Prep Differences Between SM and ITx

[Greg Amy]

Can someone detail for me what is allowed in Spec Miata that is not allowed in Improved Touring? In other words, what is it about a fully-prepped '99+ SM that is not compliant to ITS? Or what about a '90 or '95 SM that is not compliant for ITA?

For background, I'm asking for Scrutineering purposes in Super Touring Light. There's a lot of confusion - and outright cheating - that is causing some consternation among scrutineers.

I'd make a personal comment about "leave it to the Spec Miata crowd to f**k up a good thing" but I won't...

- GA

[Ed Funk]

You are the very epitome of restraint.

[ner88]

Mainly power steering rack. SM allows one to de-power the rack. The cars were available with manual racks but 99% are de-powered, mainly because manual racks are hard to find and can only be purchases new(new 99' manual rack is $580.)

On 1990-1993 or 1.6 cars, SM rules allow the later torsen dif. but it also is not IT complient.

SSM rules do not require a kill switch

[Chip42]

rear diff carrier and some allowed suspension (brake?) component swaps between years with same body but different engine is a big SM allowance difference from IT. SM has to maintain more stock components and only recently was allowed over-bores and the like and then only with added weight.

you see a fair amount of double dipper SM guys in IT who are in breach of IT rules. I'm sure you see the same in ST. ST requires one hell of a scrutineer.

[mossaidis]

I believe SM folks swap transmissions beyond the spec line years listed in IT. Jerry - please confirm.

[ner88]

I believe SM folks swap transmissions beyond the spec line years listed in IT. Jerry - please confirm.
although its possible, there really is no difference, gear ratios are all the same...
how would you know if a 142 Volvo or Opel GT has the original gear box???

[mossaidis]

I guess tranny codes. I know there's the rules and there's cheatin. Doesn't sound like trannies swapped out of an 90 into 98 or vice versa is cheatin'.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I would think that the 99+ SM's are running SM weight and taking out their RP's...keeping them legal for ITS. No allowances for those cars that would be illegal in ITS come to mind except ride height, but that applies to all three versions (1.6, 1.8 and 1.8 99+).

I can't think of anything for the 1.8's that would be illegal for ITA either except the mentioned de-powered steering rack for all years.

The 1.6 is a different issue. Conversion to the 94-05 diff assembly is legal in SM but not in IT as has been stated too, but they probably have the 4.3 gear in there per the SM rules, not that it matters.

Why types of issues are we seeing that are resulting in problems? As long as they are running IT weights, the cars are certainly not more potent.

[ner88]

Pulling the RP and running SM weigh on a 99', without a manual rack, that's the problem, it's not SM or ITS.

[gran racing]

Isn't the manual rack better in these cars?

[Dano77]

De powering is legal and cheap. I dont recall the manual rack being 580.00 faster than the power rack.

But im a cheap IT7 driver.

[ner88]

99' manual racks are rare used....
New they are about $400. plus core charge of $150.
They don't take a core unless its a manual :-( and Mazdaspeed won't take the core, you need to find a deal willing to take it back.......

[Greg Amy]

Why types of issues are we seeing that are resulting in problems?
I don't want to get into the details, but it's a combination of regs ignorance (in the true sense of the word, not intended to be derogatory) and willful intent. As Chip noted, you almost need to be a rocket scientist to figure out the allowance matrix, and you need to be 100% on top of the regs of three separate categories - one Regional Only - to ensure you've got it right. And, some folks are taking advantage of that by intentionally trying to mix-n-match regs, with the intent to maximize performance to collect contingencies and points in the Majors events.

My goal is to produce an at-a-glance matrix so that the competitors will be able to efficiently decide what config to run, and for the scrutineers to efficiently tech the cars' configuration. In addition, I'm going to ask the CRB to require STL competitors that are not running to STL-specific prep to declare, on the side of their cars, what config they're prepped to.

STL has, without a doubt, benefited from explicit inclusion of other classes into its folds. I just want to ensure that this inclusion does not end up alienating other competitors from joining in. Come in clean and you are most welcome to join us; come in trying to cheat and piss all over the class and I'm gonna be busy writing a lot of paper...

- GA

[Prof. Chaos]

Maybe I just wasn’t taking advantage of the rules in IT when I ran an ITA Miata, but my impression is that a built SM motor does not comply with IT rules:

Spec Miata 9.1.7.1.h.2
A valve job will consist of only three flat angles; radius cuts are not allowed. A 45 degree seat angle must be used, which may vary in width from .030 inch to .050 inch. To narrow or correctly position the face angle, a bottom angle of 70 degrees must be used. To narrow or correctly position the face angle, a top cut of 30 degrees may be used. All angles must stay on the cast steel block portion of the seat. The angles must not extend off the seat into the aluminum casting at the top or bottom of the seat.

And have someone who has built a full-on IT car read through 9.1.7.1.f (cylinder head). I never was sure about SM’s unshrouding of valves meeting IT rules, or the reference to plunge cutting in 9.1.7.1.f.3.

[mossaidis]

Pulling the RP and running SM weigh on a 99', without a manual rack, that's the problem, it's not SM or ITS.

I think that happened to 99 SM cars somewhere around my garage all weekend last NHMS event. Guys were pulling RP off their 99 SM to run ITS... and doing nothing else. (shrug)

[mossaidis]

Maybe I just wasn’t taking advantage of the rules in IT when I ran an ITA Miata, but my impression is that a built SM motor does not comply with IT rules:

Spec Miata 9.1.7.1.h.2
A valve job will consist of only three flat angles; radius cuts are not allowed. A 45 degree seat angle must be used, which may vary in width from .030 inch to .050 inch. To narrow or correctly position the face angle, a bottom angle of 70 degrees must be used. To narrow or correctly position the face angle, a top cut of 30 degrees may be used. All angles must stay on the cast steel block portion of the seat. The angles must not extend off the seat into the aluminum casting at the top or bottom of the seat.

And have someone who has built a full-on IT car read through 9.1.7.1.f (cylinder head). I never was sure about SM’s unshrouding of valves meeting IT rules, or the reference to plunge cutting in 9.1.7.1.f.3.

Me thinking if IT allowance for "balance and blueprint" in combination of allowable engine tolerances as define in the factory manual applies here. but don't know...

[Gregg]

In addition to the diff housing & steering rack stuff mentioned previously...

9.1.7.1.p.8 -- Honk..honk.. (but at least the washer bottle can go)
9.1.7.4.c -- Updating subframe braces to those from a '97. That wouldn't be legal for a 1.6l
9.1.7.4.l -- Strut brace not allowed for 99+'s in SM (allowed in IT)
9.1.7.6.a -- Not limited to 13+lbs/wheel in IT
9.1.7.8.d -- IT not limited to OEM door mirrors and restricted location as in SM rules

[tom91ita]

Looks like 18 of the 22 cars entered on STL for the June Sprints are miatae.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think that happened to 99 SM cars somewhere around my garage all weekend last NHMS event. Guys were pulling RP off their 99 SM to run ITS... and doing nothing else. (shrug)

This is totally legal for ITS.

[mossaidis]

This is totally legal for ITS.

Thanks Andy. So min weights are fine then.

[Greg Amy]

This is totally legal for ITS.
...as long as they don't have any SM-compliant mods that are non-compliant to the ITCS (see above head work, rack and pinion, etc).

- GA

[ShelbyRacer]

I, too, was going to mention the head work. From my understanding, the gains certainly are a performance advantage. From working at a machine shop, I have a pretty liberal interpretation of "balance and blueprint", but that work ain't B&B.

I also was told, however, that the lack of factory specification made enforcement "unreasonably difficult", and that this allowance was specifically implemented to standardize things for purposes of simpler enforcement and equalization. Granted, that doesn't mean jack for IT compliance.

[ner88]

So, IT allows port matching and SM does not or headers for that matter.
Is the allowable head modifications a greater advantage for SM or are the IT allowances greater?
Just askin???

[Chip42]

So, IT allows port matching and SM does not or headers for that matter.
Is the allowable head modifications a greater advantage for SM or are the IT allowances greater?
Just askin???

how about "different"

It's no secret that guys are getting 125+ whp from 1.6L SMs - all that development has benefits. plug a whistler up and you get 4 cylinders with the same #, made possible by the head work. those are the ones with the head work figured out by the likes of Race Engineering/Ti/East Street/etc... IT mods "should" add up to similar gains. combine the allowances and I bet 35% over stock is realistic.

[Dano77]

how about "different".


The question isnt which makes more power, it whats different between the 2 classes. My belief was that STx would allow compliant IT cars to compete at IT weight. SM cars and IT cars have different compiance issues and weights. They arent the same.

I have no dog in either fight but its a good discussion so far.

Dan
77 IT7

[ner88]

how about "different"

It's no secret that guys are getting 125+ whp from 1.6L SMs - all that development has benefits. plug a whistler up and you get 4 cylinders with the same #, made possible by the head work. those are the ones with the head work figured out by the likes of Race Engineering/Ti/East Street/etc... IT mods "should" add up to similar gains. combine the allowances and I bet 35% over stock is realistic.

But if you combine the two the motor is not legal for either class.

My thinking is more in line with policing the class. You can't assume every SM car has the motor built to SM specs, if it is how much will it effect performance? :shrug:

[mossaidis]

Still though...

- Having clarity in the differences is important.
- Having clarity on where rules are not being met is important. That is, anyone should be able to walk up to a SMx competitor and based on SM class, year and other class they are dual driving in and ask the driver which items may be "irregluar" for that class, i.e. ITx, STx, etc. from a known list. That would be nice, right?
- I would leave it to each competitor to decide if said irregularities are enough to file a protest or... simply ask the offending party to remove themselves from points or... not care.

Seems fair.

[gran racing]

I get where you're going with this Jerry and agree we don't want to turn away entries. At the same time, how a person gets to said HP does matter at least to the current GCR. Otherwise build a car much less expensively to achieve X HP than doing a full-on motor and other development work.

This is interesting and would love to see the document once done.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, IT allows port matching and SM does not or headers for that matter.
Is the allowable head modifications a greater advantage for SM or are the IT allowances greater?
Just askin???

Much greater for IT IMHO. Remember, you can shave the head in IT to get an extra .5 point of compression. While the valve allowances in SM may be very specific, in IT it's much more grey. B&B liberties, and general engine re-freshening can include even the most basic valve job.

[Greg Amy]

Here's the very basic beginnings of a matrix, without prettiness. I'd appreciate feedback to add categories and details.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55361899/STL-SM-IT.xlsx

Note this is not intended to be an all-encompassing document; it's an "at a glance" outline for competitors and scrutineers.

- GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

The question isnt which makes more power, it whats different between the 2 classes. My belief was that STx would allow compliant IT cars to compete at IT weight. SM cars and IT cars have different compiance issues and weights. They arent the same.

I have no dog in either fight but its a good discussion so far.

Dan
77 IT7

100% true...and this is why it was the right decision years ago to NOT allow SM cars, in SM prep to be automatically legal for their respective IT class. Why? The ITAC has no control over the SMAC and what future allowances they will implement in the name of parity or whatever.

At the end of the day, a full-tilt-boogie 1.6 SM will have 5-10 things done to it that are not legal for IT...but at the current time, those things do not eclipse the IT performance envelope. I would think that this would hit the ITAC's desk well before it was a bother to the STAC.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here's the very basic beginnings of a matrix, without prettiness. I'd appreciate feedback to add categories and details.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55361899/STL-SM-IT.xlsx

Note this is not intended to be an all-encompassing document; it's an "at a glance" outline for competitors and scrutineers.

- GA

I would add the .5 point of compression bump to head-work, no weight limit to wheels in IT, and maybe more clarity on the air-dam height...is the spec 3"? I thought it was bottom of the wheel so allowable height would vary depending on tire aspect ratio and size.

[Greg Amy]

I would add the .5 point of compression bump to head-work.
Doesn't that have to be within service limits?

- GA

Edit: nope, just re-read the reg: head can be 25-thou under service limit, but "under no circumstances" can be more than 1/2 point compression. Funny that we've twisted "you can shave your head but don't increase the compression more than 1/2 point!" to mean "you can increase your CR by 1/2 point but don't go any thinner than 25-thou!"

[Andy Bettencourt]

Doesn't that have to be within service limits?

- GA

Edit: nope, just re-read the reg: head can be 25-thou under service limit, but "under no circumstances" can be more than 1/2 point compression. Funny that we've twisted "you can shave your head but don't increase the compression more than 1/2 point!" to mean "you can increase your CR by 1/2 point but don't go any thinner than 25-thou!"

Correct. Still listed under the cylinder head section.

[Chip42]

The question isnt which makes more power, it whats different between the 2 classes. My belief was that STx would allow compliant IT cars to compete at IT weight. SM cars and IT cars have different compiance issues and weights. They arent the same.

I have no dog in either fight but its a good discussion so far.


the question I was answering was which set of rules makes more power..

but you are correct, they aren't the same. there ARE cars that are compliant to both SM and IT (maybe with a RP in or out) but a more full-on built to either rule set makes the car illegal for the other. determining which way a car is built and using that info to establish what weight is allowed for ST, rather than allowing an "IT like" SM to run at IT weight w/o RP is, I think, what tGA is trying to prevent.

the weights aren't hugely different though, at most ~100#s, so I worry more about an SM rules head on an IT rules short block in an IT car with IT bolt-ons making more power still and running at a weight not representative of the car (SM or IT)

[ner88]

I get where you're going with this Jerry and agree we don't want to turn away entries. At the same time, how a person gets to said HP does matter at least to the current GCR. Otherwise build a car much less expensively to achieve X HP than doing a full-on motor and other development work.

This is interesting and would love to see the document once done.

That wasn't the direction I was going...:D
My concern is "how do we keep it simple for tech"
Because its a SM running in IT one can't assume the head was done to SM specs, in stock form it meets all the rules...

I would also suggest it costs more to build a front running SM motor (with less HP)than an IT motor.

[gran racing]

Alright, my bad. :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I would also suggest it costs more to build a front running SM motor (with less HP)than an IT motor.

No way. Balancing, blueprinting, overbore, port matching, intake and exhaust design and testing, crank scraper, oil pan baffling...

Remember, lots of the little things SM's do to maximize factory specs can also be done in IT.

[mrjones2]

Ride height - sm runs below 5"

dr / passenger vent windows?

[ShelbyRacer]

No way. Balancing, blueprinting, overbore, port matching, intake and exhaust design and testing, crank scraper, oil pan baffling...

Remember, lots of the little things SM's do to maximize factory specs can also be done in IT.


Except that all that work allows you to recon things that aren't perfect. The SM ruleset has allowances for similar levels of precision, but the process by which you get there is completely different. I consider SM to be a LOT like Showroom Stock was when there were factory teams involved. Sure, you can't "modify" the factory parts (though standard recon is allowed within limits), so you go looking for the most perfect factory parts you can find. That said, I'm making some assumptions, and I'd think that Andy would probably know the exact cost of either build better than me...

Still, that valve pocket machining allowance is a sticking point for me. I realize that one of the reasons it was done was to "allow for core shift" so that you can build a "spec" motor wiithout having to go through 50 or 500 castings looking for the best one. However, having done significant amounts of headwork in my time, that allowance, even with the "sharp edge must remain" and the "no aluminum in the bowl area or the ports may be..." clauses, there's still quite a bit of allowance beyond IT. There's certainly enough difference to make a big dent in the difference between a "stock" motor and an IT build.

Also, Andy, the way I read the SM rules, there is more than ample allowance for rudimentary balancing and blueprinting. While it may not offer all the latitude of the IT ruleset for that, I can see how it can be done to a degree that would allow for the performance that's been reported so far from SM motors on the dyno, if not even a few hp beyond that.

Oh, and I believe the 100 lb. weight difference on the 94-97 1.8L to be very significant, though I would hope that at least that would be picked up on in impound.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think for some the SM rules may actually define some of the details of what some of these ragged-edge, tech shed-legal IT motors are doing.

Think about the valve allowance. It's possible you are right on the money for the reasoning behind the allowance. So if the spec is set so that you don't have to go after 100 heads and find the perfect one, you could surmise that the spec is a 'perfect stock' unit.

Guess what? You got to do that in IT to be at 100%. Right? (All based on the accuracy of your assumption in the hypothetical).

[Knestis]

Late to the show but I think the original question has gotten spun around some here...

I think, Greg, that your original problem stems from people being sloppy and/or playing fast and loose in failing to 'declare' what they are running and under what rules. Right?

I'm reminded of when we used to run IT cars in Street Prepared solo classes. We technically couldn't pick and choose allowances from between the two rule sets but people quickly started coming up with all manor of wackdoodle hybrid things.

K

[Greg Amy]

Right. Some mistakenly, some intentionally.

I've submitted a request to the CRB to require competitors to declare their prep level on the side of the car (e.g., "ITA/STL"). We'll see if they go for it. From there I continue to work on my knowledge articles so everyone's clear about the regs.

- GA, who forgot about the SP allowances in Solo II...used to run my ITB Scirocco in CSP, was it?

[Knestis]

... 'cause the problem is that if you let it slide now, it creates a de facto standard, a la "Florida IT."

ITB did translate to CSP. We ran the Alliance in DSP every once in a while, on its ITC logbook. As I type that, it occurs to me that might be where your solution is. Even in the age of the double-dipper, a car has a logbook that references a particular class and GCR page. It's not as visible to competitors and tech inspectors but that *should* define the standard to which it's held.

This whole issue is going to require tech to attend to their own understandings of what's going on so they don't mistakenly encourage the silliness...

...but ultimately, once folks start building real STL Miatae and the low-hanging contingency fruit gets gobbled up, it ought to work itself out.

K

EDIT - The irony is that when we ran the Renault in DSP, it wasn't actually LISTED in ITC. Our Regional competition director said, "Yeah, go ahead - you'll never be competitive anyway" but it was flat illegal at the time, back in the wild, wild west of IT. :)

[ner88]

If a driver clearly has his prep level declared, then an open hood policy would resolve most of the problems.

[mossaidis]

FYI, don't think we did open hood during impound at POC and NHMS NARRC races though I was hoping we would. My point, open hood impound should be encouraged.

[Andy Bettencourt]

FYI, don't think we did open hood during impound at POC and NHMS NARRC races though I was hoping we would. My point, open hood impound should be encouraged.

Agree 100%

[lateapex911]

Easy for me to say, (since I don't have my car any more) but yes, I never understood why we would NOT have impound be open hood. ANd the EXCEPTION should be closed hood.

(Yes, I know, certain crafty types might not want their secrets on display, but it sure makes the crafty types make extra sure they are on the near side of the ragged edge.)

And Kirk, thats the second use of "Wackdoodle" from you in a week or so. It's also the second time I've heard it used. Ever. LOL.

[awegrzyn]

Hi, good to see some of your faces on the forum. I found this thread right on time as I ran (1.6 Mazda Miata) ITA at Summit Point this past weekend and I really liked it.

I read ITA rules and there is that little sentence in 9.1.3.C:
Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a complete assembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, induction system, differential/axle housing).

That sentence takes care of Torsen Diff, or buying manual power rack from another year as long as you swap the complete assembly.

Also, 9.1.3.9.f is tricky regarding the door panels. That renders many cars illegal.

As of now my 1.6 Mazda Miata (stock motor) is illegal only, because my steering rack was "depowered". Everything else is legit as long as the 5" ride height holds.

Very hard to be at min weight in ITA along with SM and stay legit unless you're small and skinny, with no fire system.

[Ed Funk]

Welcome to the the world of IT, we usually try to have these wackdoodle discussions in January. (3, Jake)

[dickita15]

I read ITA rules and there is that little sentence in 9.1.3.C:

That sentence takes care of Torsen Diff, or buying manual power rack from another year as long as you swap the complete assembly.



Careful,
“updating and/or backdating of components is only permitted …… as listed on a single Improved Touring Specification Line”
You cannot take parts from a car on a different spec line.

[awegrzyn]

^ Correct. To be honest I would be happy to give up points, as long as I could race. I don't have a Torsen.

[ner88]

^ Correct. To be honest I would be happy to give up points, as long as I could race. I don't have a Torsen.
So, based on your comments, you would have no problem with a GT1 car racing against you?.....as long as he gave up points???:shrug:
where do you drawer the line???

[ner88]

Is there another example, from another car, similar to the Miata manual/de-powered rack?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Is there another example, from another car, similar to the Miata manual/de-powered rack?

It's kind of a rare bird in that it did offer both via trim level. FWD cars almost never have manual steering and anything with any kind of weight would need it too.

[Chip42]

different body style civics had power as standard, option, or NA.

looking at ITB 92-95 civic DX (incl. 93-95 del sol S) off the top of my head - the coupe, 3dr, and del sol S had power optional (came with autos only, so technically not on the ITCS spec line), the 4drs were power only.

they ARE on separate spec lines, but the weights are the same. So it's not apples::apples but it's similar enough to add to the discussion.

otherwise, yeah, PS is a pretty rare "optional" component.

[Greg Amy]

Here's the prettier version.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/55361899/Spotter.pdf

Andy, I left out the .025 head shaving part for breviry. If it gets to that point I'm confident the scrutineers are going to dig into the book first.

- GA

[Gregg]

Greg-

Perhaps I need to look a bit further but I'm not sure where you get the splitter 3" off the ground rule for IT.

9.1.3.8.c says that "No part of the car, except for the exhaust system and suspension components, shall be lower than the lowest part of the wheel rims."

There's no specific height off the ground listed in the IT rules.

Also, I think stuff like the updating/backdating of the diff housing and and subframe braces (ie. disallowance of update/backdate in IT between vehicles on separate spec lines) should find their way in there.

[ner88]

Greg, it all looks good to me!

Now, I'll put on my race chairman's hat...What's the down side of allowing the de-powered rack?

[Greg Amy]

...I'm not sure where you get the splitter 3" off the ground rule for IT....lower than the lowest part of the wheel rims."
Absolutely correct. Got my regs mixed up. I'll adjust.


What's the down side of allowing the de-powered rack?
In IT? Nothing at all. In fact, over the last decade or so I've requested that to be allowed in IT at least three times I can recall. Each were rejected back as "not within the philosophy of the class".

Allowing depowered racks in STL? It is allowed. But we're not going to get into regs adjustments that mix-and-match category regs, such as "IT regs but you can still de-power the rack." That's not the purpose of the alternate category allowances; their purpose is to allow alternate categories to compete. If you have a Spec Miata, race it in STL as a Spec Miata; if you have an ITS Miata then race it in STL as an ITS Miata.

But if you want to race a Miata in STL without a restrictor plate but with a de-powered rack, build it to STL specs and slap on some poundage.

- GA

[ner88]

Greg, I agree 100% but allowing the de-powered rack makes the transition much easier and is probably the number 1 abused/overlooked rule for Miatas crossing over to IT.

So, we pass off this list and suddenly we are tossing cars at a wholesale rate!

What we can't afford, as a club, is to drive away more entries.:dead_horse:

[Chip42]

Greg, I agree 100% but allowing the de-powered rack makes the transition much easier and is probably the number 1 abused/overlooked rule for Miatas crossing over to IT.

So, we pass off this list and suddenly we are tossing cars at a wholesale rate!

What we can't afford, as a club, is to drive away more entries.:dead_horse:

the answer is a very narrow view on what is allowed in IT that has served the class well over the decades, but still always seen as a stodgy and out of touch by many current participants. long term, it's best to leave the rules alone. short term, we need the entries, and Miatas are a lot of those. we have to make the decision individually about how much we care about rule infractions vs. numbers on track, and hope that works out well for the club.

the Miata is the best and worst thing to ever happen to the club in my lifetime.

[awegrzyn]

where do you drawer the line???

Very simple. For regional racing you draw a line at a point that offers the most entries. There is no performance difference between a factory manual, or human de-powered steering.

I plan on towing (6 hours) from New Jersey to NHMS for the entire season just, because I can run in multiple classes. One race is not enough. Therefore, at regional level, it is more important to allow people to run, even though they are not fully compliant, especially when the rule is silly. Dura Lex Sed Lex does not work in club racing.

[Greg Amy]

For regional racing you draw a line at a point that offers the most entries.
Awesome. So you're OK with my entering my STL Integra in regional Spec Miata? After all, it's one more entry, right....?

- GA

[awegrzyn]

^ Do you actually believe allowing STL Integra in SM would create more entries, or people would give up on SM all together?

I'm talking bigger picture here. Allow cars to run in multiple classes by removing rules that make them illegal if the rules itself are weak, and violating them does not change the performance of the car in question. In English: fix the rules and do not shoot yourself in the foot.

[Dano77]

HERE WE GO! I agree 1000000000% Along these lines of thought.

My ITA 85 RX7 is eligable for STL and STU as it sits. But wait theres more, It can run EP and GT2 GT3 and GTL as it sits. Wanna keep going

Eligable GT2and3 cars are legal TA3 cars in Trans-am. Ergo I can run my IT car in Trans-Am this season. As it sits, cause some of those rules are "outdated, silly, insert adjective here."

GIVE ME A BREAK

The original question was correct, what are the differences between IT and SM as it pertains to STL. And now we are going into the whole" Im cheating, but the rules dont make sense so change them for me. That way Im not cheating anymore"

There is a process in place for this. Follow it and live with the effing results. We shouldnt just start allowing stuff cause "Its all about my car"

Ready....... GO

[Greg Amy]

In English: fix the rules and do not shoot yourself in the foot.
"In English": the rules aren't broken, especially just because a bunch of Spec Miata drivers don't like them.

- GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

"In English": the rules aren't broken, especially just because a bunch of Spec Miata drivers don't like them.

- GA

Not thinking the SM drivers 'don't like them'...I honestly think they have no clue how their cars are or aren't legal for their IT classes. They just run.

What needs to happen is a reset of expectations of the SM guys if the ST guys are having some heartburn over SM cars or ITS 99's with depowered racks filling their fields. Like I said, it seems as if the IT guys would have the heartburn first because the SM's are much closer to their performance envelope than they are to STL.

[Knestis]

Very simple. For regional racing you draw a line at a point that offers the most entries. There is no performance difference between a factory manual, or human de-powered steering.

That's cool. As long as there are no points or trophies being awarded for ANYONE. An open-passing, no-classes, run-whatcha-brung track deal would be a hoot but it's not "racing," unless everyone on the track is competing for the same overall trophies.

K

[lateapex911]

Very simple. For regional racing you draw a line at a point that offers the most entries. There is no performance difference between a factory manual, or human de-powered steering. (see #1 below)

I plan on towing (6 hours) from New Jersey to NHMS for the entire season just, because I can run in multiple classes. One race is not enough. (see #2 below) Therefore, at regional level, it is more important to allow people to run, even though they are not fully compliant, especially when the rule is silly. (#4) Dura Lex Sed Lex does not work in club racing.


^ Do you actually believe allowing STL Integra in SM would create more entries, or people would give up on SM all together?

I'm talking bigger picture here. Allow cars to run in multiple classes by removing rules that make them illegal (#3) if the rules itself are weak, and violating them does not change the performance of the car in question. In English: fix the rules and do not shoot yourself in the foot.

1- If there is no performance advantage, then WHY are they modified??
2- If you want to run more races, why no run in ITE??? The car FITS -legally- in ITE. So whats wrong with that?
3- WHY should the ENTIRE CATEGORY of IT change the rules to suit guys with Miatas who: A want to double dip in IT (But COULD double dip elsewhere) when OTHER cars in teh ITCS (over three HUNDRED of them) will see performance changes...and not all of them will see EQUAL performance changes?
4- I understand that YOU, in YOUR car, think a rule in ANOTHER category is "silly", and that it affects YOUR choices and situation, but, I'm confused at how you can completely ignore that entire rest of the world and how it affects them.

[Chip42]

4- I understand that YOU, in YOUR car, think a rule in ANOTHER category is "silly", and that it affects YOUR choices and situation, but, I'm confused at how you can completely ignore that entire rest of the world and how it affects them.

and this is why THIS (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31712) is getting so much attention from a lot of people.

note that I don't disagree with Jake, but there's a lot of people who want to compete on very terms. seems that lately there are more of "them" than "us".

[Andy Bettencourt]

1- If there is no performance advantage, then WHY are they modified??

Because most cars come with them and it's super easy just to bypass instead of buying a manual rack and then doing a R&R.

There is a slight ratio difference but I know just as many who like the manual as like the de-powered..

[lateapex911]

Because most cars come with them and it's super easy just to bypass instead of buying a manual rack and then doing a R&R.

There is a slight ratio difference but I know just as many who like the manual as like the de-powered..
So most cars come with power steering?
And most people disable it.
Why?
I understand it's easier than converting to the slower ratio manual, but that doesn't get to the core question:
WHY do it at all?

[lateapex911]

and this is why THIS (http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=31712) is getting so much attention from a lot of people.

note that I don't disagree with Jake, but there's a lot of people who want to compete on very terms. seems that lately there are more of "them" than "us".

I'm not following?
"There's a lot of people who want to compete on very terms"?
Does very =even??
Is Chump really 'even terms"?????



Going back to the steering thing, it has been turned down by the ITAC because some cars have it in IT some don't. They have all classed based on the assumption that they have it. Having it takes power to run it.
If the rule were changed, the concern was that it wouldn't affect all cars equally across the board.
As a ruling body, it's not the ITACs concern to worry about what Spec Miatas want when they decide to double and triple dip. Most regions have an IT'X" class specifically so that SMs can double dip. There's also ITE. So I think the ITAC sees that, and sees that there would be a "cost" to IT, and there are other viable solutions for the SM'ers, and decided to hold station on that rule.

[Chip42]

I'm not following?
"There's a lot of people who want to compete on very terms"?
Does very =even??
Is Chump really 'even terms"?????



Going back to the steering thing, it has been turned down by the ITAC because some cars have it in IT some don't. They have all classed based on the assumption that they have it. Having it takes power to run it.
If the rule were changed, the concern was that it wouldn't affect all cars equally across the board.
As a ruling body, it's not the ITACs concern to worry about what Spec Miatas want when they decide to double and triple dip. Most regions have an IT'X" class specifically so that SMs can double dip. There's also ITE. So I think the ITAC sees that, and sees that there would be a "cost" to IT, and there are other viable solutions for the SM'ers, and decided to hold station on that rule.

oops - yes even terms. as in "rules" - they are seen as a hindrance and annoyance by many. long term they are wrong. short term, they are having fun and we are suffering.

agreed 100% with Jake on the reasons for IT power steering depower rules, but in the case of an oddball like the Miata, I personally have no issue with a PS rack being depowered as the no PS rack is already allowed on the same specline, but it IS illegal and for the good of the category as a whole, will remain that way.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So most cars come with power steering?
And most people disable it.
Why?
I understand it's easier than converting to the slower ratio manual, but that doesn't get to the core question:
WHY do it at all?

Because the de-powered rack provides enough feel and doesn't require too much effort to operate...and you get to eliminate the belt/lines/fluids that can cause pain. Like Chip said, because a non-powered option is there, this is just easier. Not advocating, just saying.

I like the rule as is.

[awegrzyn]

I gave up on the topic, but then I read this:


Going back to the steering thing, it has been turned down by the ITAC because some cars have it in IT some don't. They have all classed based on the assumption that they have it. Having it takes power to run it.
If the rule were changed, the concern was that it wouldn't affect all cars equally across the board.

So let's follow the logic here. ITAC assumes every car has power steering, but they know some don't. ITAC classifies all cars based on the assumption they have it.

Most Miatas have power steering, but some don't. ITAC classifies both types of Miatas on the same assumption that they have it, and they did not penalize the Miatas with the manual steering rack. Neither did they penalize other type of cars with manual steering.

You say above, it takes power to run power steering. I agree. Mazda Miata with power steering is going to be slower than one with a manual. ITAC is already OK with such a big difference, therefore, there is no reason to complain about de-powered racks.

[Greg Amy]

Man's actually got a point there... ^^^^

But then again, I've lobbied for de-powering the racks in IT for years. I consider it insignificant for performance difference.

But...the rulez is da rulez. :shrug:

- GA

[lateapex911]

I gave up on the topic, but then I read this:



So let's follow the logic here. ITAC assumes every car has power steering, but they know some don't. ITAC classifies all cars based on the assumption they have it.

Most Miatas have power steering, but some don't. ITAC classifies both types of Miatas on the same assumption that they have it, and they did not penalize the Miatas with the manual steering rack. Neither did they penalize other type of cars with manual steering.

You say above, it takes power to run power steering. I agree. Mazda Miata with power steering is going to be slower than one with a manual. ITAC is already OK with such a big difference, therefore, there is no reason to complain about de-powered racks.

Actually, I mis wrote that. The ITAC parses each car and decides if it's better as one line or as two, for a variety of reasons. Certain cars come with power steering only, some as an option, some not at all.
It's likely (I wasn't there for all the cars classed!) that the cars get classed based on the hp levels that the ITAC can gleen, which are dependent on installed equipment. So, if they were to allow de powering of all cars, some would wind up in an advantageous positions. It's a rule change that doesn't treat all cars equally. Yes, it's certainly insignificant in some cases but not all.

[lateapex911]

Because the de-powered rack provides enough feel and doesn't require too much effort to operate...and you get to eliminate the belt/lines/fluids that can cause pain. Like Chip said, because a non-powered option is there, this is just easier. Not advocating, just saying.

I like the rule as is.

OK, but it seems to me that stating that there is no performance benefit isn't true then.
Otherwise people wouldn't do it.
(Based on the base assumption that Kirk can explain better than I, that more reliability, better feel, etc etc are all performance benefits)

[Chip42]

I gave up on the topic, but then I read this:



So let's follow the logic here. ITAC assumes every car has power steering, but they know some don't. ITAC classifies all cars based on the assumption they have it.

Most Miatas have power steering, but some don't. ITAC classifies both types of Miatas on the same assumption that they have it, and they did not penalize the Miatas with the manual steering rack. Neither did they penalize other type of cars with manual steering.

You say above, it takes power to run power steering. I agree. Mazda Miata with power steering is going to be slower than one with a manual. ITAC is already OK with such a big difference, therefore, there is no reason to complain about de-powered racks.

the ITAC assumes the car makes the HP the OEM said it does, and generally assume a 25% gain over that number in IT trim. when a car came with PS ONLY, then the pump is supposed to be included in the test that derived the published HP numbers (SAE NET rules from some 30 years ago). cars without PS or with PS as an option likely DON'T have the pumps losses included in the published number.

the logic behind the rule has nothing to do with the Miata. but since you CAN replace a PS rack with a manual one, the Miata classification is correct on a single line. few other cars with any level of popularity have this option. when they do, their classification also allows them to change to the factory non-powered steering.

cars that come with PS are not at a disadvantage because the pump losses are included in the stock power numbers from the OEM, and the pump may be under driven in IT, in effect lessening a power parasite. the manual steering only (i.e. PS was not an option) cars don't have a PS pump to under drive and didn't have the associated losses reported in their OEM hp figures either (theoretically). so they are actually expected to make MORE power gain from the motor than the PS cars, if you think about it.

in either case, unless you upset an IT championship battle or piss someone off, running a de-powered steering but otherwise complaint miata in IT is not going to get you protested 99% of the time.

[Wreckerboy]

Chip, I'm not sure how relevant this is, but one of the reasons people run a dowered rack in a Miata is because the P/S rack has a quicker ratio than the manual one. My '90 SSM car (a 1.6) currently has a depowered rack in it for just that reason. It started life as a manual steering car until I converted it over. The change in the way the car drives is very big.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, but it seems to me that stating that there is no performance benefit isn't true then.
Otherwise people wouldn't do it.
(Based on the base assumption that Kirk can explain better than I, that more reliability, better feel, etc etc are all performance benefits)

The statement that there is no performance benefit is comparing a manual rack to a de-powered rack. Nobody runs a powered rack in a Miata.

So the point is that it's just easier to de-power than it is to go out and source the manual one and install it.

And I think we are parsing words from about 3 different discussions to make a 9not sure what) point.

[ner88]

Chip I agree except now we are arming Tech inspectors with a list that says it's not OK.
So, you can kiss it being overlooked goodbye!
Can't wait until we get to LRP next weekend....7 ITA Miatas!

[Chip42]

Chip I agree except now we are arming Tech inspectors with a list that says it's not OK.
So, you can kiss it being overlooked goodbye!
Can't wait until we get to LRP next weekend....7 ITA Miatas!

it's NOT OK... it's a violation of the rules. just because most people will overlook it doesn't make it legal.

to Rob - yes I understand the ratio issue, but IT doesn't take that into account - it's power or not, so long as it's as delivered.

[ner88]

Chip
I think you miss read my post, I never said it was OK...
I was referencing the last line of your post!
"in either case, unless you upset an IT championship battle or piss someone off, running a de-powered steering but otherwise complaint miata in IT is not going to get you protested 99% of the time."

[Greg Amy]

Jerry, no one is excluding Spec Miatas from STL; in fact, we explicitly welcome them, de-powered rack or not. You have a de-powered rack? Run as a Spec Miata, exactly as we state -- with restrictor plate. What we don't welcome is someone trying to mix-and-match the regs to suit their tastes, just because they want to be faster.

Improved Touring is a whole 'nother matter. There's just no way that a de-powered-rack Spec Miata can be compliant to the regs. Welcoming those cars into IT can be resolved in one of two ways:

- Allow de-powered racks, which history has shown is unlikely; or
- Explicitly allow Spec Miatas into ITA/ITS in SM prep -- with restrictor plates.

Someone tried the latter several years ago; I personally opposed the measure. As I recall, my primary concern was less about performance potential and more about 'sanctity of the regs', with a significant dose of concerns about mix-and-match on the regs. My experience with allowing SMs into STL (a much bigger potential performance gap), coupled to the whole initial point of this topic, has not necessarily dampened those concerns. However, if the SMs could learn to behave when playing in someone else's sandbox then it's potentially something the club could revisit.

But what's the chances of that happening? We're already hearing clear and openly-delivered (with braggadocio) illustrations that SM drivers are perfectly willing to cheat when dipping their toes into other sandboxes; is this something we really want to do? Food for thought.

- GA

[JeffYoung]

I don't think it is a good idea to allow SMs to run legally in IT in SM prep.

The decision to not recommend depowering of racks was a close one. It's possible we would revisit that.

[Greg Amy]

The decision to not recommend depowering of racks was a close one. It's possible we would revisit that.
I think that's a reasonable consideration, even outside the SM discussion; I suggest it's OK for the class regardless of performance concerns (IMO, not as significant as feared).

Of course, that would only address the obvious part of the SM non-compliance: the power steering rack. It does not address the litany of other SM allowances that are non-compliant to the ITCS...but it is the most in-your-face.

- GA

[ner88]

My final comment on this!
I have never suggested it was ok to run a SM in any class if it's not rules compliant.
I would not want to compete against a car that is not prepped legally.
My issue is, now, many years later, we are going to enforce a rule that we knowing
ignored.
Yes, the use of a de-powered SR is a stupid rule but it is a rule!
You can love or hate Miatas but we all let it happen too long, time to change the rule!

[Greg Amy]

My issue is, now, many years later, we are going to enforce a rule that we knowing ignored.
There's no statute of limitations on the GCR...but I hear you. I know you're not condoning regs violations.

What I'm inferring is you believe is that we've developed a culture of overlooking these specific regs, and competitors have become complacent (and expecting it, and even taking advantage of it). But that's is how certain regions/divisions developed a reputation of "fast and loose" on the regs (and I experienced that with IT in Texas in the 80s and during the 'bad old days' of Showroom Stock 80s/90s.)

But I counter that this 'overlooking' culture was wrong to begin with, and the "sudden" enforcement of the regs is not the baddie here. Everyone should know that any time someone plays fast and loose with the regs then they go into the party knowing there's a hammer that can come down on their heads at any time. It's a bit disingenuous to get annoyed when that actually happens...

I'm OK with discussing the idea of allowing SM into ITA/ITS with their prep; it doesn't hurt to discuss it. If, in the end, it can be demonstrated that SM-level prep cannot exceed the performance envelope of a comparable ITS/ITS-prepped Miata, then I have no issue with supporting it. But along with that will should come serious regs enforcement... - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

And lets also remember that the real 'enforcement' of this type of non-compliance is up the the entrants. If they don't care, so be it. The rules are the rules. 1.6 SM's have been illegal for ITA since they allowed the 1.8 chassis bracing way-back-when.

If the natives want to enforce the rules, they can.

[mossaidis]

I hate to say it, yet if a 1.6 SM finishes in front of me at LRP, two things:

- I suck
- I ask if they have a de-powered PS rack. If so, back of the bus they go.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I hate to say it, yet if a 1.6 SM finishes in front of me at LRP, two things:

- I suck
- I ask if they have a de-powered PS rack. If so, back of the bus they go.

2 things would be evident.

- If you have a hair across your rear about the steering rack, don't limit yourself to the 1.6 in ITA. The 94-97 car is in the same boat
- Given the nature of the illegality and it's non-performance benefit, some would consider that 'chicken-shit'. We could all roll through the paddock and find nit-picky items illegal on most cars. The reason nobody cares is because they have no benefit. Builders pass on them because they are lazy, blame cost or availability or whatever. If this was a car that was required to have an active power steering setup, then you have a tangible bitch IMHO

Maybe it's time to have the SM group together and let them know that because their ruleset is dynamic - and constantly encroaching into the IT space, they may need to think about STL as the first double dip spot to remain outside the core of the performance envelop - or they may start to see protests from entrants that are not cool with the illegalities/speed/position in class issue.

[ner88]

I would like to and hope you all could agree.....give everyone at this event fair warning!
Get it corrected by next event or be prepared to pay the price!

[Gregg]

Some of us would love to be able to run de-powered racks. Some of us would benefit greatly from headers we can't run otherwise due to that nasty P/S pump getting in the way. :023:

[mossaidis]

I would like to and hope you all could agree.....give everyone at this event fair warning!
Get it corrected by next event or be prepared to pay the price!

Why not just have them exclude themselves from points? (I am such a whiner)

[ner88]

Some of us would love to be able to run de-powered racks. Some of us would benefit greatly from headers we can't run otherwise due to that nasty P/S pump getting in the way. :023:
Hey Gregg, you can always run HP or STL:023::D

[dickita15]

Some of us would love to be able to run de-powered racks. Some of us would benefit greatly from headers we can't run otherwise due to that nasty P/S pump getting in the way. :023:

The difference is in the case of many cars such as the Integra it only came with the power steering so depowering it is a performance advantage, with the Miata it came with either rack however the manual racks are pretty rare and very expensive.
So allowing a depowered rack on a Integra allows improved performance, allowing one on a Miata just saves the owner money.
Given that I am not willing to bitch (well at least not much).

[Dano77]

I hate to say it, yet if a 1.6 SM finishes in front of me at LRP, two things:

- I suck
- I ask if they have a de-powered PS rack. If so, back of the bus they go.


AHEMMMMMM Ummm dont forget to ask if the 1.6 Miata also has the later model Diff, housing, axles and driveshaft from the 99 1.8 car. Is this also not a preformance ADVANTAGE??????.

How about a 1.6 car with the 95-97 subframe braces under the chassis. Preformance ADVANTAGE????

What about approved SM Cylinder head prep. 1.6 and 1.8 cars.

This issue is way farther down the road than a de-powered rack. Although we seem to be stuck on that one issue.

Im purley talking about SM cars DD in IT. ST can fend for itself.

Sorry to sound like an ass, and yes I drive an IT7 car, not ITA. That ship sailedd when the ECU rules came about rendering the RX7 to the back of the bus.

[awegrzyn]

I am withdrawing my ITA entry for Lime Rock. My car is 100 percent legal at this point, but its my birthday and I dont want to get pissed if someone singles me out because i posted here.

[ner88]

AHEMMMMMM Ummm dont forget to ask if the 1.6 Miata also has the later model Diff, housing, axles and driveshaft from the 99 1.8 car. Is this also not a preformance ADVANTAGE??????.

How about a 1.6 car with the 95-97 subframe braces under the chassis. Preformance ADVANTAGE????

What about approved SM Cylinder head prep. 1.6 and 1.8 cars.

This issue is way farther down the road than a de-powered rack. Although we seem to be stuck on that one issue.

Im purley talking about SM cars DD in IT. ST can fend for itself.

Sorry to sound like an ass, and yes I drive an IT7 car, not ITA. That ship sailedd when the ECU rules came about rendering the RX7 to the back of the bus.

My only issue is the rack.......
1.6 with all the other possible options are quite clear and understandable rules!

[Andy Bettencourt]

If it was me...and I was getting beaten by SM's in ITA I would do this:



Take a mental inventory of where I am in terms of driver skill and prep.
Take a mental inventory of where the illegal SM is when compared to a full-boat ITA Miata in terms of prep and potential.
Understand that I am getting beaten by cars of 'lesser' prep than can be achieved in full-boat IT legal form.
Use those cars as targets for my next progression as a driver, preparer, and competitor.


But I would surely keep my eye on #2. If it gets too close for comfort, having the closed wheel rep hold a meeting would be good.

Dick did represent a lot of opinions when he said once, 'An illegal car should never finish in front of any legal car'...but everyone's threshold is different. Some embrace the challenges knowing where they 'should' be, and other use it as a crutch to never make it to the next level.

[StephenB]

I am withdrawing my ITA entry for Lime Rock. My car is 100 percent legal at this point, but its my birthday and I dont want to get pissed if someone singles me out because i posted here.

I am NOT in ITA but I am an SCCA a member and I feel bad that this is how you feel.

Stephen.

[lateapex911]

I am withdrawing my ITA entry for Lime Rock. My car is 100 percent legal at this point, but its my birthday and I dont want to get pissed if someone singles me out because i posted here.


I would be AMAZED...really AMAZED if somebody threw paper at you. There have been HUNDREDS of illegal to IT spec SMs in ITA over the years. I'm not aware of a single protest.
heck, the last engine protest that I remember in ITA unearthed illegal pistons among other things. That was a decade ago or so.
(Maybe I missed an ITA engine teardown along the way, but paper being thrown is extremely rare.)

I'm not saying to run, or not run, or that it's ok, or not ok, just letting you know what has historically been the norm.

[Gregg]

The difference is in the case of many cars such as the Integra it only came with the power steering so depowering it is a performance advantage, with the Miata it came with either rack however the manual racks are pretty rare and very expensive.
So allowing a depowered rack on a Integra allows improved performance, allowing one on a Miata just saves the owner money.
Given that I am not willing to bitch (well at least not much).
Dick-I completely understand the situation and also believe that all should play by the same rules. I do think, however, that many Spec Miata drivers choose to loop P/S racks because of the more advantageous steering ratio, thus gaining a (however slight) performance advantage.

My point being, be careful what you ask for....unintended consequences (about 5-8hp peak and a bit more torque to boot) and all that.

[Knestis]

Jerry, no one is excluding Spec Miatas from STL; in fact, we explicitly welcome them, de-powered rack or not. You have a de-powered rack? Run as a Spec Miata, exactly as we state -- with restrictor plate. What we don't welcome is someone trying to mix-and-match the regs to suit their tastes, just because they want to be faster.

Improved Touring is a whole 'nother matter. There's just no way that a de-powered-rack Spec Miata can be compliant to the regs. Welcoming those cars into IT can be resolved in one of two ways:

- Allow de-powered racks, which history has shown is unlikely; or
- Explicitly allow Spec Miatas into ITA/ITS in SM prep -- with restrictor plates.

Someone tried the latter several years ago; I personally opposed the measure. As I recall, my primary concern was less about performance potential and more about 'sanctity of the regs', with a significant dose of concerns about mix-and-match on the regs. ...

Exactly. I (vocally) opposed the SM-in-IT proposal because I could easily picture it becoming just this situation. That, and the ITAC wouldn't have had any control over the SM rules - which would continue to apply - and so, no control over parity.

K

[Greg Amy]

I am withdrawing my ITA entry for Lime Rock. My car is 100 percent legal at this point, but its my birthday and I dont want to get pissed if someone singles me out because i posted here.
Dude, no one even knows who you are. And it's like pulling teeth to get people to toss paper for significant stuff.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OskyvVIBiek

[JLawton]

If it was me...and I was getting beaten by SM's in ITA I would do this:



Take a mental inventory of where I am in terms of driver skill and prep.
Take a mental inventory of where the illegal SM is when compared to a full-boat ITA Miata in terms of prep and potential.
Understand that I am getting beaten by cars of 'lesser' prep than can be achieved in full-boat IT legal form.
Use those cars as targets for my next progression as a driver, preparer, and competitor.

But I would surely keep my eye on #2. If it gets too close for comfort, having the closed wheel rep hold a meeting would be good.

.


You put this much nicer than I would have Andy. If you're getting beat by a 1.6 it's not the car............... Some people THINK they have the prep level of a Formula 1 and THINK they have a 10/10ths car and THINK they have the talent of Mario.............

Guess what, there are ALWAYS faster guys out there. When I got beat (and will probably continue to be beat) by an SM once in awhile, I certainly don't blame it on the steering rack. In fact ,I would be too embarrased to not only get beat by them but in addition protest them??? REALLY??? That's being a big pussy.

[JLawton]

I am withdrawing my ITA entry for Lime Rock. My car is 100 percent legal at this point, but its my birthday and I dont want to get pissed if someone singles me out because i posted here.


Run ITA. You'll have fun. It's a good bunch of guys. You won't be protested.

Happy Birthday!

[Dano77]

The IT7 cars get beat by SM's all the time. It dosent bother us to the point of writting paper. Its a faster car,period.

The hard part is when the crash into us, another story for another day. Leave it alone.

The RX3 and RX7 had there days in the sun, its over now in ITA. Thankfully there are enough of us that still have these old raspy, wheezy, smokey, noisey cars that we can race against each other and not care what other car has what done to it.

Its all about the beer and the lies we tell each other at the end of the day.

Dan, 77 IT7

[awegrzyn]

I have a simple solution that is going to solve all power steering problems and it should make everyone happy with no additional cost, no required work, and most importantly; no reclassification.

Solution
What Chip42 wrote in post 81 is the first thing I read that kind of makes sense regarding power steering in IT. If he is correct, and IT cars without power steering or with PS as an option were given no benefit in the published numbers, then all we have to do is allow only these cars to depower their racks.

The rest of the cars that came with PS (no manual option) should do nothing as they were given the break during initial classification.

This solution will accomplish the following:
1. Legalize cars with power steering issues in IT without giving them any benefit.

2. Will not require changing anything for cars that are already legal in IT. Some will gain the right to depower their racks if they want to.
3. No reclassification required.

4. Current points will not be affected.

5. Some SM cars will become eligible for IT and that will boost SCCA entries.

6. It will make IT drivers comfortable running along double dipping cars.

7. SM cars will not have to buy the expensive manual steering.

8. Other cars that are already in IT, or are being build for IT will not have to purchase manual steering racks.

9. It will equalize the field as right now some guys maybe running power steering, because they could not find a manual rack for their year and model, or they did not know they could change it.

Long story short, zero cost, no work required, more entries, no doubt, everyone happy.

Notes and Points of Concern:
1. We need to verify what Chip42 said, and make sure the classification went down the way he described it.

2. What to do with the pump/pipes/radiator? Should we remove the pump once we depower the rack, or the pump and accessories stay?

3. SMs with Torsen and other IT illegal modifications will still be illegal and it’s their problem.

The only better solution than this is to depower everyone, but that requires reclassification and it affects a lot of things. I have a feeling it will never happen.

Now on the Miata’s steering rack:
Someone posted wrong information above. The difference in the manual rack and the depowered rack is tiny. To be exact it is 4 degrees. For example, if you have a depowered PS you let’s say crank the wheel 25 degrees for a turn. For the same corner you would have to turn 29 degrees with a manual rack. Matter of personal preference. Current SM National champion is running, you guessed it… a manual rack.

Manufactures build PS and manual racks to be identical or almost identical in order for the customers to have the same feel of the car no matter what the option.

*In case Chip42 was wrong on the PS classification, then we can do what I propose and completely forget about it, as it would mean there is no classification when it comes to PS and it’s all random. Maybe that’s why the intent of IT does not guarantee competition.

Just trying to help.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The issue with allowing PS-only cars to depower (non-Miata comment here) is that it affects classification. With just 3whp meaning 55lbs of minimum weight, if you change the 'power potential' of cars that have been classed by using dyno numbers (ITA has fair amount) then you could really upset the apple cart.

If the ITAC can prove that eliminating the PS system and it's drag on most cars will result in an additional 2whp, then that would = 35lbs of minimum weight.

I see no reason to change the rule to accommodate another classes cross over potential. Deal with it locally.

Your above solution works - FOR NOW...until a rare bird comes along that nobody knows about where there IS a difference in the performance potential or desirability of the de-powered over the manual rack. Unintended consequences are not desirable.

[Chip42]

The biggest problem with "what we know" is what we don't know.

SAE net rules require the ENGINE to be tested with the accessories its delivered with. But we don't know what actual configuration ANY engine is tested with, or if it was ever tested at all. as most engines were made available in multiple models or multiple trim levels, there's often some combination that doesn't have PS. but the issues don't stop there.

the ITCS includes cars from 4 decades and at least 7 countries on 3 continents. those care were often tested to local standards and the numbers converted to US hp using a "standard" equation. but there's little verification available and the test standards were all out of sync. there's a lot of disagreement in the source materials for the older cars. from 1971, US market, domestic manufacturer and many import cars are tested to SAE net - so theoretically WITH the offending PS pump. BUT there was no requirement to post the hp figure accurately (many cars were actually UNDERRATED, largely for insurance or to protect the image of a halo car, among other reasons) and there were loopholes. 2005 on, US market cars should be tested to SAE certified hp and that clears up a LOT of confusion, and puts the engine in the configuration as delivered in a specific make, model, and trim. remember when a bunch of toyotas and hondas were suddenly derated in or around 2006? yeah. they were testing engines with non production ECU calibrations, lighter weight fluids, etc... i.e. "loopholes". GM went from calculated hp (they didn't even test to SAE net, apparently) and FOUND hp when they tested. in some cases, they found a bunch of it.

so there are 8 model years of cars where the HP numbers are no suspect, though many OEMs only went to SAE certified for models released DURING that time (nissan comes to mind). IT rules require the car to be 5 model years old, reducing that window to 3 years, and reducing the new model count substantially. I don't have a count of the number of cars that use SAE certified HP in the ITCS, but it's not a big number.

Yes, we KNOW that the info we work from is suspect to a degree. so we consider things like "known to be..." and if we have a good reason to worry, can suggest a higher or lower multiplier than the standard 25% over stock assumption.

the system is imperfect, but works pretty well regardless. the assumptions about a hp number being tested in accordance with the same standard across the board and in the configuration we are interested in are founded on real standards although they can, at times, be a bit optimistic. Maybe luckily, they do seem to have worked well. like so many other things, the active cars in IT follow the pareto principle, so the front running models are pretty well understood and we know we have their numbers very close to ACTUAL power output in "maxed" IT trim. but most cars in the ITCS are not very well known, still at their initial process classification, and could be grossly over or under their ideal weight once someone puts the effort in to finding out. throwing in another variable is not desired.

as for allowing de-powered steering on those spec lines where a manual rack is also allowed, I understand where you are coming from and agree that it seems like a simple solution, but there's always the possibility that it IS NOT, and unintended consequences have already created more allowances than we might actually want.

[lateapex911]

Chip sounds like a guy who might happen to be in the midst of studying a class of cars that, oh, I dunno, covers like 5 decades, like, hmmm, maybe ITB??