Printable View
In the IT National survey thread there was some discussion about the difficulties of racing in Prod with an existing IT car. As a member of the Prod AC I have been tasked to ID these hurdles and propose a solution. I have not raced in IT for over five years now and feel a little out of touch (BTW I miss it also). I would appreciate any ideas you might have on this subject.
Thanks,
John Weisberg
Probably the biggest hurdle I see is getting the cars from IT classified in Production. There seems to be (to me anyway, based on 2003 GCR) a shortage of newer cars classified in Production and some requests for classification have been shot down with "not enough member interest."
If, based on the information collected by the SCCA, the cars that are raced in IT are, at a minimum, classed in limited prep production, I think you might see more crossover.
From my standpoint, my car is nearly ready to run both. Fuel cell will go in next winter and I'll be asking for LP classification sometime this year.
------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
Simple enough to state what I see as the biggest obstacle (perhaps more mental than physical or financial): the difference/confusion in LP rules vs. IT rules. My understanding, perhaps flawed, is that the whole idea behind LP was to allow IT cars (assuming they have the min req'd safety equipment, so might have to add a fuel cell, perhaps other things) could run as-is in Prod. Sure, they'd be uncompetitive, even if they bolt-on slicks, but they'd be legal.
Now, as we look into it, it would seem that there are a number of scenarios (possibly fairly car-specific) where IT-legal configurations are NOT legal in LP or Prod! This would seem counter-intuitive (at least to my understanding of P+I for LP). It would also seem to be undesireable from a marketing standpoint for Prod - do you really think many racers out there want to take performance equipment off their cars to move up a class? Seems kinda backwards.
To provide a specific example, the brake package allowed for the 2.0L 924 (full-prep EP or LP FP). Seems to be some question as to whether the IT-legal disc/disc configuration would be allowed in LP FP.
------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
John, enjoy the messages & please don't kill the messengers. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
A. Don't expect the IT car owner/driver to give up the farm to join the Production ranks. Open the gates, class some popular classed IT cars & if an IT car is classed in Production & is an overdog pull it back a bit but don't disable the car. Institute an INSTANT rule that allows a TRUE overdog (classing error) to be pulled back a bit NOW.
B. Open the mind set for allowing DEVELOPED IT cars conversion to Production without the thought that the IT folks shall be in Production for 5 years or whatever ammout of years before the X IT car/folks can sniff the front.
C. Eliminate the mind set that a given car can not be classed in more than one class. Example:
1st gen Mazda RX-7 street ported in E Prod.
1st gen Mazda RX-7 non-ported in H/G Prod.
D. Align the roll cage rules so that a IT roll cage is legal (tubing diameter/weight/attachment points) in Production.
E. Very softly ask the existing light weight car Production folks to get over their fear of racing with a 2100 plus pound car. They get laped at the present time at National events by the same over weight cars.
Thanks for reading http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David Dewhurst
2551 North 67th Street
Wauwatosa, WI 53213
Edit: SCCA #250772
ps: Spec-7 #14 being converted to ITA/7 which could just as well be converted to H/G Production.
[This message has been edited by ddewhurst (edited March 30, 2004).]
I know Darin will have some input...
Hurdles:
Cage requirements. I would add to my IT-spec cage to try and get legal - if possible. It would be great to allow IT-legal cages, however.
Glass. Taped is taped. Most cars now have plastic lenses. Sure, we can remove the glass stuff but what if it's taped with duct tape? Windshield and rear galss should be able to stay.
Fuel cell. I would argue that 90% of factory gas tanks are safer than 90% of cell installs. Let us run the stock tanks.
Fire system. I would be willing to put a fire suppression systme in my car for the opportunity to more easlity convert.
Here is a question: Why the added safety stuff for Prod (cage and fire)? Today's ITS cars are faster than all but EP, no?
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
I think it is simple... adjust the prod rules to allow any legal IT car to race without changes...
IE: door glass, headlights, even tires.
It is legal to run a fuel cell, or a fire system in IT, and a prod legal cage is legal in IT so no need to make acception rules such as those. The only thing that needs to change is where their is blatant conflicting rules. The prod guys/girls should not be afraid as even a fully preped IT car should not stand a chance against them *if the prod guy/girl is at least a good driver.
What other rules besides the headlights, tires and the door glass would need to be changed to make the rules allow cross overs? I think if you allowed this type of cross over then you would see that production would become the largest SCCA classes in existance. Well maybe besides SM and WC touring cars.
Raymond "I would love to go production" Blethen
PS: don't limit the cars being classified to the "popular cars." Classify all IT cars, even if it means more work. I can't believe that you wouldn't see a huge increase in production #'s. I am so against all the "popular car" crap that gets talked about, every member is important not just those that run a developed car. Most production cars are rare beasts and that makes it a special class all on its own. I think the excuse of "not enough member interest" is the lamest of all excuses ever used... If and when I send in the info on the Audi to get classed I get that responce sure enough I will have stickers on my car that say
"I would run prod but SCCA doesn't feel I am an important memeber so thier is not enough member interest"
I hope that SCCA does feel each of its members input is important.
If all IT cars get classed in production, class them all in LP. IIRC, there is no guarantee of competiveness that way and these cars wouldn't be as subjected to PCA's. Oh, and my message didn't mean to imply the "popular" cars, just the active cars (no point in classing the Chevy Cavalier in LP if it isn't being run in IT, for example).
Is the only difference in the cage the 7th and 8th points as allowed in the ITCS? I'll read up on it tonight (if I get time), but that's about the only thing I remember "different."
For me, IT is a stepping stone. I'd like to move into National racing but would rather get my feet wet by running both, then move up rather than just jump in whole hog. If I'm going to do that, I'm switching to a formula car.
------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
[This message has been edited by planet6racing (edited March 30, 2004).]
Ignore the fact that I'm officially having no opinion on the topics of the national issues survey when you read this:
If it is decided to let IT cars run in a Production class as-is, what is the point of having different classes?
Is anyone besides me already confused by the multiple prep levels and specs of the Production classes?
If the philosphy is to replace a narrow set of allowed modifications - that typically define a "class" or "category" of race car - with one that groups cars of disparate preparation levels by on-track performance, why don't we just finish the job, combine SS, IT, Prod, GT, and the spec classes and create five or six performance-indexed classes with breakout times?
Just askin'...
K
I, for one, am willing to make changes to my car to run production. I can't afford to run both in the same weekend, so I'd have at least a week to convert it over. Of course, having a plastic car helps because it makes getting at things like the door glass very easy (just unscrew the body panel!).
I'll agree that I am confused about some of the production rules. Especially the fuel and suspension rules (I didn't really know about the fuel one until Greg brought it up in the other thread). The fuel thing could be a deal breaker for me running production...
------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
As a longtime ITC racer and now GProd racer, I'd like to make some observations:
1. I think anyone who has a unusual IT car (i.e. one not otherwise classified in prod already) w/ a valid logbook that asks for classification in production should get it. The only reason I put in the caveat about the logbook is to prevent the "poseurs" and the rules-racers. If you aren't even going to race a certain "unusal" car in IT, why should it be classified in production? There are certain well known exceptions such as the ITS BMW 325is that may be too fast for prod, even with the limited prep rules. But all other cars, especially ITA, ITB, and ITC cars should have a place in prod.
2. If you prep an IT car to the limit of the rules, including all optional prep, then there are only THREE LITTLE THINGS stopping you from going to prod (assuming it's already classified):
* remove the passenger door glass.
* remove the headlights (and replace with flat panels if they are exposed)
* remove side marker/turn signal lights and replace with flat panels.
If you already have a prepped door, and the headlights/side marker panels ready made and easily affixed then you could switch from IT mode to prod mode in less than 30 minutes. You may have to add ballast to make the prod minimum weight as sometimes it's more than the IT weight.
My feeling is that if these THREE or FOUR LITTLE THINGS are stopping you from going to prod with your IT car, then well...
3. Nationals. I suspect some of this discussion about being able to run IT cars in production is so they could run in nationals. I realize this is a very touchy subject but I'm in my second season of racing nationals after 5 years in the SARRC wars. I read a lot of people here saying "oh, yeah, I'd run nationals if I could". Well, let me point out that very few tracks hold more than one and at most two national races during the year. This would mean that if you wanted to attend the Runoffs, you'd have to travel a ways for one or two races to accumulate points. If you're only looking for a way to add a couple of more races to your yearly schedule, why bother with the hassle with going to production?
I think this would be a major stumbling block for many IT racers, as they are used to racing 4,5,6 or more times a year at the same track (Road Atlanta, Summit Point, to give a couple of examples). In the NEDIV, there's only ONE national race at Summit during the year, so if you're going to race NEDIV nationals you'd have to travel. This is going to increase your racing budget.
4. Money. The folks who run nationals are serious. You see the fast guys on sticker tires every weekend. These guys bring their A-game every weekend, and if you want to compete you're going to have to bring yours too. Otherwise you're going get dusted. As an example, Scott Giles set a new lap record at VIR in ITC @2:27.4 a couple of weeks ago. That same car (88-91 Civic HB) is also in GP as a limited prep car. The lap record in GP is 2:17.0! So the best ITC car ever at VIR is a full ten seconds off the lap record. Where are you going to find those 10 seconds? It's one thing to build a top-notch IT motor with OEM parts. It's another to build a prod motor, starting with a camshaft program, spending money on lightweight pistons, cranks, rods, clutches/pressure plates, having new gears made, etc., etc. Lexan windows can help but cost $$$, slicks are more expensive to run than DOT tires.
Just some things to think about. I made the switch to GP and love everything about prod. The car drives more like a real racecar, it stops like one, the cornering speeds are unbelievable, and rolling off the grid on the pace lap at the RUNOFFS for the first time will send tingles down your spine and make your hair stand on end...
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif
MC
------------------
Mark Coffin
#14 GP BSI Racing/Airborn Coatings/The Shop VW
Scirocco
Zephyr Race Coaching and Consulting
http://pages.prodigy.net/scirocco14gp
[This message has been edited by racer14itc (edited March 30, 2004).]
Ditto!!!
Two comments......
A person racing an IT convertable, like an MG, Alfa, Fiat, Miata, etc. will have the added burden of completely removing the front windshield, and all brackets if they want to run prod.
A Production legal rollcage is NOT necessarily legal for IT (The 7th/8th attachment points are more liberal in production than IT, and you can add gussets in along the A,B, and C pillars to stiffen the car). You can however build an IT legal cage that is acceptable for production.
I believe that if a Miata uses the factory hardtop it would be considered a 'closed' car and could race as such. I saw an FP Miata at the Moroso national which ran with the hardtop in place.Quote:
Originally posted by Greg Gauper:
Ditto!!!
Two comments......
A person racing an IT convertable, like an MG, Alfa, Fiat, Miata, etc. will have the added burden of completely removing the front windshield, and all brackets if they want to run prod.
A Production legal rollcage is NOT necessarily legal for IT (The 7th/8th attachment points are more liberal in production than IT, and you can add gussets in along the A,B, and C pillars to stiffen the car). You can however build an IT legal cage that is acceptable for production.
MC
------------------
Mark Coffin
#14 GP BSI Racing/Airborn Coatings/The Shop VW
Scirocco
Zephyr Race Coaching and Consulting
http://pages.prodigy.net/scirocco14gp
John,
Are you looking only at easing the transition from IT to Prod, or are you looking at dual-purpose cars that could be run in either IT or Prod? If it's the second option, one of the issues would be fuel. You'd force folks to run race gas all the time.
And Raymond, there's nothing in Prod that says you can't run DOT tires. A lot of the Prod guys use Dirt Stockers for wets.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Hi John, Daryl Brightwell here, as someone who is near completion of a EP 1st gen rx7 I would like to point out the single biggest hit I am taking to join the prod crowd is the tranny, and its going to delay my getting it to the track for months after the car is done. EP rules are such that if I run the stock tranny I can run 100# less, and hell I cant make minimum weight now!!!!! and even if I could run 100# less that wouldnt come close to making up the difference between lap times of a dog ring boxed close ratio car and a stock box car so I wont even bother bringing it out without the 3000 dollar tranny. So in a nutshell, you want to bring IT and PROD closer, get rid of the high dollar transmisions in prod and leave them to the megabuck GT guys. see you at the track when my left leg sells.
[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited March 30, 2004).]
That doesn't jive with PCS page 30 Convertable and removable tops and all attaching hardware shall be removed from open cars.Quote:
Originally posted by racer14itc:
I believe that if a Miata uses the factory hardtop it would be considered a 'closed' car and could race as such. I saw an FP Miata at the Moroso national which ran with the hardtop in place.
MC
But that makes the case for a rule change to permit hardtops for ease of crossover.
[This message has been edited by Greg Gauper (edited March 30, 2004).]
I too, like Mark and Greg have switched to the dark side, and now run in prodution.
Vaughan, what "performance" parts would you have to remove going from IT to PRoduction?
I run an adjustable cam gear pully which isn't legal in IT, and I've re-located the battery which isn't legal in IT. Maybe I'm missing something in your post that might be 924 specific.
Chris Albin did run the same car in ITB and GP 2 years ago, and simply changed doors to be legal. I know that there are some grand-father'd rules in IT that still don't make sense, like heater core, door glass, headlights, but that's for another discussion.
The conversion isn't that difficult, and yes, I would like to go to the run-offs some day, but I'll wait until it moves to the left coast. I think that I would bet on hell freezing over first.
------------------
Tim Linerud
San Francisco Region SCCA
#95 GP Wabbit (Bent)
http://linerud.myvnc.com/racing/index.html
I'm a current ITC racer considering a future move to limited prep G Prod, and in my mind its pretty simple.
Just make the limited prep safety rules the same as the IT safety rules...
-As mentioned above, I feel my OEM Honda fuel tank is plenty safer than alot of the shadetree mechanic fuel cell installs I've seen. If its safe enough for IT, why would it be any less safe with slicks on the car?
-Why is a fire system needed instead of a bottle (legal for IT) when the only changes I'm going to make are tires, remove weight, and some minor engine/tranny mods? Do these things make my car more combustable than it was in IT? (see a running theme here?)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for plenty of fire protection, but the rules need to make sense. Why would a limited prep GP Honda Civic be more combustable than a ITC Honda Civic? Well, it wouldn't, and thats my point.
-Cages... So I'm going to make the car about 150lbs lighter to go to prod but suddenly I need more cage? Again, that doesn't make sense.
-Glass... Let me keep it. Again, if its safe enough for IT...
If I could convert my car to GP in about 2 hours (remove PS glass, change tranny, remove headlights, bolt on slicks) to run a National you bet your fanny I'd do it. Then take the same 2 hours to convert it back to an ITC car for the ARRC.
I'd be all over that. In a heartbeat.
Mark,Quote:
Originally posted by racer14itc:
1. I think anyone who has a unusual IT car (i.e. one not otherwise classified in prod already)
Could you please explain what you mean by this? It seems odd to me to refer to an IT car that is "not otherwise classified in prod" as "unusual", when many of the most popular IT cars are NOT classified in Production currently... so I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here... Would you mind expanding on what you were saying here?
Also, to help understand this situation a little more, I'm going to start putting together a list of IT cars that are currently not classified in Production so we can see just how the situation really is...
Thanks,
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Darin,Quote:
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Mark,
Could you please explain what you mean by this? It seems odd to me to refer to an IT car that is "not otherwise classified in prod" as "unusual", when many of the most popular IT cars are NOT classified in Production currently... so I'm not quite sure what you are referring to here... Would you mind expanding on what you were saying here?
Also, to help understand this situation a little more, I'm going to start putting together a list of IT cars that are currently not classified in Production so we can see just how the situation really is...
Thanks,
I couldn't think of a good word for what I was trying to say. Many IT cars are already classified in production as limited prep or full prep. I would assume that most of those are popular or common cars in IT (VW's, Hondas, etc.).
If they're not already classified in prod, let's get them classified...but only if someone is racing one. No need for the Prod Ad Hoc to slog through dozens of classifications for cars that people don't even want to race in IT..
MC
------------------
Mark Coffin
#14 GP BSI Racing/Airborn Coatings/The Shop VW
Scirocco
Zephyr Race Coaching and Consulting
http://pages.prodigy.net/scirocco14gp
Everytime I see the "safety" issue brought up about IT cars needing to remove glass, install fire systems, fuel cells, it makes me think it's time to mandate these in IT so we can make the transition to prod easier. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif Then these points would be moot, no?Quote:
Originally posted by Catch22:
I'm a current ITC racer considering a future move to limited prep G Prod, and in my mind its pretty simple.
Just make the limited prep safety rules the same as the IT safety rules...
-As mentioned above, I feel my OEM Honda fuel tank is plenty safer than alot of the shadetree mechanic fuel cell installs I've seen. If its safe enough for IT, why would it be any less safe with slicks on the car?
-Why is a fire system needed instead of a bottle (legal for IT) when the only changes I'm going to make are tires, remove weight, and some minor engine/tranny mods? Do these things make my car more combustable than it was in IT? (see a running theme here?)
Don't get me wrong, I'm all for plenty of fire protection, but the rules need to make sense. Why would a limited prep GP Honda Civic be more combustable than a ITC Honda Civic? Well, it wouldn't, and thats my point.
-Cages... So I'm going to make the car about 150lbs lighter to go to prod but suddenly I need more cage? Again, that doesn't make sense.
-Glass... Let me keep it. Again, if its safe enough for IT...
If I could convert my car to GP in about 2 hours (remove PS glass, change tranny, remove headlights, bolt on slicks) to run a National you bet your fanny I'd do it. Then take the same 2 hours to convert it back to an ITC car for the ARRC.
I'd be all over that. In a heartbeat.
And Scott, I don't see what you would gain by "switching" back and forth between prod and IT because you'd get spanked in production at the national level with an IT-level prepped car. No offense, just an observation. And I would assume at the regional level you'd just run ITC where you'd be competitive.
The prod rules are what they are, and I don't favor relaxing safety standards to increase car counts by allowing IT cars in as is. I'd like to see safety items like fire systems and fuel cells mandated for IT cars. But I realize that might be against the philosophy of IT as a cost effective class. So the compromise is to allow/recommend these items and those folks who are interested in running production can prepare their car to the limit of the IT rules and make the transition to prod very easy. Just my opinions...
MC
------------------
Mark Coffin
#14 GP BSI Racing/Airborn Coatings/The Shop VW
Scirocco
Zephyr Race Coaching and Consulting
http://pages.prodigy.net/scirocco14gp
[This message has been edited by racer14itc (edited March 31, 2004).]
Darin: If you go to the SCCA website, open the pulldown menu under club racing, you will find a item called 'car classification'. When you select this and click 'go' a window will come up that has a link to the SCCA car classification searchable database. If you leave everything in the search data box blank and select the 'show all' button, you will get a list of all SCCA classified cars, one line for each car, showing what classes they are classified to run in, prod, gt, ss or it. However, it states that it has not been updated since 10Jul03, so we should start bugging Topeka, but they are probably goingto busy fixing up their other it woes - renewing membership is a month behind, and their merchandise ordering system did some really strange things when I ordered my GCR.
Not to go on about 924's, since this is intended to be a general thread, but it was perhaps a 924-specific issue of brake package. Apparently Prod only allows the base brake package, which would mean I would have to dump my disc/disc brakes for wimpy solid disc/drums... and this when I'm going faster. Maybe it's a misunderstanding of rules, but that's why I wanted to bring it up as an example of possible or at least perceived rules disparity.
As far as safety, I see where everyone's comeing from about car speeds, and the added cost, however I personally rank it at the bottom of the priority list when I categorize all my issues with a possible change to LP. To me, I think the rules should be closely enough aligned to allow a switch to (legal) LP status with minimal financial outlay; admitting that it's a step up the ladder, it's reasonable to me that it might cost a couple more bucks, but those should be a modest progression for a well-built IT car, not a huge tear-up and rebuild.
I still have no EFFIN idea how I could take 400# off my car to make weight in FP, though! Of course, that's back to the competitive argument, not a legality question. Methinks maybe my car isn't an ITA car? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
Thanks to everyone who has posted here. It is going to make my job a lot easier. One thought on the fuel cell issue or should I say argument, that was brought up to me, was that a rear mounted stock tank like in a ITS RX7 is protected by the body and bumper system behind it. In Prod you are allowed to remove that protective structure and thus making the stock tank very venerable. I would like to suggest that any car with the stock tank mounted between the axle center lines would be ok for prod. Otherwise you would need to get a cell.
On the issue of fire systems, just suck it up and buy one. This is a no brainier and should be mandatory in all classes.
Mark,
I never said anything about being competitive. I don't think my car would be all that competitive nationally in GP no matter how much money I threw at it. But it'd be nice to have that flexibility to be able to run some nationals, and maybe even go to the runoffs, with what is basically an ITC car with slicks. Then, switch it back over to ITC for the ARRC.
My point is all about the rules being sensible rather than competitiveness. My point is that if you're NOT going to require a fuel cell and a fire system for IT, then why in the world do you require it for a limited prep Production car? As I mentioned before, exactly how does removing some weight and running slicks make my car more of a fire hazard?
In my mind you create more fire hazards when untrained do-it-yourselfers start ripping out perfectly good OEM Honda, VW, and BMW fuel tanks and shade-tree installing fuel cells and plumbing. Now we all know this isn't SUPPOSED to be happening, but by the same token we all know it IS happening.
Make the rules consistent and make them make sense. This will add flexibility for all of us. Thats all I'm saying.
***I would like to suggest that any car with the stock tank mounted between the axle center lines would be ok for prod. Otherwise you would need to get a cell.***
See, now we're making sense. Perfect, logical sense. Much better than blanket rules that apply to everyone regardless.
***On the issue of fire systems, just suck it up and buy one. This is a no brainier and should be mandatory in all classes.***
Again, we agree.
My argument isn't about the usefulness of fire systems or whether one should have one. Its about why they are required for some cars and not for others that are nearly identical just because one has an "ITx" on the door and another has a "xP" on the door.
I agree with the part about shade tree mechanics installing fuel cells. But isn't that what tech inspectors are for? I'll be surprised if the CRB permits prod cars to compete without fuel cells. Maybe newer cars will be permitted to use OEM tanks? Obviously showroom stock cars don't have cells and neither do the T1/T2 cars. We'll see what the CRB has to say on this one. If the CRB allows IT cars to run without fuel cells, then the separation between fully prepped IT cars and Production cars becomes very slim indeed. Is that a good thing?? At that point, simply mandate fire systems, windshield clips, 8 point cages, and you have no need for IT classes anymore...they'd just be folded into production.Quote:
Originally posted by Catch22:
Mark,
I never said anything about being competitive. I don't think my car would be all that competitive nationally in GP no matter how much money I threw at it. But it'd be nice to have that flexibility to be able to run some nationals, and maybe even go to the runoffs, with what is basically an ITC car with slicks. Then, switch it back over to ITC for the ARRC.
My point is all about the rules being sensible rather than competitiveness. My point is that if you're NOT going to require a fuel cell and a fire system for IT, then why in the world do you require it for a limited prep Production car? As I mentioned before, exactly how does removing some weight and running slicks make my car more of a fire hazard?
In my mind you create more fire hazards when untrained do-it-yourselfers start ripping out perfectly good OEM Honda, VW, and BMW fuel tanks and shade-tree installing fuel cells and plumbing. Now we all know this isn't SUPPOSED to be happening, but by the same token we all know it IS happening.
Make the rules consistent and make them make sense. This will add flexibility for all of us. Thats all I'm saying.
And you might be surprised what a limited prep Honda can do in GP. The ones that are out there are getting faster every race as more development is done.
MC
The separation between Prod and IT would still (and likely always) be some level of expenditure and people who just plain don't *want* to race production. Lets face it, just modifying the Prod fuel cell requirement isn't going to mean the end of IT racing. It'll just make it a little easier to turn an IT car into a prod car, which IMO is a good thing.
OK guys/gals... As of whenever the SCCA list was updated, there are approximately 104 IT cars that currently have NO corresponding Production classification. There are, additionally, approximately 48 IT cars that ARE classified in Production, but as Full-Prep only...
Keep in mind that a lot of classifications have happened since 07-03, or whenever the SCCA last updated this database, but there are still some obvious gaps...
When I get home tonight, I'll post these two spreadsheets. There are a lot of what I would call "oddballs" out there.. which would be cars that are classified but likely aren't raced in any significant numbers. Still, there are many examples of VWs, Hondas, Acuras, etc., on the list as well...
Also, of the IT cars that have Full-Prep Production classification, I'd say that each should be classfied as Limited-Prep as well... This would make a more logical stepping stone in the development of an IT car.
I'll post the links to these files tonight...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Quote:
Originally posted by racer14itc:
If the CRB allows IT cars to run without fuel cells, then the separation between fully prepped IT cars and Production cars becomes very slim indeed..
I just don't see this ulimately as an issue of safety... If the cars are "safe" in IT, SS, and Touring, many of which are every bit as fast as a Production car, then how can they be any less safe in Production?
Don't get me wrong here, as I'm not necessarily an advocate of being "cell-less", but looking at this from a simple logic standpoint... Safety is Safety, and having different standards for different classes is really pretty silly...
As for cell installation... the very nature of the rules on this (cut out the trunk, plop it in, and make sure it's not below the minimum... too low in my opinion... height)... provides ample opportunity for poor installations. It's not too likely that your average, or even seasoned, Production car builder has the resources at their disposal to equal the Millions of dollars of engineering that went into the installation of most factory fuel tanks... installations that have to pass some pretty stringent safety standards.
I think that this issue should be taken more on a case-by-case basis.
The only reason I would replace my stock tank in the 240 with a cell would have to do with performance... I could reduce the weight of the car, and pick up every last drop with a decent cell installation. However, with the stock tank saddled across the front of the rear diff, tucked safely away between the frame-rails and under the rear passenger section of the car... I think I can safely say that it's not going to suffer from an impact-related failure any time in the near future...
A cell hanging out back... well, it needs to be explosion-proof, because it's eventually going to have to prove itself...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Interesting that most (all?) the ITS cars are faster than the HP (GP?) cars, yet aren't required to run cells. I don't have the data handy, but what were the trap speeds in T1/T2 compared to EP at the Runoffs this year?
I agree that the cell issue needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. As has been pointed out before, it's pretty hard to get a safer stock tank setup than that of an AW11 MR2. For those that don't know, it's cigar shaped, and is nestled in the 'tunnel' where the tranny would normally be. Also, Speed Touring doesn't require cells (don't know about Speed GT).
I can understand, on older cars, w/ no bumpers and fiberglass bodywork, that additional protection for the fuel tank is needed. But I think a more pragmatic approach needs to be taken w/ newer cars.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
OK everyone... here are the links to the two files I mentioned earlier...
IT cars NOT classified in Production
IT cars w/ Full-Prep Production Classification ONLY... (no LP classification)
I just pulled this directly from the SCCA site, so it doesn't take into account recent classifications in both IT and Production, so please keep that in mind. If you see any cars there that stand out, let's get a thread going and see if something needs to get into the works...
GRASSROOTS BABY!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 31, 2004).]
Don't know if this is an oversite or if I just misunderstood your charts....
510's are full prep GP and limited prep HP
84-87 Civics/CRX's (carbed ITC and Si ITA) are FP full prep and GP limited prep.
Fiestas (ITC) are FP full prep.
The only information I've placed in these charts are 1) IT cars NOT classified in Production in any way (as of 07-03, or whenever the last time the SCCA updated their web database), and 2) any IT cars that are classified in Production, but as Full-Prep (again, with the same web data accuracy...)Quote:
Originally posted by Greg Gauper:
Don't know if this is an oversite or if I just misunderstood your charts....
Cars that are in IT, and already classified as LP in Production, are not going to be on either of these lists... except within the accuracy of the web database...
I've e-mailed Jeremy to see if there is a more recent update to this, and will correct the lists should that information be available...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
how about the list ofLP prod cars...
I don't see the specline of an Audi coupe GT 85-86 2.2L wich is an ITB car... been one for years... Just want to make sure it was an oversight.
Raymond
Raymond... the audi you speak of does not appear on the SCCA database that is on their website... Likely could use a thorough updating...Quote:
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
how about the list ofLP prod cars...
I don't see the specline of an Audi coupe GT 85-86 2.2L wich is an ITB car...
I've put together a complete list, that shows ALL of the cars listed in the Database, and indicates which are classified in IT (shown in Medium green)... Those under the Production column marked in light green are the IT cars that have a corresponding Production LP classification. The red squares represent IT cars that either have NO Production classification, or only Full-Prep.
In my opinion, the red squares represent all of the opportunities missed for Production LP and bolstering the Production numbers... Some would be silly to consider, but there are a lot of popular cars listed there that could very well have a home in LP Production, as well as some in Full-Prep that could have a second coming in a lower class with an LP classification...
Enjoy...
SCCA Classifications - IT, LP Production
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Couple quick comments.
There will be no more full prep classifications in prod, per the old Comp Board last summer. Limited prep classifications only. So, there really is only ONE prod set of rules for the cars being discussed here, that is, ones that aren't classed yet.
Don't forget that prod cars can run regionals, you've lost nothing by doing a permanent swap with respect to races you can run.
Overall comment from me:
If they'd just classify some of the popular IT cars that are missing in prod, I be happy, and based on the last FasTrack, it appears that the dam is about to burst!
[This message has been edited by tderonne (edited April 01, 2004).]
well in our area at least you lose the ability to race in a class with decent competition. at nationals we get 2 - 5 prod cars. at regionals 1-2. in ita we get 25-30.Quote:
Originally posted by tderonne:
Couple quick comments.
Don't forget that prod cars can run regionals, you've lost nothing by doing a permanant swap with respect to races you can run.
while i have no huge desire to run my car in nationals if the rules were such that i could run a few i might. I already have a cell as i belive the stock tank in a ITA rx7 is too vunerable so adding a fire system and window clips are doable. I think the suggestion that stock tanks within the wheelbase be allowed is brilliant. do it.
obviously for me running nationals in my case would not be serious racing, and if we did not have as many regionals availabe i would probaby already be doing it. if i was in the sw div instead of ne div i would most likely have a spare door set to go.
dick
I may be wrong with this but isn't one of the main benefits of a fuel cell roll over protection? I do think that it should be mandatory for every class if it is a safety issue. The fire system thing is a no brainer, I think they should require that for all classes. Anyway I say let them all into prod, the more cars classes the better the fields will be and better racing to boot. Plus their would be a lot of diversity of cars in the classes. Thats one thing I like about GP, Spridgets, MGA's, 510s, Scirocco's, Golf's, Rabbit's, CRX's, Spitfires, Swift's, Civic's, X19's, lots of different cars that are close to being or at the front.
------------------
Sam Rolfe
TBR Motorsports
#85 ITC VW Rabbit
#85 GP Scirocco