August 2013

[pfrichardson]

...are posted:

http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472

[Chip42]

Thanks Pam!

[erlrich]

Interesting that they are even considering moving the TSX from R to S, given that a previous request to move a car with identical HP was shot down with the rationale that 200 stock HP was "too much power for ITS".

The Boxter looks interesting, although at the same weight as the S2K I'm not sure it will be a better pick. Is the flat 6 expected to make more than the 25% power gain?

The Tiburon looks great, on paper at least. That one has me checking the want ads....anybody want to buy a nice Camaro?

[Greg Amy]

We're way past time for allowing double listings (a la BMW E36). Let the competitors decide, not those on top of the ivory towers.

But I ain't gonna waste my breath requesting it again. - GA

[Chip42]

Interesting that they are even considering moving the TSX from R to S, given that a previous request to move a car with identical HP was shot down with the rationale that 200 stock HP was "too much power for ITS".

The Boxter looks interesting, although at the same weight as the S2K I'm not sure it will be a better pick. Is the flat 6 expected to make more than the 25% power gain?

The Tiburon looks great, on paper at least. That one has me checking the want ads....anybody want to buy a nice Camaro?

it's being requested, it was a bit of a debate in the first place, we put it to the members. its not just about power, it's also about achievable weight. we think this car can get to ITR weight, and it overall seemed a better fit there, so there it went. if membership comes in and says "no S!!!" then we can move it. being above 2700 lbs (thicker cage) in either listing makes this decision easier. anything that crosses that threshold when changing classes (by gaining weight) makes us prefer to stay in the faster class so that any existing builds or cars don't need to re-cage.

[Ralf]

Hopefully the cars will be listed in the right blocks when final. Currently the way it shows in the prelim, the Boxter has ITS listed above it and the Mitsubishi Lancer has ITB above it in the chart. Should be ITR and ITA, correct?

[Ron Earp]

Interesting that they are even considering moving the TSX from R to S, given that a previous request to move a car with identical HP was shot down with the rationale that 200 stock HP was "too much power for ITS".


No kidding. If they want to move that car to S then that'll open up reprocessing for a number of 190-200hp cars to move to S. I'll be requesting some myself.

R

[Chip42]

Hopefully the cars will be listed in the right blocks when final. Currently the way it shows in the prelim, the Boxter has ITS listed above it and the Mitsubishi Lancer has ITB above it in the chart. Should be ITR and ITA, correct?

The Lancer goes to B and the boxter to R. I've already called in the mitsu, missed the boxter. Thanks for letting us know.

[StephenB]

ugggg, I had requested the RX8 to be classified through 2009. Since it was only done through 2008 should I resubmit it?

Also Since Lancer is allowed the alternate "OZ package" do you think this sets a precedence and something like the Mazdaspeed package on the RX8 would be allowed if asked?

Stephen

[Greg Amy]

ugggg, I had requested the RX8 to be classified through 2009. Since it was only done through 2008 should I resubmit it?
Without the VIN rule, is it relevant in reality? Is there a difference between the two?

- GA

[StephenB]

yup. much more reliable tranny!

Stephen

[Greg Amy]

Maybe the omission was intentional...the car is only 4 years old. Do we still have the 5-yr-rule in IT...?

- GA

Edit GCR 9.1.3.A: "Cars from the previous four (4) model years and the current model year will not be eligible."

[pballance]

No kidding. If they want to move that car to S then that'll open up reprocessing for a number of 190-200hp cars to move to S. I'll be requesting some myself.

R

+1 to that

[StephenB]

Maybe the omission was intentional...the car is only 4 years old. Do we still have the 5-yr-rule in IT...?

- GA

Edit GCR 9.1.3.A: "Cars from the previous four (4) model years and the current model year will not be eligible."

2013 not eligable current year? I am guessing that eventhough 2014 model years are being released they don't count as a "current year" until january 1st. My mistake. :)
2012 not eligable
2011 not eligable
2010 not eligable
2009 not eligable

[Andy Bettencourt]

Also Since Lancer is allowed the alternate "OZ package" do you think this sets a precedence and something like the Mazdaspeed package on the RX8 would be allowed if asked?

Stephen

IIRC the OZ package was an actual trim level choice. OZ wheels and a spoiler. I think they wanted it to look like the EVO but had the mundane running gear.

So no, it sets no precedent for dealer installed options that are not currently allowed in the rulebook.

[JeffYoung]

Interesting that they are even considering moving the TSX from R to S, given that a previous request to move a car with identical HP was shot down with the rationale that 200 stock HP was "too much power for ITS".

The Boxter looks interesting, although at the same weight as the S2K I'm not sure it will be a better pick. Is the flat 6 expected to make more than the 25% power gain?

The Tiburon looks great, on paper at least. That one has me checking the want ads....anybody want to buy a nice Camaro?

No, we ran the Boxster at 25%. Are you taking about the request to move the ITR Camaro to S? I think that was a combination of attainable weight and HP. It's weight in S would have been ridiulously high. The TSX has a stout curb weight to start with and seems to fit better in S, and may not have made the R weight.

[JeffYoung]

No kidding. If they want to move that car to S then that'll open up reprocessing for a number of 190-200hp cars to move to S. I'll be requesting some myself.

R

Not just about HP, also about achievable weight.

But as stock curb weights and achievable race weights rise, so too will the "stock hp range" of cars in each class. So look not only at stock hp, but curb weight before submitting the request.

[Chip42]

IIRC the OZ package was an actual trim level choice. OZ wheels and a spoiler. I think they wanted it to look like the EVO but had the mundane running gear.

So no, it sets no precedent for dealer installed options that are not currently allowed in the rulebook.

yup. 15x6 OZ wheels and some decals, a spoiler, etc.. still the lame 2.0L SOHC. the raliart cars that came later got the more potent 2.4L DOHC motor, rear discs, and a bunch of other upgrades. no more precedent than a miata M package. nothing to see here.

[Chip42]

2013 not eligable current year? I am guessing that eventhough 2014 model years are being released they don't count as a "current year" until january 1st. My mistake. :)
2012 not eligable
2011 not eligable
2010 not eligable
2009 not eligable

if there hadn't been the upgrades to the car in 2009 we mightacoulda slipped it in, but it needs more review anyhow to see if it counts as an upgrade / same line or new line. the fact that it's an 09 made it easy to cut it off there and take time to review the changes vs. IT philosophy.

[StephenB]

yup. 15x6 OZ wheels and some decals, a spoiler, etc.. still the lame 2.0L SOHC. the raliart cars that came later got the more potent 2.4L DOHC motor, rear discs, and a bunch of other upgrades. no more precedent than a miata M package. nothing to see here.

Thanks, I had no idea. I know the MAzdaspeed RX8 package was just cosmetic but it does allow more cooling to the oil coolers so I would obviously like to have it allowed, however it was a dealer option and I don't think offered as a "trim level" from mazda.


if there hadn't been the upgrades to the car in 2009 we mightacoulda slipped it in, but it needs more review anyhow to see if it counts as an upgrade / same line or new line. the fact that it's an 09 made it easy to cut it off there and take time to review the changes vs. IT philosophy.

Yup, transmission is better and it has some cosmetic enhancements. Rear diff has a different cover that allows it to cool better as well. other than that nothing performance wise... oh wait the computer is harder to hack and make power from it so you would want a 2004 computer, after 2005 you have "extra" obstacles to overcome :)

Thanks for the responses, I appreciate it. I know that Steve E. is a great resource if you need any detailed info.

Stephen

[bamfp]

Interesting that they are even considering moving the TSX from R to S, given that a previous request to move a car with identical HP was shot down with the rationale that 200 stock HP was "too much power for ITS".

The Boxter looks interesting, although at the same weight as the S2K I'm not sure it will be a better pick. Is the flat 6 expected to make more than the 25% power gain?

The Tiburon looks great, on paper at least. That one has me checking the want ads....anybody want to buy a nice Camaro?

It is a little on the heavy side. 216hp stock and gets 45# more weight then a 240hp car. Still waiting to dyno my 2.5 Boxster to see what it makes. Stock computer for now but will have a programmable one soon.

[Ron Earp]

Not just about HP, also about achievable weight.



Yep, I'm aware.

I was considering the ITR V6 Mustang. The ITR weight is 2670 lbs with 190 stock hp. We've proven that the car cannot get down to 2670 lbs and the best I think it can do is about 2800 lbs.

If the car was placed into ITS then its weight would be:

190 x 1.25 x 12.9 = 3063 lbs.

3063 lbs certainly obtainable, but I'm not sure it'd be very happy on the 15x7 tire rule. I've no doubt the car would end up being the hp leader in ITS with a 100% build (these engines have more potential than the 3.8L single ports we use and we're doing very well for power), but I believe we're already at the limit of a 15x7 wearing a 245 and 27XX lbs.

Bad idea.

[Chip42]

It is a little on the heavy side. 216hp stock and gets 45# more weight then a 240hp car.
what 240hp car?

[erlrich]

what 240hp car?

s2k

[Andy Bettencourt]

s2k

And the 968 at 238hp isn't far behind.

[lateapex911]

The S2K was classed at 15%, wasn't it?

i'm dubious that the Cockster will hit 25%.

(Not being critical of Chip and the boys, I'm just the peanut gallery talking off the top of my head)

[Chip42]

the S2k was done ahead of my tenure, but the notes support 15%, yes. dunno about the 968. I (and others on the ITAC) tend to agree about the 2.5/2.7L Boxters but don't have enough info, so classed it at 25%.

[Greg Amy]

Final:

http://www.scca.com/assets/13-fastrack-aug.pdf