PDA

View Full Version : G Production Proposal



mustanghammer
01-11-2006, 06:11 PM
I realize this is not the Produciton list but the car that I am proposing for G Production would most likely be an IT car first. I am seeking suggestions and most of all support for this proposal.

Here is what I will be sending to the CRB:

************************************************** ***************

Dear Sirs:

This is a request for the classification of the 79-85 12A Mazda RX7 into G Production as a limited preparation car with an Improved Touring engine. I am making this request because I believe the performance parameters of the 12A RX7 are a good fit for G Production. I also believe that other cars currently listed in G Production set a precedent for the inclusion of the 12A RX7. Specifically these “other” cars are the ITA and ITB classed Honda Civic/CRX Si that are listed as limited prep/IT Engine eligible cars in G Production.

Specifics

Engine

• IT legal engine (this includes no port matching as specified in the ITCS)
• Allow removal of OE oil injection*
• Allow intake manifold porting under carb for first 1 inch*

* These allowances would serve to aid reliability and performance. This is in keeping with other examples of IT engine, limited prep cars that are allowed compression and cam changes.

Driveline

• Limited prep transmission allowances
• Limited prep clutch/flywheel allowances
• Final drive ratio unrestricted

Suspension/Brakes/Wheels

• Limited prep suspension
• GSL four wheel disk brakes (F 227mm – R 236mm)
• 13 x 7 wheels

Weight

• 2060lbs (2006 GCR E Prod. 79-85 RX7 12A Min. Wt.) minimum weight. Weight added for Limited Prep legal transmission changes.

I believe the inclusion of the popular 79-85 12A RX7 into G Production will bolster the numbers in this class while not upsetting the competitive balance that exists today.

Sincerely


Scott Peterson
Member 175876

************************************************** ***************

Your consideration is greatly apprecaited

ddewhurst
01-11-2006, 08:39 PM
Scott, I wish you well with your classing request. Info only, people have tried to get the car non-ported classed in F Production on more than one occasion with a complete reject by the CRB. There is more to a classing request than writting a letter. Look under the SCCA site for classing requirements. Call Topeka or ask Charlie for the paper process required. I was going to do the same at one time & at the time I knew what papers were required, had comparable hp data & lap times with specific car weights. I even did a thread on the Production site looking for support from the Production traditionalists. Some people were helpful & others did side e-mails. A few were flat assed against classing the car because the thing would be reliable & finish races with out the owners having to spend BIG BUCKS DEVELOPING THE MOTOR. After doing the thread on THEIR site with the minimal favorable response I figured fine, I'll sit back & watch H & G get combined because of lack of entrys. There are a couple people in the CenDiv that are converting their ITA/7 cars to cheep E Production cars.

I totaled my ITA/7 last summer, have a new car ready to build but am toying with procuring a Spec Miata. I have interest in the 1st gen non-ported in G Production.

Good luck & please keep us informed. ;)

[email protected]

mustanghammer
01-12-2006, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 12 2006, 12:39 AM
Scott, I wish you well with your classing request. Info only, people have tried to get the car non-ported classed in F Production on more than one occasion with a complete reject by the CRB. There is more to a classing request than writting a letter. Look under the SCCA site for classing requirements. Call Topeka or ask Charlie for the paper process required. I was going to do the same at one time & at the time I knew what papers were required, had comparable hp data & lap times with specific car weights. I even did a thread on the Production site looking for support from the Production traditionalists. Some people were helpful & others did side e-mails. A few were flat assed against classing the car because the thing would be reliable & finish races with out the owners having to spend BIG BUCKS DEVELOPING THE MOTOR. After doing the thread on THEIR site with the minimal favorable response I figured fine, I'll sit back & watch H & G get combined because of lack of entrys. There are a couple people in the CenDiv that are converting their ITA/7 cars to cheep E Production cars.

I totaled my ITA/7 last summer, have a new car ready to build but am toying with procuring a Spec Miata. I have interest in the 1st gen non-ported in G Production.

Good luck & please keep us informed. ;)


[email protected]

70737



Thanks David.

Actually Charlie Clark was my first stop with this and he encouraged me to post this here. He likes the concept. I also plan to speak with current G Prod drivers to get their feedback and hopefully, support.

This idea started brewing when I made my first trip to the Run Offs in 2003 as crew for David Long, #82 E Production. I thought about H, G and even F but settled on G as the target for this car. Watching the 2005 G Prod race on Speed I saw the Honda Civic Si that was racing with Mark Webber. That's when I decided to get this request on paper. I mean that's an ITA car and I have one of those too! :023:

I hear you about E Prod. The last two years I have stripped down the interior of my car to do cage work. Everytime I get to a certain point in the project - like when the dash board is setting on the work bench - I get the urge to just keep going!

I will let you and the list know when this is offically sent to the CRB. At the point letters of support couldn't hurt. Would you be interested in sharing your data with me?

Thanks again.

dickita15
01-12-2006, 10:34 AM
Scott, I think it is a great idea and many of my rx7 ITA buddies hear in the northeast would love to give it a shot. I would be tempted as well. Understand that you will get resistance from the prod community. There seems to be an attitude that if they make it easy for IT drivers to run prod with out a large investment we will all show up with our $5000 beaters and shove them of the track. There are more than a few who look down on IT driver’s ability.

mustanghammer
01-12-2006, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by dickita15@Jan 12 2006, 02:34 PM
Scott, I think it is a great idea and many of my rx7 ITA buddies hear in the northeast would love to give it a shot. I would be tempted as well. Understand that you will get resistance from the prod community. There seems to be an attitude that if they make it easy for IT drivers to run prod with out a large investment we will all show up with our $5000 beaters and shove them of the track. There are more than a few who look down on IT driver’s ability.

70776


Thanks Dick.

Interesting, in MidDiv it seemed like all of the 2005 carnage ocurred in either Spec Miata or E Production. All of my EP buddies replaced fenders or worse in 2005 and that was before the Run Off!

MidDiv IT was and has been pretty calm by comparison in my experience. It seems like most of the newbees decided to start their club racing career in Spec Miata so maybe that is why. So the experience level is fairly high in IT right now.

Anyway, I personally hate body work and unless I just plain screw up I don't plan on being an accident waiting to happen.

Thanks for the encouragement

ddewhurst
01-12-2006, 01:40 PM
Scott, during that time I got so disgusted that I deleated everthing. Pounds of car per hp for class & requested car, Mid Ohio classs track record vrs ITA/7 track record, keeep in mind the things are torqueless compared to other class cars. Should be fun to see what Mark can do with his 2nd gen. I love it, a two car trailer with the Britt & a Jap. :unsure:

Dick or anyone do you know what the paper work is that's required for classing a car. I know it's more than a letter. I'll need to think somne on this. It seems as tho Topeka will send the requester some fill in the blank sheets that required the manufactures info about the car.

E Z process is to call Topeka because the CRB might otherwise treat the request like, well you know.

racer14itc
01-12-2006, 02:01 PM
Scott,

So you're proposing to take 300 lbs off the ITA RX7, give it slicks, brakes it never came with, alternate gear ratios, and limited prep suspension goodies and put it in GP?? All this for a car that is already at the GP lap record (in ITA trim) at VIR? And also very close at Road Atlanta?

And the GP drivers, like myself, are supposed to be excited about this? Especially when we're called bigots and other insults are hurled at us?

The 12A RX7 is already classed in limited prep form in EP. And judging by the Runoffs, it's very competitive. Why not do everything you proposed to your car, run it in EP for a while and then when you're ready or finances dictate, get a fully prepped EP motor?

MC

mustanghammer
01-12-2006, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by racer14itc@Jan 12 2006, 06:01 PM
Scott,

So you're proposing to take 300 lbs off the ITA RX7, give it slicks, brakes it never came with, alternate gear ratios, and limited prep suspension goodies and put it in GP?? All this for a car that is already at the GP lap record (in ITA trim) at VIR? And also very close at Road Atlanta?

And the GP drivers, like myself, are supposed to be excited about this? Especially when we're called bigots and other insults are hurled at us?

The 12A RX7 is already classed in limited prep form in EP. And judging by the Runoffs, it's very competitive. Why not do everything you proposed to your car, run it in EP for a while and then when you're ready or finances dictate, get a fully prepped EP motor?

MC

70793



Thanks for the response :)

Brakes:

The brakes I listed are the one that a 12A GSL RX7 comes with from the factory. They are the brakes that are spec'd in the ITCS for an ITA Rx7. This is not an upgrade. BTW, 1st Gen E Production RX7's are allowed to use the bigger GSLSE brakes that came with the 13B engine even if they run a 12A

Weight:

This is the wieght that a 12A Stock transmission E Prod. 1st Gen RX7 gets to weigh. I used this as a base line minimum. It has been our experience in MidDiv that it is hard to get to this weight in an 1st Gen RX7 without running a very minimalist cage. To me this a variable that could go up. My car won't get there and I am not running a minimum spec cage to do it.

Track Records

In MidDiv I get to race on the same tracks and on the same days as the current G Production national champion. His times seem to average 6-8 seconds faster than the lap record for IT7 (same as an ITA RX7) at HPT and MAM. He is easily 8+ seconds faster than I am everywhere I race. But that is just MidDiv, maybe your IT7 cars are faster or your G Prod drivers are slower. I do know that In IT my lap times are comparible with Chris Albin's ITB car and given the modifications he is allowed I would be happy to be his equal in G Production

Rx7's in E Prep.

You are right, 1st Gen RX7's are in E Prep as limited prep cars now and I could build one. In fact my car is already completely legal for E Production as it sets. However, there is a precedent set by a number of cars in Production that are spec's as I describe - Limited Prep/IT engine. This would include the Hondas that I reference as well as Miatas in FP. IT doesn't seem right to have a car that is as popular as the RX7 and not give it's owners more that just one opportunity to run it in Production when the same has been extended to other popular cars. I have no disillusions about how expensive any Production car is nor do I doubt the efforts and investment you have. I really do appreciate your comments.

racer14itc
01-12-2006, 04:11 PM
Sorry about the brake specs, I'm not an RX7 expert.

What Hondas do you reference have "IT engines"??? All the limited prep Hondas in GP are permitted any camshaft (within lift specs), compression higher than IT rules permit, lightening of internal parts. But I'm sure you already know this.

You put this car in GP as you propose, and GP in the SEDIV would all but die as no one would have a chance on the big, fast tracks down here.

BTW the GP lap records in the SEDIV are held by Kevin Allen, who is every bit as fast as Kent. :023: But I'm sure you already knew that too.

This proposal looks too much like a "gimme", and the AdHoc and CRB are constantly bombarded with these, so I doubt it has much of a chance. But you never know...

MC

Bill Miller
01-12-2006, 04:31 PM
So what would be fair Mark? Another 100#? Another 200#?

Scott,

I'd pose this over on the Prod site. Both the Kent and Jesse post there, and both should be able to give some decent insight into the capabilities of the car, in the prep you listed.

ddewhurst
01-12-2006, 05:48 PM
Scott, I know in the past when I floated this same subject on the Prod site what Jesse implied/compared the results of his fathers car to the 1st gen non-ported. Mark, do you remember Jesse's thoughts ?

The Honda CRX is in LP F Production. The ITA CRX beats the shit out of the ITA/7 1st gen RX-7 on any track there is at any time.

Also Mark please don't fall into the Matt trap about the the SouthEast momentum tracks & the 1st gen non-ported RX-7. Help us with some of your considerable knowledge getting this car classed in something other than E or F where it don't belong without some porting. All said with a :D

Bill, ya know what your pal Hap is going to say if & when Scott posts this subject on the Prod site. Dewhurst, ya got 11 pages of milage out of this subject the last time. I didn't start the subject on the Prod site the last time. Frank Axlerod did. Scott, ya know Frank from St Louis who races a G (?) car. One of those that drip that stuff. :unsure:

mustanghammer
01-12-2006, 06:35 PM
Originally posted by racer14itc@Jan 12 2006, 08:11 PM
Sorry about the brake specs, I'm not an RX7 expert.

What Hondas do you reference have "IT engines"??? All the limited prep Hondas in GP are permitted any camshaft (within lift specs), compression higher than IT rules permit, lightening of internal parts. But I'm sure you already know this.

You put this car in GP as you propose, and GP in the SEDIV would all but die as no one would have a chance on the big, fast tracks down here.

BTW the GP lap records in the SEDIV are held by Kevin Allen, who is every bit as fast as Kent. :023: But I'm sure you already knew that too.

This proposal looks too much like a "gimme", and the AdHoc and CRB are constantly bombarded with these, so I doubt it has much of a chance. But you never know...

MC

70805


Mark,

The Hondas are on PCS pages 68 and 69. The term used in the GCR is IT Carburetion so my use of the term IT Engine may be incorrect. Yes, limited prep engines do get to make bolt on changes and do port matching. I am not asking for that in this proposal with exception of port work under the Carb. This of course would not stop a builder from lightening the rotors but I would not be opposed to restricting that practice as well.

I would imagine that we would experience a similar result at Gateway in St Louis and Hallet in Oklahoma. RX7's do better at those tracks than they do at HPT and MAM. No question about it, if given enough room an ITA/IT7 RX7 can get some speed.

Sorry but I wasn't aware of Kevin Allen and didn't mean to imply that G Prod cars are slow in your neck of the woods. Don't mean to offend.

If you are interested in having more cars to race against - one of the reasons I am making this proposal - then help me make this less than a gimme. In all and complete honesty I am NOT looking to install a ringer in G Prod. That would serve no purpose for you or me. I think there is a happy medium here that allows a car to get classed, doesn't immediately destroy status quo and is competitive enough to make the car an attractive option to others.

Thanks again, this is good stuff

wlfpkrcn
01-13-2006, 04:12 PM
Here is my gut reaction and .02 cents. In theory it's a good idea. The reality is I think it's a bad idea. If your goal is to transition from IT to Prod that could be done going into EP with your current IT car. Would it be competitive? No, but you can do it. With your proposal would you be competitive? I don't think so. You would still need all the fiberglass, suspension, fuel cell, cage that a EP car has. The only cost you are trying to by-pass is building an engine. In the long run you would only save 1-2k as compared to converting to EP. Not to open another can of worms, but would you allow the hat style rotors the EP cars get? Is the consensous that with 13x7 slicks will not break the hubs? What about Mazda starting to reduce the 12A stuff? I think it would be great if you can get it classed, an I wish you the best of luck.

Eric

tderonne
01-13-2006, 04:26 PM
2.3 Mustang into prod:

Slow ITB car, lots of the same arguments as an ITA RX7.

CRB classed it as a limited prep EP car. (Where there's a full prep 2.3 Pinto.)

Unwritten rule: nothing over 2.2 liters in FP. ITA RX7 is considered a 2.4 for such comparisons, no?

Their official answer will be interesting. As for needing other data, they should already have a VTS for the RX7, any other data would be used only for discussion, if it makes it that far.

ddewhurst
01-13-2006, 08:45 PM
***Not to open another can of worms, but would you allow the hat style rotors the EP cars get? Is the consensous that with 13x7 slicks will not break the hubs? ***

Eric, the answer to brake rotors is NO. There is a world of difference in the design of the 12A & THE 13B rotors. There is also a world of difference between a 220 rwhp 13B & a 130 rwhp 12A in terms of trap speed. Leave the shortage of 12A parts for a seperate discussion.

Tim, if the ITA Honda CRX can beat the shit out of ANY ITA/7 12A any day of the week at any track & the CRX is classed in F Production would you call classing the 1st gen 12A non-ported in F Production fair ? At worse if the 12A is over in G just leave some weight on the car or do some other limiting factor. :D Can you say torqueless ?

wlfpkrcn
01-13-2006, 09:04 PM
There is a world of difference in the design of the 12A & THE 13B rotors

Ok, I'll take your word for it. I've never looked that close


There is also a world of difference between a 220 rwhp 13B & a 130 rwhp 12A in terms of trap speed

I recall the Miata's running 13" wheels in EP, even though they are allowed 15x7's (and winning the runoffs). I would have to assume that you can generate equal or greater exits speeds with the 13's. (might be application specific and only work on Miata's). In other words you can generate the same loads on the hub.


Leave the shortage of 12A parts for a seperate discussion.

Why? It is becoming an issue with the old british cars currently running G&H prod. Adding another car with dwindeling parts availability doesn't seem to be a good long term solution to car counts.

I'm not trying to rain on anybodies parade. In the grand scheme of things it would benefit me. It just adds another class my car could be run in and keep some value. The car I'm currently building is a 13b EP car, it would just be an engine swap to go GP.

Good luck,
E

ddewhurst
01-14-2006, 08:17 AM
***I recall the Miata's running 13" wheels in EP, even though they are allowed 15x7's (and winning the runoffs). I would have to assume that you can generate equal or greater exits speeds with the 13's. (might be application specific and only work on Miata's). In other words you can generate the same loads on the hub***

Eric, the Miata is an absolute different hub than either the 12A or 13B hubs.

Good luck with your E car.

Do you have a last name, where will you race & when will the car be on track ? Color/number ?

wlfpkrcn
01-14-2006, 09:53 AM
Eric, the Miata is an absolute different hub than either the 12A or 13B hubs.

I was only using the Miata as an example of the loads that can be generated with 13x7's. They have completely different brakes compared to a first gen.


where will you race & when will the car be on track ? Color/number ?

I live in NorCal so SF region. Hopefully the car will be on track by July, running some NASA events. It is currently just a stripped 79' chassis w/ GSLSE suspension. It used to be my street car (4 port 13b w/ street porting). I have a 6 port motor that has some minor porting as a backup and legal EP motor. I'll use the 4 port for testing since it is closer to a good EP motor than the 6 port. I have most of the hard parts I need to build a "real" EP motor. We'll be doing the cage in March. It won't be in full EP trim until next year some time. It will be RX8 blue. No car number yet. My Pro7 car used to be #50, so we'll shoot for that. :D

Once again good luck I hope you get it classed

E

ddewhurst
01-14-2006, 05:02 PM
Eric, if ya want to watch one of the fastest 1 st gen's in the country keep an eye on Bob Neal from the left coast. Met Bob a couple years ago at the Runoffs. Look his car over, it's first class all the way with a Dave Lemon motor. If Bob has his razzel dazzel exhaust after the reax axle you will not beleive the configuration. WOW :119:

mustanghammer
01-15-2006, 09:47 PM
Originally posted by wlfpkrcn@Jan 13 2006, 08:12 PM
Here is my gut reaction and .02 cents. In theory it's a good idea. The reality is I think it's a bad idea. If your goal is to transition from IT to Prod that could be done going into EP with your current IT car. Would it be competitive? No, but you can do it. With your proposal would you be competitive? I don't think so. You would still need all the fiberglass, suspension, fuel cell, cage that a EP car has. The only cost you are trying to by-pass is building an engine. In the long run you would only save 1-2k as compared to converting to EP. Not to open another can of worms, but would you allow the hat style rotors the EP cars get? Is the consensous that with 13x7 slicks will not break the hubs? What about Mazda starting to reduce the 12A stuff? I think it would be great if you can get it classed, an I wish you the best of luck.

Eric

70877


Thanks for the response.

I think David has responded to several of your points already so I won't rehash them. My car is E Production legal now. In fact it can be ran in GT2, GT3, and E Production and it most likely will be rented out this year to someone that needs a start and a finish.

To me the difference is cost and that includes the following:

Ported Engine - $2000-5000.00

Depending on what you start with and who does the work this can be pricy. I have a good motor now that would just need a refresh and porting.

Racing trans - $2500-6000.00

The reality of a ported motor is a racing transmission. Not just because to the need to have close ratios but also because of realiability. We have a couple of racers that tried 626 boxes behind ported motors and they killed them pretty regularly. By the way, the best deal I have seen is a Jerico Y2K box that came from NASCAR Nextell Cup that was used for road race qualifying when qualifying boxes were allowed. It has REM'd gears that are narrowed and the shafts are all gun drilled. The box cost about $2500.00 used and Jerico makes an adapter. Unfortunately the flow of good used Jerios has dried up a bit because Nextell Cup teams switched to another brand of transmission. Anyway, this box is major over-kill behind a rotary and has been stone realable.

15 Inch Wheels and tires - ?

First I have to buy wheels I don't have and then buy more expensive tires. Consumables is one of the things that I considered with this proposal.

Body Work - ?

The smaller 13" wheel and tire combination should fit under mildly modified stock fenders. To save weight I will build my own glass fenders.

So far parts have not been a problem for me. I bought two 85 RX7's in the last two weeks for peanuts. One is for parts and the other is a good street/raceacar candidate. So I don't think RX7's are at the point of being hard to maintain.....yet.

Thanks again and good luck on your project.

mustanghammer
01-15-2006, 10:00 PM
Here is an update.

I contacted Jeremy at the National Office and he recommends that I submit a VTS allong with my proposal letter. So, I will start working on this part of the proposal.

Over the weekend I had the opportunity to meet with a number of racers and bounce this idea off of them. All responses were favorable even from drivers that have a vested interest in G Productiion now. One made the comment that he would always like to have more cars to race with.

I have some business travel this week and next so I may be delayed in this process some what. However, when I have my package ready to submit I will let the list know. I will also post the final proposal to the list as well. Letters of support to the CRB will go along way towards getting a yes instead of a no.

As an asside, what about a non-ported, IT Induction 13B 84-85 RX7 in F Production?

Thanks for all of the discussion regarding this.

ddewhurst
01-16-2006, 02:55 PM
Scott, Mark Coffin linked this thread to the Production site.

racer14itc
01-16-2006, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 16 2006, 06:55 PM
Scott, Mark Coffin linked this thread to the Production site.

71041


Yes, I did. I thought it was important that the folks who would be MOST AFFECTED by this proposal at least be made aware of it. The majority of the prod folks don't visit this site (at least not regularly).

MC

ddewhurst
01-16-2006, 04:31 PM
Mark, I have no issues with this thread being posted on the Production site. It's to bad more people from H & G Production don't provide positive input when someone is trying to get a car classed. I wish Scott the best with his request & I will forward a letter supporting his request for classing the car. :023:

mustanghammer
01-16-2006, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by racer14itc@Jan 16 2006, 07:09 PM
Yes, I did. I thought it was important that the folks who would be MOST AFFECTED by this proposal at least be made aware of it. The majority of the prod folks don't visit this site (at least not regularly).

MC

71045


Thanks Mark.

In the past I have tried to get a log on to the Production site but I never got a confirmation e-mail. So I was wondering how I could get this on that site. Anyway, it should be interesting to see what is posted.

BTW, what kind of HP numbers do Suziki Swifts generate?

JeffW
01-18-2006, 02:35 AM
G Prod = Spec Spridget (Apologies to'Suzuki Jon')

... I've heard G Prod guys brag about spending $10K+ for their engines. Is that really something to brag about? For something that might last a season?

Maybe the Runoffs format should change. Include ITS, ITA, ITB and ITC in the list of eligible classes. They already have nationally standardized rules, much like SM had in '05. Open the Runoffs up to a specified number of classes and take the classes which have the best participation numbers.

Chris T. - Get a nationally standardized set of Spec 7 rules and see what happens to some of the dismally subscribed classes. We can always use some more F&C and P&G workers from the ranks of sidelined drivers.

Changing the Runoffs format could have another effect. If drivers are required to keep running for points through the end of the regular season, total participation numbers should increase for each event. More people sharing the financial load. Also, the need to run more events to protect or improve the points position will make engine reliability more appealing.

This is America. Home of the Free Market Economy. (SCCA excepted?)

Jeff

jsgprod
01-18-2006, 08:37 AM
G Prod = Spec Spridget (Apologies to'Suzuki Jon')

Not anymore! Have you watched any of the Runoffs Production races lately? Especially in G Prod. There are lots of different car makes with the potential to win in that class now.... Ok, three or four right now. Not one of them is a Spridget. ;)

TWO, VW's finished in the top five this year :023: !

Jay
Who does NOT race a VW...well, maybe once :rolleyes: !

Hahn63
01-18-2006, 11:52 AM
Ok , I know I’m going to get hate mail after this post but I have to say my piece. First off for those who don’t know me I’ve been driving a first gen now going on 5 years. Raced in ITA, IT7 , EP and 12 hour enduros. All in a first gen. Was in the 2004 runoffs in the sister car to Tom Thrash and help him in 2004 with some of the development on his 2005 pole sitting car. Now I have raced my ITA car as an EP. No slicks, no motor , no brakes…just ITA trim. I can’t for the life of me wonder why in the world you guys would want to run in GP ….with a stock motor no less. Guys, I’m telling you the cost difference your are all talking about is mute. If you think it will be cheaper to build a stock motor….dream on …the dyno time alone will make your head spin. Transmissions will still need rebuilt , the slicks will see to that and on and on. The grass is not greener it is the same just maybe a different variety. To win or at least do well will require the same prep and expense for all the different classes. EP is where the car belongs and a properly prepped ITA RX7 can win in ITA if driven properly.

Roland Hahn

lateapex911
01-18-2006, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by Hahn63@Jan 18 2006, 10:52 AM
....... ITA RX7 can win in ITA if driven properly.

Roland Hahn

71172


Roland, bring your ITA 7, your talent, and all your tricks to Road Atlaanta and run the ARRC against the likes of the Mosers, Serra, et al, and then make that statement.

Fact is that an RX-7 has never been close for even a lap there, and the 7s that run have some real trick stuff, and have shared some intense development and competition for years. It's hard to think that they've left 2 seconds or more per lap on the shelf.

On top of that, look at the basic facts. A CRX has better torque, puts down the same power, has a better suspension....and weighs hundreds less! 240 pounds less! Physics is physics.

Sure, an RX-7 can win, heck even mine has, but it was in the rain.

Sorry to say, you may be correct on your other points, but you are all wet on that one.

Hahn63
01-18-2006, 01:14 PM
[quote]
Jake, I’m sure your information is correct. Certain tracks, with certain cars and certain drivers may yield an unbeatable combination. Road Atlanta may be a good example of that concept . My point isn’t that the RX7 isn’t most of the time an underdog in IT but it’s production counter part is properly placed in production world and very viable as presented by Mr. Thrash.

If I ever build a non enduro ITA 7, I’ll be sure to come down and help see if we can’t find those two plus seconds for all the 7’s . :023:

Roland

ddewhurst
01-18-2006, 03:52 PM
***My point isn’t that the RX7 isn’t most of the time an underdog in IT but it’s production counter part is properly placed in production world***

Roland, I'll not get into prep/maintance numbers with you but I'll ask you a question. My track time numbers would show the same thing anyone elses numbers would show & the numbers would show that a 1st gen RX-7 ITA car can race (note I didn't say win) on a momentum track. END of story. ;)

Would you call the E Production rotor motor an IT motor ?

How do you think the 1st gen RX-7 non-ported would stack up against the Honda CRX that is classed in F Production when the Honda CRX eats the 7's stuff at every track in ITA form ?

Just maybe some of us who are looking at the 1st gen RX-7 are saying let's class it with a Limited Prep IT motor. :unsure:

Hahn63
01-18-2006, 04:24 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 18 2006, 07:52 PM

Roland, I'll not get into prep/maintance numbers with you


71182



David, When someone builds a $40,000 plus ITA RX7 and still can't run up front then will talk. I have yet to see one built to the max. Some are getting there but not quite. You'll have performance in the $$$$$ and the time to prep the car is the major factors. Not saying no one is trying or doing it well....just not there yet. The only thing we are talking about between an EP and a GP is about $5000. I'm not talking the total price of the car just the difference between the cost of a good stock motor and a ported one. Everything else would be the same, shocks ,trans, bodywork and so on...why would you build a GP ? I ask the question again , why would one want to spend all that money to run a stock engine car. I don't want to get in to the ITA who can win and who can't and is the RX7 able to do it. I run mainly endurance racing with my 7 and kick the CRX on a regular basis. Just don't understand the GP thing..... :unsure:

Roland

lateapex911
01-18-2006, 05:07 PM
A couple points....

On the ITA thing...first, "not quite there yet"....do you really think that a car that is extremely popular, and has had many large firms spend time and money developing, could be developed THAT much further? TWO seconds is a LOT of time at the sharp end of a cars development edge. ZThe 7 has been around for 20 years, and firms like Racing Beat, ISC, G-Force Engineering, Mazdatrix have spent buckets of time and money...

When you put the best of the best against the best of the best, on real tracks, it just can't keep up. Period. THere ARE a few guys who can, on certain tracks, but as is stands right now, it is NOT a contender in ITA, like the CRX, the Integra, the 240SX are, and the Miata 1.6 (and soon the 1.8), the SER, the NX2000, and the Neon will prove to be.

If I read you correctly, the difference you attribute to the prep mods required to run fast in EP vs GP is $5000. thats a bunch of money, and there is significant development that goes with the allowance to port a rotary. You either have to know what to do, or figure it out. The more variables you roll into the equation, the more time is spent on engineering.

I won't pretend to know the specifics of whether the car is a good fit with an IT motor in G or Ff or wherever, but I can see some logic in doing less work and spending less money, but going a little slower.

On the other hand, it does blur the line between Prod and IT, in an attempt to help Prods numbers. maybe at the expense of IT, and i'm not sure thats entirely healthy. I would prefer fresh conquests.

wlfpkrcn
01-18-2006, 07:27 PM
I posted this on the Prod board. Figured it fit with the current discussion.

So are we talking about racing an "IT" car in production or adding a new production car?
The way I read the proposal is

Clutch and flywheel are open, transmission is open, driveshaft is open, glass can be replaced with plastic, fiberglass body panels are allowed, new wheels with proper offsets to fit new body panels.

I don't see any big savings between this proposal and EP. Just the porting and rotating assembly work. If I am interpreting this proposal incorrectly please let me know. If it is a true (everything IT legal) plus slicks, Then that wouldn't be a bad thing.

ddewhurst
01-18-2006, 08:04 PM
***Would you call the E Production rotor motor an IT motor ?***

Nobody have a desire to answer the above ^ question. :o

***Just maybe some of us who are looking at the 1st gen RX-7 are saying let's class it with a Limited Prep IT motor.***

wlfpkrcn
01-18-2006, 08:15 PM
***Would you call the E Production rotor motor an IT motor ?***

Nobody have a desire to answer the above ^ question.

***Just maybe some of us who are looking at the 1st gen RX-7 are saying let's class it with a Limited Prep IT motor.***

An EP rotary motor is not an IT motor.
A first gen RX7 built within production rules with a limited prep IT motor is not an IT car. It is an E PRODUCTION car with an IT motor less clutch and flywheel

wlfpkrcn
01-18-2006, 08:28 PM
How about this. allow all current(first gen) production allowances and this is the spec line...Allow lightening of the rotating mass. No port modifications, and 12a brakes

ddewhurst
01-20-2006, 10:59 AM
Scott & readers, the following was posted by Jesse Prather (yes, motor shop but we ain't going to get this classing deal completed withoput the support of some KNOWN [sorry Scott] people.) on the Production site. Getting Dave Lemon & Mike V. from ISC racing would also help. Dave & Jesse worked on some serious words & pictures & presented for the description of Street Port to the CRB. Don't recall the results from the CBR/BoD but as porting stood previous nothing described Street Porting dimensionally......... The thing that is important to the IT rotor motor (all motors) is that it's an air pump. Air is allowed in & air is allowed out. The classing proposal at this time allows zero porting per the IT motor rules. But there is still a lot of increases that come from the carb, intake manifold & the exhaust. I my humble judgement we (Scott) need to include in the classing request (even tho the info falls under rotor motor IT rules) alternate intake manifold & carbs that allow increasing or decreasing air flow. We need to SHOW that we are not trying to get a class beater including providing a process to slow the car or speed up the car. I know for sure that a Spec 7 car with the OEM cast iron exhaust outlet ain't going to beat a G Production car. I can't say horsepower because then the nay sayers will jump on their white horse & ride to Topeka. Yes, I am making light of the nay sayers (not ment to be a personal putdown) but if the car is classed I will do my IT car to the max G Production car allowed & do my best to make the car proud. :unsure: ;)


Posted by Jesse:

Whew, you guys are really after it this time. Sounds like groundhog day again.

When I discuss the potential of a certain car, I like to use the fastest of a certain group of cars for the "bar". Take an ITA first gen car. Require stock fenders and an 8 X 13 inch slick which I believe will fit under the body work. Limited prep suspension just like IT and you have a starter GP car. This car will NOT beat a front running GP car.

You can start with a stock transmission only and adjust as needed. Basically an IT7 car with slicks.

I won't get into HP numbers because those don't prove jack.


On the other hand, I don't see the first gen. RX7 as a savior for any class anymore. They did the job for EP and now have gone away in the BIG numbers we used to see. FP is the up and coming class now.

There is an exemption for the rotary engine in all classes to run pump gas. On the plus side. An IT7 engine will run for multiple years if treated properly without a rebuild. I do hate those pesky Nikki carbs though. I would go for a Weber 48IDA and start the chokes small to start with. If the CRB would every consider this I could come up with some dyno information that is used on a certain National Champonship GP car and do some IT 12A work. Hmmm. We'll see. Sounds too logical.

latebrake
01-20-2006, 12:06 PM
David,I think this is a good thing and worth the effort. Best of luck and I will be watching for sure. 944 E/P

Lawrence

mustanghammer
01-22-2006, 06:26 PM
Originally posted by Hahn63@Jan 18 2006, 03:52 PM
Ok , I know I?m going to get hate mail after this post but I have to say my piece. First off for those who don?t know me I?ve been driving a first gen now going on 5 years. Raced in ITA, IT7 , EP and 12 hour enduros. All in a first gen. Was in the 2004 runoffs in the sister car to Tom Thrash and help him in 2004 with some of the development on his 2005 pole sitting car. Now I have raced my ITA car as an EP. No slicks, no motor , no brakes?just ITA trim. I can?t for the life of me wonder why in the world you guys would want to run in GP ?.with a stock motor no less. Guys, I?m telling you the cost difference your are all talking about is mute. If you think it will be cheaper to build a stock motor?.dream on ?the dyno time alone will make your head spin. Transmissions will still need rebuilt , the slicks will see to that and on and on. The grass is not greener it is the same just maybe a different variety. To win or at least do well will require the same prep and expense for all the different classes. EP is where the car belongs and a properly prepped ITA RX7 can win in ITA if driven properly.

Roland Hahn

71172


Roland,

Thanks for your response but I have to respectifully disagree. My years of building and racing cars has taught me that in general the faster a car goes the more expensive it costs to build and operate. To be sure a Full Prep H Prod car may cost more than a E Prod LP RX7. However when comparing apples to apples I cannot see how this proposed G Prod RX7 could cost as much as a similarly well turned out E Prod RX7. Right away you lose the cost of porting, 15" wheels and tires, body work and the absolute necessity to have a purpose built racing transmission.

As far as the competitivness in ITA....while I am new to IT as a participant I am not new to IT as a spectator and crew member. The golden years for a first gen RX7 in ITA are over. But this is foder for another 100 post argument.

So I guess the Miata only belongs in E Production too? What about the F Production Miata. That car will get REAL popular in the next few years. Not trying to be argumentative but there are several cars in multiple classes and I am just looking for the same opportunity for the car I own.

Thanks again for your posts.

mustanghammer
01-22-2006, 06:34 PM
Originally posted by wlfpkrcn@Jan 18 2006, 11:27 PM
I posted this on the Prod board. Figured it fit with the current discussion.

So are we talking about racing an "IT" car in production or adding a new production car?
The way I read the proposal is

Clutch and flywheel are open, transmission is open, driveshaft is open, glass can be replaced with plastic, fiberglass body panels are allowed, new wheels with proper offsets to fit new body panels.

I don't see any big savings between this proposal and EP. Just the porting and rotating assembly work. If I am interpreting this proposal incorrectly please let me know. If it is a true (everything IT legal) plus slicks, Then that wouldn't be a bad thing.

71196


Thanks for the question,

This is a request to add a new car to G Production.

Yes you are interpreting the proposal correctly. The cost savings would be as follows:

Engine Porting - Port Matching would not be allowed
Carburetion - Carb would be limited to the Niki OE carb or the IT spec'd substitute
Intake Manifold - Only OE would be allowed with some porting under the carb

Thanks for your questions

mustanghammer
01-22-2006, 06:45 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 20 2006, 02:59 PM
Scott & readers, the following was posted by Jesse Prather (yes, motor shop but we ain't going to get this classing deal completed withoput the support of some KNOWN [sorry Scott] people.) on the Production site. Getting Dave Lemon & Mike V. from ISC racing would also help. Dave & Jesse worked on some serious words & pictures & presented for the description of Street Port to the CRB. Don't recall the results from the CBR/BoD but as porting stood previous nothing described Street Porting dimensionally......... The thing that is important to the IT rotor motor (all motors) is that it's an air pump. Air is allowed in & air is allowed out. The classing proposal at this time allows zero porting per the IT motor rules. But there is still a lot of increases that come from the carb, intake manifold & the exhaust. I my humble judgement we (Scott) need to include in the classing request (even tho the info falls under rotor motor IT rules) alternate intake manifold & carbs that allow increasing or decreasing air flow. We need to SHOW that we are not trying to get a class beater including providing a process to slow the car or speed up the car. I know for sure that a Spec 7 car with the OEM cast iron exhaust outlet ain't going to beat a G Production car. I can't say horsepower because then the nay sayers will jump on their white horse & ride to Topeka. Yes, I am making light of the nay sayers (not ment to be a personal putdown) but if the car is classed I will do my IT car to the max G Production car allowed & do my best to make the car proud. :unsure: ;)
Posted by Jesse:

Whew, you guys are really after it this time. Sounds like groundhog day again.

When I discuss the potential of a certain car, I like to use the fastest of a certain group of cars for the "bar". Take an ITA first gen car. Require stock fenders and an 8 X 13 inch slick which I believe will fit under the body work. Limited prep suspension just like IT and you have a starter GP car. This car will NOT beat a front running GP car.

You can start with a stock transmission only and adjust as needed. Basically an IT7 car with slicks.

I won't get into HP numbers because those don't prove jack.
On the other hand, I don't see the first gen. RX7 as a savior for any class anymore. They did the job for EP and now have gone away in the BIG numbers we used to see. FP is the up and coming class now.

There is an exemption for the rotary engine in all classes to run pump gas. On the plus side. An IT7 engine will run for multiple years if treated properly without a rebuild. I do hate those pesky Nikki carbs though. I would go for a Weber 48IDA and start the chokes small to start with. If the CRB would every consider this I could come up with some dyno information that is used on a certain National Champonship GP car and do some IT 12A work. Hmmm. We'll see. Sounds too logical.

71386


Thanks David,

Great idea and will start contacting Rotary engine builders when I am off the road and have more time that I am stealing here.

BTW, the engine in my IT7 RX7 is now 4.5 years old and has not been apart since it was built by Prather Racing summer 2001. I beat the hell out of this engine everytime I drive it and it keeps coming back for more.

Thanks again David

ddewhurst
01-23-2006, 09:21 PM
Scott, you may have allready looked at some Fastracks at the excuses the CRB uses for not classing a car & at other baged answers they have for not accecpting classing a car or accecpting a request. They are all items to have covered with data when you forward your requst.

One response I have not viewed for a while is "No interest". Response to cover that baged line would be to provide several names with e-mail address.

Scott P.

David D.

Dick P.

&

&

&

mustanghammer
03-20-2006, 11:37 PM
No real changes - track added - but this is going to the CRB tomorrow. If you are in support, please write. the CRB.




Dear Sirs:

This is a request for the classification of the 79-85 12A Mazda RX7 into G Production as a limited preparation car with Improved Touring carburetion and an unported engine. I am making this request because I believe the performance parameters of the 12A RX7 are a good fit for G Production. I also believe that other cars currently listed in G Production set a precedent for the inclusion of the 12A RX7. Specifically these ?other? cars are the ITA and ITB classed Honda Civic/CRX Si that are listed as limited prep/IT induction engine eligible cars in G Production.

Specifics

Engine

* Unported, IT carburetion engine (this includes no port matching as specified in the ITCS)
* Allow removal of OE oil injection*
* Allow intake manifold porting under carb for first 1 inch**

** These allowances would serve to aid reliability and performance. This is in keeping with other examples of IT carburetion, limited prep cars that are allowed compression and cam changes.

Driveline

* Limited prep transmission allowances
* Limited prep clutch/flywheel allowances
* Final drive ratio unrestricted

Suspension/Brakes/Wheels

* Limited prep suspension
* GSL four wheel disk brakes (F 227mm ? R 236mm)
* 13 x 7 wheels

Weight/Track

* 2060lbs (2006 GCR E Prod. 79-85 RX7 12A Min. Wt.) minimum weight. Weight added for Limited Prep legal transmission changes.
* Front 60 inches/Rear 59 inches

I believe the inclusion of the popular 79-85 12A RX7 into G Production will bolster the numbers in this class while not upsetting the competitive balance that exists today.

Sincerely


Scott Peterson
Member 175876

ddewhurst
03-21-2006, 03:55 PM
Scott, I'll send a letter in support of your request to class the car in G Production. Might you post this same letter on the Production site in an effort to collect all the support that may be out there.

Good job :023:
David

lateapex911
03-21-2006, 04:19 PM
Just curious, what do you guys who are more "in" the Prod world think the response of the G Prod guys will be??

On one hand, they need all the cars they can get if they want a class to race in.

On the other, they might not like anything new messing in the sandbox.

Drew Aldred
03-21-2006, 04:38 PM
As a Prod guy who lurks here (lots of good general racing and car info !) I wrote a letter today supporting this request of the Mazda RX-7 into G Prod. I raced 4 seasons in GP with a Spitfire and ran last year in HP with a Scirocco. Small bore prod needs all the cars it can get, in my opinion H and G will be consolidated one day. It would be nice to still have a place to race even as a consolidated class rather than having our cars "retired" due to lack of numbers.

mustanghammer
03-22-2006, 09:38 AM
Scott, I'll send a letter in support of your request to class the car in G Production. Might you post this same letter on the Production site in an effort to collect all the support that may be out there.

Good job :023:
David
[/b]

I will get that done today. Thanks for the support



As a Prod guy who lurks here (lots of good general racing and car info !) I wrote a letter today supporting this request of the Mazda RX-7 into G Prod. I raced 4 seasons in GP with a Spitfire and ran last year in HP with a Scirocco. Small bore prod needs all the cars it can get, in my opinion H and G will be consolidated one day. It would be nice to still have a place to race even as a consolidated class rather than having our cars "retired" due to lack of numbers.
[/b]

Thanks Drew.

Coming from an existing Production Driver, your support means allot.

ddewhurst
03-23-2006, 05:53 PM
Scott, letter sent. ;)

Come on RX-7 owners, if you agree with the request to class the RX-7 LP/RS in G Production please send your support letter. The more the better.

JeffW
03-25-2006, 07:03 PM
Hey Guys,

Take a look at the Prod Board. A GP Datsun 510 driver wants Scott's proposal put in FP and then add about 220 lb to the proposal to allow it in GP. Since he has a dog in this fight, his motivations are pretty transparent. It's basically "Not In My Back Yard" :018: . He wants to severely hamstring a new competitor in the class to insure his own success. Sounds like some of the Spridget crowd in Prod. Livin' in the Good Ol' Days.

I will be writing a letter in support of the proposal as it is written.

Jeff

ddewhurst
03-25-2006, 08:52 PM
Jeff, WE can use all the help available especially all the Production owners/drivers WE can get. IIRC he didn't mind the car in G as long as the weight was at the current ITA weight. I'll take that at 2280 at the get go rather than not being classed in G period. For what it's worth people in the past have requested the car be classed in F & it's been turned down. $hit the CRX is in ITA & F & I don't see a 1st gen rx-7 that can come close to beating a CRX in ITA trim. Never happen in F Production without porting.

I hope there are some behind the secens Production people who have been favorable in the past who write letters.

Way to many of the H & G people are protecting their turff & IMHJ because of them protecting their turff the numbers will fail H & G will get merged. Hope WE are there. :birra:

mustanghammer
03-27-2006, 09:54 AM
Hey Guys,

Take a look at the Prod Board. A GP Datsun 510 driver wants Scott's proposal put in FP and then add about 220 lb to the proposal to allow it in GP. Since he has a dog in this fight, his motivations are pretty transparent. It's basically "Not In My Back Yard" :018: . He wants to severely hamstring a new competitor in the class to insure his own success. Sounds like some of the Spridget crowd in Prod. Livin' in the Good Ol' Days.

I will be writing a letter in support of the proposal as it is written.

Jeff
[/b]

Thanks Jeff.

While I would hate to add too much weight to my proposed GP RX7 a letter from an exisiting GP driver is a good thing. As far as protecting their turf? I can't blame anyone for doing that.

In production trim I can get my pig to 2280 without a problem. If after a few years if the car needs help them perhaps the weight can come off.

As David said, lets get in the game!

Thanks for your letter of support!

lateapex911
03-27-2006, 02:58 PM
I am surprised at the acceptance of a weight that you guys deem 200 pounds heavy, "just to get in the game", as you say.

How does the prod Ad Hoc committee actually set the weight? What is the "proper" weight for the car in the class?? There has to be a concrete and standard answer rather than "Well, it depends on how it does", LOL. (Thats not to say that their first answer will be spot on, and all factors will have been estimated correctly, but, as the car is a known entity in ITA, and this configuration is close to an IT setup, they DO have a good start in determining weight.)



But I'm not sure why racing in a class where you are known to be 200 pounds heavy would have any attraction.....

mustanghammer
03-28-2006, 11:17 AM
I am surprised at the acceptance of a weight that you guys deem 200 pounds heavy, "just to get in the game", as you say.

How does the prod Ad Hoc committee actually set the weight? What is the "proper" weight for the car in the class?? There has to be a concrete and standard answer rather than "Well, it depends on how it does", LOL. (Thats not to say that their first answer will be spot on, and all factors will have been estimated correctly, but, as the car is a known entity in ITA, and this configuration is close to an IT setup, they DO have a good start in determining weight.)
But I'm not sure why racing in a class where you are known to be 200 pounds heavy would have any attraction.....
[/b]

Good question, I don't know. The Produciton VTS sheet asks for IT class and weights so they would likely use that information to determine minimum weights. The VTS also asked for the desired weight of the car in the proposal. My request is based on the listed wieghts for cars in the class, the wheel widths allowed and the base weight of an EP RX7. Will they use that? Don't know.

I think the difference between having an over-weight car in IT and Produciton is that in production adjustments occur more rapidly. So there is more cause for hope that correcting adjustments would be made sooner rather than later. This may be a "grass is greener " assumption on my part but my friends in EP have certainly had more adjusts applied to their car and class than I have in the last three years. It is a certainty that you can only get an adjustment for a car that is classed.

I think we would be naive to assume that they are going to class any car as being instantly competitive. Actually their track record seems to indicate the opposite. So there is the risk that we are throwing a party that no one will come to. Nobody knows the answer unless somebody asks the question.

JeffW
03-28-2006, 12:14 PM
I don't have a GCR in front of me (and fishing through the online version is a PITA), but what kind of weight break did the Hondacuras get in the move from IT to Prod? That may me useful in determining if the proposed weight is close.

I have a straight, non-sunroof 1982 tub located in anticipation of this going through.

Production has appealed to me since I first got interested in SCCA, but listening to Spridget and 510 drivers talk about $10-$15K motors that need to be rebuilt every season was not very encouraging. I went with a 1st Gen in Spec7 because of the reliability factor, and to use it as a learning platform to eventually do a 1st Gen in EP. The GP proposal will be a great stepping stone. Or even a great final destination.

With Spridgets already classed in F, G, and H, and the Miata in F and G, and...,the precedent has already been set for having the same car at different prep levels in Production. Let's hope the CRB doesn't shoot themselves in the foot.

Jeff

lateapex911
03-28-2006, 01:15 PM
Another question for you guys, and thanks for the considered answers...but what kind of supplies are you anticipating for the down the road rebuilds? It seems like things like side plates are gettign pretty thin, or expensive, and a lot of shops (Like ISC in FL) are bailing fromt the 1st gen altogether.

Do you have a secret stash?? ;)

ddewhurst
03-28-2006, 02:45 PM
Jake, as a owner driver of a 1st gen & an ITAC member how about pretending for a moment you had a desire to race your car in G Production. How about a positive stroke for your friends (IT racers) who would like the car classed in G Production. :D It's another option classs to race with. From my perspective the Production folks should be happy that people would like their car of choice classed in an attempt to increase the race class size. I understand the on track difference of full prep cars & limited prep cars.

The fact that ISC is following a current trend is not a news flash to many of us. I could name some shops in the North East as could you that are serveing the Spec Miata crowd. They are business people.


***I'll take that at 2280 at the get go rather than not being classed in G period.***

This sentence ^ kind of says what it needs to say. ;)

mustanghammer
03-28-2006, 02:47 PM
Another question for you guys, and thanks for the considered answers...but what kind of supplies are you anticipating for the down the road rebuilds? It seems like things like side plates are gettign pretty thin, or expensive, and a lot of shops (Like ISC in FL) are bailing fromt the 1st gen altogether.

Do you have a secret stash?? ;)
[/b]

Man you are just a fountain of positive energy B) Just kidding!

I have considered this and I have a stash of unknown quality that I am adding to. I picked up a running 85 GSL for two cases of beer (domestic no less) and another 85 GS non-runner for $100.00. I plan on parting out the "beer" car and making a streeter out of the other one.

I plan to use this experience to learn how these cars work.

For what it is worth, the "racing" engine in my IT7 car starts it's 5th season this weekend. Given that an IT7 engine and the proposed GP engine are the same thing then maybe engine parts won't be that big of an issue....for awhile.

lateapex911
03-28-2006, 04:22 PM
Ummm ok David. I said, "Thanks for your considered response"...sorry if I didn't come off positive enough. I was merely asking pertinent questions. ANd the engine issue IS an issue, but it's good to know that there are still bits available.

I am sure you aren't aware, but on ITAC biz that involves bigger picture thinking, I am always bringing up points to make migrating from IT to prod easier.

JeffW
03-28-2006, 05:45 PM
Miata in E and F. I knew that.

A friend is building a BMW Z3 for EP. It is currently classed in ITA with the 1st Gen (This could start the whole 1st Gen to ITB discussion again.) He is considering asking the CRB for the Z3 to be listed in FP with the IT engine in the name of reliablity. None of these requests is breaking new ground.

Jeff

mustanghammer
03-28-2006, 06:18 PM
I am sure you aren't aware, but on ITAC biz that involves bigger picture thinking, I am always bringing up points to make migrating from IT to prod easier.
[/b]

Thanks for your efforts in this regard.



Miata in E and F. I knew that.

A friend is building a BMW Z3 for EP. It is currently classed in ITA with the 1st Gen (This could start the whole 1st Gen to ITB discussion again.) He is considering asking the CRB for the Z3 to be listed in FP with the IT engine in the name of reliablity. None of these requests is breaking new ground.

Jeff
[/b]

You can run a FWD VW in every production class if you want to. There are LP and non-LP VW's in the same class.

This is also true of Honda Civic/CRX in G and F.

RX767
04-04-2006, 04:17 PM
Scott,
Again, thank you for putting together this proposal. I sent a letter of support on 3/29.
Were you give any timeline in regard to when this request would be considered.

All the best,
Bill Emery

mustanghammer
04-05-2006, 08:26 AM
Scott,
Again, thank you for putting together this proposal. I sent a letter of support on 3/29.
Were you give any timeline in regard to when this request would be considered.

All the best,
Bill Emery
[/b]

Nothing specific regarding time. A return e-mail stated that the proposal woudl receive offical review and that I would be contacted for additional information as needed.

Thanks for your letter of support. I spoke to several drivers at last weekends race at HPT and the idea was well received. This included some current GP drivers and they liked it too.

mustanghammer
04-20-2006, 05:50 PM
Well, they - the CRB - said no.

Check out page 5 of the May fastrack.

I am not terribly surprised or disappointed with the result. However the answer is Very disappointing. I realize that there are space constraints but I cannot believe that the answer fits the true reason for the rejection.

A bummer but at least I get to race my car and tune on an ITE Mustang this weekend!

At any rate, thanks to all that responded both positively and negatively. I was frankly surpised by the interest allot of you had for the idea. Too bad the CRB didn't see it the same way.

Thanks again

ddewhurst
04-21-2006, 07:11 AM
Thanks Scott :birra:

Jim Susko
04-22-2006, 06:27 PM
Scott,

I like this idea because of the opportunity to run in a national class relatively cheaply. My own circumstances would probably preclude doing so right away--just got married at 60, a five year old came with the package and there is one on the way--but I am far from being over the hill as far as racing is concerned.

I especially like the IT engine part. I built my engine probably eight or nine years ago, grinding my side plates on a rotary table and lapping them by hand with soap and water using 220 grit wet-dry paper on a piece of glass plate for a sanding block. After all these years the engine was strong enough to set fastest lap at the ARRC a few years ago, though a transmission problem kept me from the podium. There is a certain appeal to never having to touch your motor. I don't like the idea of cracking the lower end, however, to go to the trouble and expense of lightened rotors or any of that stuff. I still run the cast iron apex seals, too. All of my power is from attention to detail on the outside and fine tuning on the dyno to assure A/F is right.

I just bought two brand new sets of Panasport wheels a couple years ago and don't like the idea of throwing those away, either. The 13 inch tires on a very light car would probably do well in the class, and are far easier to fit, lower the center of gravity and frontal area for a given optimal geometry, are lighter, and have considerably less rotational inertia under braking and acceleration. The low power of the IT engine would compliment this combination. All I might need is a set of spacers to run the wider slicks.

Taking stuff off to lighten the car is cheap, too. Running without the now problematic stock wiring harness buried under the dash would be heaven.

Have you considered asking the Competition Board if there is any set of circumstances they would consider to allow a very, very limited prep first gen in GP, ASSUMING the car would be specified not to be an overdog? Their response would indicate a direction you could go to get the car in. Otherwise you could submit a million responses with no feedback until you just get lucky. Or by that time they would be tired of you and wouldn't give you the time of day. I am a believer of understanding a problem is the first step to solving it, and much easier.

Incidently, I have not followed GP so I don't know what a good lap time for a GP car is at Mid-Ohio or Road Atlanta to compare to my own times, which I beleve are probably right up there with any legal ITA or IT7 car. Can anybody give me a number?

Jim Susko
G-Force Engineering

mustanghammer
04-24-2006, 06:07 PM
Scott,

I like this idea because of the opportunity to run in a national class relatively cheaply. My own circumstances would probably preclude doing so right away--just got married at 60, a five year old came with the package and there is one on the way--but I am far from being over the hill as far as racing is concerned.

I especially like the IT engine part. I built my engine probably eight or nine years ago, grinding my side plates on a rotary table and lapping them by hand with soap and water using 220 grit wet-dry paper on a piece of glass plate for a sanding block. After all these years the engine was strong enough to set fastest lap at the ARRC a few years ago, though a transmission problem kept me from the podium. There is a certain appeal to never having to touch your motor. I don't like the idea of cracking the lower end, however, to go to the trouble and expense of lightened rotors or any of that stuff. I still run the cast iron apex seals, too. All of my power is from attention to detail on the outside and fine tuning on the dyno to assure A/F is right.

I just bought two brand new sets of Panasport wheels a couple years ago and don't like the idea of throwing those away, either. The 13 inch tires on a very light car would probably do well in the class, and are far easier to fit, lower the center of gravity and frontal area for a given optimal geometry, are lighter, and have considerably less rotational inertia under braking and acceleration. The low power of the IT engine would compliment this combination. All I might need is a set of spacers to run the wider slicks.

Taking stuff off to lighten the car is cheap, too. Running without the now problematic stock wiring harness buried under the dash would be heaven.

Have you considered asking the Competition Board if there is any set of circumstances they would consider to allow a very, very limited prep first gen in GP, ASSUMING the car would be specified not to be an overdog? Their response would indicate a direction you could go to get the car in. Otherwise you could submit a million responses with no feedback until you just get lucky. Or by that time they would be tired of you and wouldn't give you the time of day. I am a believer of understanding a problem is the first step to solving it, and much easier.

Incidently, I have not followed GP so I don't know what a good lap time for a GP car is at Mid-Ohio or Road Atlanta to compare to my own times, which I beleve are probably right up there with any legal ITA or IT7 car. Can anybody give me a number?

Jim Susko
G-Force Engineering
[/b]

Thanks Jim,

Congrats on the marriage and the new family!

I considered allot of aspects when I created the request. Cost, reliability, and ease transition from IT. I think it hits on all of those but I do not believe that any production car is ever cheap. However this seems more managable than an EP car in a few areas.

A letter will be written that addresses the answer that was provided in Fastrack. I had several conversations this weekend I believe I have a strategy for getting closer to the truth.

My background is from Solo II - I ran a CP car and attended Solo II Nationals in CP for 13 straight years - and I find it strange that the rules making process in Club Racing is not more collaborative. In Solo II new cars are classed without anyone asking for a class. Often new cars are classed deep into the class structure that Solo II offers, not just Stock. So a driver has a choice of Stock, Street Prepared, Prepared, etc without much effort. Not so in Club Racing, apparently

On the one hand the BOD is threatening to combine National classes and or drop certain National Classes from the Run-Offs. While on the other hand the CRB is refusing to add any new cars to mix that might increase numbers. I may not have submitted a good or reasonable request but I would expect an accurate answer to that effect. Or at least a suggestion as to what could be done. Isn't the deal that more cars are needed in the H and G production classes?

At the R/N this last weekend Chris Albin turned a 1:45.8 in GP and an ITA RX7 turned a 1:48.8 on the same day so there is three seconds. The ITA RX7 was piloted by Dave VandeBerg and he is fast. If I recall Chris who won GP was 2-3 seconds off of Kent Prather at the Run Off's last year. So my math has it at 5-6 seconds difference. However this is certanly not scientific and kind of like comparing the '27 Yankees to their modern day counerparts to see who is the better ball team.

JeffW
04-24-2006, 07:37 PM
Scott,

Good Luck on your quest to get a more detailed explanation of the answer.

Another approach that we might take is to contact our Area Directors. The "...doesn't fit the current philosphy..." argument will be hard to pin down. If you go through the GCR, you will find approximately 25 cars that are listed in 2 or more Production classes. Pointing this out to the AD will show that the precedent has been set for multiple classifications (Prep Levels) of the same base car. If having another 1st Generation RX-7 in another Production class doesn't fit the current philosophy, then I don't know what does . By going through your Area Director, your voice has a better chance of being heard. And as a courtesy, inform your RE that you are going to the AD. Even an RE who drives an open wheel car :D would have to lend his support to this.

And with respect to the "focus on classing newer cars" argument, let's face it. Most of the offerings presented by the world's manufacturers in the past 30+ years have not been "Sports Cars". There have been a few exceptions like the Datsun Z cars, RX7's, and Miata's. But Neons, Saturns, Honda Civics, and Volkswagens don't have the same allure as a 911, Z3, or Sunbeam Tiger. The popularity of the Miata can be attributed to its close resemblence to the old Lotus Elan (and reasonable price.)

Jeff

ddewhurst
04-25-2006, 08:08 AM
Scott & Jeff, the thing that gets under my skin is that the request is for a IT SPEC MOTOR & the CRB said. Well you know what they said. The CRB has also said they will no longer class full prep cars.

The thing that really gets me is that WE don't a have as clue the real reason for the rejection & the CRB is not required to treat WE the CUSTOMER like any other company needs to treat a customer. In my thoughts the minimum requirement by the CRB should be for them to return some information on how to be successful getting the request completed.

If there is anything I can do for support please drop a line. [email protected]

Drew Aldred
04-25-2006, 09:58 AM
Scott,

Ya got hosed by the powers that be !!! I hope they will provide some answers to you (and all of us) on what would need to be done to get this car classed in GP. "Doesn't fit current philosophy" is just another phrase for "we don't feel like it, so it's not gonna happen" Ask the CRB how the "hybrid" 1275 Spridget with full prep suspension that was just recently allowed into H Prod fits into ANY current philosophy !!!!


Shouldn&#39;t there be a rule that if X amount of members support a car classification at a certain spec, then it shall be classed ???? After all when I get my email reply back from a letter I&#39;ve sent in, I&#39;m always thanked for my imput and how SCCA is a member driven organization.......... <_<

Keep us posted on any progress, or if you need help with anything. Good luck on your 2006 racing season.

ggnagy
04-25-2006, 11:17 AM
Until we hear more from the CRB, "not consistant with class philosophy" could mean anything. It could be based on the "alleady classed" false canard, the " another prep level" false canard, or it could be based simply on the fact that there is nothing to put on the "spec camshaft" line and that befuzzled someone.

What really bothers me is that there was no other information that was forthcoming on just who said what. Item after item in the fastrack will tess us how many people were for or against a non-specified widget for a Formula wombat, but there was not even a tally of letters for/against the classification. Of course that&#39;s probably because the letters were overwhelmingly for the former, and they chose the latter.
What also pissed me off, but I am suprised that no one else on the prod board commented, is that a kit car is being given more consideration than the GP rx7.

The fact that Jim from G-Force responded after the response in Fastrack makes me wonder if perhaps one of the things the proposal was missing was letters of support from G-Force, Mazdatrix ,Mazda Comp and others.

lateapex911
04-25-2006, 11:25 AM
.......makes me wonder if perhaps one of the things the proposal was missing was letters of support from G-Force, Mazdatrix ,Mazda Comp and others.
[/b]

or Mazdas advertising department....

...but lets face it, even they are hard pressed to care about a 30 yr old car in an obscure class these days.

The guys who should be most let down by this are the current GP & HP (esp) drivers...they need cars to show up.

Jim Susko
04-25-2006, 12:43 PM
GGNAGY WROTE "The fact that Jim from G-Force responded after the response in Fastrack makes me wonder if perhaps one of the things the proposal was missing was letters of support from G-Force, Mazdatrix ,Mazda Comp and others."

Guilty as charged, I guess. I recieved several notes urging me to write. The reason I didn&#39;t write was three fold.

I have been too busy, for one.

Secondly, I have written probably ten letters over the last seven years both to the Competition Board and the BOD to try to get some competitive adjustment or reclassing of the ITA RX7. I supplied exhaustive data once showing that at the ARRC the best of the IT7 class was fully three to four seconds slower than the ITA cars, and just among the fastest ITB cars, where it probably belongs. Why anyone would object that a sports car shouldn&#39;t be at the top of B rather than a VW Rabbit or some grocery getter is a mystery to me. Besides, moving the car to B would mean a rim width reduction and that would probably keep the Mazda just competitive, not an overdog. As I recall, several insiders at the national office confirmed that a Comp Board advisor who drove a Honda and a BOD member whose son also drove a Honda made sure any such proposal died. They all quit in disgust of this common occurrance.

So after finally getting a competitive adjustment, I didn&#39;t think it would be good form for me to suddenly ask to be allowed to compete in yet another class, before whe have allowed the competitive adjustement in ITA a chance.

Finally, due to personal committments (marriage, new baby, etc.) I have tapered off my racing and don&#39;t really have the competitive data ready to present to the Competition board to bolster any suggestions. As you know, you never get feedback or guidance from the board and an unresearched and unsupported suggestion is immediate death, and one can quickly lose one&#39;s credibility. Plus the board is far too busy to do our work for us.

Perhaps someone should ask exactly what the class philosophy of the Production class is, especially since the board obviously did a pullback by adding the Mazda in EP as an optional limited allowance car because things had simply gone too far. If you know the ancient history of the Production class in the fifties it started out as a Showroom Stock class, and then people started asking for all the "safety allowances" and they went down the slippery slope to today&#39;s "anything goes" (very expensive) class. Why they should do a turnabout from from a laudable effort to correct some of the errors of the past is the real mystery to me. If anything, the new proposal should be the wave of the future.

Why is it so important to spend tons of money to have fun? When a well prepared ITA car can start with a $500 junker and still run up to $20,000 and more even before it hits the track (I hear the Comp Board advisor with the Honda spent $30,000 on his in order to win the ARRC with a hired driver) it seems ludicrous.

Jim Susko

JeffW
10-17-2006, 11:44 PM
Heard a rumor that this proposal may not be dead after all. A BoD member at the Runoffs supposedly discussed it as a way to bolster G-Prod numbers and protect G-Prod from Runoffs Extinction with the addition of B & D Prepared, F1000, and the realignment of T1, T2, T3, T4.

Did anybody else hear anything at the CRB tent meeting or the Prod meeting?

Maybe a second round of letters to the CRB and the BoD is in order. :unsure:

Jeff

ddewhurst
10-18-2006, 08:44 PM
***Heard a rumor that this proposal may not be dead after all. A BoD member at the Runoffs supposedly discussed it as a way to bolster G-Prod numbers***

Jeff, please provide some facts. Who is the BoD member & who did the discussion ? Non-ported at 2100 pounds I have interest but not with some bolster the field rules. There is no reason that we seasoned IT 1st gen RX-7 owners should be second classs racers.

I hope you are correct ;)
David

ps: Maybe we should each get the ear of our BoD person, ask some questions & push for classing the 1st gen RX-7 in G Production. We might get some hint if there is any truth to your rumor.

mustanghammer
10-18-2006, 10:18 PM
Heard a rumor that this proposal may not be dead after all. A BoD member at the Runoffs supposedly discussed it as a way to bolster G-Prod numbers and protect G-Prod from Runoffs Extinction with the addition of B & D Prepared, F1000, and the realignment of T1, T2, T3, T4.

Did anybody else hear anything at the CRB tent meeting or the Prod meeting?

Maybe a second round of letters to the CRB and the BoD is in order. :unsure:

Jeff
[/b]

Yes, where did you hear this?

I attended the CRB Production Tent meeting and didn&#39;t here anything about this specifically. I did miss the first 5-10 minutes however.

I went to the meeting to listen and learn and here is what I got out of the experience:

It is hard to get a straight or definitive answer in that setting. Many competitors tried but they didn&#39;t get anywhere. It must be the nature of the beast because the Solo II Town Meetings I attended at the Solo Nationals were the same deal.

Listening to what is said and the comments that were made by the CRB I did draw a few conclusions:

1. The compeiitors that were in attendence were against the combination of H and G Production. The CRB members seemed to support this however they also pointed out that there are not many cars that fit in H being manufactured these days. They want to class new cars but they don&#39;t know what those cars would be.

2. There is allot of confusion over the meaning of limited prep. Many commented that a limited prep car is not cheaper than a full prep car and can be hard to make competitive.

3. The CRB basically told Chris Albin that his Golf may never be competitive in G Prod as there is nothing more that can give him. That was fairly shocking and depressing.

From the whole Runoff&#39;s experience I came to the conclusion that limited prep only works for a few cars in F and E Production. Thankfully the E Production RX7 is one of those cars.

As far as a G Prod RX7 I think we should ask again however I doubt the car would ever be competitive in the current rules making environment. I spent some time with some G Prod racers and the HP numbers being generated by 510&#39;s is really impressive. Hard to get there with a 12A that is not ported.

For what it is worth here are the reason my original proposal was turned down:

1. The perception is that the car is too fast for G and too slow for F
2. The car is too old for consideration
3. The car already has a good home in E Production
4. A "stock" engine would represent a new prep level in production.

Reasons 1, 2, and 4 are BS and reason 3 is a crutch.

JeffW
10-19-2006, 01:38 AM
I was not at Topeka. This was about a 3rd or 4th generation rumor and I was hoping somebody might have been closer to the source and could have confirmed the conversation. Didn&#39;t get the BoD member&#39;s name or the other principal in the discussion. Sounds like it may have been a conversation held on the side and not part of the Tent Meetings.

Scott,

The 4 reasons listed for denying the proposal are ALL blatant BS. Especially the "a new prep level..." Pick up the GCR. There are already 25+ cars listed in 2 or 3 levels of the PCS. The precedent has already been set. I think a lawyer might present those 25 cars as supporting case law.

The car is too old??? What were they doing when they created the Hybrid Rolling Oil Puddle?

Let&#39;s face it. The Olde Guard&#39;s problem with this proposal is the rotary&#39;s reliability and simplicity. If you aren&#39;t putting new squirrels on the cage wheel every season, then you obviously aren&#39;t committed enough to join the Production community in their eyes. One needs to dump buckets of money (repeatedly) into the engine to have the opportunity to pray that it lasts a season before one can be a true Prod guy.

David,

I like your idea of having everyone pester his local BoD member. If you don&#39;t have easy access, start with your RE.

The common procedure when a new car is classed in Prod is to class it as a backmarker, have the drivers enter about 3 - 5 years of races as a backmarker, then graciously accept the 30# weight reduction when offered. Remember, you have to show your commitment to the Fraternity.

Wish I had more info on who was discussing it. But the idea that it was being discussed 5 or 6 month&#39;s after the CRB denied the request gives us some hope.

If anybody else knows anything, speak up.

Jeff

ddewhurst
10-19-2006, 08:48 AM
Jeff, Scott & other interested folks I will be sending the CRB a letter requesting a factual understandable response to their Fastrack BS response to not having the car classed in G Production per the request.

Fastrack (month included) response to classing the 1st gen Mazda RX-7 in G Production:

"Creating another level of prep is inconsistant with class philosophy."

Question number one:

As you the CRB stated in your Fastrack response per above that classing the 1st gen Mazda RX-7 non-ported creates another level of prep what is your concern?

In my humble visual understanding there are all ready many spec lines & I highly dought that the tech folks remember each & every existing spec line today.

Question number two:

You the CRB used the words "class philosophy" within your Fastrack response. Within what page of the GCR/PCS is the Production car philosophy documented? If the Production car philosophy is not documented please document the Production car philosophy including forwarding a copy to my home address which is David Dewhurst 2551 North 67th Street Wauwatosa, WI 53213.

End of letter...........


I been going to the Runoffs for ten years & last year was my first & LAST tent meeting. My only intention was to listen which I did, but I had a hell of a time keeping from laughing. The responses to questions were the same as the responses in Fastrack & the good ol boys were all yucking it up for their traditionalsist Production car budys that dates in years gone by.

Scott, it was good meeting you at the Runoffs & my intention was to talk more about the RX-7 in G Production.

Have Fun ;)
David

mustanghammer
10-19-2006, 02:43 PM
It was good to meet you too David. Sorry our pathes didn&#39;t cross more often.

I plan on dusting off my original proposal and making some additions to it. I will request several carb specs and all of the EP mods for the rotors. This will not be a stock motor and it will not be an IT motor either. Frankly there are no IT engines in Prod only mildly souped up motors breathing through IT spec induction. The proposed engine will still not be ported. As always I will post here and on the Prod site for opinions before submitting the proposal.

I also plan on answering the 4 reasons for rejecting the original proposal as well.

The original proposal was killed by the Ad Hoc committee and not the CRB in my opinion. Based on what I saw in the tent meeting and other produciton dealings that I am familar with the Ad Hoc committe is the real gate keeper. The CRB merely referees the process and sets guidelines for the Ad Hoc committee to follow. I may be wrong but why would so many new uncompetitive Prod clasifications be hitting the GCR if the CRB was setting the specs?

I&#39;ll have something in a couple of weeks. More IT racing to do!

ddewhurst
10-19-2006, 06:05 PM
Scott, keep in mind that the CRB is who responds in the Fastrack. With the info that you posted in your previous post are you geting the posted info from your inside guy ? I would think we might have better progress if we knew WHO killed the last classing request. I would beleive that if it&#39;s the adhock who is killing things, that&#39;s all wrong. I thought their job was to investigate items to save the CRB time. Investigate, not make decisions. I been wrong before this year once or twice. :o

In my mind I can&#39;t see anything wrong having a LP/Restricted Suspension with an IT motor. Before the LP rules started going south the name of the game in 1996 & 1997 when LP came to life per the Fastrack article Sept 1997 was to be "Back to Basics" where "What the Comp Board has created it hopes is a car that the average person can build and maintain in his garage and then run as a serious challenge in National club races." Ask your inside man if these quoted words were fact in 1997. Beleive me the car non-ported is not going to blow away Kent Prather or some of the other big guns at Nationals or the Runoffs. What&#39;s your times as compared to Kent&#39;s times on common tracks? Also the club leaders are realising that the LP rules have gone South & cost is again getting out of control. What I hear kind of openly is that things are going to get realed back in. The sooner the better. Of course the folks at the sharp end are saying open em up & lets play hard ball to which I say to their faces, if ya want to open the rules why don&#39;t ya step up to the plate & do a GT car. Then the frowns come across their faces.

Have Fun ;)
David

ddewhurst
10-19-2006, 07:38 PM
Scott, you have a pm. :024: