Senior Member
FYI - 2.3L Fords during the 1976 model year (i.e. Carpi II's, Pintos, Mustang II's) had 9:1 motors.
The Mugen CRX driven by Peterson, Johnstone, etal, in GT4 during the mid 80's was a tub car, not a tube car. Kirk Olson's GT5 CRX is a tub car and set the track record during this year's runoffs in a very inspired drive!
Administrator
Hey, GregG, FYI I think there was a winning tub GT-1 car as late as the mid-70s or 80s, too. I'll bet someone sometime in SCCA club Racing history has won in GT-2, GT-3, GT-4, and GT-5 in production-based cars, as well.
Point? There's not too many things more irritating than someone coming up with single exceptions to refute the generalization...I don't think Kirk asserted that NO car had 9:1 compression in the mid-70s, and I certainly did not assert a tub car NEVER has and NEVER will win in any GT class. However, if your position is that based on your single exceptions a tub car can win *any* GT class *any* given year going forward, I encourage you to give it your best shot...
Senior Member
It's funny that tube/tub issues in GT, the Sedan classes, and A-arms in Production should come together here. We are really going through the motorsports version of the "fashion cycle" here, where everything old is new again every 20-30 years...
TransAm (as the premier level GT racing in SCCA at the time) went through a transition in the late '70s when someone took the rule that said suspension pieces could be "lightened and reinforced" and extended it logically to "lightening" them completely away and "reinforcing" the resulting blank spot on the bench - to build bits from scratch.
At the same time, someone asked why they couldn't apply the same kind of thinking to the chassis and, rather than building a tube frame in a lightened tub (the ship-in-a-bottle approach), just build the damn chassis like the stock car guys were. Oftedahl and a couple of other key teams turned very economical short track kits into excellent racing cars, spending the savings on testing and kicked the bee-jeebers out of some fairly exotic hardware.
It WAS a more economical approach that extended to GT1, itself the melding of A Sedan (Camaros) and B Production (Corvettes) that used the "old technology." Utlimately, the same logic was applied to the lower GT classes - it is a heck of a lot more economical to build what is described above than try to make a FWD car work.
The march of progress (aka rules creep) has us right back to that time, with some folks advocating that Production rules let the genie out of the bottle. A current Prod car is conceptually and structurally a 30 year old TransAm car and, just like those old stock-framed T/A 'Vettes, they will not be able to make the transition to the next evolution.
Darin's "IT on steroids" could get very close to the old Sedan class if more open engine rules and slicks were applied to a current IT car.
I guess I wonder "why?" It seems obvious that this process is going to happen and it seems like a lot of spinning and wasted motion.
K
PS - my comment about 1970s compression ratios was incomplete: I was thinking "Opels" and am now very surprised to find out that the GT had that much squeeze. I had no idea.
Senior Member
The operative word being up.<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">You can get a nice rolling chassis, pretty much ready to go for $8,000 and up... </font>
Seriously Darin, for $8k, you'll get the shocks, maybe.
And as far as why get rid of GT2-5? With the exception of GT3, they're all on life support. GT2 and GT4 should both be Regional-only for '04 (if the GCR actually meant anything).
And you're so pissed at Production racing, you can't even say it. You call it "IT on steroids w/ more engine prep and slicks". I still think having cars classed as Stock, Limited Prep, and Full Prep would be a good thing. That's essentially SS, IT, and Prod. You want to stick one more layer in there, fine. But, I bet you'd be surprised at the migration from IT to Limited Prep (provided that it was a seperate category, and not part of Production), if all the IT cars were also classed as Limited-Prep cars.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Senior Member
If it were a matter of level of prep, I could understand, but GT is just tube framed "funny cars" and I don't see the point. Apparently neither do most others (re: participation).Originally posted by Banzai240:
As for getting rid of GT... WHY?? That is the FINAL prep level. And WHY change IT??? IT doesn't have a problem with participation and most here don't have a problem with the prep level.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Senior Member
Aww heck...while we're all on our soap box....
How about aligning the SCCA with the REST of the Civilized world! FIA Group N = IT, World Challenge, etc and Grp A = Production and GT cars.
It sure would be nice if the factories could build racing/rally kits useful for every country.
- Bill
Senior Member
Bill has my vote for CB chair! Even if the preparation rules were aligned it would be interesting. The homologation rules get problematic for US entrants, however...
K
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 23, 2003).]
Senior Member
Funny Bill, I was thinking about this on the way home from work today... What would happen if we (yes, WE...) sat down and wrote a request for EVERY car in IT to be classified into Production as LP? We wouldn't need a seperate VTS for each, because they are already suppose to be on file with the tech dept...Originally posted by Bill Miller:
But, I bet you'd be surprised at the migration from IT to Limited Prep (provided that it was a seperate category, and not part of Production), if all the IT cars were also classed as Limited-Prep cars.
I don't disagree with you... I don't mind having Limited and Full Prep... I just don't think it makes sense for them to race each other...
What we've done here is taken SCCA back 10 or 20 years in prep level, which I think would be fine for anyone thinking of getting in the game, but would suck for those already there...
I'm not pissed at Production, I just can't stand trying to deal with a set of rules that really don't meet the needs of the membership...
Merry Christmas...
Darin
Senior Member
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I don't disagree with you... I don't mind having Limited and Full Prep... I just don't think it makes sense for them to race each other...
Darin, please pay attention. I said if L-P were a seperate category. That would imply that there would be classes w/in that category and those are where the cars would race.
Please show me data that supports that claim. There are quite a few Prod drivers out there, and it seems like more new ones emerging every day. I'm guessing that the Prod rules meet their needs.
I'm not pissed at Production, I just can't stand trying to deal with a set of rules that really don't meet the needs of the membership...
Merry Christmas...
Darin
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Senior Member
Like I said before Bill... for the select few cars that are classified in Production, it certainly does...Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Please show me data that supports that claim. There are quite a few Prod drivers out there, and it seems like more new ones emerging every day. I'm guessing that the Prod rules meet their needs.
Data? That's easy. Just look at the participation for SCCA races over the past year... How many are in Production compared to ITE???
And I was paying attention. I restated what you said to emphasize that we agree on that point.
Anything else you'd like to pick apart??? I'm game...
Senior Member
Darin, being that your "game" please respond to this previous post as to what you beleive the philosophy of the Cpomp Board is with LP/restricted suspension. All requested with a
****Darin, just what was the intent of LP. IIRC the intent was to allow a little more motor for straight line speed & to follow the suspension rules of IT so the LP cars were not as quick throught the turns. All in an effort to get more cars to race Production. The friken restricted suspension rules all read IIRC the same except two rules, one being this alternate control arm rule. Lets not go off on tangents about what if & all that crap.
In your memory/knowledge what was the intent of the LP (restricted suspension)Production when LP started ?****
Happy Holidays to all & your family.
David
Senior Member
David,Originally posted by ddewhurst:
In your memory/knowledge what was the intent of the LP (restricted suspension)Production when LP started ?****
I'm not sure why you think I'd have any clue at all what the CRB is thinking these days, especially based on recent decisions, but I'll tell you what I originally thought, and still do think, about the LP suspension rules...
When I pulled my RX-3SP out of mothballs, it was an ITA car with 4-piston Wilwoods added and a true Monster-Bridged 12A and I ran it in GT-3... Realizing that this, while fun, was not a place to be competing, I was made aware of the then "new" Restricted Prep Production rules...
Well, it sounded GREAT! IT suspension, but enough motor to make the car fast, and allowances to correct most of the weaknesses inherrent in the suspensions...
I read the rules over and over and over. I have very clear memories of designing several versions of the lower control arms in an attempt to free up the front suspension, as this car happened to be the type where the front sway bar also acted as the T/C-Rods... I was certain then and am certain today, that this was just fine, because the rules specifically allow the use of "alternate control arms"...
It's a natural progression from IT to allow some minor suspension modifications to make the cars a little better than they were in their IT trim. That is what Production racing is about. Where they went wrong was by NOT defining a limitation on the relationship of the inner and outer pivots. They should have specified that the length of these arms must be within some dimension of stock. This would still allow some adjustment and optimization, but would reduce the ability to go too crazy....
That's all I would change. Include a dimensional restriction on the length. Otherwise, the rule is just fine, but then, I'm the type who has no problem designing and building my own stuff, so this appeals to me...
That's about all I can say about this... Not sure how helpful it was, but it's how I feel...
If you'd like to talk about it further, I'm still game. E-mail or respond if you like...
Good Night...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
Senior Member
Well, before we get the crown out, how many older cars do you see in FIA racing? How many 20 year old cars? Or 30 year old cars?Originally posted by Knestis:
Bill has my vote for CB chair! Even if the preparation rules were aligned it would be interesting. The homologation rules get problematic for US entrants, however...
K
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 23, 2003).]
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Senior Member
Darin,
With a track specification, isn't that a defacto limit on how long you can make the LCA's? You can only correct track so much, w/ wheel offset/backspacing.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Senior Member
Exactly.Originally posted by Geo:
...how many older cars do you see in FIA racing? How many 20 year old cars? Or 30 year old cars?
I don't make a big deal of this 'cause I know that it makes some people feel picked on but I truly believe that a huge part of the ongoing challenges with classes and specifications in Club Racing is grounded in efforts to keep old makes on competitive life support.
If DP happens I'll be able to build a full-prep '94 Civic VTEC coupe, right? Maybe attract new, younger members?
Wait - or is it supposed to give me somewhere to run a classic Datsun Z, with more than IT modifications? Give people who've been in the game a while someplace to grow to?
Both?
His engine is twice as big as mine!
He has variable valve timing!
Wah!
Wah!
This will also be a GREAT opportunity to see this culture war play out again, SOMEONE will get SOME gimme in the spec book and "rules kudzu" will be fertilized.
K
[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited December 24, 2003).]
Senior Member
One would think... Like I said, I think the rule is fine just the way it is...Originally posted by Bill Miller:
isn't that a defacto limit on how long you can make the LCA's?
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
Senior Member
Uh, doesn't a Clasic Datsun Z with more than IT modifications already have a place to run?Originally posted by Knestis:
Wait - or is it supposed to give me somewhere to run a classic Datsun Z, with more than IT modifications?
Maybe we should check with Grayson Upchurch
Ty
Edit: Did you mean '...more than IT suspenion modifications'? I suddenly realized that I wasn't sure exactly what you meant.
[This message has been edited by x-ring (edited December 24, 2003).]
Senior Member
Originally posted by Banzai240:
One would think... Like I said, I think the rule is fine just the way it is...
Please make up your mind Darin. Either you'd change something, or it's fine the way it is. I'm not trying to pick on you, but you do this a lot. You say something, and then when somebody (me) says something about it, you say something else.<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">That's all I would change. Include a dimensional restriction on the length.</font>
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Senior Member
Bill, you have to read the whole paragraph...Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Please make up your mind Darin. Either you'd change something, or it's fine the way it is.
Here... let me put it all together the best I can in type...They should have specified that the length of these arms must be within some dimension of stock. This would still allow some adjustment and optimization, but would reduce the ability to go too crazy....
That's all I would change. Include a dimensional restriction on the length. Otherwise, the rule is just fine
"I think the rule is fine the way it is... IF I were to change anything, it would be to add a restriction on the length dimension, but I don't really think it needs changing so I'd just leave it alone..."
Is that better???
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited December 24, 2003).]
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks