 in ITA and the 944 in ITS. YMMV.

AB

59382


Andy,

Thanks for the explanation. And maybe I didn&#39;t do the best job explaining my position. To use your example, if the XXX needed to weigh 2500# to &#39;move down&#39; a class, to get it w/in the performance parameters of the new class, but that&#39;s either more weight than the chassis can carry, OR, it would require the current cage (assuming that people build them to the min. specs) would have to be ripped out and replaced, I would suggest that the hp be throttled back, via a restrictor, so that you wouldn&#39;t have to saddle the car w/ a boat-load of lead to move it down. That&#39;s the beauty of using a pwr/wt ratio as your starting point. You can adjust the number by changing either one (or both) of the component values.

For example, if the desired wt/pwr ratio for XXX&#39;s new class is 20.0, and XXX is currently at 17.5 (2200#/125hp), and you can&#39;t add any more weight to XXX, why not restrict it down to 110hp (2200#/110hp = 20.0)?? GT should have hp reduction data for the new SIR rule, would be a good place to start.

Please don&#39;t take this the wrong way, but the tools to address the &#39;tweeners&#39; are already there.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Aug 31 2005, 10:00 AM
A Subaru Impreza???? I have never seen a request to class one since I have been on the ITAC...you know why? Because there is no interest. If there was, people would be asking. If you want it classed, do it! It&#39;s gonna be ITS.

164 hp right?

2600lbs sound fair? Send in your VTS sheets.
59384
Part of that is because we have been told time and again that AWD will not be permitted in IT or it will be given a weight penalty of overreacting proportions.

In general AWD classing tends to focus on the distribution of grip but then completely denies the parasitic drag that reduces total torque application to the ground (i.e. they get weight/brake power ratios as if they were 2wd drive train loss rather than AWD loss)

However, ITS at 2600# would be a fair starting point relative to other weights that have been suggested when the topic has come up.

VTS will be filed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by turboICE@Aug 31 2005, 10:22 AM
Part of that is because we have been told time and again that AWD will not be permitted in IT or it will be given a weight penalty of overreacting proportions.

In general AWD classing tends to focus on the distribution of grip but then completely denies the parasitic drag that reduces total torque application to the ground (i.e. they get weight/brake power ratios as if they were 2wd drive train loss rather than AWD loss)

However, ITS at 2600# would be a fair starting point relative to other weights that have been suggested when the topic has come up.

VTS will be filed.

59395


Ahhh, the 2.5 RS. Now I understand...you weren&#39;t specific as to the model Imprezza you were talking about. AWD is currently not allowed in IT. Instead of filing the VTS sheets, I would write a letter asking for the allowance of AWD.

I am personally against it...it creates crazy weather dependant overdogs - and the HUGE money guys end up bringing two cars to the track.

Oh ya...if Mazda comes out with an AWD Miata, I won&#39;t vote for THAT to get classed either... :mellow:

AB

[madrabbit15]

As far as SM goes I have to agree with Kirk on this one and then some.........


The majority of SM racers have come at the expense of other classes. As spec miata numbers have gone up all and I mean ALL other IT class entries have gone down. Maybe not in one region or a specific race weekend, but as a whole. I know several races who went from ITS to SM. Spec miata&#39;s claim is that it was suppose to be a affortable competitve class anyone could jump into. That was only true the first year. Ever since then a competitive SM costs way more than competitive IT anything. All SM is a SS miata for the most part. Everyone knew way before the into of SM how much a competitive SS car cost. SM may be affortable to run at the back.

I suspect it all had to do with who was willing to spend the money, just like the pending spec miata tire deal.

I do not see anything wrong with the current IT classes, there have always be competitve cars an uncompetitive cars. I think greater car needs to be done in research and where cars are placed. You cant put an exact formula on how cars are classes, there are too many attributes for every car for that to work. It is a work in progress and no matter how they do it, there will always be growing pains.

Like other posts have mentioned if you go making new classes you just create smaller fields in each class. (Yeah, I cant wait to win a championship when I only raced against 3 cars all year!) Look at NASA, they have a class to make just about anyone happy, and from what I have seen their numbers in each class are not all that great. I really cant wait until SM go to nationals, its probably where they belonged all along.

One additional note, rx7s should never be put in ITB, here is the SE they are atleast 2-3 seconds a lap faster than eveyones favorite red volvo. That alone makes that a mute point.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Aug 31 2005, 03:36 PM
Ahhh, the 2.5 RS. Now I understand...you weren&#39;t specific as to the model Imprezza you were talking about. AWD is currently not allowed in IT. Instead of filing the VTS sheets, I would write a letter asking for the allowance of AWD.

I am personally against it...it creates crazy weather dependant overdogs - and the HUGE money guys end up bringing two cars to the track.

Oh ya...if Mazda comes out with an AWD Miata, I won&#39;t vote for THAT to get classed either... :mellow:

AB

59398


I know others have previously voiced this as a concern, but what is the real probability of this happening? Are the people w/ these kinds of budgets really going to do this to win an IT race? Yeah, I guess some might, but you can probably count them on one hand. As has been pointed out, you can&#39;t control how much money people will spend. This needs a pretty simple risk/reward analysis done. If the most significant risk is that someone will build a &#39;wet&#39; car, then, IMO, that&#39;s not much of a risk. If the cars prove to be dominant in the dry, adjust them. Class the cars!

[turboICE]

Impreza RS only came in 2.5 and am pretty sure all Subaru were AWD in 1998-99

There are a lot of comments everyone makes on weather competitiveness - but I have yet to see anyone be able to provide an example of it occurring in competition in statistically meaningful measures. At this point absent competition results that show consistent disparities that are weather related that are greater than the disparities that already exist between models in differing weather, track, time of day differences - I think it is all conjecture.

[Bill Miller]

Don&#39;t WC and GAC allow AWD cars? Heck, they&#39;re in T2 and T3 in Club Racing. Where&#39;s the data that support these killer &#39;wet&#39; cars?

[turboICE]

WRX and STi are listed in WC but only the WRX has a sheet.

WRX has run in USTCC - it ran well in all conditions but largly because of the driver.

In both those situations there is REWARDS weighting though - so would be hard to say how they would play out in club racing.

The 04-05 Impreza is also classed in SSB. In 3 years can I go to the ITAC and say "Why not give that car someplace to race?" It is a mere matter of time before in consistent fairness equitable to all club members that IT accept AWD unless they are going to tell selected SSB cars to find some other organization to run with while making sure the Miata MX-5 has 8 club classes it could fit into in 6 years.

So again I ask why can&#39;t the same approach be taken with all cars "why not give it a place to race?"

And yes internally inconsistent policies, rules and conclusions will always bring cries of favoritism.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What is inconsitant about not allowing ANY AWD cars in?

Where is the data to support AWD will dominate in the rain? Are you kidding me? This weekend in NER, ITS had a rain race. The usual top BMW&#39;s and RX-7&#39;s were WALKED on by a (soon to be ITA) VW Golf 2.0 16V. That same sort of delta could EASILY be expected between FWD and AWD...and then you have a CRAZY difference between RWD and AWD.

You have to draw th eline somewhere. "Class my 2001 ZO6 in IT" Do we have to give that guy a place to race? No - it doesn&#39;t fit. Neither does AWD IMHO. I creates weather -dependedant deltas that can&#39;t be classed around.

Here is a real suggestion. Get some guys together, build the cars and run a local class called IT-AWD. Petition the ITAC to help you set weights for the cars in your series and then gather some data and have fun. If people like it, it will flourish.

As far as SM is concerned, take a poll amongst SM drivers...I am willing to bet the farm that there are MANY more drivers from outside of IT (and Club Racing for that matter) than you think. The class has EXPLODED - WITHOUT hurting ANY other classes. IT and SM are at record highs in the Northeast. Over 100 cars for just those 5 classes at each Regional.

Probability of 2 car racers? Small I would say...but what fun is it if you come to the track and know you have no chance of winning because of a vastly different and superior driveline layout simply due to weather...

AB

[dickita15]

ed
dude you need to relax a little, either that or you need a little longer historical view. a lot of cars got stuck in the bottom of ITS a few years ago. no on the ITAC was there then. As a matter of fact I am not sure the ITAC existed then.
the ITAC has been addressing this problem hence the nean, ser, nx2000 ect coming down to ITA. the 1.8 miata is exactly the same. the 1.6 is not on the level of the top three cars in A. good call.

it is ironic that you sugest that the neon got screwed because of favortism. with the long historical view the neon was scca was accused of catering to the neon in SS and solo.

as to awd in IT, it may come but it will be slow. as they say you can not put the genie back. when it happens it will happen cautiously. in the mean time I think the ITAC&#39;s time is better spent on other more pressing issues.

Bill
I think the IT community expects more stable rules that the Touring and SS community. they are used to the car of the year thing

[jwalter]

In response to the "why do miata&#39;s get x number of classes?"

About 320,00 Miatas were sold in the US.
According to Mazda, about 270,000 are still running.

The miata is light, rwd, fun to drive, bulletproof, has great aftermarket support, cheap, easy to work on, fully adjustable suspension and has manufacturer support (all mazdas do).
How many other cars can you say that about?

The impreza, while a great car, doesn&#39;t approach the miata in volume

When you have a large group of people asking to class a car...what are you supposed to say? "Nope sorry, we can&#39;t class your car b/c the folks who drive VW golfs haven&#39;t asked for any other classifications, so we&#39;re not gonna do it to be fair."

There are a lot of miata&#39;s out there and a lot of people who want to race them. If you want a car classified somewhere, write it in.

I think you would be more likely to find favoritism in drivers wanting to run their miatas than policy makers.

[turboICE]

I haven&#39;t seen the clear delta between FWD and AWD you propose. I don&#39;t think it is clear that the delta would be any greater for AWD to RWD than has already been excepted for FWD to RWD. If the dominance is as bad as you believe then Touring and SS are in for some huge problems I guess - I don&#39;t think such deltas have been observed.

I really enjoy how people who have a multitude of classes to have a log book issued for their car, able to get their racing license in their car and can race their car in a class while developing an alternative class - provide the suggestion that someone else go through the expense of building a car that easily could cost as much as building an ITS BMW without actually having someplace to race it. It is easy to say go do it - yet I don&#39;t see where anyone has done it before. Yeah you can develop an SM class when while it is being developed the cars have someplace to race if it fails. It is kind of hard to get a group of people to build a bunch of cars when if it fails you have no place that will let you race and the suggestion that someone persue that route is a little disturbing. "Build and they will class it" is a lot more to ask then "Class it and they will build it". Classing it cost nothing - building it is a different story.

I could have gone that route - but I wouldn&#39;t be an SCCA member then either as the only place that I would be able to go on track in wheel to wheel competition is with EMRA or NASA.

Performance above the ITS envolope is one thing (the Z06 example and the full expectation that T cars will not be classed in ITS-ITC at all), but when SS cars have consistently been classed into IT as they have aged out of SS - I think an SS driver is well within reason to expect to be able to take or sell his car into IT.

I pointed out more inconsistencies than just the exclusion of AWD from all club classes except T/SS.

Ensuring all in one decision that one model of car:
-has increased value as a race car
-has a place to race suited to a variety of driver desires
-has a good chance of being a class killer at introduction
is inconsistent with the treatment of 98% of the other model cars in IT.

But regarding AWD you are right I need to take the issue with the exclusion elsewhere as it is not an ITCS rule.

[turboICE]

The number of classes available to them isn&#39;t an issue for me - I think as much as possible all models should have alternatives available and this should be encouraged in general.

My issue is more with what definitely looks to be a very favorable classing and the questionable basis for the decision inconsistent with the basis for other decisions.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by dickita15+Aug 31 2005, 02:07 PM-->
ed
dude you need to relax a little, either that or you need a little longer historical view.

59421
[/b]

Didn&#39;t realize I wasn&#39;t relaxed, but OK, fair enough. I wasn&#39;t really going to get deep into the topic at all until the reasons for the decision were listed. The reasons listed begged to be called out and challenged IMO. This is how I feel about the reasons listed for the decisions.

<!--QuoteBegin-dickita15@Aug 31 2005, 02:07 PM
the 1.6 is not on the level of the top three cars in A.
59421

What does that mean for the MARRS points? Is it Bret&#39;s superiority or everyone else is lacking?

[Jake]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Aug 31 2005, 12:22 PM
Top prep RX-7&#39;s make 130whp. The RX-7 would have to weigh in excess of 2600 to fit amongst the other cars currently classified.

59371


OK - you&#39;ve forced me to do math. If you call the RX7 130rwhp, at 2650lbs it carries 20.4 lbs/hp. Looking at the ITB Golf III at 115hp stock, if you assume that the Golf&#39;s 2.0L can make 115hp at the wheels in IT trim (which I think is a good assumption) - the Golf III carries 20.4 lbs/hp at its spec weight of 2350. OK - I can see where you are coming from.

Now&#39;s here&#39;s where I have a problem. The best dyno data on a built 4AGE in an MR2 is 108RWHP. Scoff as you will, but the 1.6l does not respond well to IT mods. There have been two engines that have been recently built to the letter of the law (overbore, dyno tuning, custom header, etc.) and have not seen any higher than that.

Now plug in our handy formula, and in order to make 20.4 lbs/hp, the MR2 would have to weigh 2200lbs. (2200/108=20.4) Now you say, well the MR2 is mid-engined, has good brakes, modern suspension, yadda yadda yadda - add on ... say... 170lbs, and you got a 2370lb ITB car out of the MR2. TWEENER? No.

[dickita15]

Originally posted by turboICE@Aug 31 2005, 02:39 PM
What does that mean for the MARRS points? Is it Bret&#39;s superiority or everyone else is lacking?

59427


My guess is you know the answer but the Miata is a great handling car with good brakes, but it is down on power to the nissan, acura and crx. Summit has one long straight but the rest of the course rewards the miata&#39;s nible handling. I raced with Bret at the glen this year (well in the same group) and you are right the car is impressive. but I still do not think I would rate it as an overdog.

There have been a couple of well done miatas at the arrc the last two years and they have an uphill fight.

besides if the ITAC and myself are wrong ther are plenty of restrictors available for the miata to fix the problem.

[turboICE]

No the 1.6 isn&#39;t an overdog but I do think MARRS shows that it is on the level potential with the top three A cars. The objection raised was the 1.8&#39;s almost assured potential to dominate.

If it has to be done fine, but I really hate restrictor plate class fixes. Restrictor plates pretty much make sure the car with the plate will cost the absolute maximum that it can cost to remain competitive after the plate is added. I think that would be the worse solution.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by turboICE@Aug 31 2005, 02:27 PM



Ensuring all in one decision that one model of car:
-has increased value as a race car
-has a place to race suited to a variety of driver desires
-has a good chance of being a class killer at introduction
is inconsistent with the treatment of 98% of the other model cars in IT.

But regarding AWD you are right I need to take the issue with the exclusion elsewhere as it is not an ITCS rule.

59425


Sadly, welcome to life, LLOL...everything can&#39;t be fair.

The Miata gets it&#39;s "favoritism" based on the fact that it&#39;s likely that people will actually race it.

The ITAC would love to make every car more valuable, and have a multitude of places to play, but it can&#39;t always work that way.

For one, there is no "Spec Cosworth Vega" for instance. It is in IT, but we don&#39;t see many. Another example would be the ITA BMW 3 series. Lots were made, they are classed, but nobody made a spec series with them, nor do many bother racing them! Why??? Uhhh... cuz they suck! Ok, the politically correct statement: they aren&#39;t all that fun to race with a motor that revs to what, 4500? LOL.

The Miata gets its "star" treatment because it&#39;s tough as nails, major fun to drive, can be had relatively cheap, (as a starter), and has great manufacturer and aftermarket support.

This is NOT a case of favoritism, but merely a case of appropriateness.

Now, please show me the figures, the calculations, the empirical data, that proves this "class killer" status you refer to.

Onto the AWD stuff. Write a letter to the CRB and the BoD, explaining that you see a natural progression from T to IT, but it is unfair as it is biased against AWD, and that you would like to see AWD cars classed in IT. State your reasons, your facts to back it up, and see what happens.

As far as I know there has not been much in the way of calling for AWD in IT, but I would entertain discussion on it should it be voiced by a significant number of members.

ITE is a class that has different rules in different regions. Would an "ITAWD" car fit in ITE in any region? That would be a great starting point.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by turboICE@Aug 31 2005, 04:02 PM
......If it has to be done fine, but I really hate restrictor plate class fixes. Restrictor plates pretty much make sure the car with the plate will cost the absolute maximum that it can cost to remain competitive after the plate is added. I think that would be the worse solution.

59437


Keep in mind that restrictor plates are not the only option.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by madrabbit15@Aug 31 2005, 11:52 AM
One additional note, rx7s should never be put in ITB, here is the SE they are atleast 2-3 seconds a lap faster than eveyones favorite red volvo. That alone makes that a mute point.

59402


First, I want to remind everyone that lap times aren&#39;t the be all and end all, however, that said, lets look at the ARRCs as an example as well. Last year had fine racing weather and it was the same track for ITB and IT7, so the times are very representative.

(I might point out that getting extra hp thru the tech shed is easier in an IT7 car than an ITB car as well....)

3 seconds a lap??


Un no. On a course with lap times almost 2 minutes, the difference was about 1.35 seconds IIRC. (IT7: Lukas 1:47.2, ITB: Blethen 1:48.5 )

The top ITA cars were well into the 1:43.3 range.

If we were to look at that it looks like the car is much more of a B car than an A car......at about 4 seconds a lap back.

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Aug 31 2005, 06:41 AM



The 1.8 Miate could be a great ITA car...why not give it a place to race?

I think the move is a win win, so I am not sure I see the issues.

59365


I guess the issue I have is that currently at the track I go to most often, the SM cars are running about the same times as the front running ITA cars. I think the Miata will be better than great in ITA, and that&#39;s the problem.

To clarify, I&#39;m complaining about the fact that a few years ago, cars that we coming in got underclassed (Neon in S for example) and overweighted, and then adjusted only when the lynch mob arrived with the torches. The current ITAC philosophy has seemed to over-compensate by placing new cars so that they can immediately be front-runners.

Next, we&#39;ll hear that too many people have prepped the car that way to change anything drastically to even things out, and suddenly the performance envelope moves again. And those of us trying to work with 20 year old cars can&#39;t possibly hit the current targets, let alone those that move.

Basically, I&#39;m just a whining little PITA. Apparently I too have come full-circle, and I&#39;m now one of those who b!tches that the ITAC is being too forward thinking and proactive, and that my old car will never be competitive. I&#39;ve become everything I always hated. :bash_1_:

I&#39;m just concerned that the current ITAC is so concerned about doing the right thing for right now, and not for correcting the mistakes that others have made in the past. Just because it&#39;s still working, it doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s all right.

The approach of 5 years ago was way too conservative and made it impossible for new cars to compete in favor of older cars. We&#39;re now getting to the point that older cars are being sacrificed in much the same way. Why isn&#39;t there a happy medium? If the car was as close as it appears, why wasn&#39;t it put in ITS at a lighter weight? Or are the lap times I see locally some kind of fluke?

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by jwalter@Aug 31 2005, 06:15 PM
In response to the "why do miata&#39;s get x number of classes?"

About 320,00 Miatas were sold in the US.
According to Mazda, about 270,000 are still running.

The miata is light, rwd, fun to drive, bulletproof, has great aftermarket support, cheap, easy to work on, fully adjustable suspension and has manufacturer support (all mazdas do).
How many other cars can you say that about?


<broken record player>
Neon.
</broken record player>

Well, all except for the RWD part. Oh, and we don&#39;t get our fenders for $15 either, but then again, we don&#39;t need them...

I personally have NO problem with Miatas running in every class if it works, but I do have a problem with a car with essentially the same prep levels running in a few different classes.

Put the damn car in ITS at a light weight with no restrictor or other compensation and let it run. That way, a truly competitive IT Miata could not legally run SM just be changing a few parts at the track. I&#39;m not saying a huge investment, but certainly things that would take more than 30 minutes to change. I&#39;m just tired of seeing 10 guys running in more than 1 class while others complain they have no place to run because the group is full, and then they want more groups.

I know. We&#39;ll just put SM or SSM in with Wings and Things and Big Bore. Oh, and a few in with Vees and 500s, and hell, throw a few in with the SRFs too. Fill up every hole in every group with a Miata. But make sure its ones that are running more than one group, since they&#39;re just there for practice anyway... :rolleyes:

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Aug 31 2005, 05:29 PM
Sadly, welcome to life, LLOL...everything can&#39;t be fair.

..... Another example would be the ITA BMW 3 series. Lots were made, they are classed, but nobody made a spec series with them, nor do many bother racing them! Why??? Uhhh... cuz they suck! Ok, the politically correct statement: they aren&#39;t all that fun to race with a motor that revs to what, 4500? LOL.



Not every ITA 3 series revs to 4500. I could get an e36 318 for the same money as a 1.8 Miata, but why?? Does the M44 have more performance potentianl to warent being 400 lbs heavier? If anything I&#39;d say it has less as it comes already with a good exhaust and a two piece intake, no one&#39;s building the motors, VAC, Bimmerworld, well maybe you can pay your local guy to do one. If you run the power to weight it&#39;s a dog that&#39;d fit in better with the B cars. If the A&#39;s have to bear with performance drift, when why not the B&#39;s and C&#39;s too.

James

PS. rumor has it that Mazda will one day drop support of the first Gen Miata, especially as they&#39;re on the third gen now!

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer@Aug 31 2005, 11:17 PM
<broken record player>
Neon.
</broken record player>

Well, all except for the RWD part. Oh, and we don&#39;t get our fenders for $15 either, but then again, we don&#39;t need them...

I personally have NO problem with Miatas running in every class if it works, but I do have a problem with a car with essentially the same prep levels running in a few different classes.

Put the damn car in ITS at a light weight with no restrictor or other compensation and let it run. That way, a truly competitive IT Miata could not legally run SM just be changing a few parts at the track. ........ :rolleyes:

59476


OK, Matt, what I understand you to say is that you feel some drivers are driving the same car in multiple classes, while others aren&#39;t able to drive at all because of oversubscribed groups.

While creating rules scenarios that would eliminate the possibility of "doubling up" it would also limit easy cross class migration, where two drivers share a car, but in separate classes. I&#39;ve seen it done where an experienced driver drives the car in the class the car fits, then the rookie takes the car to the class where the car is underprepped. I see no harm, no foul with that, and as a matter of fact, it has some advantages as it makes it easy for new drivers to enter our sport.

I suggest that your anger with the Miata is perhaps misplaced. What about contacting your local comp board and requesting that double and triple entries be put on "stand by" until a certain date so that those who want to race can? I think this is a logistical situation better handled locally by the registration and race officials.

Regarding the car in ITS, can you suggest a configuration that would be appropriate? In IT trim just how much power can the 1.8 actually make? Now, how light can the car be....legally? I think you&#39;ll see that there is a gulf there. ITS really won&#39;t work for that car, just as it really wasn&#39;t the right place for the Neon, which is, yes Kirk, now, an ITA car.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer@Aug 31 2005, 11:08 PM
I guess the issue I have is that currently at the track I go to most often, the SM cars are running about the same times as the front running ITA cars. I think the Miata will be better than great in ITA, and that&#39;s the problem.

I think you&#39;re seeing a local phenomina. Right now there is maybe one 1.6 Miata running at the front of ITA with the best ITA drivers in the country. I would be shocked to see the car at the front of the ARRCs though.


To clarify, I&#39;m complaining about the fact that a few years ago, cars that we coming in got underclassed (Neon in S for example) and overweighted, and then adjusted only when the lynch mob arrived with the torches. The current ITAC philosophy has seemed to over-compensate by placing new cars so that they can immediately be front-runners........... And those of us trying to work with 20 year old cars can&#39;t possibly hit the current targets, let alone those that move.

..........the ITAC is being too forward thinking and proactive, and that my old car will never be competitive. ........I&#39;m just concerned that the current ITAC is so concerned about doing the right thing for right now, and not for correcting the mistakes that others have made in the past. Just because it&#39;s still working, it doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s all right.

The approach of 5 years ago was way too conservative and made it impossible for new cars to compete in favor of older cars. We&#39;re now getting to the point that older cars are being sacrificed in much the same way. Why isn&#39;t there a happy medium? If the car was as close as it appears, why wasn&#39;t it put in ITS at a lighter weight? Or are the lap times I see locally some kind of fluke?

59475


A quick history lesson....lets just go back to say 1990. At that time, the top ITA dogs were the RX-2, RX-3, and the BMW 2002. Then the RX-7 came and did well, but a top prepped RX-3 never lost to an RX-7...but the 7 had huge numbers and the wins came. Then the CRX was added, and frankly, it was massively under estimated, the car made more power, more torque, handled well, and was hundreds of pounds lighter than the RX-7, and the bar was raised. But remember, there was NO option, PCAs weren&#39;t even a concept. The only option was to add to the class, and cars were added to compete, like the Integra, and the 240SX.

Then...to make matters worse, the ECU rule was relaxed, as policing ECUs was beyond the capability of officials, and the newly classed cars got another step up over the "old school" cars.

So I debate that the "old approach" was too conservative, and didn&#39;t allow new cars to have a chance...notwithstanding the Neon and such.

As for correcting "mistakes others have made in the past", well, hindsight is 20/20, and I am sure that those who made the classing decisions did so with good reasons, but the current ITAC is taking a very large picture view, and has discussed the situation at length.....how does a 5.5 hour con call sound?

Stay tuned....don&#39;t sell the ITAC short quite yet......

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 1 2005, 07:30 AM

As for correcting "mistakes others have made in the past", well, hindsight is 20/20, and I am sure that those who made the classing decisions did so with good reasons, but the current ITAC is taking a very large picture view, and has discussed the situation at length.....how does a 5.5 hour con call sound?

Stay tuned....don&#39;t sell the ITAC short quite yet......

59485


Not only is hindsight 20/20, but armchair quarterback is also the easiest position to play ;)

While I may criticize some of the choices that are made, I still do appreciate the job performed by the Advisory Committees currently. I think the ITAC in particular is a very forward thinking group, and I think that it makes some people, including myself, a little nervous, just because it&#39;s hard to glean the exact direction from the limited information that trickles down to the average member. As I said in my first post, the concept of the Miata as an ITA car is growing on me. Also, I do certainly carry some personal baggage because of the Neon thing (like that isn&#39;t obvious...). To be honest, I&#39;m not sure the car *could* be competitive in ITS. If the ITAC did its homework (which I figure it did), it should all work out, and at least the current group is open minded enough to plan for corrections and adjustments.

I just wish that the Advisory Committees could publish minutes so that those in the membership who are interested could see what&#39;s being discussed. I mean heck, we all second guess you guys already, so why not give us a little more ammo? :023:

[planet6racing]

This is the VW beetle argument all over again. :bash_1_: :014:

How about we let the 1.8L Miata turn one lap before we start talking about it being an overdog? At least then you all might have some facts to argue about... :rolleyes:

[OTLimit]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer@Sep 1 2005, 05:15 AM
I just wish that the Advisory Committees could publish minutes so that those in the membership who are interested could see what&#39;s being discussed. I mean heck, we all second guess you guys already, so why not give us a little more ammo? :023:

59487


Yeah, I want to see one of the ITAC members take comprehensive, useful minutes that would make you guys happy. Especially for the July meeting that lasted late into the night..... :119:

And then have them all agree that they are correct. :unsure:

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by OTLimit@Sep 1 2005, 09:05 AM
Yeah, I want to see one of the ITAC members take comprehensive, useful minutes that would make you guys happy. Especially for the July meeting that lasted late into the night..... :119:

And then have them all agree that they are correct. :unsure:

59498


LOL! ROTFLMAO....

"I said what?!?!?!"

Seriously, I think you will see a bit of a "position statement" forthcoming in an upcoming Fastrack, plus a lot of other juicy stuff, pending furhter discussion up the line.

I will say this, (and I say this not to represent any individual, but the ITAC &#39;majority voice&#39;, if you will) that the ITAC is VERY aware of past moves (some going back a lot of years) that have resulted in either outright misclassings, or otherwise unintended consequences, and has the moxie to actually consider remedial actions.

The commitee is trying to take a large view, the Bettencourt coined "10,000 foot view", and is trying to create as fair a game as possible.

BUT:

1- There is a chance that, if certain actions come to pass, some toes will be stepped on in the process. "Overdogs" is an issue getting a lot of attention. Some who own the overdog may not like the attention they get, LOL. (Look at the uproar last year regarding the E36 restrictor)

2- Not everybody will end up in a position that they might feel they deserve.

3- We won&#39;t be pleasing all of the people all of the time, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and so on......

That said, the commitee is trying hard to make IT a better place, and has a blueprint drawn for the present and the future. And while 5 hour con call meeting minutes aren&#39;t going to be published, I think notes as to certain specifics are being kept for future ITACs to draw upon.

[DavidM]

So did somebody ask to have the 1.8 Miata classed in IT? And file all the appropriate paper work that has been mentioned in this thread to get other cars classed?

Also, restrictor plates are going to obviously only affect acceleration. Weight affects acceleration, handling, and braking. It would seem to me that using a restrictor plate to correct an underweighted car is not a complete solution. I&#39;m not saying that the 1.8 weight is wrong, but if it is, then saying a restrictor plate will solve everything doesn&#39;t make much sense to me.

David

[OTLimit]

Jake,
I was just trying to point out that they all want to know what the committee talks about, but just knowing wouldn&#39;t be enough, so they would want details. And then they would want transcripts to know who said what about each discussion. Just like some have advocated for the CRB and BoD.

Knowing how long some of these calls last, can you just imagine? :D

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by DavidM@Sep 1 2005, 02:48 PM
So did somebody ask to have the 1.8 Miata classed in IT? And file all the appropriate paper work that has been mentioned in this thread to get other cars classed?

Also, restrictor plates are going to obviously only affect acceleration. Weight affects acceleration, handling, and braking. It would seem to me that using a restrictor plate to correct an underweighted car is not a complete solution. I&#39;m not saying that the 1.8 weight is wrong, but if it is, then saying a restrictor plate will solve everything doesn&#39;t make much sense to me.

David

59521


Yes and no. The car was requested to be moved to ITA but VTS sheets were not needed because the car was already classified. VTS sheets are needed to gather info on cars that don&#39;t have it filed yet.

AB

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by DavidM@Sep 1 2005, 07:48 PM
Also, restrictor plates are going to obviously only affect acceleration. Weight affects acceleration, handling, and braking. It would seem to me that using a restrictor plate to correct an underweighted car is not a complete solution.
59521


Restrictor plates will also affect top speed, probably more than acceleration in a few cases. They also affect tip-in response, which can be corrected to some extent in calibration. There are some real development dollars involved there to maximize performance. While it may not solve everything, it affects the car almost everywhere on the track, and doesn&#39;t add to momentum in a crash situation (so I&#39;m all for it as an option).

It&#39;s more of a penalty than many may realize.

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by OTLimit@Sep 1 2005, 08:11 PM
I was just trying to point out that they all want to know what the committee talks about, but just knowing wouldn&#39;t be enough, so they would want details. And then they would want transcripts to know who said what about each discussion. Just like some have advocated for the CRB and BoD.


I, for one, am not asking for that. I am on/ have been on two committees myself (Time Trials Admin and B/D Production- please don&#39;t kill me), so I can very much appreciate the concept of the marathon conf. call. Being in charge of the Time Trials Admin Committee, I have made our minutes available and asked for them to be published, but so far they have not been. If this is the case with ITAC, it may not be by their choice.

I just personally think that any interested member should be able to see what was discussed when, and what "decisions" were made. I&#39;m not trying to do it to point a finger, but I&#39;d like a little idea of how things unfold and over what time frame.

[lateapex911]

Well, maybe someday, but keep in mind that we are at an unprecedented point in the open communications between commitees and membership.

I&#39;ve been a member since the 80s, and (jeeeeezzz :rolleyes: ) from my point of view, the club has turned a corner and the "secrecy" is at an all time low. I would like to think that the ITAC is the model of all the ad hoc commitees, but who knows....

I do know however that there is, of course, room for improvement, but for now, there are no fewer than 4 or 5 active ITAC members who post here.

Three years ago, nobody had that kind of access.

So, ask away!

[Doc Bro]

OK, OK, OK..... I&#39;ve solved everyone&#39;s problems- I was just lurking until it got real good! Bracket racing on a road course....break out times the whole nine yards.....(just when I thought I couldn&#39;t get any brighter!) I&#39;ll probably work on world hunger next...then the age old question "what is the meaning of life?"
Gotta go- I got some work to do! :D :D
Rob
BMW Z3 #36

(ps Jake my Z3 shifts @6800 all day! :happy204: (like it matters!!!!)

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Doc Bro@Sep 2 2005, 08:24 AM

Rob
BMW Z3 #36

(ps Jake my Z3 shifts @6800 all day! :happy204: (like it matters!!!!)

59558


Well, you snagged one of the more desirable ones....the E30 325Es are less entertaining...;)

(As the former owner of a running 528E, and now the owner of a done-blowed-it-up 528E, and am somewhat versed in thes manners, LOL)

(And the point -so poorly made, LOL- was that there are lots of common cars, that are classed, that will never be a Miata)

[cbuzzetti]

In the San Fran Region the ITA class is owned by (of all things) a 1st gen RX7.
The driver is capable and has raced these cars for many years.
Pevious to that the RX3 dominated for many years.
The current ITA class at SFR is huge (25+ cars) with many SM and purpose built ITA Miata&#39;s. Some are as fast as the 1st gen 7. Yes there are a few Honda&#39;s and Acura&#39;s also.
Is the 1st gen a tweener? Doesn&#39;t appear so. This group has many good drivers.
But the 1st gen still wins. And has multiple championships.
Maybe alot of the 1st gens running ITA are not prepped to the maximum level.
Keep in mind this is the largest region in the nation. Typical double regional weekends have 350-500 entries. 50-60 SM and 25+ ITA. Alot of the drivers run multiple classes.
Check out race results here.
http://www.sfrscca.org/Results/index.html

See ya at turn one!!

Charles Buzzetti
ITS RX7 #78

[lateapex911]

I think he needs to come east...and try his luck at the ARRC...it&#39;s too bad there isn&#39;t some tow fund to make it easier on the west coast guys. That is ONE aspect of the national program that is cool. I know it probably doesn&#39;t really make THAT big a difference, but I do wish the fast guys from the West could make it east.

Or that we had a more centralized IT championships...

(Not that the Atlanta region is wanting in anyway...)

[Jake]

WOW - talk about the Mazda Club of America! Is there some advantage of running a Mazda at Mazda Raceway? Nearly everyone is running Mazdas.