December 2013 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

Going to beat Pam to the punch this month, as we have a lot of changes in ST that will generate discussion...

11/14/13- Preliminary Minutes (http://www.scca.com/assets/December2013.prelim.minutes.pdf)
11/14/13- Preliminary Tech Bulletin (http://www.scca.com/assets/dec%202013%20Fastrack%20TB.pdf)

[seckerich]

Any reason we lost the injectors on the Mini? Not sure how we catch a Solstice without fuel. Have one and building a second one so curious.

[Greg Amy]

Any reason we lost the injectors on the Mini?
You didn't. Injectors are free in STx, it was struck as a redundant note.

Back story is that there used to be a line there where a combo of some pulley (JCW?) required stock injectors, and one pulley (stock?) allowed open injectors, but when that combo was removed the redundant note was not.

- GA

[quadzjr]

Did this note just make IT a legal national class that will allow you to qualify for the runoffs?

Production
1. #12279 (Philip Royle) Allow IT cars to run in Production in IT trim
Thank you for your letter. Add 9.1.5.B5.: 5. Any Improved Touring car meeting all the requirements of ITCS 9.1.3 may compete in the Production class in which the same make, model and engine displacement car is classified. For Improved Touring cars competing in Production, the level of preparation and modifications will be as determined by ITCS 9.1.3 and not by PCS 9.1.5. This is intended to allow Improved Touring competitors to become more familiar with Production to assist them in determining whether to modify their cars to meet the requirements of PCS 9.1.5 and also to permit Improved Touring competitors to compete in all events open to Production cars.

[Greg Amy]

Did this note just make IT a legal national class that will allow you to qualify for the runoffs?
A great move, IMO.

Of course, almost everybody with a 2L 4-cyl was able to do the same thing in STL for the last two years...now everyone else (well, those that have a corresponding car in Prod) can go to The Show.

- GA

[quadzjr]

the classificaton of the B18C5. Not quite sure why the 1" porting note has to be there. Is that not the rule for all STL builds?

Also why more weight for the RWD? didn't a FWD qualify 3 and 4 at the runoffs?

Good to see my request got through.

[shwah]

Why the hell is someone asking for a VW Passat to be classified in Touring 4?

[Greg Amy]

the classificaton of the B18C5. Not quite sure why the 1" porting note has to be there. Is that not the rule for all STL builds?
Early (1997) Type R B18C5s were hand-ported from the factory. Subsequent B18C5s were subject to a CNC clearance process (something that typically may be part of a good IT/STL-level engine build anyway). The CRB would not approve (and I would not have supported) the engine if we allowed the factory porting in, since it would not be able to be scrutineered (what part was done by eunich ex-Ninja Shinto monks, and what was done by the competitor?)

That note is an exclamation/clarification that the ported B18C5 engine will not pass scrutiny in STL. Any porting work, factory or otherwise, is prohibited. If you've got a hand-ported '97, you'll need to either get one that is not ported and/or start with a replacement casting (e.g., B16A/A2/A3 head).

- Greg

[Ron Earp]

ITS
1. #11724 (Willie Phee) Classify Acura TSX in ITS
The CRB requests member feedback for this question. Please submit letters to crbscca.com. Should the 04-08 Acura TSX remain as currently classified in ITR at 2760 lbs or be moved to ITS at a weight of 3175 lbs?


---

Bring it on into ITS with 205 stock hp @ 3175 lbs and some 15" wheels. Hoosier guys will love it.

[Chip42]

tGA - stupid (maybe?) question:

STL now has weight penalties (understandably) for certain engines, RWD/AWD, etc... are these applied successively, or are they summed before applying the cumulative % penalty over the chart?
e.g. the B18C5 has a 2% penalty. if RWD this would be chart *1.055*1.02 (1.0761)or *1.075?

at 1800cc this is 2430 chart, 2615 as successive, 2612 as summed.

I recognize it's 3lbs in this instance, but that's enough to get bounced at impound.

[Chip42]

Good to see my request got through.

now where the hell are we going to find one of those?

[JS154]

tGA - stupid (maybe?) question:

STL now has weight penalties (understandably) for certain engines, RWD/AWD, etc... are these applied successively, or are they summed before applying the cumulative % penalty over the chart?
e.g. the B18C5 has a 2% penalty. if RWD this would be chart *1.055*1.02 (1.0761)or *1.075?

at 1800cc this is 2430 chart, 2615 as successive, 2612 as summed.

I recognize it's 3lbs in this instance, but that's enough to get bounced at impound. I believe any adjustments are each done as a percentage of base weight, then all added to the base weight.

[Greg Amy]

STL now has weight penalties (understandably) for certain engines, RWD/AWD, etc... are these applied successively, or are they summed before applying the cumulative % penalty over the chart?


I believe any adjustments are each done as a percentage of base weight, then all added to the base weight.

I would disagree, Eric. STx is an engine-centric category, and the engine weight is the baseline for everything. Additions for specific engines should be factored into that baseline. So IMO you'd tally up all the stuff for the engine, and that's now your new base weight for the chassis it's installed into.

Example: B18C5 Type R engine installed into an S2000 chassis. Engine is 1.8L so 2430 pounds. B18C5 get +2%, so 2479. Gets installed into a RWD S2000 chassis, so +5.5% over 2479, thus 2615#.

If there's reasonable disagreement in this, then it's something we should clarify/codify.

- GA

[Chip42]

don't wait for disagreement, codify it NOW before there's a problem. again, that problem is AT WORST 3 lbs with a 2% engine modifier but if this system becomes a more common practice, you could expect that delta to grow.

and as I said above, 3 lbs is enough to bump you at impound, and it's 3# higher the tGA way than the tEH way. just state the order of operations, and do that every time you add percent weight changes to other allowances.

[quadzjr]

now where the hell are we going to find one of those?

I believe one is on a kart sitting right between two racecars at the moment.:D

[pfrichardson]

Yes, you beat me to the punch. The revised Prelims are now up.

...are posted:

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

[StephenB]

So it was requested that the renisis to be eliminated from STL but it looks like it just lost weight and then they added a restrictor? And the type r engine that races in ITR with the renisis is being added?

Greg, can you clarify? I am searching for an auto rx8 to possibly do a few swaps to run in STL but again I am thinking of sticking to IT until STL gets sorted out in a few years.


Thanks, Stephen

[chuck baader]

Another rules nerd question: STL fuel cells. A car built to IT specs can have a non FIA cell. A car crossing over to STL needs a FIA cell?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Lemme try! Before Greg gives us the real info:

Stephen - yes on your two comments. Greg asked for the Renisis to be removed, and the committee decided that they would just handicap it instead of that. Lower weight but I am assuming an educated guess on how much power they took away.

The addition of the Type R engine includes a weight penalty assuming because the cam spec is outside the rule-set? Interesting.

Chuck - your fully IT compliant car can run in STL provided it meets the engine size requirements (non ITR) no matter what rule is or isn't specifically compliant in STL. It just has to be 100% IT with no mixing and matching or rule-sets.

On edit: I wouldn't put a dime into an RX8 for STL right now. There is committee issue with the motor design, and RWD adders keep on rising. A good plan would be to run one in ITR for a couple more years and see what happens...but just like in ALL National classes, you win the runoffs, expect a lead trophy (or RP or...).

[mossaidis]

:happy204:

[mossaidis]

Another rules nerd question: STL fuel cells. A car built to IT specs can have a non FIA cell. A car crossing over to STL needs a FIA cell?

I believe a true STL car (non-IT or non-SM) will need a fuel cell only if the gas tank is behind the rear axles (or something like that).

[Greg Amy]

Odd...I posted a reply earlier and it's gone...


Greg asked for the Renisis to be removed, and the committee decided that they would just handicap it instead of that. Lower weight but I am assuming an educated guess on how much power they took away.
Concur, mostly. However, the CRB chose to plate the RX-8 (no personal idea on its effects) to be able to remove the 100# from it, since we were adding more weight for RWD and it was getting quite piggy (half a ton heavier than the 1.6L CRX).

Stephen, there are still hurdles to running your ITR RX-8 in STL, primarily brakes too large (front and rear), wheels too large (17x7 max), and tires too large (225 section width max). The transition between ITR and STL is not easy for the RX-8, nor is it intended to be.


The addition of the Type R engine includes a weight penalty assuming because the cam spec is outside the rule-set?B18C5 still has to meet all STL specs, including max valve lift. The 2% was to accommodate that its prepped output will exceed STL expectations (same reason for the plates for the K20 and MZR). If it exceeds it even with the extra 2%, it also risks a plate (I will likely be building and dyno'ing one for 2014, given I sold my B17A1 at the Runoffs).


...just like in ALL National classes, you win the runoffs, expect a lead trophy (or RP or...).A bit of a generalized mis-characterization, as the CRB does not knee-jerk lead-trophy Runoffs winners. However, if you lead the Runoffs by half a minute in the only car of your kind in the class, two years in a row with two different drivers, you certainly expect additional scrutiny... - GA

[Greg Amy]

I believe a true STL car (non-IT or non-SM) will need a fuel cell only if the gas tank is behind the rear axles (or something like that).

STCS 9.1.4.I.1:

The use of a fuel cell is required unless the stock
fuel tank is located between the axle centerlines and within the
main chassis structure (i.e., frame rails, etc.).

[StephenB]

I think ITR to STL was just brakes, and tires... stock parts from an auto and not a huge thing to tackle. I will look into the restrictor. Anyone know who sells them?

I think I well still sit and wait while STL goes through the growing pains and gets a bit more stable.


Stephen

[Chip42]

I'm seeing restrictor plates as a growth industry. I think I'll make some...

[Gregg]

Chip-

I think the addition of the 4dr EK Civic to ITA might have been botched. Here's the snipit from the prelim tech bulletin.


1. #12343 (Robert Powell) Classify the 1999 Honda Civic EX / Sedan
In ITA, Honda Civic EX Coupe (96-00), change the spec line as follows:
Honda Civic EX Coupe/Sedan (99-00)

Just want to make sure that the 96-98 cars don't get stricken.

[ltblouis]

Chip,
You make them and I will sell them for you :)

[Chip42]

Chip-

I think the addition of the 4dr EK Civic to ITA might have been botched. Here's the snipit from the prelim tech bulletin.

Just want to make sure that the 96-98 cars don't get stricken.

Good catch!i'llget that fixed ASAP

[Knestis]

So with the changes for next year, what's the hot Honda package in STL...? WWtGAD...?

Assume for a minute that we're talking about an FWD chassis that can get to the minimum weight for the various choices...

K

[Greg Amy]

Final Dec2013 Fastrack: http://www.scca.com/assets/13-fastrack-dec.pdf


So with the changes for next year, what's the hot Honda package in STL...? WWtGAD...?
Hot "Honda" package in STL? Or hot STL package?

I still think the Miata/RX-8 is the chassis to have. We only added 2% to RWD, and Drago has demonstrated that the Miata 1.8L can make some good power. That ~+50 pounds isn't gonna kill it.

We dropped a restrictor plate on the RX-8, but we also removed 100# (+ the 2%). Mazda has made some very good RWD chassis, and this is one of them. I don't think this plate will hurt the car.

The Honda S2k is now in the mix, but someone is going to have to build an engine that drops the compression ratio *and* reduces the cams. But this engine has a long history of high-revving - just like the Renesis - so this is one to watch.

But...if the question is "what is the FWD Honda package to have", then I'd suggest either a K20-powered Civic Si - about the #1 best-geometry strut-equipped FWD chassis ever made - or a K20-powered Integra - probably the #1 best-geometry multi-link/control arm FWD chassis ever made. The 50mm plate we added to the K20 (60/62mm throttle body stock) should not, theoretically, hurt the power a lot. From what I'm hearing, computer sims showed the throttle body was intentionally oversized to improve part-throttle drivability and had less to do with ultimate airflow (what we're really worried about in racing). *IF* these sims are correct, we're only talking about a 10-ish hp hit on the K20.

And I'm not convinced that weight is a big disadvantage in STL (versus smaller engines/less weight). My personal experience at Road America was +20hp and +135# with the 1.8L engine (versus 1.7L) and I dropped 3s per lap. Given the Civic is a strut car, and struts get an additional 2.5% weight break, I'd be tempted to build up a K20-powered Civic Si as my "FWD Honda car to beat". Second Honda choice would be a K20-powered "anything else". Third choice would be a B18C5 (Type R, add 2% weight) or B18C1 (GSR) powered "anything else".

But in the end, I still think a well-built, well-developed, high-quality RWD chassis is still King of the Road. I'm waiting for someone to spend some serious money on an MX-5.

I'm not clear the smaller-displacement cars are in good positions right now, except at tighter tracks. I'd take a 1.6L Miata at Lime Rock any day, maybe even at Mid-Ohio. Daytona? Same at Road America: they'll line up based on wheel torque.

Then again, we've approved the VW Euro 2L 4-valve engine, which I've yet to see built... ;)

We'll see, eh?

- GA

[Knestis]

...But...if the question is "what is the FWD Honda package to have", then I'd suggest either a K20-powered Civic Si - about the #1 best-geometry strut-equipped FWD chassis ever made - or a K20-powered Integra - probably the #1 best-geometry multi-link/control arm FWD chassis ever made.

You answered my question spot-on, Greg. Thanks.

K

[stevestratton]

GA - "And I'm not convinced that weight is a big disadvantage in STL (versus smaller engines/less weight). My personal experience at Road America was +20hp and +135# with the 1.8L engine (versus 1.7L) and I dropped 3s per lap.....

I'm not clear the smaller-displacement cars are in good positions right now, except at tighter tracks. I'd take a 1.6L Miata at Lime Rock any day, maybe even at Mid-Ohio. Daytona? Same at Road America: they'll line up based on wheel torque."

I am hoping that this year we can close the NA - NB gap for Miata's and 1.6 cars overall, but I have to agree with Greg. If I only had $50K to build a NC...

Thanks Greg

[quadzjr]

I am hoping that this year we can close the NA - NB gap for Miata's and 1.6 cars overall, but I have to agree with Greg. If I only had $50K to build a NC...

Thanks Greg

Right now I do not think a 1.6L anything is going to take it home at a national level. MVS here in the SE is building/built a 1.6L STL miata. He was testing it during the same test day I was at before the SIC. Though he still has more to do for a full STL build, he was at his ITS times.

He is registered in the car at Sebring for the Turkey Trots, so we will see what it can do.

We will see after this year of the displacement multiplier is correct. In theory this year at the runoffs a great handling car should be the ticket. This is where the smaller, light weight, nimble cars should do very well. If not then IMHO the multiplier will need to be looked at if the ticket is still grab a chassis and throw in the biggest motor you can.

In Continental challenge the lower hp MX5s I think finished 1-2 their this year at Seca. So we will see.

[Marcus Miller]

I'll disagree; the winner to this years' runoffs will be the torquiest car that handles halfway decently; Laguna is a very hilly start and stop kinda track. If a torquey car can get in front... :026:

[quadzjr]

I'll disagree; the winner to this years' runoffs will be the torquiest car that handles halfway decently; Laguna is a very hilly start and stop kinda track. If a torquey car can get in front... :026:

if that is the case, that is not good. The turque cars were the ones that dominated the last run off. where and how are they load displacement car's supposed to win?

[Z3_GoCar]

I'll disagree; the winner to this years' runoffs will be the torquiest car that handles halfway decently; Laguna is a very hilly start and stop kinda track. If a torquey car can get in front... :026:

Marcus, no one seems to believe me that Laguna is a series of up hill dyno pulls, power to weight wins every time. If they'd scheduled it at Sear Point, that would be a horse of a different color. I fear you'll have to wait until the RO's get to Mid-O.

[Marcus Miller]

Marcus, no one seems to believe me that Laguna is a series of up hill dyno pulls, power to weight wins every time. If they'd scheduled it at Sear Point, that would be a horse of a different color. I fear you'll have to wait until the RO's get to Mid-O.

I believe you!
Hp and torque will be winners. Laguna is not a handling track. It's point and shoot with hills.
Sears or Thunderhill would be very different.

[Knestis]

Anyone know of possible STL rental opportunities for the Laguna RubOffs.......?

K

[Greg Amy]

Anyone know of possible STL rental opportunities for the Laguna RubOffs.......?
Already pursuing some, mostly Mee-Otters (though I am in discussions with a Honda guy). I'll keep you posted with what I come up with. - GA

[Knestis]

Thanks, Greg. All things being equal, I'd be interested in the Honda guy...

K

[Greg Amy]

Thanks, Greg. All things being equal, I'd be interested in the Honda guy...
I'll keep you posted, but I get first bite on that one... ;)

[mossaidis]

What's $2K in tow gas? please... (NOT!) If so, just hope you are the only guy in your region out east that tows out and your region has a tow fund!

[mossaidis]

Thanks, Greg. All things being equal, I'd be interested in the Honda guy...

K


I'll keep you posted, but I get first bite on that one... ;)

This is getting weird.

[tom91ita]

K,

there may be several competitive NASA Honda Challenge H2 honda swaps in California. I think H2 with engine swaps might be decent in STL.

You might check out some of the NASA forums.

Tom

[mossaidis]

Just guessing here, I would imagine that many HC cars in H1 and H2 have JDM swaps.

[Greg Amy]

Just guessing here, I would imagine that many HC cars in H1 and H2 have JDM swaps.
Likely. However the component parts are typically the same as USDM engines expect for cams and pistons. If that were the case, and assuming the cams are within STL specs, I contend the engines are compliant to the regs due to the "aftermarket source" reg and specific JDM approval is not required.

I've gotten into spirited debates with folks over this interpretation. Many contend that since the engine has "B16A" (or whatever JDM designation) stamped on it, that automatically makes it non-compliant. I disagree. The reg states something like parts must be "the exact equivalent of the original parts". However if we can obtain parts from, say, NAPA and use those, are you going to argue that the NAPA parts are not compliant because they may have different part numbers cast into, or stamped on, them? In my mind, if the parts are dimensionally and metallurgical the same between the USDM and JDM engines, and no component exceeds either OE or STL-allowed specs, then it's compliant to the STCS.

If having that "B16A" stamped on the block bothers your competition, then just grind it off.

- GA, inviting people to read his signature at the bottom...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Aren't JDM engines specifically disallowed except for specific line-item inclusion?

While I understand your position, and tend to agree with the fact that the resultant unit would be compliant, it would seem that starting with a non-USDM core is not allowed specifically by the rules and any 'core' without proof of USDM origin would be technically illegal.

Maybe a rules re-write is in order?

[tom91ita]

I guess I am thinking more along the lines that if the "A" of B16A bothers the competition then that is a reason to add one to the "B16"

[Greg Amy]

Maybe a rules re-write is in order?
Nope. Alternate parts are allowed per the regs, as long as they're the same part (dimensions and materials). As long as the specs are the same, the parts are allowed.

If you disassemble both a USDM and a JDM engine, spread the parts all across the tech shed floor and compare them, and find that they're all exactly the same part, yet the only difference is one is stamped "A" and one is stamped "B", then - as per Roffe Corollary - "if it says you can, then you bloody well can!" And if you counter that the stamps and casting marks and ink spots and everything else has to match on allowed replacement parts, then I'd counter the regulation is completely pointless, because were a supplier to attempt to sell parts with all the same casting marks and stamps and ink spots they'd get sued by the OE manufacturer.

The reg is clear: the parts must meet "dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer".

These do. They're compliant.

And, before this board gets all high and mighty about it, maybe it should look inward to find out where that reg came from...and where else its interpretations may apply...?

- GA

P.S. Here's the reg:


Replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts. The intent of this rule is to allow the competitor to obtain replacement parts from standard industry outlets, e.g., auto-parts distributors, rather than from the manufacturer. It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer, unless otherwise allowed in the Super Touring category or class rules."Same old axe. Replaced the handle twice and the head once, but it's still the same ole axe."

[mossaidis]

... having flashbacks... of prior... threads on UDSM vs non-USDM...

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=30173&highlight=USDM&page=3

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29508&highlight=JDM

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29380&highlight=JDM

http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=28840&highlight=USDM

... enjoy this long, boring, non-racing (a few exceptions) weekend.

[Greg Amy]

... enjoy this long, boring, non-racing (a few exceptions) weekend.
Give me the Cliff's Notes version...I'm busy drinking beer.

It's always been my contention that extra-US-market engine are compliant as basis for IT/ST builds as long as the components used are exactly the same as the US-spec car. This goes back to the early 2000s when someone (honestly, not me or "a friend") wanted to use a JDM SR20DE as a basis to build an ITA engine. In my opinion, it was legal to use a JDM SR20DE to build an ITA engine, as long as everything that ended up in the final assembly was the same - dimensionally and metallurgically - as the US SR20DE.

Same applies to STL. If someone wants to run, for example, a B16A (versus a US-spec B16A2) in STL in their Civic, I say it's compliant as long as the compression ratio is below 11:1 and the total valve lift is within .425" (dunno if it is). I know the B16A has different pistons and cams, but the compression ratio is within 11:1. And pistons and rods (and cams) are free (within prep limits.)

Now, if someone installs a JDM B16A engine with some wild-ass intake manifold and throttle body that was never installed in the US and tosses that into the car? Not compliant. Parts are decisively not what was installed in a US-spec car.

Otherwise, in the end, it really is the same thing, except for what the Shinto eunich ex-Ninja monk stamps on the block as it passed by on the production line. Compliant to the alternate parts letter, and compliant to the alternate parts spirit.

- GA

[Z3_GoCar]

Give me the Cliff's Notes version...I'm busy drinking beer.

It's always been my contention that extra-US-market engine are compliant as basis for IT/ST builds as long as the components used are exactly the same as the US-spec car. This goes back to the early 2000s when someone (honestly, not me or "a friend") wanted to use a JDM SR20DE as a basis to build an ITA engine. In my opinion, it was legal to use a JDM SR20DE to build an ITA engine, as long as everything that ended up in the final assembly was the same - dimensionally and metallurgically - as the US SR20DE.

Same applies to STL. If someone wants to run, for example, a B16A (versus a US-spec B16A2) in STL in their Civic, I say it's compliant as long as the compression ratio is below 11:1 and the total valve lift is within .425" (dunno if it is). I know the B16A has different pistons and cams, but the compression ratio is within 11:1. And pistons and rods (and cams) are free (within prep limits.)

Now, if someone installs a JDM B16A engine with some wild-ass intake manifold and throttle body that was never installed in the US and tosses that into the car? Not compliant. Parts are decisively not what was installed in a US-spec car.

Otherwise, in the end, it really is the same thing, except for what the Shinto eunich ex-Ninja monk stamps on the block as it passed by on the production line. Compliant to the alternate parts letter, and compliant to the alternate parts spirit.

- GA

And there you have the rub, because:

e. It is permitted to use the OEM intake and throttle body from either the chassis or the installed engine.
1. Regardless of the intake chosen, the total number of throttle bodies must remain the same as the installed engine.

and:

2. All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air throttling device (e.g., throttle body, carburetor) and intake manifold, unless noted otherwise.

If you install the JDM motor then you have to install the JDM ITB manifold, which as you point out isn't allowed as the JDM is a non-USDM item.

[Knestis]

No.

Because in Greg's example the "installed engine" is an OE, US-spec engine. The PARTS of that engine may be from the original sold-in-'merica car, the Honda dealer, the local Pep Boys, or from his eunuch friends on Mount Fuji - as long as they are all of the spec designated for the stock car OR within requirements where allowances are provided by the rules.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

I see and understand the logic. However I also see an specific requirement for the engine to be as delivered for the USDM. The rules seem to be at odds with each other.

'You can't use anything but a USDM engine'
'You can use any part from any world market so long as it's exactly like the USDM version'

I don't see this as good rule writing.

Can't you just say, 'Only USDM engine may be used or their exact equivalents from other DM's'?

Good stuff. I see both sides - and when you do, I think a clarification is in order.

[Knestis]

It's not any different than the equivalent part allowance in IT, is it...?

K

[Z3_GoCar]

No.

Because in Greg's example the "installed engine" is an OE, US-spec engine. The PARTS of that engine may be from the original sold-in-'merica car, the Honda dealer, the local Pep Boys, or from his eunuch friends on Mount Fuji - as long as they are all of the spec designated for the stock car OR within requirements where allowances are provided by the rules.

K

But, you're not installing the US-spec engine, you're installing the JDM-spec engine and calling it the same as the USDM plus allowed modifications. To do this you have to violate the stock intake manifold rule, because the JDM and USDM manifolds aren't the same. It seems pretty clear to me, you need to specifically allow the JDM motor or remove the intake manifold/throttle body number rules to make this legal.

[Chip42]

the point of the USDM only engine rule is compliance enforcement and staying away from small run homologation specials which we colonists rarely get.

a USDM/STL spec B16A is no different than the same B16A2 or A3 REGARDLESS of the stamping on the block. that's all it is, stamping.

a JDM B16B, however, is verboten unless specifically allowed by the CRB/STAC and added in the allowance table in the GCR. same would be true of some odd JDM intake as in tGA's example. the installed engine is the engine you say it is. "This is a B16A2" means so long as it matches that description in ALL relevant ways, you're good. it could say B18C5 on the block and you could STILL be compliant (to use a USDM part swap reference)

and As far as I can see - the same IS allowed in IT. foreign sourced blocks no different than a USDM one match the letter of the rule.

happy Turkey day everyone - I'll be racing this weekend, in a way underbuilt MR2 on street tires having fun and getting passed.

[Greg Amy]

Yup, what Kirk and Chip said. No regs clarification needed.


I don't see this as good rule writing.


It's not any different than the equivalent part allowance in IT, is it...?

How about "exactly the same"? I stole it from the ITCS and changed the word "Improved" to "Super"... ;)

Edit: James, just to clarify: I'm not saying you can use the intake from a JDM engine to build an STL engine, I'm saying you can use the parts from the JDM engine to build a compliant STL engine as long as the parts are exactly the same. Axe/Handle/same axe.

Happy Turkey Day!

- GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yup, what Kirk and Chip said. No regs clarification needed.





How about "exactly the same"? I stole it from the ITCS and changed the word "Improved" to "Super"... ;)


Happy Turkey Day!

- GA

Except you also have the specific exclusion of anything non USDM as the core principle. That's where I get hung up. I fully believe the concept is legal but the rule greys it for me.

Have a great Holiday!

[Greg Amy]

Except you also have the specific exclusion of anything non USDM as the core principle.
As does Improved Touring..."cars will be models as offered for sale in the United States." Yet it's also compliant to use JDM (and EDM) engines as parts sources for IT engines...as long as the parts are the same as USDM parts. - GA

[Knestis]

But, you're not installing the US-spec engine, you're installing the JDM-spec engine and calling it the same as the USDM plus allowed modifications. To do this you have to violate the stock intake manifold rule, because the JDM and USDM manifolds aren't the same. It seems pretty clear to me, you need to specifically allow the JDM motor or remove the intake manifold/throttle body number rules to make this legal.

You're not listening.

I used a bunch of parts from all over the world, all of which are per the OE US market spec, and I ended up with a OW US market spec engine.

I. Did. Not. Use. Non-US. Spec. Parts.

Set free the assumption that an "engine" is one part. It's a lot of parts.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

....Edit: James, just to clarify: I'm not saying you can use the intake from a JDM engine to build an STL engine, I'm saying you can use the parts from the JDM engine to build a compliant STL engine as long as the parts are exactly the same. Axe/Handle/same axe.

Happy Turkey Day!

- GA

Happy Turkey Day: Greg, Chip, Kirk, Andy, and anyone else who might be lurking this thread


the point of the USDM only engine rule is compliance enforcement and staying away from small run homologation specials which we colonists rarely get.

....
happy Turkey day everyone - I'll be racing this weekend, in a way underbuilt MR2 on street tires having fun and getting passed.

So you're inclusive of Frankenstein type motor builds, as long as the net parts are equivalent to a USDM target. When you mix and match parts, what's the motors original intake manifold and throttle body? And how do you spec and control this? Net-Net, we end up down the same garden path the Mazdaspeed turbo allowance took us.

[Knestis]

>> So you're inclusive of Frankenstein type motor builds, as long as the net parts are equivalent to a USDM target.

Eggs-actly.

"Original" is defined by what came in the car, not the lump from which any parts were sourced. There's no allowance that I can run the JDM (or whatever exotic) intake manifold and throttle body, so I can't.

If my Frankenstein looks just like Bob from the block, and is made of the same parts as him, it's still just ol' Bobby - not some monster.

K

[Chip42]

So you're inclusive of Frankenstein type motor builds, as long as the net parts are equivalent to a USDM target. When you mix and match parts, what's the motors original intake manifold and throttle body? And how do you spec and control this? Net-Net, we end up down the same garden path the Mazdaspeed turbo allowance took us.

Not frankensteins, just a part from here and a part from there that happen to be the same in every way as the part you need for the specified engine. you can't take a B16A3 head and a B18B3 intake and call it compliant to anything. they never came in that config. but to my knowledge, the B18C/B17/B16 are all the same blocks. the ASSEMBLY is stamped as whatever it was, but that doesn't make the shared parts unique.

yeah, you might have some 'splainin to do if you call your car a 1600 and there's the block from an 1800 in there, but measure the stroke and come out B16 spec and you're fine, IMHO.

the mazda turbo thing was pretty sneaky - the alternate MSP part was allowed as an alternate replacement for the MSM and not well vetted by the rulemakers when approved. but it was SPECIFICALLY approved, then rescinded. alternate parts that match OEM are allowed by the category rules and do not need a line item, nor does using them open a box labeled "Pandora, keep closed."

legality is an enforcement via measurement and material issue, not a stamping one.

happy 4th thursday in November to my Can"eh"dian friends.

[Knestis]

Too close for roasting, Goose. I'm switching to sandwiches!

K

[Z3_GoCar]

Too close for roasting, Goose. I'm switching to sandwiches!

K

From Carmina Burana:
Olium Lacus Colueram
The English translation goes something like:

Once I had dwelt on lakes, once I had been beautiful, when I was a swan. Poor wretch! Now black and well roasted!
The cook turns me back and forth; I am roasted to a turn on my pyre; now the waiter serves me. Poor wretch! Now black and well roasted! Now I lie on the dish, and I cannot fly; I see the gnashing teeth. Poor wretch! Now black and well roasted!

Better make that a Veggie sandwich, maybe with Hummis :D

[lateapex911]

Ummm, that was very bizarre.

Gregs right.

Jakes Motor Blocks makes engines.
He makes a B26A.
It's just like a Honda B16A that everybody runs, but, he want's to make sales, so he charges less.
Would that be legal?
Damn straight it would.
If HONDA made it, would it then suddenly become ILLEGAL?
Of course not.
And if they lableled it B16, and to keep track of production numbers and warrantees and crap, they sold that one, labeled B16, but the same in every other way, only in Japan, would it now be suddenly illegal?
Of course not.
Now, if that engine uses a sooper flowy intake but only in Japan, does that mean the intake is legal because that labeled block came with those parts?
Of course not.

It's really very simple.

[Bill Miller]

And there you have the rub, because:

e. It is permitted to use the OEM intake and throttle body from either the chassis or the installed engine.
1. Regardless of the intake chosen, the total number of throttle bodies must remain the same as the installed engine.

and:

2. All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air throttling device (e.g., throttle body, carburetor) and intake manifold, unless noted otherwise.

If you install the JDM motor then you have to install the JDM ITB manifold, which as you point out isn't allowed as the JDM is a non-USDM item.


First off, let me say that I'm with Andy on this one. I agree w/ Greg/Kirk/Chip on the interpretation, but the wording of the rule could be better.

As far as the quote above, when I read through it the first few times, I thought "Yeah, that doesn't allow the JDM motor". But after the 5th or 6th reading, it occurred to me that the "unless noted otherwise" clause is covered by "it is permitted to use the OEM intake and throttle body from either the chassis or the installed engine". Otherwise, 2. would invalidate e., even if you were talking about all USDM stuff.

Hope everyone had a great holiday!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Final thoughts:

IT rules state that they are to be 'models' offered in the US and must be prepared to the MFG spec unless an authorization is given in the rules. Then they go on to deal with replacement parts and what is ok...properly circling back.

ST rules say that non-USDM engines are illegal. It's a core principle of the rules which one then has to assume is overridden by the 'exact replacement' clause regardless of origin. The confusion is created when you say something is expressly illegal and then you can override that. That isn't how the IT rules work, actually the 'no legal modification may perform an expressly illegal function' wording in the IT rules makes it different in my mind.

BUT...I agree that you can run through the wording and get to a 'legal' JDM block but I certainly don't think it's clear enough. Maybe something like 'USDM engine assemblies or their exact equivalent' would be better. Maybe not.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ummm, that was very bizarre.

Gregs right.

Jakes Motor Blocks makes engines.
He makes a B26A.
It's just like a Honda B16A that everybody runs, but, he want's to make sales, so he charges less.
Would that be legal?
Damn straight it would.
If HONDA made it, would it then suddenly become ILLEGAL?
Of course not.
And if they lableled it B16, and to keep track of production numbers and warrantees and crap, they sold that one, labeled B16, but the same in every other way, only in Japan, would it now be suddenly illegal?
Of course not.
Now, if that engine uses a sooper flowy intake but only in Japan, does that mean the intake is legal because that labeled block came with those parts?
Of course not.

It's really very simple.

It seems simple. Except you need to add a rule:

Jake's Motor Blocks are specifically ILLEGAL per the rules.
There is a reason that JMB are illegal, most of them are not the US spec that is required.
But some of them are exactly the same at the US versions that are legal.
Are those now legal? ESPECIALLY if they have stampings that say they are JMB's, which are indeed specifically illegal

Do we need people to have to know JDM or NUSDM specs?

[lateapex911]

I, and the company I own and represent are INSULTED by your shameful slur, sir!
Why are my blocks illegal?? The specific blocks in question are exact clones of the blocks that Honda sells, services and installs as replacements in the car that are approved and raced in STL.

By side company, Jakes Brake Discs has been supplying most of the field with my identical, but made with Polynesian and African labor, so that i can sell for lower prices....and nobody has any issues with their legality.

I fail to see the difference.

The fact that I am selling the exact same blocks to the guys who run in the JPL class of the SCCJ (Sports Car Club of Japan) where the rules state that original equipment blocks must be used shouldn't enter into your thought process.

My blocks meet the exact replacement rules, and my part numbers have no bearing on anything, nor should the other markets that they are used in.

If somebody feels the replacement parts I make are indeed not exact copies of the proper part, then they should determine the difference and protest me.

[Bill Miller]

I, and the company I own and represent are INSULTED by your shameful slur, sir!
Why are my blocks illegal?? The specific blocks in question are exact clones of the blocks that Honda sells, services and installs as replacements in the car that are approved and raced in STL.

By side company, Jakes Brake Discs has been supplying most of the field with my identical, but made with Polynesian and African labor, so that i can sell for lower prices....and nobody has any issues with their legality.

I fail to see the difference.

The fact that I am selling the exact same blocks to the guys who run in the JPL class of the SCCJ (Sports Car Club of Japan) where the rules state that original equipment blocks must be used shouldn't enter into your thought process.

My blocks meet the exact replacement rules, and my part numbers have no bearing on anything, nor should the other markets that they are used in.

If somebody feels the replacement parts I make are indeed not exact copies of the proper part, then they should determine the difference and protest me.

But there's a rule that specifically states that your engines are illegal. That's what the paper will refer to. If you want them to be allowed, I think it would be incumbent on you to get the rule changed the expressly prohibits them.

Seriously, I think that if they're dimensionally and metallurgicaly the same, they should be allowed. But outlawing JDM engines was the EASY button.

[dickita15]

The question comes down to the definition of engine. Is it the block or is it just a collection of specifications?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I, and the company I own and represent are INSULTED by your shameful slur, sir!
Why are my blocks illegal?? The specific blocks in question are exact clones of the blocks that Honda sells, services and installs as replacements in the car that are approved and raced in STL.

By side company, Jakes Brake Discs has been supplying most of the field with my identical, but made with Polynesian and African labor, so that i can sell for lower prices....and nobody has any issues with their legality.

I fail to see the difference.

The fact that I am selling the exact same blocks to the guys who run in the JPL class of the SCCJ (Sports Car Club of Japan) where the rules state that original equipment blocks must be used shouldn't enter into your thought process.

My blocks meet the exact replacement rules, and my part numbers have no bearing on anything, nor should the other markets that they are used in.

If somebody feels the replacement parts I make are indeed not exact copies of the proper part, then they should determine the difference and protest me.

Ahhh but they aren't exact clones. They are cast with the JMB logo and serial number easily identifying them as specifically illegal from the get go. Spec for spec notwithstanding, the rule specifically calls your product out as illegal.

Jake's Brake Discs however flourishes. Why? No specific rule disallowing them exists in the rulebook and they are exact replacement parts.

In all seriousness, saying something is explicitly illegal as one of the core rules and then hinting that it could be legal later on isn't a great rule. There is a huge difference in the IT and ST rules here. IT talks about specs and equivalency, while the ST rules say no right up front and then allow exact substitutions...but really not the original. It's specific in that regard.

There is a better rule to be written here and it's not because the original rule was bad, but because the class continues to evolve as to what is acceptable and what isn't IMO.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The question comes down to the definition of engine. Is it the block or is it just a collection of specifications?

I would think the latter. That is why I like 'USDM engine assemblies or their exact equivalent'or something like that.

[Greg Amy]

Spec for spec notwithstanding, the rule specifically calls your product out as illegal.
No it does not, Andy. The reg states:

It is not intended to allow parts that do not meet all dimensional and material specifications of new parts from the manufacturer...

...which has a clear Roffe Corollary implication that as long as the parts meet dimensional and material specifications as the original, they are compliant, to both ITCS and STCS. Nowhere in the regs are these parts limited to exact logo and inking equivalents; if they were, then why specifically call out material and dimensions?

Remember, "if it says you can, then you bloody well can!"

And, as I noted before, it is clearly against most copyright and patent law for any aftermarket parts manufacturer to produce a part that uses the exact same markings, logos, etc as the OE manufacturer; it is impossible for any aftermarket manufacturer to legally produce parts in that manner. There is not one aftermarket part in the world that would meet that requirement.

By arguing otherwise, Andy, you are attempting to change the intent of the aftermarket parts allowance and/or make it completely impossible to comply. The allowance would become moot.


There is a huge difference in the IT and ST rules here.No there's not, Andy; they're exactly the same. Same IIDSYCTYC philosophy, same exact "you can only use cars and engines from the US market". The only difference is that STL allows the opportunity for non-US engine designs from other markets to be specifically approved.

But we're not talking engine designs here, Andy; we talking individual component parts, whose source is unregulated (insert George comment here...)

And in the end, if the individual parts from a JDM/EDM engine are completely indistinguishable from those in a USDM engine, why would anybody care where they came from? How does this is even come close to violating either the spirit of the letter of the regs?

Finally, I'm further offering that my position allows use of JDM/EDM engines as parts sources in Improved Touring as well (I've done it, and I've explained to others how they can do it while staying compliant to the ITCS)

So this discussion has absolutely nothing to do - zilch, zero, nothing, nada! -with the STCS's JDM engine allowance.


There is a better rule to be written here...Nope, no rule re-write needed - and none will be pursued - simply because your position is based on faulty logic and mis-reading of the intent of the regs.

There is nothing here to "fix".

"Thank you for your input."


That is why I like 'USDM engine assemblies or their exact equivalent'or something like that.
Again, we're not talking engine assemblies. I think that's where you're getting all hung up. We're talking individual component parts, the sources of which are unregulated, as long as they're identical in dimensions and materials.

And...they are. Same exact parts.

- GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well we will agree to disagree. IT rules says US chassis and US specifications. ST rules state no JDM engines allowed unless seen on a spec line. There is a difference there. And to add a rule later that allows exact replacements is great and all but flies in the face of the core rule...that does NOT exist in IT land.

Again, I see the argument and I can draw the line to legality. But I also can see how it is viewed the other way...and to me that's a bad rule.
You can only use that red stick from the US.
You can not use any red stick from the 'non-US'.
You can use a different red stick as long as it's the exact same as the red stick from the US.
The red stick I found was a 'non-US' red stick but is exactly the same as my US red stick except that it is definitely the 'non-US' version you told me I couldn't use.
So my new red stick is exactly the same as my old red stick an should be legal, so why say I can't use it in the beginning?

Still feel like there is better wording to be had. But trust me, I hear the thought process and I would tell anyone the line of thinking to get to a legal spot.

We will agree to disagree.

[lateapex911]

Hazy definitions. It's only a JDM engine IF it's unique to that market. otherwise you are outlawing a label. Why then ONLY outlaw Honda labels? Why are all OTHER labels ok??

I can see that a clarification could make this easy. But, as it stands, I'd say identical trumps a label.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hazy definitions. It's only a JDM engine IF it's unique to that market. otherwise you are outlawing a label. Why then ONLY outlaw Honda labels? Why are all OTHER labels ok??

I dunno, why specifically call them out as illegal?

Obama just past sanctions on all Jake's products. It's moot. :)

[Chip42]

and people say the SCCA is too officious...

[mossaidis]

officious - assertive of authority in an annoyingly domineering way, esp. with regard to petty or trivial matters.

You know what SCCA needs to do? Well, I will tell you... :)

[pfcs]

Final thoughts:



not to be too officious (my new word)

[ShelbyRacer]

Can JDM parts be used if they help make the car neat-and-clean?

[JS154]

I'll disagree; the winner to this years' runoffs will be the torquiest car that handles halfway decently; Laguna is a very hilly start and stop kinda track. If a torquey car can get in front... :026:

It will be interesting to see how things play out in STU.

[JS154]

the mazda turbo thing was pretty sneaky .

understatement of the year.

[Marcus Miller]

It will be interesting to see how things play out in STU.

My opinion, awd turbo. Point and shoot.

[JS154]

Can JDM parts be used if they help make the car neat-and-clean?

that would probably fall under an allowed part performing an illegal function.

[mossaidis]

My STU wet dream...

http://www.autoguide.com/auto-news/2013/11/2015-honda-civic-type-r-revealed-during-latest-shakedown-tests.html

[Greg Amy]

Sweet. Is that thing coming to the USA?

[Chip42]

Sweet. Is that thing coming to the USA?

you're kidding, right? we never get the CTR.

[Xian]

you're kidding, right? we never get the CTR.

True... but maybe now that the Integra/RSX is dead and buried Honda will see fit to bring over the CTR. Maybe. There was an online petition circulating recently asking Honda NA to bring it over... but I won't be holding my breath.

Edit & PS:
Then again, with the recent success of the FRS/BRZ maybe Honda will see a lost opportunity? Doubtful though...

[stevestratton]

True... but maybe now that the Integra/RSX is dead and buried Honda will see fit to bring over the CTR. Maybe. There was an online petition circulating recently asking Honda NA to bring it over... but I won't be holding my breath.

Edit & PS:
Then again, with the recent success of the FRS/BRZ maybe Honda will see a lost opportunity? Doubtful though...
That's nice enough to to make a miata guy change sides!

[Gregg]

So it looks like the BoD approved every rule on its plate unanimously.

http://www.scca.com/news/index.cfm?cid=51715

And apparently they have an idea to boost GT Lite numbers with real, credible competition....

Additionally, the Board requested that the CRB consider permitting Improved Touring-spec cars into the GT category, as it approved for the Production category via request letter #12279.
So there...I guess the only thing left is to let us race in FV. :023:

[Greg Amy]

And apparently they have an idea to boost GT Lite numbers with real, credible competition....
Oooooo...I like the inclusion into Prod but that one gives me pause...significantly different prep, significantly different speeds, and significantly different safety regulations...but if the competitors on both sides are OK with it, who am I to complain?

Someone want to count how many groups a NEDIV SSM can compete in now...? I'm running out of digits.

[Gregg]

Completely agree...I was stunned to see this. Obviously nobody would expect an IT car to be competitive in another other than regional...er....divisional events where GT cars rarely roam (but could stand to boost the category's yearly numbers, thus saving, say GTL, from the chopping block), but this is as bad an idea as shoe-horning GTL and all their tube frameeness into HP and FP.

You can bet I'm writing against this one.

[dickita15]

Understand that the Prod committee asked for this and the CRB and BoD said okay and then is asking the GT committee if they are interested as well. The GT committee can request it or not.
I do not see the goal of this type of thing as just grabbing numbers from uncompetitive cars. As has happened in ST some drivers have double dipped with their IT cars, liked it and started to modify their car to ST specific prep.
If small GT classes are going to grow and survive they will need to be more inclusive with their rules so we did not want them to miss considering this type of opportunity.

[Greg Amy]

If small GT classes are going to grow and survive they will need to be more inclusive with their rules so we did not want them to miss considering this type of opportunity.
Agree. I'm not concerned about the numbers part, it's the difference in performance and safety equipment that gives me pause. I have experience with my STL car in the same group at the GTL cars, and the speed difference can be pretty significant. - GA

[Wreckerboy]

Someone want to count how many groups a NEDIV SSM can compete in now...? I'm running out of digits.

It's not all encompassing, yet. However, we are working on that FV thing Gregg mentioned above. I'm thinking Velcro for the fenders might work...


Remember, there are 985,000 NA Miatas out there. Soon we will have a class for each one. All your classes are belong to us!

[Andy Bettencourt]

So what IT cars would be included? What classes?

[dickita15]

I think the way it works is if the car is already classed in prod trim you can run the same car in IT trim. I do not believe it is all it cars like the STL rule is.

[Matt93SE]

Agree. I'm not concerned about the numbers part, it's the difference in performance and safety equipment that gives me pause. I have experience with my STL car in the same group at the GTL cars, and the speed difference can be pretty significant. - GA

I can see an issue between a backmarker IT and a front-running GTL car, but they already run in the same race group here anyway. The only difference would be the letters on the door for SWDIV.

[Chip42]

the rearrangement of groupings to get IT, prod, and GTL all in separate groups to allow for IT triple dipping would be very difficult in some places as usually 2 of the 3 are run together.

overall I think IT in GT is rather silly, and while I don't object on the grounds of danger I'd suggest it might be better to let the prod or ST cars run as GT in their current prep. IT in ST and P, P and/or ST in GT, GT in P... double dipping for everyone!

then we can consolidate everything to 2 categories of stock tubs (T, IT, ST) and flared fenders (P, GT) and call it a day.:D

[Andy Bettencourt]

I respect Dick's thoughts but I just don't buy it's not a grab at car counts to save classes. IT to Prod makes sense but IT to GT? That's a huge prep jump and if you were interested in tube frames and the like, you would already be there or in Prod looking to make a move.

[Matt93SE]

I respect Dick's thoughts but I just don't buy it's not a grab at car counts to save classes. IT to Prod makes sense but IT to GT? That's a huge prep jump and if you were interested in tube frames and the like, you would already be there or in Prod looking to make a move.

The majority of the cars in all of those classes around here are tub Miatas. Change the tires, add some fender flares, cut the windshields off, stick a cam and SIR in it, IT-->GTL! :023:

[dickita15]

I respect Dick's thoughts but I just don't buy it's not a grab at car counts to save classes. IT to Prod makes sense but IT to GT? That's a huge prep jump and if you were interested in tube frames and the like, you would already be there or in Prod looking to make a move.

Well for one thing, IMHO, GT will not survive if they only cater to tube frame cars.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Well for one thing, IMHO, GT will not survive if they only cater to tube frame cars.

Agree.

[Greg Amy]

Well for one thing, IMHO, GT will not survive if they only cater to tube frame cars.
GT tube cars are legacy racing, at best. Most major, popular racing worldwide (ignoring NASCAR*) is production/tub-based. All the remaining tubeframe sillhouette cars are either hanging on by their fingernails or heavily-subsidized by manufacturers (SCCA Trans-Am, DTM, and some Continental cars come immediately to mind).

GT2 was basically (at least from my perspective) "rescued" this past year by the inclusion of tub cars (Porsche GT3, Super Touring Over) and that's got a lot of people talking about how to include tub cars in GTL.

Tubs are where it's at, baby. Now if we could only get GT2 to run on 200TTW DOTs we'd be in the money...

- GA

* And if NASCAR actually ran tub cars from their manufacturers? I'd start watching that s**t again, even the ovals...

[Matt93SE]

* And if NASCAR actually ran tub cars from their manufacturers? I'd start watching that s**t again, even the ovals...

They call that V8 Supercars.

[Greg Amy]

They call that V8 Supercars.
Amen! Some of the best racing worldwide, along with BTCC and WTCC.

All tub cars.

[joeg]

BTCC/ Aussie V-8 (s) --Perhaps not really tub cars any longer--more like hybrid tubs with a spec tubular front end from the firewall forward.

Brazilian stock cars used weird looking tube frames.

[Greg Amy]

BTCC/ Aussie V-8 (s) --Perhaps not really tub cars any longer--more like hybrid tubs with a spec tubular front end from the firewall forward.
True. That's how we evolved into GT tube cars: allow me to "cage" my car to any point for safety, then we did it to the suspension and drivetrain mounts, and allow me to cut out the sheet metal in between and to "replace" all panels with plastic to reduce weight...so tell me again why I need to start with a production tub...?

Brazilian stock cars are nuts, more like DTM cars.

[Ron Earp]

* And if NASCAR actually ran tub cars from their manufacturers? I'd start watching that s**t again, even the ovals...

Yep. GM SS RWD thing, Chrysler Challenger, Ford Mustang. Be good stuff.

EDIT-Not sure where the rest of my original post on siphoning of IT went, but looks like Kirk covered it better than I.

[jumbojimbo]

the rearrangement of groupings to get IT, prod, and GTL all in separate groups to allow for IT triple dipping would be very difficult in some places as usually 2 of the 3 are run together.

overall I think IT in GT is rather silly, and while I don't object on the grounds of danger I'd suggest it might be better to let the prod or ST cars run as GT in their current prep. IT in ST and P, P and/or ST in GT, GT in P... double dipping for everyone!

then we can consolidate everything to 2 categories of stock tubs (T, IT, ST) and flared fenders (P, GT) and call it a day.:D

Isn't it more likely this would be used at a majors weekend with someone double dipping in GT and Prod?

Although personally I don't buy the "get a taste of it" argument. So I qualify 10 seconds slower and never see another car in my class, how is that getting a "taste" of a class? And even if it is successful, how does that help? one less IT car and one more prod car is a win-win, in what universe? It smacks of the usual attitude that national classes are "better" and faster classes are "better".

Edit: I hope that didn't sound too bitter and cynical. :)

[Knestis]

I respect Dick's thoughts but I just don't buy it's not a grab at car counts to save classes. IT to Prod makes sense but IT to GT? That's a huge prep jump and if you were interested in tube frames and the like, you would already be there or in Prod looking to make a move.

Ditto. Sorry, it's a blatant numbers grab.

The IT-to-Prod allowance is really only a matter of degree, since we could damn near do that before with Prep 2.

The GT option, if it's done the same way as the Prod option, where one can run in the same class where the car would be correctly classified, is beyond silly. Completely irrespective of lap times - 18 seconds, thinking of a MkIII Golf and comparing lap records at VIR, ITB to GT3 - there is exactly NO way that someone is going to decide to "modify their cars to meet the requirements" of the GT category.

No.

Way.

I think of it like this: If nobody actually turns their IT car into a GT car in the next 5 years, is it evidence that the policy is a failure? So we'll kill it...? No. Because that's not the actual intention of the rule change.

K

EDIT - And at some level, this is pretty insulting. IT isn't good enough to be a National (now Majors) category, but it's GREAT to add to the existing classes to make up their failing numbers. That's like telling a woman she's fine to have sex with, but you can't be seen in public with her.

[lateapex911]

Maybe I'm being a get off my lawn old codger, but this strikes me as a clear survive at all costs numbers grab.

Man, IT is the clubs whipping bitch. Need numbers for your category?? Invite IT!

While there might not have been an actual person saying "Use IT to fix your woes, but don't let them go national!" over the years, it sure has worked out that way.

:shrug:

It's a shame how SCCA has treated IT over the years, and how they've squandered the resource.

[Knestis]

Maybe, Jake, things have worked out exactly as the men behind the curtain wanted. IT got turned into the Soylent Green necessary to feed the Majors (nee, National) classes that they really wanted to survive. Problem is, they've sucked most of the life out of it, with natural turnover (etc.) taking its toll.

Hmmm?

K

[Greg Amy]

I can tell you from my personal conversations with The Wizard, that the original intent was to take IT National. When that failed, Wizard said "eff it" and turned his attentions to bigger things....making B and D Prepared National, changing it to STO and STU, and adding a suspiciously-IT-Plus-like class, Super Touring Light.

Say what you will about The Wizard, but looks like Mission Accomplished to me... - GA

[jjjanos]

Maybe, Jake, things have worked out exactly as the men behind the curtain wanted. IT got turned into the Soylent Green necessary to feed the Majors (nee, National) classes that they really wanted to survive. Problem is, they've sucked most of the life out of it, with natural turnover (etc.) taking its toll.

Hmmm?

K

Eating your young is a sure-fire way to extinction.

[seckerich]

I can tell you from my personal conversations with The Wizard, that the original intent was to take IT National. When that failed, Wizard said "eff it" and turned his attentions to bigger things....making B and D Prepared National, changing it to STO and STU, and adding a suspiciously-IT-Plus-like class, Super Touring Light.

Say what you will about The Wizard, but looks like Mission Accomplished to me... - GA



K

EDIT - And at some level, this is pretty insulting. IT isn't good enough to be a National (now Majors) category, but it's GREAT to add to the existing classes to make up their failing numbers. That's like telling a woman she's fine to have sex with, but you can't be seen in public with her.



Both of these statements are very true. IT gets poached to prop up numbers of other classes as long as they know their place. Not good enough for the big dance, but good enough to pad the entries. Just wait and see the exodus in 2015 when the Runoffs come to Daytona. Many new EP builds by IT drivers happening. Would have had 10 times that in IT entries if they were allowed. :023:

[CRallo]

GT tube cars are legacy racing, at best. Most major, popular racing worldwide (ignoring NASCAR*) is production/tub-based. All the remaining tubeframe sillhouette cars are either hanging on by their fingernails or heavily-subsidized by manufacturers (SCCA Trans-Am, DTM, and some Continental cars come immediately to mind).

GT2 was basically (at least from my perspective) "rescued" this past year by the inclusion of tub cars (Porsche GT3, Super Touring Over) and that's got a lot of people talking about how to include tub cars in GTL.

Tubs are where it's at, baby. Now if we could only get GT2 to run on 200TTW DOTs we'd be in the money...

- GA

* And if NASCAR actually ran tub cars from their manufacturers? I'd start watching that s**t again, even the ovals...



GT2 already had the Porsche... and they actually dumped a bunch more tube cars in too. <--- No pun intended

And you are half getting your wish... if I'm reading properly, they are putting GT2/ST cars back on DOT tires. annoying... and they didn't slow down everyone that they need to, only the winner who had a car hot on his tail, so why not that car too? hmmm...