March 2014 Fastrack [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Andy Bettencourt

02-21-2014, 08:23 PM

Not necessarily "selective", it's that any details are just not useful information. You know that, you've been there. Nothing was changed, nothing new was decided, its publication in Fastrack was just a courtesy, confirming considering and printing the results. If it had a title of "I don't like how you're setting RWD weights" you'd probably want more info anyway... :shrug:

We can't publish everything in Fastrack - it would take too much time and space - so the CRB focuses on the details of those letters that result in changes to the regs. Everything else is, well, pretty much "thanks for your input."

If you really want the details, I'm sure the author of the letter would be glad to send them to you....but we won't publish that as a courtesy to the submitter. - GA

We will agree to disagree. I see nothing wrong with "Please reduce RWD penalty" or "Please increase % for RWD in STL" with the resultant "The STAC has made a recent change and will continue to monitor the class competitiveness." As it was published, it serves zero purpose other than to the author. Hardly a productive use of space. If the SCCA wants to communicate with just one person, do it in email.

Each letter can, and should, be summed up in one sentence, with the appropriate answer. I have seen a lot of improvement in this area lately and this one seems in-congruent with that progress.

Greg Amy

02-21-2014, 08:52 PM

I see nothing wrong with "Please reduce RWD penalty" or "Please increase % for RWD in STL" with the resultant "The STAC has made a recent change and will continue to monitor the class competitiveness."
If all request letters were as pleasant, well-written, and straightforward as you describe ("please sir, may I have another?") then that would be fine. They rarely are. And I think you know that.

GA, suddenly wondering if Andy is new to this "Internet thing"...or to article comments sections, or to the kinds - and format - of letters that the CRB gets...

Dano77

02-21-2014, 08:56 PM

Andy Bettencourt

02-21-2014, 08:56 PM

Like I said, there has been a lot of improvement in this area in recent history. I know that it's something the ITAC has focused on improving with nice results.

It really isn't that hard to summarize a letter in a concise and polite manner, it just takes some effort. The entry we are talking about was a total waste of space.

Andy Bettencourt

02-21-2014, 09:00 PM

AHHHHHH Yet another car with more factory HP than the first gen RX7 gets moved from A to B. So happy all the cars I used to be racing with are now moved to a class that will enable them to remain viable race cars....

Kinda half joking here...........

While I agree that the 12A RX-7 would be a solid candidate for ITB, lets remember that the factory HP rating is just the first step in the calculation. What REALLY matters is what it makes (or is estimated to make) in IT trim. That is the number that creates your multiplier for your class factor.

mossaidis

02-21-2014, 10:25 PM

Looks like Brian Blizzard is going to ITB... confirm? If so, great for ITB, bad for ITA. That boy can move at LRP.

Andy Bettencourt

02-21-2014, 10:59 PM

Looks like Brian Blizzard is going to ITB... confirm? If so, great for ITB, bad for ITA. That boy can move at LRP.

You'd be surprised to know the price of tea in ITB at LRP is a mid-low 1:03...

And let's also remember that these 'recommended' changes are for 2015.

Andy Bettencourt

02-21-2014, 11:32 PM

OK, so back onto the RSX-S. In looking really hard at the FT, it looks like the ITAC-sponsored letter might have been a proactive move triggered by the request from letter #11955 to have the ITS Civic with a similar motor moved to ITR (not recommended).

I am sure I am wrong but I like the logic! :)

These cars have a real life weight difference of about 250-300lbs so the separation seems to make sense. I know a team who is building an RSX-S for ITR and they claim they have data showing the car should end up about 2400-2450 without driver.

Any ITAC member care to shed some light on this? Thanks!

StephenB

02-21-2014, 11:53 PM

I am being selfish for a second...
I put in a request on the rx8 that I thought the itac sent a recommendation to the crb on already. Can anyone verify that? I was hoping it would make the March publication.

Thanks, Stephen

Andy Bettencourt

02-21-2014, 11:57 PM

StephenB

02-22-2014, 12:06 AM

The addition of the 2009 or something different?

Yup. And if I could use a jdm cam :-) jk just the 09. Building Raymond a car and we have some 09 stuff we may want to use...

JeffYoung

02-22-2014, 12:23 AM

Here's what I remember:

1. With the RSX, we had a real live request from a guy building the car for IT to move it to S. He's working with OPM and they believed the car, given curb weight, was a better fit in S. We'll probably see more higher than "normal" hp cars with higher than S average curb weights end up there. There is some talk of shifting the bogie for R slightly up, lowering the weights on all existing cars. THe perception, and I agree, is that the wrong bogie was chosen for R (the E36), since it is on the bottom end of the R scale, not the middle. No action on that yet, but there is talk of it.

2. Stephen, the decision on the 2009 RX8 was to add it, but to do so on a different spec line. Too many changes from the early model.

3. I frankly don't recall the discussion on the VWs. I'm not an expert on them, and tend to just listen and vote with what teh experts say if it makes reasonable sense.

StephenB

02-22-2014, 12:42 AM

I can barely get the rx8 to weight now :( uggg.

Bummer on the 09 deal. That implies I need to change bumpers and such to classify one of ours as an 09. I am curious on what the multiple things are, nothing that I know of that would Frankenstein something any better. If I were to pm anyone can I get some of the details discussed?

Thanks for the update, do you think that will be in the April update?
Stephen

benspeed

02-22-2014, 09:30 AM

The E36 is considered at the low end of R? Still seems pretty competitive....

Was curious if folks read the recent GRM issue on the E36 Putting out 240hp to the wheels with IT level mods....might have been 220 with cams making 240. The author made a big claim on that!

Was surprised that article didnt kick off its own thread :-)

Greg Amy

02-22-2014, 09:43 AM

Actually, Ben, we had evidence of 220whp on the E36s back in the mid-00s, circa 2003 or so. That's why it got a restrictor and begat the idea of ITR...

Man, has it really been that long...? What was the year(s) that Bimmerworld were running the ITS cars and wiping up the world? My benchmark for the apex of all that was the year George Roffe attended the ARRC and came back all a-fluster about how f*****g fast the BMWs were...and we were all like, "um....duh. What do you think we've been talking about these past couple years...?" I'm thinking 2004...?

Edit: yup, he was there in 2004: http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16806

benspeed

02-22-2014, 10:29 AM

Dude that is depressing - 10 years...and the debate on what coin that car makes still goes on.

So what is the target HP and TQ for ITR these days? I liked the thought of reducing R weight on existing cars...everybody knows how underpowered and overweight MY car is :-) lol ( insert my with any driver name)...:-)

Andy Bettencourt

02-22-2014, 11:56 AM

The E36 isn't considered 'low' in ITR by any means. It is at about the lowest possible min weight in ITR given a 30% multiplier, which is soft. 35% is even light producing a theoretical 210whp.

The 09+ RX8's might be too different. The motor (3rd oil injector in each rotor housing) and the rear suspension geometry are different besides the body work.

While precedent is set on the motor and bodywork for being ok to UD/BD, the suspension geometry (no idea how significant) could be the sticking point...and very well should be.

If there are on different lines, you would need to change all of that stuff to be compliant.

On the RSX - what info did he use to prove a 'better' fit? I haven't seen any data that shows it couldn't get to minimum weight...and that's all that counts, right?

JeffYoung

02-22-2014, 11:57 AM

It was in the latest GRM?? I missed it.

Roughly speaking, ITR starts (with some justified anamolies) at 190 stock hp and goes to 240 stock hp, purposefully excluding the S52 BMW motors.

ITR and the power/weight ratio was 'built" around the 189 hp E36 325is at 2750. This was a mistake, as it effectively made all of the other cars in R too heavy (for the most part) and prevented us from including in R a number of cars in the 240-250 stock hp range since they would be ridiculously heavy at those numbers.

I can't speak for the whole committee obviously but the idea is that we bump R up a bit, reduce the power/weight multiplier so existing cars lose some weight, and we include some of the 240/250 stock hp cars in R.

At the same time, there is a realization that many of the tweeners in R/S -- the MX5, teh Celica GTS, the RSX, the TSX, the Civic Si belong in S as they are heavier curb weight cars and more esaily make weight in S with a full complement of "racer stuff:" cool suits and radios and such.

JeffYoung

02-22-2014, 11:59 AM

The E36 isn't considered 'low' in ITR by any means. It is at about the lowest possible min weight in ITR given a 30% multiplier, which is soft. 35% is even light producing a theoretical 210whp.

.

Yes, it is. You misunderstand. Setting the class multiplier around a car at 2750 race weight that made 189 stock hp with a 30% gain resulted in all a bunch of cars north of 200 hp being too heavy when the same multiplier was applied.

We (I was a part of it) picked the wrong bogie car for ITR. We should have picked something in the fatter part of the stock hp curve, like the 300ZX, and built off of that.

SPiFF

02-22-2014, 08:36 PM

There is some talk of shifting the bogie for R slightly up, lowering the weights on all existing cars. THe perception, and I agree, is that the wrong bogie was chosen for R (the E36), since it is on the bottom end of the R scale, not the middle. No action on that yet, but there is talk of it.

Yes please. Base ITR around the 350Z and push ITS up a bit so the low end of the current R could come down to S. The window for both S and R are 20+ years out of date for modern cars. Cars with 2L motors shouldn't have to weigh 11tybillion pounds in S. :blink:

benspeed

02-23-2014, 08:09 AM

Hi Jeff it was two isues ago I think. Liking the thought of losing some poundage in
R. Seems that over 3000 lbs is a magic threshold where tires and brakes are consumed waay faster.

quadzjr

02-23-2014, 03:28 PM

123hp. Not your typical flowing 16v head. A LOT of exhaust port restriction that could be addressed with porting and bigger exhaust cams, if it were not for IT rules...

That is a lot of weight for the GTI's small brakes (same as the A1 and A2 8v cars), and these cars carry more front end weight. I don't recall if any were available with manual steering, and obviously the head and intake is a bit heavier. Not sure that I see them keeping up with A3 VWs (maybe....), let alone Hondas in ITB.

How does it do in the torque department? Does it see equal gains in the grunt as it did in hp when jumping from the 8V to 16V?

I know it does not matter as it is on track performance and all that.. but a new A3 VW build just beat the fastest and most developed (or atleast one of) ITB honda in SCCA right now. I still think if you go ITB and want to win... get an A3. If the 12A gets classed in ITB.. that could be a great cheap canidate.. as it already walks the fast ITB cars in the straights and that after coming out of the corners sideways on old NT01 or RA1s.

seckerich

02-23-2014, 03:46 PM

[QUOTE=JeffYoung;353595]Here's what I remember:

2. Stephen, the decision on the 2009 RX8 was to add it, but to do so on a different spec line. Too many changes from the early model.

Curious to know for what reason. Cars have the same motor and are set at the same weight. If there was a difference that would impact its performance in IT it would come up with a different weight. That said you have just created a complex system for no reason. With the vin rule it is a moot point as we can build any shell to 09 spec.

JeffYoung

02-23-2014, 05:15 PM

Can't remember who on the committee did the research on that but the list sounded extensive (of changes).

If we are wrong, I'll certainly reconsider it.

Let us know (in more detail) what you think.

TomL

02-23-2014, 05:32 PM

I'm with Steve. What reason is there to have a different spec line for the 09+ RX8s? The differences I've seen mentioned are slightly different bodywork, different rear suspension geometry and different oil injector plumbing. And I've seen Mazda PR that says that the chassis was stiffened. If those are adequate criteria, you've got a lot of other cars that ought to have separate spec lines. Just off the top of my head, 2nd gen RX7s have multiple body configurations, 1st gen RX7s have two different rear suspension geometries, and Fox Mustangs have 2 or 3 different cross members. Numerous cars on a single line have different listed HP ratings in covered models, which counts for a whole lot more than an added oil injector. If these weren't sufficient in the past to necessitate a separate spec line, I don't see why it should be an issue with RX8s. And using the Process, they are all irrelevant, anyway.

Unless there is a difference in listed HP for the 09+ cars, or there is good (Process-quality)evidence that an IT build gives the later cars a bigger boost than the older RX8s, the Process ought to say there is no difference between older and newer cars.

seckerich

02-23-2014, 06:28 PM

I will get some things together Jeff. I know the differences, and they are not anything that is considered in the process, thus they do not have any performance difference. Many cars on the list have a lot more differences than this one. The biggest thing we all want is the new transmission that is a toploader and actually has a 3rd gear cluster after more than one race. The early trans is junk. It was basically a MX5 trans and is very weak. They were fixed for 2009. Motor has 4 injectors , not 6, but same intake design. Power in IT trim unchanged. Either way there is nothing that can be combined to make a car better than either model on its own. Thanks for having an open mind. :023:

Knestis

02-23-2014, 10:55 PM

Does the different rear suspension bolt to the same exact pick-up points?

K

Greg Amy

02-23-2014, 11:02 PM

Are 'pickup points' a part of "the formula"...?

Flyinglizard

02-23-2014, 11:11 PM

Glad to see SCCA look at the 16V.
The USA 16V came with AC and power steering AFAIK. It is possible that Canada had a 16V Rocco without AC and PS. I have never seen one.

The stock 16V has less open valve time than the RD 8V and just a little more compression.
All done with both very legal the 8V wil run right with the 16V @ about 50# more . The 16 carries about 40# more nose weight, spins a lot of valve parts along with the PS pump.
2325# would not make it a front runner IMHO. The squirted Mk 3 with early cam specs and double springs will still out run it up to around 2450#.
If the 8V wheels @108-110 with CIS, 111-113 squirted
the 16V spins around 113-115 (CIS, with PS and alt working)
The ABA 2.0 is well into low 118-120 or maybe a little more.

The 8V should be 2250#, the 16 @ 2325,
the ABA @ 2450 or maybe 2400.
Based on actual rollers. These are values used for the few VW Cup races. Some issues that we had; all of the 16V had too much compression, the wrong intake cam. The 8V had much of the same. We speced the Brazilian 268 cam for the 8V and allowed the two intake cams for the 16 V and it worked out fine with 50# spread .
I built 2 SCCA ITA 16V for customers and we promptly swapped to the 8V. same lap times.

I will roll these all in the next month or so, back to back on the same tires etc. I dont run any SCCa ABA legal engines tho.

Ron Earp

02-24-2014, 07:27 AM

Tom's right, it would appear there are other cars that have more differences than the RX7 but still appear on the same spec line. In most cases the differences have no affect on the stock horsepower, but in a few cases they do.

Off hand I can think of no cars, RX8 included, that have any changes in the same specification that fundamentally alters the suspension to the point that the IT Formula takes it into account. That being said one would think the cars would all reside on a single line.

JeffYoung

02-24-2014, 09:50 AM

Yes, but those "lumping" together on spec lines were generally done without any real thinking about it.

We aren't going to undo what has done in the past, but I think the intent is to maintain more "model" integrity going forward.

Chip42

02-24-2014, 09:58 AM

a lot of the reason for the 09+ RX8 being separated was to put a stop to clustering cars of a single "generation" or silhouette onto a single line that includes a variety of changes that might inadvertently result in a better than expected combination using UD/BD allowances. the poster child of this is the ITB mustang but there are a lot of spec lines that have this going on. hard to fix those, but that doesn't mean we should repeat "mistakes." that's not to say that we wouldn't merge them (RX8 lines) back if we were shown that we over-reacted, but it's better to start with a restriction than to try and put the genie back in the bottle IMHO.

Jeff misspoke - it's the TSX that is under construction and requested to move to ITS. the RSX was also in R and as Andy guessed, the conversation about dual classing, the ITS-R civic request, and a lot of follow on discussion about the lack of R cars on track and the speed creep in production cars meant we chose to effectively start "dropping the bottom out" of R. I don't know if moving S up is in the cards, it's stable even if it's vintage, but speeding up R would be a good thing as far as I'm concerned. in any change there are winners and losers, and we'll not make any decision like this lightly, so for right now, it's a discussion. but yeah, cars like the 350Z really should be allowed in ITR, philosophically.

the 16V VWs are not a real threat to ITB IMHO. they gained weight and are among the (if not THE) heaviest cars in the class and suffer a lot of "non gains" according to the people that know them. also, please everyone remember that a 12A RX7 would gain a fair amount of weight as well as a wheel size drop if moved to B so current on track performance isn't a very good indicator of its potential competitiveness. similar to ITR, there's some real bottom feeders in A and S that should be looked at for a nudge down. again, a request and a good review is needed for any change.

and please stop it with "the Hondas in ITB". :dead_horse:

seckerich

02-24-2014, 11:17 AM

[QUOTE=Chip42;353636]a lot of the reason for the 09+ RX8 being separated was to put a stop to clustering cars of a single "generation" or silhouette onto a single line that includes a variety of changes that might inadvertently result in a better than expected combination using UD/BD allowances. the poster child of this is the ITB mustang but there are a lot of spec lines that have this going on. hard to fix those, but that doesn't mean we should repeat "mistakes." that's not to say that we wouldn't merge them (RX8 lines) back if we were shown that we over-reacted, but it's better to start with a restriction than to try and put the genie back in the bottle IMHO.

It will be hard to say you overreacted when nobody is really building or racing many ITR cars. When you wish to fix perceived problems from the past, you either do it to everyone, or do not treat new classifications differently. If you were talking AX classing then you would most definitely keep them seperate. For IT you have a hard time being justified to class this car on a seperate line because of the minor changes that have nothing to do with IT specifications. Can you please list a combination of parts for the RX8 that would make it faster? Is this just another in the long list of overreactions on this car? Was this a move to stop the huge number of overdog builds now in progress since we thought we could now use the good trans?

Just tweaking you :D

StephenB

02-24-2014, 12:35 PM

I guess my concern with this new philosophy in IT is that it will get confusing on where we draw the line on alternate classification lines. For example in my driveway is an 05 shinka edition of the rx8 with stiffer chassis components to my racecar. Would that justify a separate line for that model? Why our why not? What if the 09 was exactly the same other than the body was different?

I guess what we need to decide is what components justify a separate spec line. I was always under the impression that for the last 25 years it required something that created a different weight. For example in the early 90s the ITAC felt that brakes made a big difference and the audi coupe and coupe gt got separated into two lines with one getting a 50lb adder. Brakes are no longer given that same consideration... (Current ITAC took that away and made them equal).

I personally think that IF you could Frankenstein a car together to make a better than ever existed model then we need to separate it or if the classification model used spit out a different weight we should storage it. The RX8 is an example of a situation where both are about the same but you couldn't create a better version if on the same spec line.

Stephen

Ps: thanks for responding even though it hasn't posted to fast track yet.

RSTPerformance

02-24-2014, 12:47 PM

to put a stop to clustering cars of a single "generation" or silhouette onto a single line that includes a variety of changes that might inadvertently result in a better than expected combination using UD/BD allowances. the poster child of this is the ITB mustang

Question 1: Are there a lot of cars dominating because of this UD/BD ability?

Question 2: I have not noticed the Mustang dominating... has anyone else? I have seen a bunch built online though...

Question 3: Do you think that the ability to UD/BD encouraged those that did build them to do so? I personally think that when people look at building a car the UD/BD rule is something that is looked at. I know I did when I started building my RX8 (should finally be ready this year!). Bummed that the RX8 it is on a separate spec line.

there are a lot of spec lines that have this going on. hard to fix those, but that doesn't mean we should repeat "mistakes."

Question 4: sort of a repeat from #1 do you really think this is a problem, or do you think this is a solution to actually getting more people to build cars? I wouldn't be so quick to say that they are mistakes.

it's better to start with a restriction than to try and put the genie back in the bottle IMHO.

Agreed 100%... so here is my feedback/thoughts on ALL cars, not just the RX8.

Every year car manufactures change things to make the car better. It could be a simple wire harness change to a new part design for better reliability. To me, you should not separate different years of the same chassis car unless the parts changed make it significantly "faster" (examples would be a "new" motor with increased HP or different throttle body that adds HP, or maybe a car that was originally built with a solid rear beam axle and got an upgraded independent rear suspension). If you really think that you need to be separating lines due to improvements to a car over time then you also should be looking at a lot of other things with respect to models, such as if a car has a sunroof or not. For real... a "real builder" goes to great lengths for a non-sunroof car... should a sunroof car really be on a separate line with lower weight?

People should be able to buy the cheap version of a car (sometimes its the older years) and bring it up to speed with the newer/different parts so long as the parts are not something not considered in the classification process as making it "faster." Basically all cars on same spec line unless the parts would justify a different weight.

When adding spec years IF the UD/BD rule makes a model faster then maybe we should just add some weight to the spec line.

Raymond "Keep things simple" Blethen

JeffYoung

02-24-2014, 12:49 PM

It's a good discussion (no worries Steve and STeve) and one that needs to be had.

What constitutes a separate model? When I first started, we had several different BODY styles on a single spec line if I remember correctly.

I'm not sure if I have a good answer at this point. I have zero issues with the parts mixing nad matching that the 2nd Gen RX7s do. The Mustang concerns me some, since (the ITB one) stretches over 15 years which is a long time with a LOT of different combinations.

Different suspension pick up points? Don't we already have that on the same line with the Fiero?

Thoughts everyone?

Chip42

02-24-2014, 12:51 PM

It will be hard to say you overreacted when nobody is really building or racing many ITR cars. When you wish to fix perceived problems from the past, you either do it to everyone, or do not treat new classifications differently. If you were talking AX classing then you would most definitely keep them seperate. For IT you have a hard time being justified to class this car on a seperate line because of the minor changes that have nothing to do with IT specifications. Can you please list a combination of parts for the RX8 that would make it faster? Is this just another in the long list of overreactions on this car? Was this a move to stop the huge number of overdog builds now in progress since we thought we could now use the good trans?

Just tweaking you :D

I know you're as serious as you are ribbing...

so wait - the ITAC recommends a car have a specline that is NO DIFFERENT from the prior year car, which doesn't hurt either car at all, relatively speaking, and suddenly we're over reacting to the overdog and limiting what can be done? I read a huge laundry list of changes between Series I and II - and yes, some of it is 100% irrelevant to IT, but some isn't - like injectors and intake manifold. we don't KNOW the combinations that could or couldn't be made, or be helpful, but that's not our job. we can't be expert on all things. what we have decided to do is to play it safe IN GENERAL rather than just clumping cars together when major changes are rolled out. I guarantee you this exact same discussion would be going on if we DIDN'T split the series I and II cars.

there are a lot of cars with weak transmissions or other parts. warts an all. The Blethens are making it through 13 hour races in their pre-09 RX8, so the transmission can't be THAT bad.

it's a philosophical thing in this case - we saw substantial changes and made a separate classification. if you disagree with that decision that's fine, you know a LOT more about the car than we do. tell us why what DID change doesn't matter to performance EVEN WITH UD/BD allowances and make a case for that being irrelevant in IT terms.

Chip42

02-24-2014, 01:05 PM

Question 1: Are there a lot of cars dominating because of this UD/BD ability?

Question 2: I have not noticed the Mustang dominating... has anyone else? I have seen a bunch built online though...

Question 3: Do you think that the ability to UD/BD encouraged those that did build them to do so? I personally think that when people look at building a car the UD/BD rule is something that is looked at. I know I did when I started building my RX8 (should finally be ready this year!). Bummed that the RX8 it is on a separate spec line.

Question 4: sort of a repeat from #1 do you really think this is a problem, or do you think this is a solution to actually getting more people to build cars? I wouldn't be so quick to say that they are mistakes.

Agreed 100%... so here is my feedback/thoughts on ALL cars, not just the RX8.

Every year car manufactures change things to make the car better. It could be a simple wire harness change to a new part design for better reliability. To me, you should not separate different years of the same chassis car unless the parts changed make it significantly "faster" (examples would be a "new" motor with increased HP or different throttle body that adds HP, or maybe a car that was originally built with a solid rear beam axle and got an upgraded independent rear suspension). If you really think that you need to be separating lines due to improvements to a car over time then you also should be looking at a lot of other things with respect to models, such as if a car has a sunroof or not. For real... a "real builder" goes to great lengths for a non-sunroof car... should a sunroof car really be on a separate line with lower weight?

People should be able to buy the cheap version of a car (sometimes its the older years) and bring it up to speed with the newer/different parts so long as the parts are not something not considered in the classification process as making it "faster." Basically all cars on same spec line unless the parts would justify a different weight.

When adding spec years IF the UD/BD rule makes a model faster then maybe we should just add some weight to the spec line.

Raymond "Keep things simple" Blethen

to answer your questions:
1 - maybe, maybe not. does it matter? all it take sis one car and everyone will scream about how it should have been handled differently. you can't have it both ways, so we went with conservative on the front end, and I thank you for agreeing with that sentiment.
2 - mustang is only the poster child for the MANY changes captured on a single spec line, NOT because of the demonstrable effect the various combinations have had on their performance. I know one that's pretty good, but just pretty good, and with a lot of work to get it there.
3 - maybe. I know when a weak part is fixed that can certainly be a benefit. with the way classifications have existed for a while, there exists some examples where UD/BD really pays off - like I get to run 2mm wider and slightly larger diameter rotors on my 85 MR2 that came online in late 86. that was a benefit. there's always small changes made over the years. they usually aren't regarded as "series changes" like this one, and usually don't also come with body work changes and other things we'd usually associate with a model generation change.
4 - this is a philosophical question. is UD/BD a problem, I don't think so in it's intended form, no. it's not STL though, we aren't trying to allow people to build whatever they want. there are demarcations in generations and whatnot and sometimes they are vague and sometimes they are not. this one seemd less vague than say the head improvements on a 93 integra - a change that has demonstrable on-track effects BUT in a package that is largely unchanged. this case appears to be more of a largely changes package with a net benefit of zero. in THAT sense, it's more in line with historic use of a separate specline. again, better to start conservatively.

we don't have "rules" for when a specline is split, but make, model, generation, trim, engine designation, displacement, etc... can all be factors. no one would lump a 95 and 96 civic together, and they do have different engines with the same short block architecture and ratings but ignoring that, they LOOK different. that seems to have been one historic way of splitting things. I can't explain the mustang - it DID have a single platform and displacement over the years covered, but so do the civics I mentioned.

StephenB

02-24-2014, 01:06 PM

Steve is the most knowledgeable. But I can do some digging as well. Just FYI, I do know my shinka 05 has stiffer under chassis parts.

For the long races we ran in ITE and or used NASA classification. We ran the 09 transmission, and coolers for the trans and rear end. All of which are not legal in ITR hence the reason we changed classes.

Sadly I have already broken 2 04 transmissions (developed a 3rd gear crunch). I honestly didn't believe they would be that bad and thought I could just be careful when I decided to build, also thinking in a few years I could just use the 09 if it was that bad. So yes I do want the 09 transmission which is why I requested it. :) 1 broken Tran equals 2 entry fees :(

Chip42

02-24-2014, 02:37 PM

seckerich

02-24-2014, 02:45 PM

You are correct Chip, I am semi serious. BEFORE you make these classifications is the time to ask, not after. As said before, unless it is a change that makes the car faster for IT and changes the process weight then it is wrong. Like I said the vin rule lets me make an 09 out of any shell so I can still get there, you (the ITAC) just make it harder for no good reason. More than happy to go over the differences, nothing to hide. It is all out there with a simple google search for anyone interested. As for the transmission and objectivity lets be real. The only reason anyone ever asks for something on a given make is to get the best they can, nobody is objective. Yes, we have been patiently waiting for the better trans to be legal. Guilty as charged. That said, have you ever had information from me that was found to be false? I have provided many different adhocs with info on Mazda's over the years. Mainly because I have worked on them and have the parts available to measure and give accurate info.

The 09 on had a 4.77 gear, changed from 4.44 , open in IT.

Dropped to 4 injectors from 6, no change to intake other than injector boss. No change in rated power and none found with IT mods, we are already way high as is on perceived power. The peak Grand Am numbers used were with the 09 setup, same as the early intake.

New, beafier trans built for the car insted of a MX5 drop in. Irrelevant to IT process.

Brakes the same.

Supposed to be better rear suspension, but still no better than an 04 with IT mods.

Lip spoiler on nose, open in IT anyway.

Rear bumper slight change, you argue the aero if you want, but not considered in IT prep.

Stiffer front shock tower, but also used on the 05 in some models so already legal under the rules.

Slightly lighter, but still nothing with our porky #2850.

Letter going in today to request it be added to current line in GCR, suggest others do the same.

Just looking through ITR and there are plenty of cars that have very long spec lines for components of different years. Precedent is definitely there. You are fixing a nonextent problem.

Chip42

02-24-2014, 03:40 PM

Knestis

02-24-2014, 03:56 PM

Are 'pickup points' a part of "the formula"...?

Of course not but it strikes me that if the suspension design were substantially different (I don't actually know), then it's a place where update/backdate might become problematic.

My bias reflects what our resident ITAC members are saying about update/backdate in general. As we've gradually tried to get more repeatable and transparent in practices over the years, the sloppy lumping of cars onto spec lines becomes an increasingly problematic situation. I started to type up a response about the ITB Mustangs the other day, too, but decided I'd leave that to the guys who really have to deal with it.

That something has been loosey goosey in the past should NEVER be a de facto reason for continuing the practice with new additions.

Another example to chew on. The MkIII Golf came with the "alternate" gear ratios (which, though a spurious CA-only anomaly, do seem to be a pretty handy advantage on the track). The MkIII Jetta was never shown in any documentation we could find as having benefited as-delivered from that spec. Since it's a first principle that update/backdate is allowed just within a spec line, and the "stuff that matters" to set the IT weight is otherwise identical for both cars, what should be done?

Again, I'm inclined toward being more conservative which is - I think - the logic behind this decision on the RX8.

K

jimbbski

02-24-2014, 04:43 PM

I see they moved all of the 16V VW's to ITB. Of course they added weight, I went from 2320 to 2560 with the Scriocco. Seeing that I couldn't get the car below 2400 lbs as it sits I know that I can make that weight by putting the accusump back in, the spare tire, and perhaps the stock pass. seat. With a full load of fuel I won't be that far off.

Maybe SCCA will drop that weight a bit after a couple of years just as then did to the MR2 when it moved from ITA to ITB. Or I can at least hope?

Ya know I've been thinking about this change and I see one major problem, Wheels! You go from 15 X 7 to 15 X 6 and 100-150 lbs heavier then what I was running at. I see the car being no more competitive in B then in A with these changes. Well if I wanted to win a race I'd get something else.

seckerich

02-24-2014, 04:44 PM

steve - of course no one is doubting you, this discussion is less than 3 days old...

are the 09+ injectors a higher rating? could those be installed into an -08 intake to create more fuel volume capability? etc... you say you can VIN rule the -08 to an -09. OK, what's stopping you? then you get the trans you want and you already have the chassis, and the raced weight is the same. I'm not trying to be snarky, I realize that's probably an expensive proposition, but I think that fact also supports our position here.

I could care less that the body looks different, that happens. tail lights and tweaked body contours are common. if the car only had sheet metal changes, or just the beefed up suspension components, or just the electronics changes, or just the transmission, or just.... it would have been an easy "yup, add that to the specline" but it's all of that. we decided that there was enough difference to deserve its own line.

as far as other speclines already having a lot of changes on them: so what? 2 wrongs and all that.

I have some questions for everyone here:

what defines the model for a specline? when are there enough changes to warrant a new specline?

why is the RX8 S1/S2 split NOT a model change, but the same year and all relevant mechanical parts Honda civic DX coupe and DX hatch on separate lines? (AFAIK, it's power steering - but the effect of that is not captured in the spec line weight.)

Where do we as a community draw the line over "what matters" and "doesn't matter" in IT prep? - and I'll offer that "being the same under the process" is NOT the same thing as being the same for the purposes of classification. if it were, I could theoretically stuff some kias and mazdas with the same valve sizes, bore, stroke, engine architecture, rated power, gear ratios, brake sizes, and suspension architecture on the same line, despite a decade of age and completely different manufacturers, because mazda sold engine designs to kia and everyone makes their small cars with a strut front.

09 injectors are higher volume, 2 now do the work of 4. Rules require update and backdate as entire assembly so not a performance difference , besides we are usually over fueled in these. I run 50% or less duty cycle.

If you want us to buy an 09 just to strip for everything to build an 04 you really have to see how stupid that arguement is. We changed the vin rule to allow drivers to build ITB cars out of ITC cars (Honda) that are similar, but much more different than the RX8 tub differences. Do you not see the complete failure in your logic that now drives our RX8 shell cost out the roof now that the early cars are getting as cheap as the RX7 was?

Your list of changes is a little lame. Bumpers do not make a model change. Electronics are free with ECU rule anyway. Do you even have a clue what is different in the rear suspension or are you chasing the same unicorn that got this car over 3000# originally? Not being snarky either, but lets use facts, not myth. Trans, yes, and plenty of cars in IT have 2 or 3 seperate ones listed on their spec line, different lights, bumpers, etc. Two wrongs don't make it right is fine, unless we have to race against them, then it is just wrong to set a different bar to meet half way through the game. Sometimes you guys over think all this to solve what???? A perceived problem you have yet to identify of any car that is an overdog because of update/backdate. All it does is give us options to build cheaper cars.

DX coupe and hatch, not really a valid comparison. Can you bolt the hatch to a coupe??

The Kia/Ford, etc is not even worth answering, really???

I respect you Chip, but your arguements do not really hold water with what has been accepted practice in IT for many years, and now gets changed for one car.

Agree to disagree. :D

StephenB

02-24-2014, 05:00 PM

I think the transmission reliability discussion is a separate one from the 09 RX8 being separate from the -08 cars. I appreciate why those of you WITH -08 cars would want them to be grouped together in order to have that improved transmission, but the question is S1 vs S2 cars first. addressing it from the "-08 has a weak transmission" position definitely hurts objectivity.

I was just trying to be transparent in why I actually put in the request, I don't want to fool anyone, I wasnt being "objective" in my request. :)

Stephen

Regardless of the RX8 this is a good discusion to think about.

Chip42

02-24-2014, 05:31 PM

09 injectors are higher volume, 2 now do the work of 4. Rules require update and backdate as entire assembly so not a performance difference , besides we are usually over fueled in these. I run 50% or less duty cycle.

If you want us to buy an 09 just to strip for everything to build an 04 you really have to see how stupid that arguement is. We changed the vin rule to allow drivers to build ITB cars out of ITC cars (Honda) that are similar, but much more different than the RX8 tub differences. Do you not see the complete failure in your logic that now drives our RX8 shell cost out the roof now that the early cars are getting as cheap as the RX7 was?

Your list of changes is a little lame. Bumpers do not make a model change. Electronics are free with ECU rule anyway. Do you even have a clue what is different in the rear suspension or are you chasing the same unicorn that got this car over 3000# originally? Not being snarky either, but lets use facts, not myth. Trans, yes, and plenty of cars in IT have 2 or 3 seperate ones listed on their spec line, different lights, bumpers, etc. Two wrongs don't make it right is fine, unless we have to race against them, then it is just wrong to set a different bar to meet half way through the game. Sometimes you guys over think all this to solve what???? A perceived problem you have yet to identify of any car that is an overdog because of update/backdate. All it does is give us options to build cheaper cars.

DX coupe and hatch, not really a valid comparison. Can you bolt the hatch to a coupe??

The Kia/Ford, etc is not even worth answering, really???

I respect you Chip, but your arguements do not really hold water with what has been accepted practice in IT for many years, and now gets changed for one car.

Agree to disagree. :D

this isn't defying precedent. we just moved 2 RSX-S listings to ITS. they have minor bodywork and engine differences between them, nothing drastic. They have different K20 engine designations but the actual part changes are minor, different hp ratings (actually, the 05-06 have 2, thanks to SAE certified HP coming into play) but really aren't all that different compared to say, the S4 and S5 ITS RX7. again, just because THAT pair of cars was allowed, before the VIN rule, before a lot of more modern allowances, and before IT started having pro level build energies spent on it, doesn't mean we SHOULD do the same when we class cars now. we are much less interested in "fixing" old classifications that would obsolete or cause expense to existing race cars than we are in preventing new mistakes now.

the argument about updating the car to the 09 spec using the VIN rule was semantic, I said as much. I'm not OPPOSED to including this car on the same specline, so you are arguing against a firm position I don't hold, nor do I think anyone on the committee holds. we read the lists of changes for 09 and decided the cars were different enough to call it a separate car. I haven't agreed to disagree with you, but we did make a decision that you disagree with, and *I* am stating only WHY we made that decision. *I* suggest we be very careful to make sure we don't change it just "because X said to". that said, IF WE ARE WRONG WE CAN FIX IT. the discussion, however, is a good one to have regardless of the outcome of the RX8.

as I understand it, the bolt-on bits of the suspension were beefed up a bit and there were some tweaks to the geometry, heavier duty hubs, different exhaust sensors, a second knock sensor (tuning advantage? I don't know). each of these, hell all of these, would pass the sniff test. when coupled with the sheet metal, lots of interior and nav system type crap that doesn't matter, and the IT-open parts you already pointed out, shocks and final drive and the like, and the engine changes, new trans (not ratios, new transmission family) official designation change to "series 2".... maybe we should have punted. maybe the CRB rejected it and that's why it's not in the fastrack. but we chose to make a new specline. again, read above - if we are wrong, we can fix it. that isn't unprecedented either. I assure you there was no malice, no campfire stories of world-beating RX8s on the prowl killing off ITR, it was a purely procedural decision.

re: Hondas and the VIN rule - those cars are identical to each other but for the bolt ons that change their spec line (and thus, class). the rule was intended to allow a cheaper and more available source of bodies. Since we are debating a single specline (or the argument for making one) UD/BD is the real issue here, not the VIN rule.

Knestis

02-24-2014, 09:05 PM

Ron Earp

02-25-2014, 09:51 AM

we just moved 2 RSX-S listings to ITS.

I believe these are 200hp rated stock cars aren't they? Does this open the door for 190-200hp cars in ITS? I know folks interested in asking for the classification of a 191hp car and a 200hp car in ITS, if it is now possible I'll advise them to write letters.

Chip42

02-25-2014, 10:54 AM

we really need to NOT look at base hp on cars as the "what fits" number, because cars weights are on the rise, we will see more whp on newer cars, but they will often come with a lot more mass, too. so they will fit the power/weight "miller ratio" of a lower class than one might expect due to JUST the OEM hp number.

so yea, have the requests sent in. if we decide it doesn't fit S, we may recommend R, or vice versa, just as we always have.

seckerich

02-25-2014, 11:15 AM

It would be nice - for the 1000th time in the last 15 years I've said it - if people with a horse in any particular race would take the broader view on the ITAC's efforts to get procedures squared away in a general sense, rather than judging the effectiveness of a policy, practice, or standard in terms of whether their particular horsey gets beat.

Most of the inequities and simple goofy crap that we've had to deal with came about because a *vast* majority of classing and specification decisions in the category were made based on a view through a soda straw, powered by individual lobbying efforts.

K

I had to wait a day to respond to this so it would be more level headed.

Many of us have been in IT through multiple ITAC groups, all with different perspectives on IT nervana. The rules and processes we have in place today are by far some of the best I have seen. One of the tenents of IT has always been update/backdate that allowed racers a wide range of cars to scavange parts from. The z cars know the lightest doors and bumpers, the BMW guys know the proper subframe, diff, etc. The RX7 guys know the best shell and the best intake/motor combo. This has been done in every class and make of car for over 15 years.

Has it hurt IT? Do we not have some of the closest racing between models in recent history?

With all due respect Kirk, get off your high horse and lecture someone who gives a crap. I say this the same way I would if we were standing at the track talking. You support these new directions where we change perceived problems that do not exist for the sake of a cleaner spreadsheet. You and I had this discussion when you helped class the RX8 over #3000 originally and I told you it was dead. Only one crazy enough to build one was Buzz Marcus by Speedsource and he sold it for pennies on the dollar for a track day car. Did that long term view help IT? Was he selfish? How many ITR cars not displaced BMW's do you see? Not exactly taking off is it? Now you tell me I do not have a 1000 ft view and am selfish for asking that you maintain a reasonable update/backdate?

Kirk I guess IT was so good right now that you had Cameron build an STU car and you drop in to the forum to share all the reasons. You leave the catagory and tout how stupid we are for building regional only cars and lecture us on how selfish we are to ask for things when we actually have money invested and skin in the game. I have personally put more drivers in IT cars in the last 2 years than you have ever owned I would imagine. Now you support "caution" from your point of wisdom as past ITAC member. Really?

This is not just about the RX8, but I would support the Honda's being on the same line too if the tubs are near the same and just the driveline options are different. If the best you can build is still the benchmark car at the same weight, what is the big deal.

I was over this BS a few years ago when you guys first classed the car and packed the motor with atf and put it away. Saw fastrack and pulled it out this weekend and gave it a bath and started it up. Then I went home and saw this BS about a seperate spec line and had Chip tell me about this new direction of better seperation of spec lines going forward.

If this post comes off mad, I'm not and it is hard to put tone into this. I know most of you guys and respect you. I firmly disagree with some of your views and believe you are getting to the point of micromanaging IT and fail to see the big picture. Unfortunately you fail to see how you change the overall landscape of the catagory when you do these changes midstream. Step back and ask why and who told you that you should or could do this.

Flyinglizard

02-25-2014, 11:37 AM

For a specline change the question should be; do the UD/BD make the car faster or just last longer?
And.. Why are coolers not allowed? They dont go faster.

Re Mk 3 Golf, maybe the Cal gear set should not be allowed.

Chip42

02-25-2014, 11:39 AM

steve - please answer this question:

what makes the series 2 RX8 NOT a separate model from a series 1? by the same token, what would you consider a clear and operable line of seperation between vehicle generations or trims that would present a need for a separate specline?

basic points we hold to:
engine designation - a B16A2 Civic Si =/= a D16Y8 Civic EX - they look the same and have 1.6L 16V 4cyls but the similarities stop there. in such cases we use separate lines (many examples to pull from)
major generational change - no one would argue that an 82 and 84 corvette are the same car, though they at least mostly share a motor and many other "details". many such examples.
2 mechanically identical cars badge engineered into different brands - some sheet metal or cosmetic differences aside, and illegal to swap by UD/BD unless the whole set of changes is made to completely change "brands". we class these on separate lines. example firebird and camaro of many different generations.
major sweeping updates including engine parts, full transmission, sheet metal and bolt-ons to a carry-over frame/tub, manufacturer identified transition point established by a naming system (i.e. series 1, series 2), and cosmetic and driver comfort appointments. new spec line?

again - this isn't a fortified position, it was the CONSIDERED OPINION of the committee that the cars were different enough to need a new specline. I implore you to tell us why we are wrong and to do so with details that are both specific to the RX8 and justified from an objective view of IT norms. if we messed up, we WILL fix it. if we didn't, please don't get sour grapes. no one is trying to HURT any car, there are NO politics at play here, and we ARE ACTIVELY discussing how to make ITR more attractive and more clearly separate ITS and R. We just try to make classifications and rules that remain consistent with IT philosophy and put the cars where they make the most sense, which I'll agree is subjective.

we've all dealt with cars getting the shaft for real or perceived issues - when we care enough to see them set right, we settle down and do the hard work of convincing the PTB / yahoos on a con call of the correct answer. at least in this case you are arguing with interpretation and understanding, NOT conviction and ego.

Greg Amy

02-25-2014, 11:46 AM

My 2 cents...if the make/model/drivetrain (and in most cases, body style) is the same, and the standard formula calcs result in the same weight, then it has traditionally been a "same spec line" car. In a quick cursory review of the ITCS, I didn't see a same make/model/drivetrain/body style that was split among multiple lines (didn't review in detail).

what defines the model for a specline?
STAC struggles with this one on occasion due to engine swap allowances; see last year's Miata M2 '99-vs-'02 debate. While we have not codified anything (and there's nothing in process to do so) generally speaking we rely on the manufacturer's chassis codes for reference. An M2 Miata is the same car '99-'02 (chassis code NB) and the '95 Integra RS is the same car as the '98 Type R (chassis code DC).

Not an all-encompassing regulation, just a general guideline.

...when are there enough changes to warrant a new specline? ... Where do we as a community draw the line over "what matters" and "doesn't matter" in IT prep? The crux of the matter.

Regardless of what you decide, you need to be consistent. Historically, that argument was moot and not considered; witness many cases of mixing-and-matching to get something more than what the manufacturer provided (cough, ITS RX-7, cough). We've had that argument many, many times on this very board, and the agree-to-disagree answer has always been "warts and all".

But now, with the separate spec line on the RX-8 you're moving the target.

Which is fine -- as long as you're consistent. And consistency mean going back and re-classifying all existing cars that may possess a potential mix-and-match advantage. But to do it by suddenly picking a point in time and saying "ok, from here on out we'll classify them separately" is not consistent.

GA

JeffYoung

02-25-2014, 11:58 AM

Kirk asks a fair question.

What SHOULD teh criteria for different spec lines be?

Steve gives us good background -- update backdate is a part of our culture.

We need to find the balance in there somewhere.

StephenB

02-25-2014, 12:41 PM

Would you prefer opinions on here, brown board, scca.com or letters sent in?

Thanks,
Stephen

JeffYoung

02-25-2014, 01:02 PM

Here first, if that is ok.

Stuff gets lost on the brown board in the noise sometimes, or turns into pooh flinging.

Greg also raises a good point. If we cahnge the approach, do we go back and correct things?

Logically yes, but that could cause huge problems.

seckerich

02-25-2014, 01:16 PM

As Greg states Chip, it is a change in philosophy to now decide to be more granular in your spec line seperation. It has always been a staple in IT that you could go buy the oldest, and cheapest version of a car and then update it to the newer spec with parts, rather than starting over with a much newer chassis. See Kips 944 as an example. It has been an ITS car with 2 different engine packages, and then an ITR car with yet another. Now EP if that gives you a clue to trends. :p

The Renesis is a Renesis, no cams or other goodies to change. Same as the 13B was a 13B in the second gen RX7. Contrary to Gregs statement the 90 GTUS was the target and nothing else was ever combined to be faster than the car as classed. Those cars had many variations over the years, but it all bolted on with no change to the chassis. That was always the restriction with update/backdate, as well as changes to the entire assembly when it came to motors, trans, etc. Honda, Porsche, BMW, etc have all made use of this to build cars out of from early tubs.

If you guys in good faith decide to take it upon yourselves to change this and be more particular, what future ITAC has to come back and clean up the mess you make by moving the bar. You should have experience in this as you are now doing with the reclassification/cleanup process in ITB? You need to think this through.

Chip42

02-25-2014, 01:40 PM

The 944 is not the eample you want to use, its just like the hondas, a VIN allowance, NOT UD/BD. You want us to treat this like the ITS RX7 and we are debating the validity of that WRT other IT classifications.

The crux is, is the series 2 the same car, or not. Is it a 944S vs 944 or a S4 vs S5 RX7?

Ron Earp

02-25-2014, 02:30 PM

The crux is, is the series 2 the same car, or not. Is it a 944S vs 944 or a S4 vs S5 RX7?

None of this:

The 09 on had a 4.77 gear, changed from 4.44 , open in IT.

Dropped to 4 injectors from 6, no change to intake other than injector boss.

No change in rated power and none found with IT mods

New, beafier trans built for the car insted of a MX5 drop in.

Brakes the same.

Supposed to be better rear suspension, but still no better than an 04 with IT mods.

Lip spoiler on nose, open in IT anyway.

Rear bumper slight change, you argue the aero if you want, but not considered in IT prep.

Stiffer front shock tower, but also used on the 05 in some models so already legal under the rules.

Looks like a new car or spec line. I know you guys don't want to repeat mistakes of the past, but I don't think there is any danger here. Same horsepower, same chassis, minor parts improvements that we see on many IT classifications.

I can understand wanting a codified process and wishing to apply it in all instances though. I like logical processes myself. But because of that I'm a proponent of applying the processes across the board and being consistently consistent. That means applying The Process to ITB, ITS, ITA, ITC to re-align all of those classes, then coming back through and splitting out into separate lines all the models that would, by the logic applied to the RX8, require separating out. I doubt anyone wants to go there, but the ITAC needs to choose - be consistent with rule applications or fly by the seat of the pants.

seckerich

02-25-2014, 03:16 PM

It is exactly the same as S4 vs S5, both are FC RX7's. RX8 is S1 vs S2, but still same vin code.

Logic used in the past was that the S5 was the car to have and as such most every RX7 is updated to S5. Both were on the same spec line because the end result was a legal version under the rules. Either way you could seperate them on seperate lines and still build all to an S5 as they are now per the vin rule.

Step forward to now and we have the same situation with the RX8. You just classed the RX8 with the specs of the 09 at the exact same weight as an 04-08. Motor the same, and that is always the first item considered in spec lines. Shell the same and that is item number 2 on spec line. Driveline the same, yes, but newer transmission, but driveline layout the same. Miatas are listed with both a 5 speed and a 6 speed in some cases. Some spec lines have 3 seperate transmissions listed.

The performance bar is set so updating an 04 to 09 specs under the vin rule would allow any RX8 to use all the 09 parts and race at that weight. Under IT rules there is no difference taken into the "process" with this car that would have spit out a different number.

What do you hope to gain? You have a choice, make it harder to build a car that is listed by splitting the lines for what? Cue the unicorn, because that bus left the station years ago.

Chip42

02-25-2014, 06:21 PM

steve, the concern was merging 2 equal but different cars (in terms of process) into something unforeseen that is better than either. yeah - long range this CAN be a wash on some cars, and other cars there's gains outside of what we expected with just the known hardware. it's not a perfect system. the objective is to create classifications for cars as delivered from the factory and within some not always clearly defined "generation".

write a letter, we'll discuss it. it sounds like you have a valid argument, but we need to consider the facts. same process inputs do not equal same car, just same weight. you know that.

we haven't made anything harder, the 04-08 RX8 is just as easy (or hard) to build today as it was yesterday, but we also haven't thrown anyone a bone. it sounds to me like you are more angry about the latter.

and you still haven't answered the 10,000 ft question, the answer for which is important to me due to your considerable tenure as ... well everything, to some extent or another. In generic terms, how do you decide to split a specline or not? is it as simple as silhouette and engine? what changes trigger a split, what changes are acceptable? should we just make all cars the best trim, and abandon lower classing of that chassis? what about badge engineered cars? I'm dead serious. if the line is so obvious, please tell me where it is.

seckerich

02-25-2014, 06:38 PM

Read my previous reply Chip, I listed the basics in my opinion. Would you please list the items you use in the process that you treated differently for the 2 cars? I missed that info.

Renesis motor with same hp as previous models, check.
Independent suspension, check.
Decent gearing, check.
Same brakes, check.

Did I miss something, really serious when asking.

I will write the letter with backing documentation.

Appreciate the bone, just you put it on a 10 foot shelf and expect a yorkie to get it. :023:

jjjanos

02-25-2014, 08:27 PM

Renesis motor with same hp as previous models, check.
Independent suspension, check.
Decent gearing, check.
Same brakes, check.

Using that list, you could combine different models on the same spec line even though the cars don't look the same at all. Hell, if I looked hard, I probably could find cars made by different manufacturers!

Just because it isn't in the process doesn't automatically mean that they should be on the same spec line.

#URstillpissedoffaboutprocessweight.

seckerich

02-25-2014, 08:50 PM

#URstillpissedoffaboutprocessweight.

That good, I like that.

No, I believe your original weight ran so many possible builders off that it will be after our second gen cars all die that we really look hard at the RX8. No cars have been built from scratch except the one Speedsource did for Buzz Marcus. ,and just a few from the remains of Grand Am cars. Everyone else pulled the plug. Too bad as it was a rare chance for the Mazda faithful to have a replacement for their RX7's. Now they have moved to STL/STU, etc. Tom Neil took his cars to NASA almost immediately. But the "process" worked. :023:

Did it ever dawn on anybody that more than 50% of all ITS cars running today are Mazda RX7's? Ever wonder why? They are easy to source parts for because so many options exist. Same with all the first gen RX7's on the same spec line, except GSLSE that had a different motor (13B). I thought that was the purpose of update/backdate. I get a Speedsource RX7 in the shop and rebuild it to new and it lasts a week before it has a new home.

It is good that the ITAC is looking at all the porky weights in ITR because of the E36 bogie. It is hard for me to believe anyone would build most of them. Tristan is a glutton with the 300Z and it is a very nice build, just way heavy.

I just have to laugh at Chip and I having this debate and my angle is ease of build and cheap parts, and his is just buy the more expensive 09 and go. This from the street tire king and cheap racing.:D

jjjanos

02-25-2014, 10:01 PM

I'm not saying your wrong about the weight or the car being on 1 spec line. I, and, I think others are asking for criteria; criteria that couldn't be used to put different models and manufacturers on the same spec line.

Maybe the RX7s shouldn't be on 1 line. Maybe they should. Maybe they shouldn't.

The changes I can find between 2008 and 2009 are external appearance, a different motor, a different oil pump, different suspension different chassis internally, anything else?

Sounds like a 2nd generation to me.

How different looking must the car be?

gpeluso

02-25-2014, 10:08 PM

I'm still confused about the e36 and it's weight..... Obviously the process under estimated the potential. I truly believe 230 whp is reality for that car now... Legal or not... That's what's running around. 2778 lbs on 8.5 inch rims....

Weight seems to be truly a killer for many builds in my option. It destroys tires, brakes, wheel bearing faster than lighter cars. This equals more$$$$$$$$$$. Maybe some of the porky weights could get larger sized rims in ITS. 3000lb cars on 7 in rims doesn't sound fun . I recently sold a great ITS car (rx7)... The only reason was due to the concern of aging parts that are becoming harder to get.... I currently have a e46 with bunch of different engine combo's.... Non have proven to be a winner for me... Spent $46 k.... Legal power seems hard to come by... This is a great conversation and can see many peoples points. No easy solution.. Maybe just tackle one car at a time.. Do rules only change if letters are written or does the powers to be look at results and make changes independently ?

Greg

Chip42

02-25-2014, 10:28 PM

I just have to laugh at Chip and I having this debate and my angle is ease of build and cheap parts, and his is just buy the more expensive 09 and go. This from the street tire king and cheap racing.:D

come on steve - you know how this works and you MIGHT still be a bit sensitive about the shafting the RX8 received in the past. this is not an attempt to do harm, it is an attempt to satisfy a request - to classify the 09 RX8 - while minimizing potential unknowns from combining the changes with the -08 cars. you have an intimate knowledge of the car, so it may seem like an idiot move TO YOU. tell US whey WE are wrong, through the channel we all see, ans stop with the anti-mazda conspiracy crap. affordability and availability are awesome, but they aren't the driving goals of improved touring classifcations, just the modification allowances.

the solution was NEVER actually to buy an 09 (unless you want to...), the solution is to convince US (I'm 17% of the committee, remember - I just happen to be a glutton for punishment and come on here and attempt to help explain our intentions and motives and try and find consensus with the community) that the S2 is simply an upgrade to the S1. pretend I'm sold. get down off the cross and convince the rest of the committee.

the discussion that this needs to breed is still being addressed from the POV of the RX8. address it for the borgwald. when do we split the specline?

if you want a case study, use the S4/S5 and RSX-S speclines as your ying and yang as they are substantially simillar situations with different classification outcomes (combined and split)

Ron Earp

02-25-2014, 11:51 PM

How about the IT advisory committee, using the IT Classification Process, or other defined processes, convince the membership that the RX8 S2 is a different car to the RX8 S1?

I don't think it passes the test, whatever test that might be. The IT classification process looks at horsepower, double wishbone suspensions, struts, live axles, and arbitrary FWD, torque, and maybe solid axle modifiers. None of that changed with the second generation RX8.

The separate lines for cars is like porn, "I know it when I see it situation". I'd understand it if Mazda put a 4 cylinder in for the 2009 RX8 that made exactly the same hp and tq as the rotary, then yes, you need to have a separate line for the car. But that didn't happen. The car is basically the same as far as IT is concerned. put it in the same line and move on.

jjjanos

02-26-2014, 12:09 AM

I don't think it passes the test, whatever test that might be. The IT classification process looks at horsepower, double wishbone suspensions, struts, live axles, and arbitrary FWD, torque, and maybe solid axle modifiers. None of that changed with the second generation RX8.

Then put the CRX and the Civic on the same line.... Just saying.

The car is basically the same as far as IT is concerned. put it in the same line and move on.

So the only thing that makes a car different is if the difference is in something contained within the process? Hell, we can do a shit load of consolidation!

StephenB

02-26-2014, 12:12 AM

After the 29 consistant years that my family has been active in IT I think the following 5 things in order should be used to determine if 2 spec lines are needed.

#1 Does the car use the same Unibody. (So an MX5 and RX8 would NOT be the same since they use the same platform but have a different Unibody. Likwise a 4 door jetta vs. a 2 door jetta would be on seperate lines because they have a different unibody, or another example is a hatch vs a trunk would be seperated)

#2 Does it use the same engine type with same HP ratings, same disp, and same HP ratings. If components that are not allowed to be changed per the ITCs are different then research is required to make a transparent decision with facts on why we would or would not consider them on the same spec line. The only reason we would create a seperate spec line would be that we percieve a competition advantage could be had by creating a frankenstien car that was never produced.

#3 Driveline compatibility. Can everything be swapped around between models with no apparent competitive advantage greater than either classificiation on its own.

#4 Suspension design as used to determine the classification of the car. If 1 design is of greater design to warrent an "adder" in the classification of the car than it would need to be seperated onto a seperate line

#5 brakes as used to determine the classification of the car. If 1 design is of greater design to warrent an "adder" in the classification of the car than it would need to be seperated onto a seperate line

That is my simple thought process from the "racer" side of the fence
Stephen

PS: I did mention that we have raced activly in Improved Touring for 29years so that you would know and understand that IT is something that I have followed and participated in for a better part of my life. I have witnesed it transform through the good and the bad... and been part of it all.

StephenB

02-26-2014, 12:27 AM

seckerich

02-26-2014, 01:11 AM

Lighten up Chip, how many smiley faces do I have to use for a joke man.

In the end this does not really hurt me a bit, I don't trust you guys to build a car for ITR yet. I will wait until you get done with all your jerking around and you still have ITB to piss off.

You are the one that came on here to explain your new direction for IT with a much stricter spec line policy going forward. You guys tell me to show you why you are wrong. I believe myself and others have done a pretty fair job doing that. I'm just racing and having fun and not getting all bent anymore about a club and a sport we do for fun.

Your job that you took is to class cars fairly given the system we have in place for IT. If you have to ask me to do your job for you then you made a classification you were not prepared to make. You classed the car based on press releases and minimal information that just keeps getting more twisted with each post J makes. Some of us come on here and call BS when it happens, others that just see the spec lines walk away. How many more customers do you think you still have to piss off? I stick with it and use every avenue available to get it right, or get proven wrong. Either way it's all good.

RSTPerformance

02-26-2014, 02:24 AM

So the only thing that makes a car different is if the difference is in something contained within the process? Hell, we can do a shit load of consolidation!

Then do it! I can say from my experience as a Steward SCCA is working very hard to make this club a fun, easy place to race. Stewards are specifically spoken to over and over on how to achieve this... I personally thing the "rule makers" much whom I have had frustrations with for years need to take some lessons.

Classify cars as simply as possible and as equal as possible in an effort to attract new racers, don't gocus on making some spreadsheet look so pritty. Splitting spec lines makes it WAY more expensive no matter what car it is. By doing this, you guys are pushing people away and making it more difficult, not easier.

Raymond

jjjanos

02-26-2014, 08:13 AM

Then do it! I can say from my experience as a Steward SCCA is working very hard to make this club a fun, easy place to race. Stewards are specifically spoken to over and over on how to achieve this... I personally thing the "rule makers" much whom I have had frustrations with for years need to take some lessons.

That means Hondas and VWs and Mazdas on the same line. Brakes not getting adder? Put em on the same line. Same HP? Put em on the same line. Struts? Same line. Gear ratios differ-same line. Etc. Hell, the extreme is - if the weight is the same, put em on the same line.

As for identical unibodies... You realize that has the potential of taking 5 years of cars and splitting them into 5 lines? The 2nd Generation CRX has 3 different curb weights. If ANY of that weight is due to strengthening the unibody, the cars no longer have identical unibodies.

Not what you intended? You meant substantially different? Define substantially so that when the 2009 Studebaker gets processed, there isn't bitching by the guys running the 2008. You're still in judgement call territory.

Oh, you mean if the external appearance differs? Still judgement call.

If the cars really are the same, it doesn't matter if they are on different lines. The Vin rule doesn't apply. If the difference is cosmetic or a new transmission, then all you have to do is slap on the cosmetic changes of bolt in the transmission.

What you wouldnt be able to do is run the pimpy brakes from the 2000 with the bitching tranny for. The 2001. So, this isn't about making it "easier", it's about going faster.

Ron Earp

02-26-2014, 08:17 AM

So the only thing that makes a car different is if the difference is in something contained within the process? Hell, we can do a shit load of consolidation!

You know full well that isn't my point. There is no established process for putting cars on different spec lines. Should there be? Probably, but currently it's a know it when you see it sort of thing. And here, most people don't see it.

I'm quite certain their are bigger fish to fry in IT than classing the RX8 in ITR - the ITB re-alignment and ITR class adjustment comes to mind. That you have people actually wanting to build the RX8 and run them in ITR, well, their requests should bear some weight with the ITAC. It is unlikely to alter the balance of ITR as few people race in the class, and as Chip says, if the classification is off we can fix it.

Knestis

02-26-2014, 08:38 AM

I have no doubt, Steve, that you would tell me all of that in person. I left a couple of F2F conversations with you over the years with my ear hair smoking. :)

I have always argued - before i was on the ITAC, while I was in that role, and since I left - that the committee and its processes should apply the most broadly-applicable methods possible. "Repeatable and transparent" was the mantra. The competitive classing that IT is experiencing now is a direct result of that kind of thinking, I believe, and to their credit the current ITAC seems to be continuing that approach.

Many of them have been fixed by now but one place that individual listings historically got cloodged up has been in spec-line sloppiness. In and of itself, that hasn't been the death knell of the category but to get the kind of consistency that I think folks want, those wrinkles had to be ironed out - and processes put in place to try to prevent them from coming back.

I'm NOT arguing that the RX8 should be two spec lines. If the information presented here is accurate, they should be on ONE spec line but that's not my point. My argument is that, if you (y'all, collectively, not just Steve) LIKE that transparency and repeatability, you should be VERY GLAD that the default position of the current ITAC is a conservative one, intended to err on the side of avoiding unintended consequences and letting horses out of barns. You do NOT want someone with "skin in the game" to have enough power to get what they think is right - for their one car. That was SOP for a long time and it could easily go that way again, given the culture of the Club.

The NEXT request might be for something that looks like it should be on an existing spec line but creates an unanticipated advantage that's hard to undo.

Now, regarding me leaving IT, that's kind of a separate thread, but I'll say this much - with IT stuck in perma-Regional status, consistency and the resistance to individual make/model/person shenanigans is about the only structural advantage that the category has going for it, compared to the Majors-eligible options. I would think that y'all would want to do everydamnedthing you can to maintain that bulwark and thank Chip, Jeff, and the guys for taking the approach that they do.

K

ajmr2

02-26-2014, 10:03 AM

Ah, yes, Spring is in the air! I can almost smell the brake pads, tire rubber and gasoline!

:024:

jjjanos

02-26-2014, 10:22 AM

You know full well that isn't my point. There is no established process for putting cars on different spec lines. Should there be? Probably, but currently it's a know it when you see it sort of thing. And here, most people don't see it.

Let's take a look at at what Dr. Frankenstein has to say (http://www.mazdausamedia.com/index.php?s=31676&item=989) about his creation...

1. "For 2009, RX-8 receives improved body rigidity with structural reinforcements..."
- Perhaps I'm wrong, but would that not mean the two years cannot have the same Unibody?
2. "Refinements for the 2009 model year include restyled front and rear bumpers and front fascia, sporty, high quality finish front LED taillights and rear headlights..."
- It doesn't look the same externally, c'est pas?
3. "...the rear suspension geometry has been reconfigured.."
- It doesn't have the same suspension, c'est pas?
4. From the Wiki, "The Renesis II motor iteration that launched with the 2009 model year included a third oil injection port in each rotor housing..."
- It doesn't have the engine, c'est pas?

Dayum! The Civic and the CRX satisfy two that the RX8 doesn't!

And for all the bitching about putting it on two different lines... where's the rub? It's been claimed that this will impose some form of hardship on those wanting to build the car, but if they are the same damn car, it doesn't matter if you split them on 43 different spec lines -- the VIN doesn't matter. Call your 2008 a 2009.

Chip42

02-26-2014, 10:36 AM

RX8 sniff test...

#1 Does the car use the same Unibody.
YES THEY ARE THE SAME

#2 Does it use the same engine type with same HP ratings, same disp, and same HP ratings.
If components that are not allowed to be changed per the ITCs are different then research is required to make a transparent decision with facts on why we would or would not consider them on the same spec line. The only reason we would create a seperate spec line would be that we percieve a competition advantage could be had by creating a frankenstien car that was never produced.
YES THEY ARE RATED THE SAME and use the SAME ENGINE with modifications made to it...SO WE DO HAVE SOME CHANGES HERE THAT WARRENT SOME INVESTIGATION.
Injectors are reduced to 4 from 6 but are bigger. Can't interchange them and some argue the 6 are better than the 4 and others argue teh other way. Net result is zero noticable advantage for IT from all the research I have done
Oil pumps are changed and more efficient for reliability.
Oil filter is relocated which involved some other random stuff to be changed but again no gains can be made with any of these modifications
Alternator is 110 vs 100. No gain in IT competitiveness
A few changes to some sensors that I don't see how could be advantages but I admit to now knowing a lot about this. I would think however if a positiveimpact could have been made Mazda would have done it or some tuner would have discovered it by now.

#3 Driveline compatibility. Can everything be swapped around between models with no apparent competitive advantage greater than either classificiation on its own.
YES everything can be interchanged with no real benifit. The transmission is improved for reliability and the rear diff has a 4.77 vs a 4.44 and larger cooling fins on the cover for heat displacment.

#4 Suspension design as used to determine the classification of the car. If 1 design is of greater design to warrent an "adder" in the classification of the car than it would need to be seperated onto a seperate line
YES both cars use the same suspension design however the rear suspension design is slighly different with about .5 inch ride height change. However it uses the same design and mounting points to the unibody. Cross brace subframe is slighly different to accomodate rear diff housing. No "Adder" would be used if we did use a seperate spec line so therfor no need to seperate on seperate spec lines.

#5 brakes as used to determine the classification of the car. If 1 design is of greater design to warrent an "adder" in the classification of the car than it would need to be seperated onto a seperate line
SAME BRAKE SYSTEM on both cars.

So in conclusion I would recomend they are on the same spec line in the GCR and was completly suprised to hear they would be seperated. If you have further modifications that you used to determine the car justified 2 spec lines please share them with me so I can do proper research to determine my thoughts about your concerns.

Thanks for reading,
Stephen Blethen

THIS is what I'm talking about. thanks Stephen.

and Steve, I'm not asking you to do my job for me, I'm asking for your opinion of how to do my job as you think it was done incorrectly. there is no single objective standard that creates a bureaucratically functional trigger to split speclines, so we have to be subjective. and we make mistakes. the good news is that "getting it wrong" conservatively sometimes gets us more information, faster, than getting it wrong the other way. in other words, no one ever sends a dyno sheet for a car OVER their classing gains, but damn do we get a flood when the car comes up heavy. that's not SOP, we try to get it close every time, but when in doubt...

Gathering information to support the cause is always on the backs of the people trying to have the classification changed, not the people who process that classification. we do research, we ferret out expertise, we can go to pretty ridiculous lengths when there's a doubt or burden of proof. but when cars are well published we find the basic search and review process for a new classification to be a pretty cut and dry affair, and as volunteers with a lot on our plates, we find it more imperative to get the car out there than to do onerous research to verify every nut and bolt. in other words, we have to make judgment calls. this car DID have a lot of conversation and discussion regarding adding to or creating a new spec line, but maybe NOT what YOU would consider adequate research. the above post is a good summary of why what changed likely doesn't matter, and we know most of that already.

I'm sorry you think that we are dicking with ITR, we're just trying to make sure the cart stays behind the horse and we appreciate that the class is not very attractive nor very far removed from ITS and are investigating WHAT and HOW to do about it, if anything. customer service is job one around here, but it means service to all of our customers and in that environment we risk pissing of individuals in order to keep the group happy.

Chip42

02-26-2014, 10:38 AM

Let's take a look at at what Dr. Frankenstein has to say (http://www.mazdausamedia.com/index.php?s=31676&item=989)
4. From the Wiki, "The Renesis II motor iteration that launched with the 2009 model year included a third oil injection port in each rotor housing..."
- It doesn't have the engine, c'est pas?

and THIS was basically our rational for splitting the lines - we don't know if the changes can be combined in an IT legal way to cause a better set of gains than anticipated. we still don't. the rest of the changes are just icing. any one of them is normal water\bridge stuff, all at once is harder to justify.

StephenB

02-26-2014, 11:52 AM

and THIS was basically our rational for splitting the lines - we don't know if the changes can be combined in an IT legal way to cause a better set of gains than anticipated. we still don't. the rest of the changes are just icing. any one of them is normal waterbridge stuff, all at once is harder to justify.

I am not an engine builder but from what I know this modification uses the exact same original housing that has been modified simply for more reliability. I think the thee are positioned in a triangle formation to better lubricate the apex seal. I know the original 04 & 05 models were blowing up seals at 50k or less creating poor compression and engine replacements. From what I understand they made changes to clearances on the seals and used a different spring rate to gain some reliability. Still not great but cars lasted to 80k. Still not great when trying to sell a car that may make it to 100k. This design in 09 was to try and fix that poor reliability concern. I say all this based on my own research and opportunity to talk to enthusiasts. I have zero inside knowledgable and I didn't pay a single bit attention to this car until 2010 when I got my first one. (Now we have had 6.... Just realized why my wife yells at me... Haha).

Anyway take it for what it is worth and let me know if you have any questions or concerns. You can PM me and I will try to find out answers. I want to try and be objective but you all know my personal investment into your final decision. (Just staying honest here)

Couple other things I forgot and didn't say before: I Think the reinforcements noted above are the Shinka cross braces and subframe that you can get starting in 05 and a new strut tower brace that connects to the firewall.

Lastly, I agree with you jjjanos. It is a hard thing to figure out. I just posted the 5 things that I would look at as a veteran to the class. Doesn't make them easy decisions just the things I think I would talk about. And your also right each line probably could be argued either way depending on how far left or right you are. Oh... 1 last thing, for me to make my car an 09 and run the 09 transmission i could swap the vin but also have to updating the entire car. Probably close to 10k to do that. I will still run in ITR but with my 04 transmission and a few less entries per year to get it rebuilt every few weekends.

Thanks, for all the replies... I think it is drawing attention not because it is an rx8 but because its a new look at how we move forward in IT, and nothing bad can come out of this.

Stephen

kevin22

02-26-2014, 12:28 PM

Cars are the same.
Every car line evolves with minor improvements each year to make them more reliable and a better product for the consumer.
But to argue that these cars have any performance difference is silly.

I hope common sense prevails

RSTPerformance

02-26-2014, 12:40 PM

And for all the bitching about putting it on two different lines... where's the rub? It's been claimed that this will impose some form of hardship on those wanting to build the car, but if they are the same damn car, it doesn't matter if you split them on 43 different spec lines -- the VIN doesn't matter. Call your 2008 a 2009.

We all don't have money trees like you... This class (IT in general) is designed to be an entry level affordable class for SCCA wheel to wheel racing. Today it is still is looked at as being one of the best, affordable racing options in the US. We need to remember that when making rules, as well as determining a cars classification. To UD/BD a car to a different spec line would cost thousands of dollars, even if all the parts are just cosmetic bolt on parts. Please DO NOT go in this direction.

I don't even know who is on the iTAC anymore, so many good people left because they got upset with things... no matter who is on it though they are all volunteers and everyone appreciates the hard work even if we don't agree with you or your direction. In this case IMO you could have helped yourselves by asking for more information before classifying the cars. If need be, use this site and the person making the request... Heck, you could have used the RX8 forum and probably received tons of unbiased responses. You might even attract some new racers who know nothing about SCCA and what they could do with that old RX8 that wont start in the driveway. IMO if anyone puts in a request for anything they should get a call, they have an agenda. Investigate that agenda and figuring out if would be in the best interest of the class or not. I know it opens it up to a gray area but we need to keep our members happy and attract new ones.

Raymond "considering STL ;)" Blethen

Tristan Smith

02-26-2014, 01:03 PM

Well as a "glutton for punishment", I hope you guys address the bigger "readjustment" picture with ITR sooner, rather than later.

I, like Steve and Stephen, have a lot tied up in my car, both time and money.

While I would love to see the car's weight reduced, it would become problematic to get more than another 100lbs out of the car. And I really don't think that is going to make the car suddenly competitive.

So I am not sure what the answer is, other than selling the 300zx, or moving to another class or sanctioning body, both of which I would rather not do.

jjjanos

02-26-2014, 01:29 PM

I am not an engine builder but from what I know this modification uses the exact same original housing that has been modified simply for more reliability.

Contradiction. It's either the same or it isn't. A rotary is the exact same motor as a V-8 except that it has been modified.....

That being said, if the only thing different was the engine, there wouldn't be justification for a new spec line if the IT-HP between the two is the same.

Cars are the same.
Every car line evolves with minor improvements each year to make them more reliable and a better product for the consumer.
But to argue that these cars have any performance difference is silly.

Mazda adjusted the suspension geometry for no apparent purpose? Damn, that's a heap of money to spend on design, tooling and durability testing to get nothing.

Again, this alone does not justify a new spec line if the only thing different are the bits and pieces called the suspension. If, however, the mounting locations changed at all, the support for the 'same car' is lessened in my view. (Others may disagree... mount your 2008 suspension to the 2009 car without changing attachment points).

We all don't have money trees like you...

Check.

To UD/BD a car to a different spec line would cost thousands of dollars, even if all the parts are just cosmetic bolt on parts.

And if the cost is that great, doesn't that suggest that maybe the cars aren't the same car?

Heck, you could have used the RX8 forum and probably received tons of unbiased responses.

UNbiased? You want to try that one again?

- 1. If the cars really are the same, then putting it on the same spec line or a different spec line won't make a damn bit of difference because the prevailing opinion among the (un)biased owners of the car is that it is too damn heavy at process weight.

- 2. It seems to me that Mazda, the ultimate authority on the car, seems to be telling everyone that the post-2009 car is a reboot. As in a different car. Or maybe I just am reading the materials the wrong way.

- 3. If the cars really are the same, then putting it on the same spec line or a different spec line won't make a damn bit of difference because the prevailing opinion among the (un)biased owners of the car is that it is too damn heavy at process weight. (repeated for emphasis.)

StephenB

02-26-2014, 02:17 PM

Jonas, (not sure your real name sorry if that is incorrect) A V8 would not use the same housing no matter how much you modify it. It's simply not possible. Send me your email and I will send a youtube video on how a rotary works vs a traditional combustion engine that uses pistons. They are significantly different. While on the subject for those that know about rotary engines You actually can't even use a 12a housing to make a renisis engine, totally different housings.

Stephen.

Ps: I have probably participated in as much ITR events in an rx8 as anybody and never complained about the weight. Not sure I can get it much lower than process weight. Currently I am about 60lbs over. If the performance envelop of ITR goes up I am in real trouble... I think I could get rid of some of the cage, the heater and some left over undercoating. But not much else.

Chip42

02-26-2014, 02:18 PM

I'd still like to discuss a parallel case with less emotional and fiscal involvement among the participating cognoscenti

02-04 and 05-06 Acura RSX-S (JUST moved down to ITS from R)
the 2 speclines have:
same chassis and suspension with largely same body (recontoured bumpers and lights), same brakes, same suspension, etc...

same engine long block (K20, same head, valve sizes, CR, etc..) with minor upgrades to exhaust (IT open), intake tube (not manifold - IT open), tuning (IT open), and cams (not open, but a small changes and improvements happen over the course of a model). Oh, and designation: K20A2 to K20Z1. the Z1 motor is rated 10hp higher in 05, then looses 9 under new SAE hp testing in 06 (200 in -04 to 210 in 05, 201 in 06). half the % gain as the S4-S5 FC RX7 (146 to 160).

slightly different trans case but same 6 ratios, different final drive (IT open).

they are on separate speclines. according to the logic of many in this discussion, they should be combined on one line. I'm honestly curious how those experienced IT veterans see this issue, and if it is seen as separate from the RX8 in any meaningful way (or the FC RX7)

to us, the HP change along with the engine designation change was the kicker, I mean, who really cares about the bumper covers and headlights? as a result, the later cars get 200# for their troubles, despite the adjustment made after only 1 year of existence. Note that the 02-04 cars are run using the same hp test standard (SAE net) as the 05 and most other similar cars in the ITCS, so this seemed fair. the unequal amount of change various manufacturers saw when they switched to SAE certified HP is a whol'nother discussion so discount it for now, consider the 06 to be equal to the 05, because in reality it is.

StephenB

02-26-2014, 02:31 PM

I will look at that tonight and give my opinion. Can you clarify exactly which 2 spec lines to look at. It also sounded like you said one car has a 200lb difference than the other. Can you explain what adders it received. or was that the difference from ITR to ITS?

Chip42

02-26-2014, 02:43 PM

current GCR has them in ITR. Acura RSX-S. ITS weight is 200# different due to 10hp rating difference.

jjjanos

02-26-2014, 03:55 PM

Jonas, (not sure your real name sorry if that is incorrect) A V8 would not use the same housing no matter how much you modify it. It's simply not possible. Send me your email and I will send a youtube video on how a rotary works vs a traditional combustion engine that uses pistons. They are significantly different. While on the subject for those that know about rotary engines You actually can't even use a 12a housing to make a renisis engine, totally different housings.

I am aware of the differences between a rotary and a piston engine. The point was to illustrate claiming that two things are the exact same thing except for....

StephenB

02-26-2014, 04:19 PM

Janos, I thought you were serious that the v8 was a relevant example in this conversation. I will not continue to discuss obsurd examples. Let's all keep this conversation productive.

Stephen

TomL

02-26-2014, 04:22 PM

If the two Acuras had the same horsepower rating, the answer is obvious - they should be on the same spec line, i.e., just like the RX8. And I'd note that you seem to be conceding that the only reason for having two spec lines is that they have two different HP ratings, not that there is any real difference in the cars otherwise.

But since they don't, ycu could go either way. You can either do one spec line at the higher power and weight, or do the two as you did, with two weights. Which route you should take may be specific to the particular car. If it would be almost impossible to meet the lower weight, you might as well just have a single spec line at the higher weight. If the lower HP version is much more readily available, that might be a good reason to have two spec lines. The primary argument in favor of two spec lines is that it doesn't make it almost mandatory that you run the higher HP version. So unless you can't meet the lower weight, or the higher HP version is far more available and thus the version everyone will want to run anyway, two spec lines would be what I'd vote for in this case. Particularly if some people have already built the lighter version. (But if the HP were the same, one spec line is obvious.)

One question, how does a 10 HP difference equate to a 200# increase? I thought the ITS multiplier was around 14 lb/hp, not 20.

On a separate note, since you keep bringing up the S4 vs S5 RX7, do you plan to add the S4 RX7 at ~2400 pounds? :)

jjjanos

02-26-2014, 04:41 PM

Janos, I thought you were serious that the v8 was a relevant example in this conversation. I will not continue to discuss obsurd examples. Let's all keep this conversation productive.

Stephen

Agreed. I will be specific - The rotary engine in the 2008 is not the same as the rotary engine in the 2009 and AFAIK, everyone participating in this thread has stated this.

seckerich

02-26-2014, 05:36 PM

Agreed. I will be specific - The rotary engine in the 2008 is not the same as the rotary engine in the 2009 and AFAIK, everyone participating in this thread has stated this.

Come on Josh, you are either willfully playing ignorant or you are not the Mazda guru I was told you were when on the ITAC. Or are you that Josh?? If not disregard.

Either way you are playing games to the obsurd to make it look like a big deal. The Renesis in the 09 is the same casting with an M8 hole tapped in the housing for another oil injection port. Every other part in the short block is identical to the 04-08. You are most likely aware that all rotaries are allowed to mix oil in the fuel so these are not necessary for a race motor. This is no different than your V8 comparison where a given block might have a slightly different boss cast in for a given accessory. Bore, stroke, pistons, cam, valves, etc are all the same. Irrelevant to the performance or function of the motor. Other difference is the secondary fuel rail on the intake, which has 2 less injectors. But then you already know that but think it is fun to keep playing these games and shoving the weight deal in our face. You think it's fun to shove the weight thing in our face. (Repeated for emphasis):rolleyes:

Chip42

02-26-2014, 05:37 PM

On a separate note, since you keep bringing up the S4 vs S5 RX7, do you plan to add the S4 RX7 at ~2400 pounds? :)
No. that would undo a lot of what has been done for years, and we try to avoid that. doesn't mean we want to do it again, though. the question is when does merging lines become a problem, and when does keeping them separate become likewise.

re: the 200#, it's 10*1.25*12.9*.945(FWD) or 150

200*1.25*12.9*0.945 = 3050
210*1.25*12.9*0.945 = 3200

looks like we made a boo-boo in the weight of the 02-04 car. will fix. oh, and from an IT perspective, a cam swap with 05-06 cams will make the engines identical (from what I have learned, there may be other details) in the eyes of the process and for all other IT-relevant intents and purposes.

seckerich

02-26-2014, 05:39 PM

seckerich

02-26-2014, 05:45 PM

No. that would undo a lot of what has been done for years, and we try to avoid that. doesn't mean we want to do it again, though. the question is when does merging lines become a problem, and when does keeping them separate become likewise.

re: the 200#, it's 10*1.25*12.9*.945(FWD) or 150

200*1.25*12.9*0.945 = 3050
210*1.25*12.9*0.945 = 3200

looks like we made a boo-boo in the weight of the 02-04 car. will fix. oh, and from an IT perspective, a cam swap with 05-06 cams will make the engines identical (from what I have learned, there may be other details) in the eyes of the process and for all other IT-relevant intents and purposes.

Depending on the differences Chip, would you not look at classing like the Miata that had 2 seperate HP ratings and just class them all with the higher number. Would need to see what the Honda guys wanted, but long run it would be a much better deal if no other changes caused adders in the process. I would think many might opt for the lower HP number and the lighter weight. Of course they might do that and just use the cam too.

Knestis

02-26-2014, 06:36 PM

... To UD/BD a car to a different spec line would cost thousands of dollars, even if all the parts are just cosmetic bolt on parts. Please DO NOT go in this direction.

Again, speaking in the abstract and to general policies rather than the RX8 as a case study, there's a flip side to this coin: If the update/backdate options on a spec line create a de facto situation where a particular mix-and-match option has an advantage (a la the ITS 2nd gen RX7 "kit"), it's going to be an expensive proposition to turn any of the year/trim level choices into the "right" model that never existed in the wild.

K

seckerich

02-26-2014, 06:42 PM

jjjanos

02-26-2014, 08:03 PM

Come on Josh, you are either willfully playing ignorant or you are not the Mazda guru I was told you were when on the ITAC. Or are you that Josh?? If not disregard.

Either way you are playing games to the obsurd to make it look like a big deal. The Renesis in the 09 is the same casting with an M8 hole tapped in the housing for another oil injection port. Every other part in the short block is identical to the 04-08.

Which is a long way to go to say they aren't the same engine. They are very similar, but not the same. If a piston engine had a block head combo with different water channels, would you say they were the same engine? I wouldn't.

It's got a very similar engine and there is a history of sometimes keeping such cars on the same line.

But then you already know that but think it is fun to keep playing these games and shoving the weight deal in our face. You think it's fun to shove the weight thing in our face. (Repeated for emphasis):rolleyes:

Which is it? The car is over weight or not? Because if the RX8 is the overweight pig it is claimed to be and there is no difference between the 08 and the 09, the 09 will be the same over weight pig as the rest of them. How in the hell is listing it on the same spec line going to make a damn bit of difference? Hey! My 08 isn't competitive, so I'll build a car out of this more expensive 09 tub that is identical to the 08! That's the ticket!

I'm all in favor of getting it through the process correctly, but drop the sob story about the legions of RX8 owners spending time on the cross if this goes on a new line.

What you seem to have is a car with a similar motor (which by itself doesn't justify a spec line change), a different unibody (and there's plenty of evidence that minor production line changes don't justify a new line) and different "suspension geometry" which IMO, if it mounts to new points, is the big problem putting it on one line.

And I'm not Josh or even Joshing.

seckerich

02-26-2014, 08:54 PM

Which is a long way to go to say they aren't the same engine. They are very similar, but not the same. If a piston engine had a block head combo with different water channels, would you say they were the same engine? I wouldn't.

It's got a very similar engine and there is a history of sometimes keeping such cars on the same line.

Which is it? The car is over weight or not? Because if the RX8 is the overweight pig it is claimed to be and there is no difference between the 08 and the 09, the 09 will be the same over weight pig as the rest of them. How in the hell is listing it on the same spec line going to make a damn bit of difference? Hey! My 08 isn't competitive, so I'll build a car out of this more expensive 09 tub that is identical to the 08! That's the ticket!

I'm all in favor of getting it through the process correctly, but drop the sob story about the legions of RX8 owners spending time on the cross if this goes on a new line.

What you seem to have is a car with a similar motor (which by itself doesn't justify a spec line change), a different unibody (and there's plenty of evidence that minor production line changes don't justify a new line) and different "suspension geometry" which IMO, if it mounts to new points, is the big problem putting it on one line.

And I'm not Josh or even Joshing.

Got ya, So you really have no basis in fact or real knowledge about the cars. Guys that post with no signature get that. Carry on.

Haven't heard a word from any of us about the weight since it was set at #2850, not great, but the car is well balanced and should race well with others in the class. Get over yourself on the cross anology, history just proves if it does not get done in the beginning, it never will. See ITB.

Knestis

02-26-2014, 08:59 PM

Kirk could you please list the "kit" you speak of that makes an ITS RX7 greater than the best listed model?

The GTUS was the aluminum hood, non sunroof, 89-91 spec motor with the good brakes that everything from 89 on had. Have I missed something all these years?

I understood that there was a particular year (or years) of FI/induction that was thought to be optimal in there too, Steve, but you'd know better than I would.

Point being, if I start with an '87 like Mazda gave us back in the ESCORT days, I have to spend some coin to optimize it.

K

seckerich

02-26-2014, 09:28 PM

You are correct there Kirk, years ago when they were newer it was more. Basically all it took to make the early cars even with the 89-91 cars was the later motor combination. Later bumper looks better, but that was about it. I have early cars that came with the aluminum hood, but the .756 fifth gear was not until 89. That is why all the RX7's were run through the process at the max numbers for the 89-91 setup.

The myth that the update/backdate on the RX7 made a car that was better than any single model built is not true. Everything we consider the best parts for a build were on one single model. That we can use an 86-88 shell to get there is the part I have been pushing here. Thats all. No different with the RX8, the 09 is a better car because the weak links were engineered out like any other car reaching the end of a model run. Nobody is playing games, we were very clear in the beginning of this thread that the later parts are better engineered for the car and handle a race beating better.

Please be honest, did you ever find information I gave you in the original classing of this car to be false? Were the dyno sheets I gave the ITAC not as high or higher than anyone else has claimed?

Knestis

02-26-2014, 09:49 PM

You keep ignoring the part where I say that I agree with you on the RX8, Steve - at least based on what's been shared here.

K

jjjanos

02-26-2014, 10:31 PM

StephenB

02-26-2014, 11:38 PM

John, Joe, Josh, Jim, Janos, Jamie, who ever you are... READ the thread.

RELIABLE TRANSMISSION. Is that simple enough?

Stephen Blethen.

seckerich

02-27-2014, 12:01 AM

Good one! If Mazda hadn't put another bore home in the 2009 and you just did it yourself, would you say the engine in your 2008 was IT legal? No, because it ain't the same motor. Or let's say they made a GFY01 that used the new motor and left the 08 version in the 09 RX8... Still think you could slap the new motor in the RX8? No, because it ain't the same motor.

I've asked this several times... Please explain how a bunch of folks who won't build the 08 and earlier car would be willing to build the identical car if it was an 09. #pretendimfrommissouri

As stated before, you are willfully stupid, I can't help you .

kevin22

02-27-2014, 07:33 AM

Good one! If Mazda hadn't put another bore home in the 2009 and you just did it yourself, would you say the engine in your 2008 was IT legal? No, because it ain't the same motor. Or let's say they made a GFY01 that used the new motor and left the 08 version in the 09 RX8... Still think you could slap the new motor in the RX8? No, because it ain't the same motor.

I've asked this several times... Please explain how a bunch of folks who won't build the 08 and earlier car would be willing to build the identical car if it was an 09. #pretendimfrommissouri

People are building the old car, but they want to be able to use the updated reliable parts, such as the tranny. Personally I think the car can be very capable in ITR, I don't believe a 2009 can be any faster then an 2008 , but it will be cheaper to run. For me it's just the transmission.

spawpoet

02-27-2014, 09:36 AM

Good one! If Mazda hadn't put another bore home in the 2009 and you just did it yourself, would you say the engine in your 2008 was IT legal? No, because it ain't the same motor. Or let's say they made a GFY01 that used the new motor and left the 08 version in the 09 RX8... Still think you could slap the new motor in the RX8? No, because it ain't the same motor.

I've asked this several times... Please explain how a bunch of folks who won't build the 08 and earlier car would be willing to build the identical car if it was an 09. #pretendimfrommissouri

240 Zs came with three different heads, two different carbs, at least 3 different intake manifolds, and two different transmissions across the production run from 1970-1973. How many spec lines should they have had when they initially classed the old Datsuns?

Ron Earp

02-27-2014, 09:59 AM

240 Zs came with three different heads, two different carbs, at least 3 different intake manifolds, and two different transmissions across the production run from 1970-1973. How many spec lines should they have had when they initially classed the old Datsuns?

Additional examples:

*ITS Jensen Healey - has more factory cams than the engine has valves. Lots of parts.
*ITB Mustang - lots of heads, cams, induction changes, etc.
*ITS Mustang - many parts, not ITB Mustang status though
*ITR Mustang V6 - similar to the ITS Mustang
*ITS TR8 - Convertible, coupe, FI, carb all on one line

I do understand the ITAC not wanting to repeat process mistakes made in the past. But it doesn't appear that we're in danger of creating a problem with the RX8. Indeed, if we were to assume that we have created problems in the past, for example, the ITB Mustang classing is what we're trying to avoid, what was the impact on SCCA ITB racing of that classification?

spawpoet

02-27-2014, 10:12 AM

Additional examples:

*ITS Jensen Healey - has more factory cams than the engine has valves. Lots of parts.
*ITB Mustang - lots of heads, cams, induction changes, etc.
*ITS Mustang - many parts, not ITB Mustang status though
*ITR Mustang V6 - similar to the ITS Mustang
*ITS TR8 - Convertible, coupe, FI, carb all on one line

I do understand the ITAC not wanting to repeat process mistakes made in the past. But it doesn't appear that we're in danger of creating a problem with the RX8. Indeed, if we were to assume that we have created problems in the past, for example, the ITB Mustang classing is what we're trying to avoid, what was the impact on SCCA ITB racing of that classification?

Exactly. IMHO the ITAC is worrying about a problem that doesn't exist here. Relatively substantive changes between model years is very normal, and has been something that has been looked past through 30 years of classing cars. It's the whole reason the update/backdate rule exists. In the case of the RX-8 the changes for the 09' model year just don't seem all that significant, especially when compared to other classed cars that have never become overdogs themselves via update/backdate.

Ron Earp

02-27-2014, 10:59 AM

Another is the 85- 88 Pontiac Fiero GT & Formula V-6 2.8. If I'm not mistaken, this car has a one or two year only front suspension that is much prefered over the earlier design.

Spa67

02-27-2014, 11:43 AM

Another is the 85- 88 Pontiac Fiero GT & Formula V-6 2.8. If I'm not mistaken, this car has a one or two year only front suspension that is much prefered over the earlier design.

yes, but it was the rear

85-87 (or 84-87 it really does not matter) used a rear suspension made from the front suspension parts of what ever the Chevrolet K-Car equivalent was a the time. I think it was the Citation?

That's what made the car so cheap to produce. Just about everything but the tub was off-the-shelf. Take a FWD driveline and shove it behind the cockpit.

In '88 they created a proper rear suspension, improved the brakes, and earned rave reviews. Then they killed the car-Classic GM!

240zdave

02-27-2014, 11:51 AM

yes, but it was the rear

85-87 (or 84-87 it really does not matter) used a rear suspension made from the front suspension parts of what ever the Chevrolet K-Car equivalent was a the time. I think it was the Citation?

That's what made the car so cheap to produce. Just about everything but the tub was off-the-shelf. Take a FWD driveline and shove it behind the cockpit.

In '88 they created a proper rear suspension, improved the brakes, and earned rave reviews. Then they killed the car-Classic GM!

If I remember correctly, the V6 GT version was faster / quicker than the Trans-Am, which was not going to happen, and contributed to the demise.

Ron Earp

02-27-2014, 12:15 PM

If I remember correctly, the V6 GT version was faster / quicker than the Trans-Am, which was not going to happen, and contributed to the demise.

I don't remember it that way. I had a Fiero, another friend had the Formula version, and they were no threat to my buddy's Trans Am. Maybe a Tran Am from 1974, but not from 1987. I could believe it faster crushing cones though.

JeffYoung

02-27-2014, 01:32 PM

We do have a problem. The problem is not knowing where to draw the spec line distinction.

Some of the cars currently lumped together probably shouldn't be with the 79 to 93 Mustang leading the way. Others, either due to history or practical reasons should.

I do not want to upset the balance in IT right now but we do need a rule on this.

Stephen offered some damn good basics for starting with one.

Other thoughts?

Wreckerboy

02-27-2014, 02:03 PM

yes, but it was the rear

85-87 (or 84-87 it really does not matter) used a rear suspension made from the front suspension parts of what ever the Chevrolet K-Car equivalent was a the time. I think it was the Citation?

That's what made the car so cheap to produce. Just about everything but the tub was off-the-shelf. Take a FWD driveline and shove it behind the cockpit.

In '88 they created a proper rear suspension, improved the brakes, and earned rave reviews. Then they killed the car-Classic GM!

Interesting. I always thought the front suspension received the updates, as it was (allegedly) directly from the Chevette.

Chip42

02-27-2014, 02:14 PM

seckerich

02-27-2014, 02:43 PM

Still having a hard time seeing why you feel the need to fix this. You say the Mustang is not a problem, and is basically the poster child for readily available parts sources. Then at the same time say it should never happen again. Look at Ron and the Mustangs and see the developement they have done with so many different cylinder heads to get a potent ITS car. In your world that would not happen, because all those slightly different heads would be on different spec lines. Who is pushing this?? I sure don't see it as the drivers so what is the issue? Stop overengineering this Chip, the system we have works well.

PS, got the entry cert and have you guys covered for May.

Ron Earp

02-27-2014, 02:53 PM

but either way, we need to reach a consensus on what is and is not a change or accumulation of changes sufficient to warrant a new specline. input constructive to that end is appreciated.

I believe that the desire to have a process to determine when a new specline is to be used it a noble one. But practically, I feel the best you can do is create some language around specline classification that allows the ITAC wiggle room to determine it on a case by case basis.

Engines are certainly the most common talking point in a class that is horsepower to weight based. Typically when a manufacturer doesn't change a horsepower or torque rating but changes parts, then there is no gain for the racer - but not always, and it is good to see the ITAC investigating cars being classed to be sure there are not unintended consequences of a particular classing. The ITB Mustang creates a unique situation for the racer, but, it balances out because the racer is going to build the best example of the car s/he can to compete in the class. As long as the car isn't an illegal combination of parts and isn't an over dog, then no harm is done. Determining the former could be difficult, but cheating shouldn't be considered in the context of classification.

Suspensions might be the more difficult subset of a car for classification processes. In my recent experience the IT car benefits far more from suspension development than horsepower, but suspension changes will be somewhat subjective as to effect on the car in race trim. Moving a pickup point 1" higher for more anti-dive, re-enforcing a pickup point, or lengthening the lower control arm 1.25" are measurable changes for sure, but harder to quantify when compared to a ten horsepower gain. Certainly you can’t ignore suspension differences but you’ll need to use good judgment to determine if they warrant a car on another spec line, but with the assistance from those that know about the cars it’d be possible.

I don’t think there is a looming classification problem for IT unless we choose to make it so. Sure, there might be a car or two out there that is problematic but mostly things are on an even keel. Let's keep it simple. IT is a good place to race and we all appreciate the ITAC for trying to keep it that way.

spawpoet

02-27-2014, 03:01 PM

fiero front was Chevette sourced throughout the run, IIRC. 88 rear was a pretty substantial improvement over previous years.

As Jeff says - we don't have anything better than a desire to see giant cluster speclines like the ITB mustang (again, poster child - not a problem in the class) NOT be repeated. to that end we may be more conservative than the community wants or expects. but either way, we need to reach a consensus on what is and is not a change or accumulation of changes sufficient to warrant a new specline. input constructive to that end is appreciated.

Ron's point about cars with constant ongoing changes like the SN95 mustang and Jensen Healy would be nearly impossible to codify if we were to try and break them up - and typically they were changes that didn't warrant noise from the manufacturer, so little to go off of to base the decision on anyhow. does having information vs not having it deserve punishment, as it were? I don't think so. almost seems we should just not try so hard to be so clear and everyone would be happier.

We are trying to give you info constructive towards your end. It seems a lot of people don't think the 09' RX-8 reaches the threshold to which it belongs on another specline. I very much appreciate that you guys are further refining the process to keep newly classed cars from upsetting the apple cart. But IMHO it is more likely to be problematic if you significantly depart from past precedent. Newer cars will gain little to no advantage from update/backdate while older cars can, have, and will. I think coming up with some guidelines for when to split out a car onto a new specline is fine, but again I think it would also wise to basically follow the precedent for how cars were split out in the past, except for the most egregious examples of cars that had many many changes like the Mustangs.

Chip42

02-27-2014, 05:00 PM

well, if the rest of the committee agrees with the 4-5 of you on here, our jobs just got a lot easier.

I think we can let this one die for now. new prelims in ~1 week!!!

seckerich

02-27-2014, 05:21 PM

With over 2800 views Chip, you could be safe to say it is more than 5 people interested in this. Thanks for being so open and willing to debate this stuff. :023:

jjjanos

02-27-2014, 05:27 PM

John, Joe, Josh, Jim, Janos, Jamie, who ever you are... READ the thread.

RELIABLE TRANSMISSION. Is that simple enough?

Stephen Blethen.

Great, you've got a reliable transmission in a car that remains an overweight pig. Still fail to see how this opens the flood gates to building these cars.

You've still got a DIFFERENT motor in the car - which doesn't always justify a new spec line, but don't attempt to call a Guernsey a Longhorn.

Stop overengineering this Chip, the system we have works well.

You realize the system that "works well" put it on a new spec line? The ITAC decides whether it should be new or the same.

Knestis

02-27-2014, 07:59 PM

When I was working on the "ITB do-over" spreadsheet (was it that long ago?) I vividly remember thinking, "nobody has really pushed the Mustang option" - particularly since the current race weight has zilch to do with the process being applied to the BEST of the engine options. Chip or someone can confirm but i *think* I actually split them out into several (three?) separate date ranges in that exercise, based on what appeared to be the best estimates of where generational changes resulted in different OE power specs.

Apropos of nothing, as they say...

K

Ron Earp

02-27-2014, 09:20 PM

You've still got a DIFFERENT motor in the car - which doesn't always justify a new spec line, but don't attempt to call a Guernsey a Longhorn.

I'd be hard pressed the call a motor with two less injectors and a different oil squirting pattern different, especially when the pertinent specs, the horsepower and torque figures, are unchanged.

What attributes of an engine would demand a new spec line;

*Different distributor?
*Block with different casting bosses and motor mounts?
*Different piston compression height?
*Different cylinder head castings with different combustion chamber shapes?
*Piston with different ring thickness?
*Cam with three degrees more duration?
*Heads with different water passages?
*Forged rod the same weight as a powdered metal rod?
*Different oil pans?
*Different front cover?
*Different balancer?

Right now in ITS there are multiple cars with these attributes, some with multiple attributes, that exist on the same spec line, with identical horsepower and torque rating across the years. I won't argue that some of these attributes are more desirable from a racer perspective, but they don't change the balance of competition.

If we were to go back and consider these changes and create new listings for these cars we'd expand the number of IT listings by 20 or more. And it would do nothing to make IT more competitive or keeping IT an entry class that is flexible enough to be attractive to newbies and old hands alike.

You're an IT racer, what do you race and would you prefer to start breaking classifications apart into multiple years throughout all the IT classes?

JeffYoung

02-27-2014, 10:05 PM

I thought Stephen B's post was an excellent start and I think Ron's was as well.

I also think Greg and Steve make excellent points about stability and not changing things mid stream, while Kirk, Chip and myself don't want to see unintended results (frankly I think the ITB Mustang COULD be a problem but I digress) from spec line snafus.

So where is the common ground? It seems to me that you go back to core IT values that we talk about everyone in a while:

1. Same basic engine architecture. Different manifold or slightly different head design? Ok no problem same spec line. Going from 2v to 4v or something like that? Different spec lines.

2. Same basic body structure. Coupes and converts should probably be separate spec lines. Hatchs and trunks same. Etc.

3. Same basic suspension design. Moving a few pick up points, etc? Not a fundemental change. Change in basic suspension architecture, i.e. going from struts to IRS? Different spec line.

4. Brakes? I don't know that I see anything here I would consider so fundamental to require a different spec line.

5. Tranny? Same.

So for me, I would propose items 1 through 3 as the basic characteristics as to what goes on a Spec Line.

applying them to the RX8, I'd have to reverse my vote. I still am bothered by some of the differences, but after thinking through the policy, and rule I would like to have in place for all, rather than focusing on the differences, I think the car should be the same Spec line.

Thoughts?

Andy Bettencourt

02-27-2014, 10:28 PM

A week in Florida on business created a long read for me tonight!

So to make sure Steve's point about the ITS RX-7 is hammered home and people stop using it as an example:

The car that people 'create' is the GTUs. Best brakes, best chassis, best trans ratios. 1100 of them made from 1989-1990. Racers take any chassis they can find and put in the S5 motor, correct brakes, proper trans ratios, maybe decide to change a front or rear bumper cover, some taillights and go. Same suspension from 1986-1991, same engine output from 1989-1991, etc. You can NOT create a better car by mixing and matching anything from 1986-1991 that exceeds the performance of a GTUs. End of discussion.

If anything, you could pull the 146hp version and classify it as 2450lbs ITS car or even a 2750lbs ITA car. But people will still take there early cars and transform them into the S5 variant because the cars are the same.

If the RX8 (and I am speaking generically here because I know the answers) uses the same bolt on parts, you have two ways to go:

If it's the same HP and the stuff that is different is not part of the 'process' AND can be bolted on per UD/BD, then you have a same spec line car.

If the HP gets raised, you have another way to go. You determine if that reason of the bump is NOT something you can change in the process (like cams, heads, chassis layout, base CR, etc) then you can add a spec line (like the RXS-S) or you can just combine the cars at the higher weight and effectively require all the 'old' cars to upgrade to maintain competitiveness.

Since the 09 RX-8 chassis is no different than that if a special edition that is legal and was available in 05, this is not a factor. The engine is not a factor. The transmission, while uprated is not part of the process.

So we can agree that the 09 RX8 would be 'best of the spec line'...not because of outright performance, but because guys may want to UD to the stouter gearset. Place them on the same line.

Mechanical differences that account for HP or any other 'non changeable' item in the ITCS are flags for separate spec lines - when those changes result in a higher weight per the process.

Greg Amy

02-27-2014, 10:32 PM

The car that people 'create' is the GTUs....You can NOT create a better car by mixing and matching anything from 1986-1991 that exceeds the performance of a GTUs. End of discussion.
Sounds like the GTU needs its own spec line at a higher weight..."end of discussion"...?

Andy Bettencourt

02-27-2014, 10:37 PM

Sounds like the GTU needs its own spec line at a higher weight..."end of discussion"...?

Why?

Greg Amy

02-27-2014, 10:40 PM

"'Cause Better".

Remember, we have separate spec lines now.

Andy Bettencourt

02-27-2014, 10:45 PM

"'Cause Better".

Remember, we have separate spec lines now.

It's the 'best' of the spec line but it's the weight the process tells it to be. It's the poster child for how UD/BD should work. Again, you could pull a spec line out (S4) and add a version at a lighter weight...but it allows people to create a GTUs if they want to.

Should be the same with the RX8. UD to the best RX8 'stuff' because it all bolts on and the effect is no extra weight per the process.

Andy Bettencourt

02-27-2014, 10:57 PM

One controversial consideration in determining if a separate spec line is needed is cost. If an updated piece 'requires' the established racing community to spend a ton of money to 'keep pace' then it's for a sure a talking point.

Chip42

02-28-2014, 10:16 AM

if we are going to rely on UD/BD and VIN rules, and their correct application as supervised by the protest and appeals process, which we certainly may, then I have a few issues with Jeff's list.

1 - ITB civics (EG) why separate body types, so what? if an option from one was available or standard equipment on the other, fair game to UD/BD. if that option came standard on one and not the other (say, PS from the EG DX) then to remove it from the body style it was standard equipment on would be to create a model in direct contradiction to the VIN rule. I see no issue then in merging spec lines. and worrying about a hatch bolted to the coupe... that's just silly. see note***

2 - RSX-S. one line, call it a 02-06, argue over 200, 210, or 201 hp later (call it 210 for now).

3 - ITB mustang - screw it, leave it alone. certainly hasn't been a problem yet other than being the poster child for UD/BD options.

4 - RX8 - one line

basically, if I can see the changes when I squint from 100 ft, new specline. if the motor is a fully different thing (i.e. D15 vs D16 vs B16) new spec line. otherwise - go play.

is that about what everyone is thinking? if not, WHY not? it seems consistent to me.

***by the same token, why the hell would we keep a guy in a coupe from removing the PS the guy in the hatch may run without, or running the larger 4 wheel disk brakes from the LX 4dr off of the 2/3dr DX's (doing so on the 4dr DX magically transforms it into an LX)? all have the same motor and other process inputs, and rated hp despite the standard equipment nature of options like PS which we know had a ~7hp affect in stock trim that OBVIOUSLY wasn't accounted for in the literature. other than the trim letters, wheelbase, and brake sizes it's the same specline with the same weight. we have FIVE (5) spec lines for this one motor between 2 dr DX, 3dr DX, 4dr DX, 4dr LX, and Del Sol S. I need to know WHY someone would have issue with this and NOT with the FC RX7. I know chunks of the community think it is inconstant to allow S4-S5 updating but not making the best D15B7 civic

And yes, *I* get that it is incompatible with the VIN rule. I understand that there was no ABS equipped no power steering D15 coupe in the US, but to many it seems "unfair" that the 4dr with PS and ABS is the same weight as the hatch or Del Sol without ABS and without PS, and the PS and small brake coupe, too. If "all that matters" is process output and weight... where does this slope level out?

seckerich

02-28-2014, 10:36 AM

Andy Bettencourt

02-28-2014, 10:38 AM

other than the trim letters, wheelbase, and brake sizes it's the same specline with the same weight. we have FIVE (5) spec lines for this one motor between 2 dr DX, 3dr DX, 4dr DX, 4dr LX, and Del Sol S. I need to know WHY someone would have issue with this and NOT with the FC RX7. I know chunks of the community think it is inconstant to allow S4-S5 updating but not making the best D15B7 civic

Because it's not the same. The FC's are the same chassis, same wheelbase, same body, same suspension, same everything...just trim levels within...plus the engine output.

When we talk about Frankenstein cars, we talk about mixing and matching to create a combination that is better than what was available from the factory. If X wheelbase plus X body style plus X brakes plus X steering rack ratio plus X, X, X equals the best combination that was never a 'real' car, then it's not appropriate.

Like have been stated, people take their FC's and build them into a actual car that was actually produced. Not the same.

Chip42

02-28-2014, 11:25 AM

I have always wondered why any car is forced to keep the power steering, instead of allowing the lines to be looped. Nowhere in the process do you look at the power drag of accessories. Yes, most have "special" pullies that make it spin but is it really such a big deal to drop it?

ABS has to be disabled and can be removed so why is that an issue?

because IN THEORY the SAE net HP is derived WITH the accessory in place, and removal of that accessory would create a power gain outside of the default for the process.

the civics all used the same engine and were all sold under one moniker, so they all got the rating of the base engine WITHOUT power steering, even though that was standard equipment on some body styles. so the cars that were only available WITH PS are starting off at a disadvantage to those that were available without it, and that is BY PROCESS, though we don't have manufacturer data to base a new output on nor submitted data sufficient to adjust for "what we know". we don't know how little you can get the PS pump drag with underdrive, assuming bearing-centered pulleys are illegal (they are, IMHO), but there is still a non zero contribution. separate but equal is usually not.

ABS on the civic in that generation bumped you up to the larger front rotor and caliper and rear discs over drums (Si and EX cars classed in ITA are allowed this - the Si came with rear discs anyhow the EX required ABS). ABS was only available on the 4dr LX among D15B7 cars, which are those classed in ITB.

Chip42

02-28-2014, 11:26 AM

Because it's not the same. The FC's are the same chassis, same wheelbase, same body, same suspension, same everything...just trim levels within...plus the engine output.

When we talk about Frankenstein cars, we talk about mixing and matching to create a combination that is better than what was available from the factory. If X wheelbase plus X body style plus X brakes plus X steering rack ratio plus X, X, X equals the best combination that was never a 'real' car, then it's not appropriate.

Like have been stated, people take their FC's and build them into a actual car that was actually produced. Not the same.

but why does that matter? its all in the same shop manual and all the cars with that variety of shape and equipment wind up with the same spec line and weight. it's not like I'm talking about putting the brakes from a Volvo on a mustang.

seriously - in terms that effect on-track performance potential, they should be allowed to be equalized as they are the same damn car "in our eyes". or so the saying goes. if the equipment being mentioned was an option, the SAME spec line we already have would suddenly include these things and the weight would STILL be the same. if we're going to pear down the specline to include the stock engines of the era with similar HP and matching displacement and designation and very little else as the driving factor, then we should do just that.

merging the LX and DX 4dr seems like a no brainer, at least in the context of the FC 7 and RX8. difference in ABS model larger brakes, and power windows.

Andy Bettencourt

02-28-2014, 11:33 AM

merging the LX and DX 4dr seems like a no brainer, at least in the context of the FC 7 and RX8. difference in ABS model larger brakes, and power windows.

Agreed. As long as the cars has the same engine, chassis, body and pick up points...should be the same spec line as a default.

Chip42

02-28-2014, 11:48 AM

another fun one to mull over.

MR2. 85-89. one specline.

same car, same model, same engine (4A-GE DOHC 16v, port injected) 4cyl.

changes:
brake sizes, front and rear
block casting
crank shaft and rod big end diameters
rod small and piston gudgeon diameters, and the pin. press fit to floating too.

rear firewall chassis stamping. moved the air box inlet to the trunk, wire harness pass through to the center of the wall from the far right, relocated attachment bosses for the LCA/toe link bracket. that forced a redesign of the engine room harness, and redesigned LCA/toe link bracket was also used, with longer toe links and revised geometry. updated knuckles with longer steering arms and 2mm wider attachment area to the rear strut (between the ears) using larger bolts, the sturt also changed in diameter. NONE OF THIS will cross bolt to the previous stamping, though the strut can be adapted to fit the older cars with shims and reducing collars.

updated bumpers, tail lights, interior. moved parking brake to the right side of the tunnel, master cylinder grew additional bolt holes on the flange, front stut upper mounts went from 3 bolt holes to 4 (3 used previously were 3 of the later 4, so parts DO cross over). updated front valance, new grill, and new vertical support piece to hold it all. new side inlet and revised ducting adding a split off to the airbox which corresponds to the chassis stamping changes.

updated trans casting to add a VIN plate

updated input shaft to address 5th gear popout. current part catalog actually redirects to the 5th gear assembly from the paseo (same ratio) so there's a 3rd change floating around legal per the manufacturer part update allowance.

flywheel changed along with clutch disk and plate (200 to 212mm disk). flywheel lost a few lbs in the process.

rear wings, which were optional, went from a 2-piece to 1 piece design and lost a few lbs in the process

radiator was reclined, upper and lower support panels are unaffected, brackets changed.

changed to high-Z fuel injectors and deleted of the resistor box and associated wiring

updated air flow meter

all 112hp rated. all on the same specline, and would be nearly impossible to split due to the timing of the various changes.

and we have to keep the civics separate because of # of doors.

there's a line. I don't know where it is, or how to define it, but its there, and I think it's actually more frustrating than helpful to EVERYONE from the ITAC to the scrutineers and the racers to the potential racers.

Chip42

02-28-2014, 11:54 AM

Agreed. As long as the cars has the same engine, chassis, body and pick up points...should be the same spec line as a default.

scratch body and this is true for the del sol, coupe, 3dr, and 4dr

Andy Bettencourt

02-28-2014, 11:59 AM

Z3_GoCar

02-28-2014, 12:29 PM

scratch body and this is true for the del sol, coupe, 3dr, and 4dr

Same is true for the e-36 318ti and four cylinder Z3... Actually, if you go by the chassis codes all BMW 3-series from '92-'98 plus Z3's to '02 are the same, and should only be split out by installed motor (even though the later Z3's shared motors with the first two iterations of e46 chassis).

seckerich

02-28-2014, 12:38 PM

Somehow this has become a very constructive discussion.:023:

Are we slipping!!

Chip42

02-28-2014, 12:57 PM

My line in the sand includes the body. Different body, different spec line. UD/BD is meant to allow lesser versions of the same car to be updated to the 'best' model. MR2 is a good example of how it should work because the latest MR2 would be the best version with the improvements.

In practice, thiugh its later brakes, early chassis, later trans, and middle engine with later internals and older, lighter block. So specifically NOT a real car as could be found in a showrooM, BUT legal per UD/BD

Andy Bettencourt

02-28-2014, 02:59 PM

In practice, thiugh its later brakes, early chassis, later trans, and middle engine with later internals and older, lighter block. So specifically NOT a real car as could be found in a showrooM, BUT legal per UD/BD

And in practical application not a real advantage over an older car because the early chassis and block are just about weight and the car needs to ballast up anyway. If there is something better about the mid-run engine than the late engine then there needs to be a split....but since they never changed the HP rating, I am doubting it's significant to the process.

Chip42

02-28-2014, 04:02 PM

And in practical application not a real advantage over an older car because the early chassis and block are just about weight and the car needs to ballast up anyway. If there is something better about the mid-run engine than the late engine then there needs to be a split....but since they never changed the HP rating, I am doubting it's significant to the process.

strength only. early cars are the only ones that seem to MAKE weight, the rest are heavy. the MR2 that is the best never showed up in a dealership. but no, no HP advantage. the damn car flat refuses to make HP.

Matt Rowe

02-28-2014, 07:16 PM

In practice, thiugh its later brakes, early chassis, later trans, and middle engine with later internals and older, lighter block. So specifically NOT a real car as could be found in a showrooM, BUT legal per UD/BD

This doesn't change the real vs fabricated model debate but did we drop the part of the UD/BD rule that requires updates as an assembly? If not that precludes the idea of early block with later internals.

StephenB

02-28-2014, 09:02 PM

We should find out more in march, I forgot that I specifically asked for same spec line and offered info in helping make a decision. :-)

Stephen Blethen,
Your letter has been reviewed by the Club Racing Board and a response will appear in the March Fastrack. Here are your letter details:

Letter: #13448*
Category: IT*
Class: ITR*
Title: Classify 2009 RX8 in ITR*
Request: I would like to expand the eligibility of the Mazda RX8 through 2009 on the same spec line as the 2004-2008.* thanks for your time, if you need additional info on the car please let me know and I can provide any information you are looking for.
Stephen Blethen*

seckerich

02-28-2014, 11:18 PM

Go back and read until the end Stephen, your letter is referenced and the 09 is listed, not added to the existing spec line. Now it will require action to move it to the existing line.

StephenB

02-28-2014, 11:40 PM

Thanks, didn't see it before. I thought I read the entire thing?.?

Chip42

03-01-2014, 12:21 AM

This doesn't change the real vs fabricated model debate but did we drop the part of the UD/BD rule that requires updates as an assembly? If not that precludes the idea of early block with later internals.

No, in 1987 3 rib (early) blocks were sold with 21mm gudgeon pistons, and associate rods and crank. The motor did exist, the chassis stampings and brakes it would have come with were pretty specific, though. Late chassis, late front brakes (22mm wide rotor), early rear brakes, late body details.

The point is that if we allow this, and we have for years, we allow this. It can have effects that are simply trivial, like the mr2, or maybe that create better than expected outcomes.

gpeluso

03-01-2014, 09:48 AM

Is it possible newer approach needs to be thought of..... Simply having allowances. IT cars are becoming much more expensive to build due to rules. So, the idea of this is entry level is false. Due to electronics I wasted an entire year trying to deactivate the abs and traction control.....is resulted in many limp mode scenarios . I had to spend $3500 for a standalone and countless hrs and 1 ruined motor getting it to work. Let the RX8 guys use the tranny for reliability.. Make it cheaper! If we were racing enduros I understand that it would be a true performance increase but we race 20-30 minutes.

Broad rules are tough.. Give all a change... Get rid of the idea that not all cars are guaranteed to be competitive..... By doing that you really create spec type cars....like the rx7 2nd gen.... All had roughly the same combo of go fast parts.

Also, when a car performs out of the expected level something has to be done. All motors are not created equal and some respond a lot better than others to bolt-ons.

Look at SM....... With originally tight motor allowance they had to allow cheats... Could not catch the guys effectively.... They now have greater engine allowances than IT. What makes all think this is not happening. Current rules are fine for 25 yr plus yr old cars.

I think it is near impossible to run rules by volunteers. Obviously there is passion here.....I believe all are trying their best.... However that doesn't mean things are good for the future of the class. Sad to see many IT cars at lemon races.

Greg

Chip42

03-01-2014, 10:22 AM

Greg - your points are well taken. personally, I think our engine allowances are fine as they are pretty clear in what IS and IS NOT allowed. but you are right that newer cars are a lot more complicated, and racing is no longer even possible in many cases without substantial investment to rid them of their street-based computer systems. in the old days, you could pull AC and various interior bits, bolt on a header and go have fun. now, as you have learned, you pretty much have to replace the ECU and get it sorted out. some care are lucky to have OBDII tuners available that allow you to change calibrations and deactivate features, but even those are largely older. so the easy to build cars are going to be "old" cars, and parts availability are going to limit which are viable.

we'll continue to class new cars, because in reality the cost of the ECU and all that is a cost of running in front in IT in any car with electronic injection. by the time a full-tilt racecar is built, the cost of the street car you started with is a pretty small portion of the cost, even on much newer cars.

the "problem" is that IT became popular and the cost to run up front got higher. there are certainly winners and losers in the ITCS though - just no way to balance all those cars under our generic rules with basically small weight adjustments and 5 classes to cover ~40 years of automotive innovation.

but yes, we can take a less hard lined stance on things like improved components, even allowing some more better than stock aftermarket components - and we don't try to forbid those improved OEM parts, we just try to maintain spec lines that minimize "needed" mix and match and rare parts, and could result in cars that are too unlike those sold in this country. allowing better than stock aftermarket parts is a VERY slippery slope and could result in more "race" parts rather than "race capable" parts and further raise the bar on track and muddy the line with the Production category.

but LeChump? yeah, there's an attractiveness there, but the cars are just as old as anything in IT.