http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/05-0...01-fastrack.pdf
Let the games begin!
Here's a tidbit, SM goes National in '06!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Printable View
http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/05-0...01-fastrack.pdf
Let the games begin!
Here's a tidbit, SM goes National in '06!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
E36 gets restrictor plate
What's the stock bore on an E36 throttle body?
Also, what happened to intake restrictors being used in the 'most extreme' situations? I'm surprised that they would go this route, rather than adding some lead to the car first. I forget, did Darin or any of the other ITAC members post what the process-derived weight for the E36 325 would be?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Items of note:
- Why the goofy wording on sensor resistors? "Resistors however may be installed between the sensor effected and the unmodified harness"? OK, so if I want to install a resistor, and that sensor uses a proprietary plug, I've got to disconnect that plug and build another wiring harness with another set of OEM plugs in order to fit the resistor? Micromanagement at its worst.
- Why wait 'til 2006 for the crankshaft pullies?!? This is not a major deal; make it available upon publication date! This is certainly less of a deal than the BMW t-body restrictor note. Frustrating.
- I'm glad to see the B14 200SX SE-R moved to ITA from ITS. However, wasn't the whole point of putting the B13 Sentra SE-R at 2490 pounds and the NX2000 at 2515 pounds because the NX has the bigger brakes? Guess what, the B14 SE-R has the bigger brakes, thus it should also be 2515 pounds.
(Edit: someone just told me the 200SX SE-R did not actually get the bigger brakes...is that correct? If so, I retract this point.)
- Creation of a Spec Miata Advisory Committee. Love to be a fly on the wall for those meetings.
- BMW throttle body restrictor: uh, like, wow. Cool? Not totally surprising but that kinda came out of nowhere. Or did it?
[This message has been edited by GregAmy (edited November 23, 2004).]
RX7 stays in ITA (for now??)
I think the restrictor is a great call by the ITAC!! The E36's I've seen can already be hard on tires and brakes. The issue was primarily power related. We'll see how it turns out.
I assume the ITAC had access to a wide variety of past data on the effect of restrictors when making this decision.
A cautionary tale as we move foward with PCAs - here is what we do NOT want them to become:
SSC
1. Remove 150lbs from the SSC 2001-02
Dodge Neons. (Meindl) Based on the
results of the 2004 Runoffs, the car
appears to fall within the performance
parameters as specified.
Things about this that are bad...
1. Allowing people to even ask for a weight break, motivated by desire to improve their competitive situation
2. Consideration of that request by the powers that be
3. Disallowing said request based on results from ONE RACE.
I'll say it again: I am quietly optimistic about the implementation of PCAs but the very second that an entrant is allowed, through formal means or otherwise, to request a weight reduction, the system is one irreversible step toward being AFU.
I trust that this hasn't happened yet, right guys?
K
Exactly! See my post on the installation of aftermarket EMSs. In that thread NO ONE answered the direct question that was posed in the first post about why the double standard on allowing electrical modifications but making it harder than it needs to be to perform that modification. They'll allow you to go full bore on engine managment but make it more difficult and expensive to install it. And then we'll listen to people complain about it being hard and expensive and it shouldn't be allowed. Either allow the modification in it's simplest form or outlaw it all together is my theory.Quote:
Originally posted by GregAmy:
Items of note:
- Why the goofy wording on sensor resistors? "Resistors however may be installed between the sensor effected and the unmodified harness"? OK, so if I want to install a resistor, and that sensor uses a proprietary plug, I've got to disconnect that plug and build another wiring harness with another set of OEM plugs in order to fit the resistor? Micromanagement at its worst.
------------------
Chris Ludwig
08 ITS RX7 CenDiv
Kirk,Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:I'll say it again: I am quietly optimistic about the implementation of PCAs but the very second that an entrant is allowed, through formal means or otherwise, to request a weight reduction, the system is one irreversible step toward being AFU.
I agree, but only after all the cars in the ITCS have been run through 'the process', and everyone's had the same chance to get their spec weight set the same way. And if you're going to not allow member-initiated requests for weight reduction, you should also not allow member-initiated requests for reclassification. They both fall under the PCA umbrella.
Couple of other interesting observations:
It'll be interesting to see how the new pace/start rule plays out.
Looks like SSB/C could become T4/5
Interesting that only the Beetle 1.8T cars were classed in T3 (or did I miss the Golf/Jetta/Passat being classed their earlier?)
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Greg Amy wrote:
"- However, wasn't the whole point of putting the B13 Sentra SE-R at 2490 pounds and the NX2000 at 2515 pounds because the NX has the bigger brakes? Guess what, the B14 SE-R has the bigger brakes, thus it should also be 2515 pounds.
(Edit: someone just told me the 200SX SE-R did not actually get the bigger brakes...is that correct? If so, I retract this point.)
Retract away, Greg! :-) The B14 chassis used the smallest brakes of all the SE-Rs. In fact, upgrading a 200SX SE-R to the NX2000 brakes is one of the more popular mods for the street.
Tim Rogers
-Future ITA NX2000 racer
So, the engineers have finally revealed their intolerance for the messier aspects of the club. The suggestions to not allow a member to make a request of the CRB and to not allow the CRB to reply are exactly the kind of thing that gives internet forums a bad name.
Your way or the highway, eh, boys.
I wouldn't worry about the making a decision like that.Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
A cautionary tale as we move foward with PCAs - here is what we do NOT want them to become:
SSC
1. Remove 150lbs from the SSC 2001-02
Dodge Neons. (Meindl) Based on the
results of the 2004 Runoffs, the car
appears to fall within the performance
parameters as specified.
Things about this that are bad...
1. Allowing people to even ask for a weight break, motivated by desire to improve their competitive situation
2. Consideration of that request by the powers that be
3. Disallowing said request based on results from ONE RACE.
I'll say it again: I am quietly optimistic about the implementation of PCAs but the very second that an entrant is allowed, through formal means or otherwise, to request a weight reduction, the system is one irreversible step toward being AFU.
I trust that this hasn't happened yet, right guys?
K
I will disagree however on your request scenario. Th ITAC WILL review and consider each letter it receives. Just because you can request it certainly doesn't mean it will be approved.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Also, what happened to intake restrictors being used in the 'most extreme' situations?
Well, the E36 IS and extreme situation. It wins everywhere, all the time. The frontrunning cars at the ARRC were in cruise mode from the green flag. I'll bet my next paycheck that both of the ARC Motorsports cars (found legal after a lonnngggg time in impound) could go alot faster. They just didn't have to.
Many folks agree that the car shouldn't have been classed in IT in the first place, so measures had to be taken and taken NOW.
The other stuff...
As Andy mentioned, I like the fact that changes are member driven and apparently now all letters get read and get some sort of response. Members should be allowed to ask for anything, no matter how silly or unfounded, and we have to trust the ITAC and Board to do the right thing.
Plain and simple.
Trust me, neither you nor your wallet wants it any other way.
The SCCA, like our government, might not be perfect, but its damned sure the best thing out there. And its getting better every day lately.
so where is the data used to calculate the size of the bmw restrictor plate? what was the target hp desired? was it tested? is this a swag?
I think everyone who posts here needs to have the car they drive in their sig.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
I wrote that because I assumed (we all know what happens when you assume), based on the way the PCA rule was written, that lead would have been the preferred route. Usually, "most extreme" measures are used after other measures do not achieve the desired effect. Couple that w/ the fact that the E36 runs so far below its curb weight, I would have thought they would have thrown some lead at it first.Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Also, what happened to intake restrictors being used in the 'most extreme' situations? </font>
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
/edit for typo
[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited November 24, 2004).]
Same here Bill, pretty shocking to me. Thought things like restrictors weren't to be used in IT, and that the pretty clear solution was to (in my view BMW guys, I know you may disagree) correct the weight.
Bening new, but having attended a few IT races and seen some mighty fast BMWs, it seems weight would have been a better route. When I started looking at race weights for my own car on another thread then looked at racer jakes (?) website with IT cars listed the BMW is odd in that it races a good 300-400 lbs below the curb weight. I wasn't around years ago but I understand it used to race at a higher weight.
I suppose water under the bridge now, but, from my experience with many SB Fords I've owned a stock 302 (plus headers, no cats, 42lbs fuel pressure, 16 deg tim, 8.4 comp, stock cam) that breathed through a 55mm tbody has put down more than 250hp to the wheels. Sure, not the same motor or comparison, but similar and maybe the plate won't be a big deal when all said and done. Sure hope they hooked one up to a dyno and tested it or had a good engineer runs some numbers on the size before putting it out there.
------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!
[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited November 24, 2004).]
SCA Pro has years of experience with the BMW I-6 in World Challenge and most recently in SSB with the Z4 (all pertaining to restrictor plates and equity). There is plenty of info to draw upon.Quote:
Originally posted by mlytle:
so where is the data used to calculate the size of the bmw restrictor plate? what was the target hp desired? was it tested? is this a swag?
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
ITS RX-7 and ITA project SM
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Tim, so noted on the SE-R! Whew, my plans for world dominance continue onward...! <grin>
As to the BMW restrictor: well, it's really specious for me to say something like this, because I don't drive one. However, if I did, and if I had to accept that *something* was going to be done to my car to slow it down, then I would much rather have a t-body restrictor than lead.
What's the root "problem" with the car? Too much power. Do I hear any complaints about its handling or braking advantages? Nope. So, what's the obvious solution? Less power. How to do it? Restrict airflow.
Lead, on the other hand, not only affects acceleration but it affects braking, handling, tire wear, etc. I'd personally rather drive a lighter, less powerful car than a heavier, powerful car.
Frankly, given that *something* was going to be done, this is the best way to do it. Choke the airflow on Goliath a bit and watch a handful of the best-handling GT cars available duke it out nose-to-tail. Adding a t-body restrictor is a direct answer to the root issues "we" have with the car.
Well done, guys.
GA
Not arguing with Andy - just with the concept.Quote:
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
... The ITAC WILL review and consider each letter it receives. Just because you can request it certainly doesn't mean it will be approved.
Okay, guys, Please explain again how PCAs are different than "competition adjustments." This might seem like picking nits but I'm going to put on my symbolic interationist poofy hat again and beat on the point that it DOES matter how these policies are worked out in the real world.
If someone is systematically looking at cars (all of them, samples, outliers, whatever) and asking whether the spec weights "make sense," relative to some standard or process, that is an inherently benign process. (Even IF there are subjective factors in the process, by the way.)
They system is more or less transparent, repeatable - as long as there is some continuity or overlap in the people doing the decision making - and relative easy to defend from accusations of favoritism.
Perhaps more importantly, the on-track performance of small samples of car/driver/budget factors are less likely to influence decisionss. Finally, it is relatively harder to make a change so while change IS possible, it is "damped" in that adjustments won't be made often.
This is in contrast to the way that CAs have traditionally been applied in club racing. The point at which I can say, "Please take some weight off of my car - or add some to Bob's - because I can't beat him" is the point at which all of the good attributes of the PCA concept, as it was described, go out the window.
Because it's how our brains work, decision makers are encouraged to go looking at easy samples - like the RubOffs - as they try to make "objective" decisions. These data are easy-to-understand but TINY, inappropriate indictors of what might or might not actually be happening across the space in which the policy is getting applied.
If I rationalize my request with math - power/weight or whatever - rather than with, "Wah! Bob beats me all the time" - my motivation is STILL the latter, regardless of how I make my case. Like a little girl who wants a pony, if I ask long enough, loud enough, and with enough support, I will eventually find someone willing to give me what I want.
Now Bob sees how the system works and applies the same strategy. (Or someone else does, when Bob loses interest and sells them his car.) People discover that having friendly ears in the right places DOES make a difference or, more likely and potentially just as damaging, people see the appearance of this going on.
The system loses credibility, performance creeps upward in a given class, decisions get made based on ARRC finishes, slow people driving the same car as the "fast guy" get lead meant for him, rare cars become wild cards, and weights become a moving target.
I would rather have the ossified, pre-ITAC system than that.
K
Thats what it looks like to me. So we get to continue on our merry way. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gifQuote:
Originally posted by pgipson:
RX7 stays in ITA (for now??)
------------------
Tom Weaver: Logistics & Technical Support Manager IE truck driver for 1980 RX-7 ITA #63
"Hemi Haulin' Rotary"
I think you're hitting on something I was wondering about.Quote:
*something* was going to be done to my car to slow it down, then I would much rather have a t-body restrictor than lead.
Lead, on the other hand, not only affects acceleration but it affects braking, handling, tire wear, etc. I'd personally rather drive a lighter, less powerful car than a heavier, powerful car.
[/B]
And, it leaves me thinking.
When I looked at the list for a car to build and asked questions like "What about this car, it is pretty cool, decent motor, might be fast" sometimes the car I picked was heavy. The reponse I got was "it'll be rough on brakes, handling, tires, and tramission, you'd best pick another one".
So, the BMW at a race weight near it's curb weight would be heavy as you mentioned, and be rough on parts, as you mentioned. But, it'd be like other heavy cars on the list. So be it - if it is heavy then you have to take it as it is and the good with the bad.
Instead of the BMW racing like that, as other cars do, the BMW got weight cut off to make it competitive and allowing it to race well below curb weight. Why would this car get that type of treatment but the others race near curb weight?
And in doing so now at the low weight the car suddenly became an overdog. The fix implimented is a restrictor plate, but to me the logical choice would have been to put the weight back to the point where it was or should have been at the beginning. Seems odd to me, but as I've mentioned before I don't know the history of the series nor how things like this came to pass in the first place.
Ron
------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!
Chis Ludwig: "See my post on the installation of aftermarket EMSs. In that thread NO ONE answered the direct question that was posed in the first post about why the double standard on allowing electrical modifications but making it harder than it needs to be to perform that modification. They'll allow you to go full bore on engine managment but make it more difficult and expensive to install it. And then we'll listen to people complain about it being hard and expensive and it shouldn't be allowed. Either allow the modification in it's simplest form or outlaw it all together is my theory."
Chris, I think no one responded because this topic had already been covered in another post and several people including me touched on the subject of your query. There is no intent to "make it hard" - the intent is to try to maintain the "stock" fiction of the IT class philosophy, with which I agree. Line drawing is always subjective but they settled on the harness. Frankly, I don't think they contemplated entire EMSs inside the box; they were thinking of chips, programming, etc. The error here is the words "or replace" in 17.1.4.D.1.a.6 not the restriction to use the OEM harness. Indeed, look at 17.1.4.D.1.s, which appears to be a redundant and inconsistent ECU rule that does NOT allow replacement of the ECU! I say "outlaw it all together."
As to the resistor, I suspect some people were trying to bootstrap the ability to add a resistor [where is that - not in my 2004 GCR?] into a feigned necessity to then modify the harness. And there you go. However, I think what they actually mean is that you cannot modify or replace the harness plugs at the ECU - you simply find the sensor wire in the harness and splice in the resistor. I did that w/ the water thermosensor.
------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis
I have a question. How is the restrictor plate going to be policed? Is tech going to inspect after each race, or once a weekend, or only at annual? I don't drive a BMW, In fact I drive a 280Zx,but can already see opportunity for plates with different sized holes for tracks that are lax with inspections. Maybe i'm thinking as someone who would take any advantage to win. just my thoughts
------------------
Datsun 280ZX #12 WMR
My guess is the restrictors will not get measured unless a competitor asks them to be checked(Protest) That is the downside to them instead of weight. Tech can see right away if a car is too light.
The only way our rules will work is for people to ask for these things to be checked. Allowing even 1 illegal car to compete throws the whole system out of balance....What I see happen when it comes to rules is this. If there is one fast model in the country all the others are held to that standard.....That may be OK as long as we know that 1 unit is completely legal. The MR2 is a perfect example of this. I have to assume that somewhere in history somebody got their ass handed to them by a really fast one and thats why the car is treated like a redheaded step kid by the SCCA...The question is if that was the case, Was the car legal?
A former World Challenge driver, who has lots of experience with constant adding and removing of weight, explained it to me this way...
Unless you're talking about HUGE amounts of weight (over 300lbs) the lead addition will not really slow the car down. What it will do is wear brakes and tires faster, but in 30 minute sprint races that might not even matter. They also found that weight addition actually made the car faster at the end of some straights, especially if it was down hill (like Road Atlanta or VIR for example).
So... Weight = More wear and more broken parts but really not that much slower.
Restrictor = Slower without breaking the bank on tires and brakes and half shafts.
Looks to me like the board tried to get this one right on the first shot instead of plucking at it for 2 or 3 years. I'm perfectly OK with that.
Oh, I drive an ITC Civic. I'll put that in my sig.
A restrictor plate is very easy to police. What people are not realizing is that every ECU must now be reprogrammed to lean the mixture to compensate for less air flow. I know the chassis dyno people are thinking BONUS!!!!
------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar
But, wouldn't 300-400 lbs get it back close to its curb weight? What I was wondering is how it was allowed to drift so far off of its curb weight in the first place?Quote:
<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Unless you're talking about HUGE amounts of weight (over 300lbs) the lead addition will not really slow the car down. [/B]</font>
------------------
Ron
http://www.gt40s.com
Lotus Turbo Esprit
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey: IT prep progressing!
Here is the truth about weight. If it is going to be just weight added then it takes a lot of weight to do the job...If it is going to be penalty weight then make it a penalty....75lbs hanging under the front mounted radiator is going to do more than 150lbs in the passenger seat.
Actually I think the Restrictor is the way to go. Added weight...to an already heavy car...makes the car use brakes and tires quicker. Adding the restrictor will kill some of the "excessive" horsepower without upsetting the chassis.
------------------
Chuck Baader
#36 ITA E30 BMW
Alabama Region Divisional Registrar
Trust me on this, Ron - trying to make spec weights relate to curb weights is going to drive you mad. One just doesn't have anything to do with the other.
K
I understand people's comments about the restrictor, it's just that I thought the spec weight would have at least been adjusted to what the process showed it to be. I thought that one of the ITAC guys said that the current spec weight was below what the calculated weight was.
Kirk,
You hit the nail on the head as to why I've advocated a set, open process for classifying cars.
And it seems like "fits the performance parameters of the class" is the new catch-all. Easy to use, especially if nobody knows what those parameters are.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Yeah, but...Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...seems like "fits the performance parameters of the class" is the new catch-all. Easy to use, especially if nobody knows what those parameters are.
On the other hand if those parameters were made public then there would be an endless flood of letters and 300+ post threads about how certain adders/subtractors weren't backed up with enough conclussive data to support their value. These adders have to be educated guesses (not WAG as some might suggest). How can they scientifically be anything but?
Even with the best intentions the HP guess could be off 5% or more. That skews the bottom line by a similar amount (dependant on magnitude of adders). 5% on a 2000-3000# IT car is 100-150# so arguing about whether a Carb vs FI, Live Axle vs. IRS, Strut vs. Double Wishbone, or FWD vs. RWD should be a 50, 75 or 100# adjustment is really a mute point.
I feel that we should just accept the efforts of the ITAC to make things better without putting their efforts under a microscope...if it makes sense build the car, if it doesn't don't.
--Daryl DeArman
Caldwell D-13 Vintage FVee.
I'm with you on those points..Quote:
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Yeah, but...
I feel that we should just accept the efforts of the ITAC to make things better without putting their efforts under a microscope...--Daryl DeArman
Caldwell D-13 Vintage FVee.
I think the BIG issue here is that the car has become such an overacheiver..much more power than was expected. I like the move. In the BMW thread, I was betting they would add a little weight AND a restrictor...
But I think that in this case the restrictor is the way to go. It would have needed a lot of weight, and it seems to be on the money in the braking and handling areas as is.
I remember talking about the whole "limited" concept with someone (in a decision making position)a long time ago, and the restrictor was discussed...as an "extreme" item the ITAC could have in it's back pocket to use if needed. Then we talked about the E36.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
I don't believe that to be the case with the E36. IIRC it has a MAF which will automatically adjust for changes in air mass.Quote:
Originally posted by chuck baader:
A restrictor plate is very easy to police. What people are not realizing is that every ECU must now be reprogrammed to lean the mixture to compensate for less air flow. I know the chassis dyno people are thinking BONUS!!!!
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Don't bet on it.Quote:
Originally posted by Joe Harlan:
My guess is the restrictors will not get measured unless a competitor asks them to be checked(Protest)
Since the spec line for the car will list its weight and it's restrictor, it is more likely to be checked in impound than anything other than weight.
It will happen a few times, but not often.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited November 25, 2004).]
Quote:
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Since the spec line for the car will list its weight and it's restrictor, it is more likely to be checked in impound than anything other than weight.
It will happen a few times, but not often.
Jake,
When was the last time you saw anything, other than weight, checked in impound, at a Regional race?
It will be interesting to see what kind of penalties are handed out to cars that are found 'out of compliance' w.r.t. the restrictor. And unlike weight, checking for compliance is an 'invasive' procedure. The bond should be pretty low though.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
They should just check them at the annual and tag the motor. Just like WC. No tags at post race tech = DQ. Easy enough.Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
When was the last time you saw anything, other than weight, checked in impound, at a Regional race?
It will be interesting to see what kind of penalties are handed out to cars that are found 'out of compliance' w.r.t. the restrictor. And unlike weight, checking for compliance is an 'invasive' procedure. The bond should be pretty low though.
------------------
Crazy Joe
#7 ITS
Nissan Sentra SE-R