http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/06-2...ck-addendum.pdf
Printable View
First, I want to say congratulations and thank you to all the ITAC members for working on this. I think it's a big step forward. :023: :happy204: :smilie_pokal:
Now for the second guessing. :)
Okay, so looking down the list of affected cars I have to ask. Did every currently classed car get run through the process? It appears that the list is biased to the cars that are either newer or more popular. Am I reading too much into things? Could this also be a case where the CRB selectively allowed/disallowed changes line by line? There were only 43 weight adjustments and 4 cars that were moved to a different group. Out of 300+ cars classsed I doubt those were the only changes needed, especially when the older cars are the ones more likely to be classed under different assumptions etc.
Again, thank you and please don't take these comments as overly critical. I'm just trying to understand IF there was any preference given to newer or popular cars and what the reasoning behind that might be.
On edit:
Looking at the line
If the car is not on the list, we have no legitimate data showing a need for adjustment or the car is no longer run in SCCA events.
I take that to mean the types of car I am thinking of did not have enough legitimate data. Does that mean that submitting such data would be well received? That sounds too much like opeing the door to the kind of lobbying that production deals with.
Yeeee Haaaa! Nice work guys!!! :023:
Here's the meat of the IT stuff. Effective 2/1/06
Quote:
ITS
1. BMW 325i/is (2 & 4 door) (92-95), p. 18, change the specs to read as follows: Notes: Trunk mounted fuel cell with no larger capacity than
stock. 27mm SIR required and must comply with GTCS section 17.1.2.F.4.i.10.
2. Ford Contour V-6 (non-SVT) (1995), p. 18, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2730.
3. Mazda RX-7 (13B) (84-85), p. 19, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2350.
4. Nissan/Datsun 260-Z (73-74), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2480.
5. Nissan/Datsun 280-Z (75-78), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2505.
6. Nissan/Datsun 280-ZX 2+2 (79-83), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2530.
7. Nissan/Datsun 280-ZX (79-83), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2530.
8. Nissan 200-SX V-6 (1987), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2725.
9. Nissan 300-ZX (84-88), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2725.
10. Nissan 300-ZX 2+2 (1986), p. 20, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2725.
11. Porsche 924-S (86-88), p. 21, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2575.
12. Porsche 944 (2V) (83-88), p. 21, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2575.
13. Toyota Supra (82-85), p. 22, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2750.
ITA
1. Acura Integra 1.6 (86-89), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2200.
2. Acura Integra (90-93), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2595.
3. Acura Integra (GS/LS/RS (3 door) (94-00), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2620.
4. BMW 318 (E36) (92-94), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
5. BMW 318ti & Club Sport (1995), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
6. BMW 318ti Sport (96-99), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
7. BMW 325e/es (2 & 4 door) (84-87), p. 23, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2550.
8. Honda Civic Si (88-91), p. 26, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2250.
9. Honda CRX Si (88-91), p. 26, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2250.
10. Mazda MX-5 / Miata (90-93), p. 27, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2255.
11. Mazda Protégé LX (90-93), p. 27, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2280.
12. Mazda Protégé ES (95-98), p. 27, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2280.
13. Mazda RX-7 (12A) (79-85), p. 28, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2280.
14. Mitsubishi Eclipse (95-98), p. 28, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
15. Nissan 240-SX / S13 (89-90), p. 28, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2630.
16. Plymouth Laser / Eagle Talon / Mitsubishi Eclipse 2.0L, p. 29, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2500.
17. Pontiac Fiero GT & Formula V-6 2.8 (1988), p. 29, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2600.
February Addendum 2006 SPORTSCAR F-55
18. Toyota Celica GTS (86-88), p. 30, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2500.
19. Toyota Corolla GTS (84-85), p. 30, correct the model years to 84-87.
20. Toyota Corolla GTS (86-89), p. 30, correct the model years to 88-92, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2300.
21. Toyota MR-2 1.6L (85-89), p. 30, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2270.
22. Volkswagen Jetta GLI (1991), p. 31, add the 92 model year.
ITB
1. Ford Mustang 2.3 (79-93), p. 34, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2550.
2. Mazda MX-6 (88-91), p. 36, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2530.
3. Toyota Celica III 2.4 (83-85), p. 40, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2350.
4. Toyota Celica III GTS (83-85), p. 40, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2425.
5. Volkswagen Rabbit GTI (83-84), p. 41, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2080.
6. Volkswagen Scirocco II 8V (83-88), p. 41, change the specs to read as follows: Weight(lbs.): 2130.
And here are the reclassifications:
Quote:
Item 1. Effective 11/1/06, reclassify the ITB Plymouth Horizon 1.7 (1978-79) to ITC at 2,050 lbs.
Item 2. Effective 11/1/06, reclassify the ITB Plymouth Horizon TC3 1.7 (1979-80) to ITC at 2,110 lbs.
Item 3. Effective 11/1/06, reclassify the ITS Mazda MX-3 V-6 to ITA at 2,510 lbs
Item 4. Effective 11/1/06, reclassify the ITS Toyota Celica GT Coupe & Liftback (1989-93) to ITA at 2,590 lbs.
Matt,Quote:
Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 20 2006, 11:45 AM
First, I want to say congratulations and thank you to all the ITAC members for working on this. I think it's a big step forward. :023: :happy204: :smilie_pokal:
Now for the second guessing. :)
Okay, so looking down the list of affected cars I have to ask. Did every currently classed car get run through the process? It appears that the list is biased to the cars that are either newer or more popular. Am I reading too much into things? Could this also be a case where the CRB selectively allowed/disallowed changes line by line? There were only 43 weight adjustments and 4 cars that were moved to a different group. Out of 300+ cars classsed I doubt those were the only changes needed, especially when the older cars are the ones more likely to be classed under different assumptions etc.
Again, thank you and please don't take these comments as overly critical. I'm just trying to understand IF there was any preference given to newer or popular cars and what the reasoning behind that might be.
[snapback]71404[/snapback]
Good question. All the cars were looked at. The issue is that we had to determine what line to draw in the sand in terms of when we wanted to recommend a correction. In MY mind, when a car was ~100lbs out of whack according to the process, it got separated and looked at very closly for inclusion on this list with a new number (up or down).
Some exceptions to that thought process exist. The 1.6 Miata only gains 50 or so pounds. I thought that was a good idea for a couple reasons. 1. The process says it should weigh that, and 2. There are enough Mazda-conspiracy-theorists in this club that I wanted to make sure we were where we needed to be on that car, especially seeing as how I think there will be an exodus from SM in the near future. I can expound on this more if it gets anyones panties in a bunch.
I can't say this enough, we aren't trying to balanace the category on the tip of a pin here, we are just trying to have each car looked at through the same pair of glasses. I think it is a great basis from which to move forward.
YMMV.
AB
Andy, and everyone, thanks for the great work.
Am I reading this right -- no weight on the E36, but a bigger restrictor?
The 944s got the help they need. Hope that brings them out en masse.
Andy,
I'll say it again. Nice job by you, Darin, George, Peter, Jake, and the rest of the ITAC. I know this took a lot of hard work, and IMHO, is a major step forward in the history of IT. :023: :happy204: :smilie_pokal:
Now, let the games begin!! :P
Nice job Andy and all!
I think this is a step in the right direction and ITA is going to be awesome this year! Lots of different guys at the front and lots of close racing. Can't wait!
steve
As to the SIR on the BMW...there were two options:Quote:
Originally posted by JeffYoung@Jan 20 2006, 12:04 PM
Andy, and everyone, thanks for the great work.
Am I reading this right -- no weight on the E36, but a bigger restrictor?
The 944s got the help they need. Hope that brings them out en masse.
[snapback]71410[/snapback]
1. Raise the weight of the E36 325 to where the process said it should be
2. Restrict the HP of the E36 325 to where the process said it should be given it's current weight.
SIR technology has been proven in other classes. It's not so much the size of the RP in this case as it is the size AND design. Mathamatical calculations are being used (and verified) to size the SIR. More info can be had with a little help from Google. PLEASE don't think this is just a simple reduction in restrictor size. Do the research on the technology before you simply state it is x% smaller, etc.
The BMW's should not get any slower if they were using a proper RP this year. This technology just prevents cheating and mandates the HP levels, given a weight target. As with any RP however, it has much less effect on lower RPM charateristics (like torque) than it does higher RPM charateristics, like HP. The BMW should now fit the process without potential for monkey business. If it is still the car to have in ITS, then it is the car to have. It fits the process...period.
AB
:023: :happy204: :023: :happy204:Quote:
Originally posted by stevel@Jan 20 2006, 01:07 PM
Nice job Andy and all!
I think this is a step in the right direction and ITA is going to be awesome this year! Lots of different guys at the front and lots of close racing. Can't wait!
steve
[snapback]71412[/snapback]
Thanks to the entire ITAC!
Stop by my paddock anytime at Mid-Ohio or IRP this year for a cold one!
Picked up 100 pounds, but until I see otherwise I will say good to the overall process - and I will say great job on the effort put in on the project.
ITA battles should be real interesting in 2006.
Andy, not griping at all, just trying to understand: why not adjust the weight?
A single make SIR seems against class-philosophy to me. Correcting the weight to where it should be -- just don't see the downside to that.
As someone who just picked up weight I am seeing plenty of downside on additional brake and tire wear, changed dynamics in suspension geometry and handling. I think it can be pretty easy to get into the downside of weight adds doing more than to adjust power to weight potential. At some point it makes more sense to decrease the power than to add weight, IMO. Unless the argument is that they are so advantaged in handling and braking that you want to impact that as well as power to weight.
Quote:
Originally posted by JeffYoung@Jan 20 2006, 11:28 AM
Andy, not griping at all, just trying to understand: why not adjust the weight?
A single make SIR seems against class-philosophy to me. Correcting the weight to where it should be -- just don't see the downside to that.
[snapback]71419[/snapback]
Andy,
Please don't take this this wrong way, but I'm inclined to agree w/ Jeff on this one. And that's based on the way the PCA section of the ITCS is worded. Certainly lead impacts all areas of the car (acceleration, braking, lateral load), so more lead is going to cost more in terms of tires and brakes, as well as increase lap times.
Here's my concern. What happens when someone requests their whiz-bang puddlebee classified? Is there a targeted max. weight for the class, or will it be spec'd based on the potential output in IT prep? If the goal is to set a max hp AND a max weight upper bound for ITS (doesn't matter for ITA-C, as the cars could be moved up a class), then I think the SIR is absolutely the best way to go. I don't think it benefits anyone to saddle a car w/ boat loads of lead, when you have an alternative technology to help control lap times.
So, if the goal is a max weight of 2850# and a hp output of 200 (don't know if that's what it is or not), for a 14.25 lb/hp ratio, would that whiz-bang puddlebee, that makes 225hp, come in at 3205#, or would it come in @ 2850# w/ a SIR that would limit output to 200hp? Clearly the end result is the same, in terms of lp/hp, but @ 3205#, that w-b puddlebee is going to use up brakes and tires faster than a 2850# E36 w/ the SIR.
The puddlebee may not be classed as it is beyond the performance envelope of IT? I don't know just a guess based on my limited understanding.
Knowing what we do today about the performance potential of the E36 would it have been classed in ITS as within the performance potential?
Purely an uneducated guess (but I am trying to learn) but maybe it shouldn't have been classed in IT but now that it is here doing the best possible with it?
We gave the CRB both options, they went with the SIR.
The outside performance envelope is dictated primarily by the stock/IT-prep hp of a car. Anything that is 200+ stock hp is pretty much outside the envelope. You COULD place anything in IT with a SIR but...
This car and situation is an anomoly...treat it as such.
AB
How about the "development process" of the car. In other words if you know your car will be restricted to say 200 hp then is there any reason to go all out. The lead approach equalizes as well and seems more consistent with the IT philosophy.
If I were given the choice of limiting the HP to a defined #, and having less weight I would definitely take that as opposed to unrestricted legal HP and gaining lead.........who wouldn't?
I think the ITS e36 got a very generous and financially rewarding break. I'd be shocked if there were a ton of upset e36 ITS guys.
Good job guys for making it happen!!!
R
1. BMW 325i/is (2 & 4 door) (92-95), p. 18, change the specs to read as follows: Notes: Trunk mounted fuel cell with no larger capacity than
stock. 27mm SIR required and must comply with GTCS section 17.1.2.F.4.i.10.
I'm confused! Going down from 56mm to 27mm restricter is a big jump, is that right?
I don't have my 2006 GCR yet. What is GTCS section 17.1.2.F.4.i.10?
Quote:
GTCS 17.1.2.F.4.i.10. Single Inlet Restrictors
a. The intent of this rule is to have a sealed system from
the Restrictor to the Intake Ports of the Cylinder Head.
All of the air entering the Intake Ports shall pass through
the specified Restrictor. Modification or addition to any
part of the Intake System that allows the introduction of
air into the Intake Ports that has not passed through the
specified Restrictor is prohibited.
b. The Engine Air Intake System must be fitted with an
aluminum air restrictor. The Intake System is defined
as an assembly of parts, including but not restricted
to: the Restrictor, Restrictor Housing, Ducting, Filters,
Air Box, Velocity Stacks, Throttle Body, Carburetors,
Manifold and Manifold Gasket up to the Intake Ports on
the Cylinder Head.
c. The Restrictor must be round in shape. The maximum
ID of the Restrictor is listed on the vehicle’s spec line.
The Restrictor’s maximum ID must be maintained for a
minimum length of 3mm. Restrictor mounting/placement
within the intake system is free, but must allow
accessibility for measurement. It is acceptable to have
some minor disassembly of the intake system to provide
access to the Restrictor for measurement. Measurement
device and restrictor shall be similar temperatures when
used.
d. Sealing the Restrictor from its supply of air must cause
the engine to stop within 4 seconds. This check is to be
made at an engine speed of approximately 2500 rpm.
The sealed airbox must withstand this test. Pressure
sensors present inside the intake system must be
disconnected during this check.
e. All GTL cars that have either an IR or SIR size (restricted)
listed on their spec line shall utilize an SIR for National
competitions.
Andy, as a person who has been involved in all of the GTL SIR debate for a couple of years, what have you seen to lead you to believe that it works? I am sure you are aware of the huge problems that this has caused in GTL and that are looming in GT2. Many people in those classes that are national and runoffs motivated have balked at spending the approximately $1000 necessary to just get the SIR and a sealed airbox, let alone all of the engine development and testing necessary to maximize the use of a SIR. Granted the engine development side of the equation does not pertain to the IT ranks but at least some of the cost does (approx $350.00 for the SIR).
Don't get me wrong I am extremely happy with the work that you and all of the board have done with the weights. I have a 2nd gen RX-7, but I am looking forward to the Datsuns, GSL-SE's etc. being up front and seeing more of the previously "weight challenged" cars being built and out there competing. I am not so happy to have the SIR included in the same sentence as IT. Hopefully the BMW competitors will not go elsewhere as a result. If this is just a one time radical move to fix a clearly wrong classification, then it is wonderful, if it is "the view for the future" I am not so excited about it.
Matt Miller
#7 ITS RX-7 MVR
:happy204: :happy204: :happy204: :happy204: :happy204:
Great job guys, this is the type of thinking that we need.
I know that race results aren't the sole determining factor, but, in CFR, the 325e basically annihilates the rest of the field. IF they find a way to actually pull the weight out of the car legally, the 325e will likely pull even further away from the rest of the field.
What do these cars seem to do elsewhere?
First of all thanks for all the time and hard work.
Second, a small gripe. Missed a car. ITA Ford Escort GT. Currently classed at 2430 pounds. Kind of an also ran in ITA. Not an ITB car by any means. It's twin, with the same powertrain, the Mazda Protege, got a break from 2510 to 2280 pounds.
Guess I need to write a letter. Seems like a simple thing to do.
I have never heard of another fast 325e anywhere. I know the stock one I own is a slug. There is one at Rd. Atl sometimes that is off the pace. I always heard there was no way to get them to rev, but that is heresay.Quote:
Originally posted by its66@Jan 20 2006, 02:43 PM
:happy204: :happy204: :happy204: :happy204: :happy204:
Great job guys, this is the type of thinking that we need.
I know that race results aren't the sole determining factor, but, in CFR, the 325e basically annihilates the rest of the field. IF they find a way to actually pull the weight out of the car legally, the 325e will likely pull even further away from the rest of the field.
What do these cars seem to do elsewhere?
[snapback]71435[/snapback]
I am a little bummed about the 50lbs for the 1.6 miata, but that is the way it works. I am sure we will have some fun racing this year!
Isn't this the thing about PCA's we were all worried about? Additional letters to correct specific cars? I'd hate to be the guy sorting the CRB mail.Quote:
Originally posted by tderonne@Jan 20 2006, 01:49 PM
First of all thanks for all the time and hard work.
Second, a small gripe. Missed a car. ITA Ford Escort GT. Currently classed at 2430 pounds. Kind of an also ran in ITA. Not an ITB car by any means. It's twin, with the same powertrain, the Mazda Protege, got a break from 2510 to 2280 pounds.
Guess I need to write a letter. Seems like a simple thing to do.
[snapback]71436[/snapback]
And Tim, if anything the numbers on the Escort seem to be in line with everything else, the protege seems a bit light now for some reason. I assume that's based on the adders being used.
Quote:
Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 20 2006, 07:02 PM
Isn't this the thing about PCA's we were all worried about? Additional letters to correct specific cars? I'd hate to be the guy sorting the CRB mail.
And Tim, if anything the numbers on the Escort seem to be in line with everything else, the protege seems a bit light now for some reason. I assume that's based on the adders being used.
[snapback]71438[/snapback]
Maybe a typo on the Proteges? 2280 is a huge change from 2510.
And yeah, not trying to open a can of worms, just a 2280 car vs. a 2430 with the exact same powertrain, brakes, and suspension is pretty lopsided. Same exact inputs into the performance model. Ford ovals aren't THAT heavy. Darn Mazda conspiracy!
Quote:
Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 20 2006, 11:56 AM
The puddlebee may not be classed as it is beyond the performance envelope of IT? I don't know just a guess based on my limited understanding.
Knowing what we do today about the performance potential of the E36 would it have been classed in ITS as within the performance potential?
Purely an uneducated guess (but I am trying to learn) but maybe it shouldn't have been classed in IT but now that it is here doing the best possible with it?
[snapback]71423[/snapback]
Well, I asked this, because I was thinking of the '86.5 - '87 3.0 7M-GE engine rated @ 200hp. The car is spec'd @ 3380#. Maybe it's just a case of nobody racing one.
Please don't get me wrong, I think the ITAC have done a great job!! :023: :happy204:
Yeah, guess I'll have to read the GCR section on how to mount ballast now :(. I was right at minimum weight with after race fuel. I think the intention of the changes is good and applaud the effort. Time will tell if the results match.Quote:
Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 20 2006, 12:23 PM
Picked up 100 pounds, but until I see otherwise I will say good to the overall process - and I will say great job on the effort put in on the project.
ITA battles should be real interesting in 2006.
[snapback]71415[/snapback]
I'm scratching my head on the BMW restrictor plate. Weight affects more than just acceleration. The BMWs will be slower on the straights with the plate, but will still be able to brake in the same place (maybe even later since they won't be carrying as much speed) and still carry the same speed though the corner. Tire wear isn't affected either (as somebody else mentioned). I'm not in ITS, but I think I'd be a little peeved if my car got weight and the BMW got a smaller restrictor. Can I put a restrictor on my 240 instead of the extra weight? I'm guessing the big issue with my car was power as well. [I'm not really asking for that, but you get the point.]
David
1. I am looking into the Protege thing.
2. The CRB chose the SIR over the weight. They must have decided that 3100+ lbs was too much and the SIR was the better solution.
3. Individual cars did not get singled out for gains or reductions, the process dictated the results. It is not a penalty for performance. It's just numbers that can be defended and repeated. No dart boards.
PCA's would be used for exactly the Protege issue. If it is a mistake, we can fix it. What we won't use them for is a "Please reduce the weight of my xxx by 30 pounds because it will make it more competitive..."
AB
Andy, thanks for the clarification on the BMW being an anomaly.
I guess, the immediate post above, I just don't see the reason for a single-make anomaly where the problem could be corrected by weight -- weight that should have been there in the first place.
I'm not ticked about it or anything, and frankly am more concerned that the BMW drivers will feel MORE singled out and more likely to go run BMWCCA and not SCCA with this new rule than before. Weight is easy to put in and take out -- setting up an SIR car v. a non-SIR car does not seem to be.
It just seems really contrary to what IT is about. I thought we set the weights at a reasonable percentage curb weight with mods for performance and then let people have at it with the engine.
Andy and all those involved in the process--thanks for all the work. I believe the CRB is still all wet with the BMW and the restrictor, but I will wait to see what effect it has before I make any assumptions. The car will still brake, corner, and accelerate off corners the same as it does now. We just might still be able to see it when the speed tops out!! A prelude weighs more and it was not a problem?? Spec BMW will not end with this. Great to see the help the slower cars in the class got--should be some fun racing.Quote:
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 20 2006, 02:19 PM
1. I am looking into the Protege thing.
2. The CRB chose the SIR over the weight. They must have decided that 3100+ lbs was too much and the SIR was the better solution.
3. Individual cars did not get singled out for gains or reductions, the process dictated the results. It is not a penalty for performance. It's just numbers that can be defended and repeated. No dart boards.
PCA's would be used for exactly the Protege issue. If it is a mistake, we can fix it. What we won't use them for is a "Please reduce the weight of my xxx by 30 pounds because it will make it more competitive..."
AB
[snapback]71447[/snapback]
Ed, don't worry about it. Our camp is actually excited about this change. Why? Because we were a good 70lbs overweight to begin with and the cars were still competitive with the Acura's (most of which were at weight I believe). We just couldn't get them down to weight with the hatchback version of this car. So, with the Acura's gaining 125lbs and us (our 240's anyway) only gaining 30 or so lbs. Our guys will be even more competitive. And seeing that at times we were running at 2600lbs brakes were not a problem (with the right pads they could actually outbrake the Acura's with there small brakes) and they still handled like a dream, and depending on the corner of the track, sometimes better than the Acura's. I know our two 240 drivers are looking forward to this.Quote:
Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 20 2006, 05:33 PM
As someone who just picked up weight I am seeing plenty of downside on additional brake and tire wear, changed dynamics in suspension geometry and handling. I think it can be pretty easy to get into the downside of weight adds doing more than to adjust power to weight potential. At some point it makes more sense to decrease the power than to add weight, IMO. Unless the argument is that they are so advantaged in handling and braking that you want to impact that as well as power to weight.
[snapback]71421[/snapback]
steve
Definitely was a response to the question of what are the downsides to adding weight instead of restricting power and not a complaint. My prior post indicated that I was going with good for the class until I saw otherwise. I think ITA racing is going to be even more exciting.
You guys in A have a great class right now. The CRX, the Integra, the 240sx, the Miata and now maybe the 1st Gen RX7 again have a shot at winning. Should be very interesting next year.
OMG, for the first time ever my fat ass is going to make weight!
My '92 Integra picked up an additional 115lbs to 2595 but being that it always weighed in at about 2580 anyway, it's a great thing for me! Now the rest of the Integra and CRX drivers will be lugging around all of the extra weight I've been since day 1.
As I stated earlier, I have been waiting for these type of changes for a long time, but many do not make any sense. In my class, ITS, looking into the weight changes they look good on paper until it comes time to try to do it. Many are totally impossible. For instance GSL-SE can lose 180 lbs, 280Z -225 lbs, 280zx -240 lbs. Obviously these are unattainable weights with the current rules. Why not add weight to the faster cars and reduce the slower cars by less? What this encourages is minimal cages and removing items not allowed in the rules.
In addition all of the cars must not have ben put through the "process" because either the ITA Capri I or Capri II is terribly wrong because they are identical cars mechanically with the Capri I at 2390 and the Capri II at 2670. 280 pound difference with the same brakes, engine, trans etc???
Matt
Matt,Quote:
Originally posted by xr4racer@Jan 20 2006, 10:03 PM
As I stated earlier, I have been waiting for these type of changes for a long time, but many do not make any sense. In my class, ITS, looking into the weight changes they look good on paper until it comes time to try to do it. Many are totally impossible. For instance GSL-SE can lose 180 lbs, 280Z -225 lbs, 280zx -240 lbs. Obviously these are unattainable weights with the current rules. Why not add weight to the faster cars and reduce the slower cars by less? What this encourages is minimal cages and removing items not allowed in the rules.
In addition all of the cars must not have ben put through the "process" because either the ITA Capri I or Capri II is terribly wrong because they are identical cars mechanically with the Capri I at 2390 and the Capri II at 2670. 280 pound difference with the same brakes, engine, trans etc???
Matt
[snapback]71459[/snapback]
This was the sentence that was in fastrack. Maybe this might help.
"If the car is not on the list, we have no legitimate data showing a need for adjustment or the car is no longer run in SCCA events."
I'm sure we missed some but, we did try our best. We did not want to guess at cars we had no idea on if they were out of wack or not. Andy explained the whole thing better than I could anyway.
If something is clearly wrong I'm sure we will get it staightened out.
Bob
:happy204: :happy204: :happy204:
I'm late to this party.
I would like to thank the ITAC/CRB/BoD for allowing the 1st gen RX-7 12A to remain in ITA & for the 100 pound reduction in weight. :023:
Weight reduction:
Car/driver dry today at 2360#
Driver 220# shall lose 30#
Eliminate tar/sound stuff est 20#
Remove door glass/stuff est 30#
Car/driver dry now at 2280#
I bet I can find some more legal #'s for reduction. <_<
Thank you ;)
ps: Andy, Darin & George, sorry for the $hit I gave you over the past year (?) about the potential reclassing the 1st gen RX-7 to ITB. In my mind ya did the correct thing. Adding 220# & 6 inch rims made zero safety sense to me. :023:
Definately an ancillary benefit of the adjustment upward, is that the hatchback is now a viable option for ITA... That means more cars available!Quote:
Originally posted by stevel@Jan 20 2006, 09:21 PM
We just couldn't get them down to weight with the hatchback version of this car.[snapback]71455[/snapback]
Let's face it... As long as it's competitive, it's always easier, and usually less expensive, to build a car that needs to be heavier, as opposed to one that needs to be lighter...
Maybe you guys won't be getting so cold on those late fall or early spring race days! ;) (meaning... you can keep your heaters in tact, etc... :D )
Thanks for all the positive, and optimistically negative, feedback guys... We are trying out best, and have our fingers crossed that this works the way we've been thinking it will... I hope you all see that it was an honest effort to get things in balance... Hopefully that is what we have done...
Now... GO BUILD THOSE CARS! :023:
What about me???Quote:
Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 20 2006, 05:47 PM
:happy204: :happy204: :happy204:
.......
ps: Andy, Darin & George, sorry for the $hit I gave you over the past year (?) about the potential reclassing the 1st gen RX-7 to ITB. In my mind ya did the correct thing. Adding 220# & 6 inch rims made zero safety sense to me. :023:
[snapback]71463[/snapback]
;)
David, the RX-7 could have worked in B, but there were issues...adding the weight would suck, of course, but we never determined an actual amount.
The cage issue was a killer, and everyone always wanted to make it work in A, if at all possible.
That said, it's still no overdog in A. At many tracks, it will still be a "tweener" even in the best hands. But at other tracks, it could be fun.
ITA will be great. The Integra is gaining weight, but not many...if any, ever made min weight anyway, so I am not sure if there will be a huge effect on them. So, depending on tracks, the contenders will be both Miatas, the Teg, the CRX, the 240SX, the NX2000, the Neons, and maybe even cars like the MR2 and the Fiero and the RX-7, and even others could be there up front... I doubt we'll see many Corvairs, though! Darn!
On the E36, (Jeff, mostly), we did discuss the possible alternatives to the restrictor, and I think that your worry about the whole group leaving due to the SIR is, hopefully, wrong. Process weight for that car is big, IF you choose middle of the road HP numbers. Even heavier if you believe the upper numbers. It seems that some are able to get big numbers from that engine or......
So, adding over 200 pounds..WELL over...... would have really added up . Remember, they run the same 7" wide wheels, and at some point, tire response and wear goes non linear. So the weight ACTS like more. So we gave alternatives to the CRB.
While the SIR will cost money to implement, it's not a lot in the grand scheme of things, and in the end it should be a net savings in consumables like tires and brakes, etc.
Personally, I think that the E36 guys should be OVERJOYED....the SIR will cancel any overdogs HP wise, whether due to cams or whatever, and the have nots won't feel a thing. The haves should be clipped enough to fit the process.
Remember, the top dogs in the class say they are held up by the E36 in the corners and the braking areas....but they can't get to them on the straights. Hopefully, the SIR will result in fairer fights, AND save money in the long run.
I think the concept of IT...the philosophy...includes, where possible and appropriate, measures to help keep racing affordable..or at least to help avoid throwing money away. I think this is in line with that. Keep in mind that the car is stock at 189hp, but is really underrated...it is an anomoly, and if there were a class above, consideration would have been given to moving it and letting it really fly.
We'll see.