Fastrack 04-02

[ddewhurst]

They sure fixed the issue with the alternate lower control arm issue in Production. Leave the rule mistake alone so that none of the big boys in Production who have the fully adjustable control arms pi$$ed.

SSDD

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
They sure fixed the issue with the alternate lower control arm issue in Production... SSDD

I see it more like SGDD... (Same Gripe, Different Day...)

I also don't see all this as a lost cause, but rather a CRB who decided to wipe the slate clean before the coming of a new season... (not advocating that at all... just stating an opinion...)

As long as I'm here, I'll keep trying to get things done that make sense... I'd suggest you all tighten your belts and do the same.

As for Production control arms... there is only so much you can do when you can't move the inner pivots, and I don't see this as a problem because it doesn't take much to design and build a nice lower control arm in my opinion... If people are spending a $1000 each for these things, then let-em, because if it weren't legal, they'd spend that money on something else anyhow and I'd rather see them spend it there than somewhere where a real difference might be made...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX

Originally posted by Chris Wire:
Also interesting is a comment that they are considering a new D Prod class.

yes D/PROD is in the works, its the only reasonable thing to do if your about to drop 50 new overdogs into E/PROD, and they must in order to keep production classes from dwindling away, my guess is all current EP cars will eventually be dropped to DP and the 4 valve 2.2 to 2.6 ltr cars will make up EP. A good indication of things to come is the reclassification of the caterham 7 lotus replica to FP for 04. I wont be a bit surprised to see some small v6 cars dropped into EP the minute DP is launched.

[ddewhurst]

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 ?

[itmanta]

When I read fast track in August I considered the Opel changes an adjustment. I must have just been blind with stupidity (after all I had been waiting ten years to see the changes). Well if they changed the compression ratio back when are they going to change the other concession?

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

[ddewhurst]

***there is only so much you can do when you can't move the inner pivots,***

Darin, the rule does not say "inner pivots".

The rule says:

Pickup points may be reinforced but not relocated.

Alternate control arms & pickup points. Let your mind wonder & see what you can design for a suspension.

[Bill Miller]

Peter,

I totally feel for you, and I think you got hosed, but ask how many folks on this board got hosed when they outlawed engine coatings?

And Darrel, whatever happend to putting reclassifications out for member input? They did it w/ the ITA -> ITB VW, why didn't they do it w/ the Lotus/Caterham 7? It's going to be interesting to see how much weight they throw at them. It'll also be interesting to see who's running them in '04.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Bildon]

>> I am at least $2000 down the hole.

Naw, you can get a thick copper or steel gasket (all the turbo boys use them) for around $200... custom made. Will drop you a point and a half easily.

...my question is...how'd you get your 9:1 in the first place without breaking the factory minimum on the head or running different pistons?

- Bill

[itmanta]

Hey Bill,

The Opel 1.9L engines came from the factory with 9:1 pistons, just not in the Manta. 9:1 would have put us in the same compression ratio "range" as most of our competitors. Most of the top cars in ITB however are still higher.

------------------
Peter Linssen
ITB Opel Manta
Pacific NW Region

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by itmanta:
When I read fast track in August I considered the Opel changes an adjustment.....

An adjustment??? Why? How?? Last I checked, we had no "adjustments" in IT. I'm confused....




------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

You and I don't often agree, but I'm w/ you on this one. With the exception of GT1 and GT3 (and GT1 is a totally different animal anyway), the other GT classes had pretty low participation (two didn't make numbers for two years).

I'd love to see higher performance level Prod classes.

And GT really has become quite an abomination from what it first was. Surely you remember Tom Davey's GT3 winning Sciroccos? All tub. It wasn't until the mid to late 80s IIRC that tube framed "funny cars" became the norm in GT.

As a personal opinion, get rid of GT except perhaps GT1 and bolster P. Consider a class between IT and P. Wow, like a real stepping stone of classes.

But, that's just one opinion and I'm sure there are as many as there are members.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Bill Miller]

Actually George, I don't think that getting rid of of GT2-5 is all that bad of an idea. But, I don't think you need a class between IT and Prod. What I think would be better is to have Prod be all full-prep, and have IT be what limited-prep Prod is now. Any car classed in IT would also be classed in Prod. And if you got rid of those 4 GT classes, you could add two more to both IT and Prod!

Just think of it, ITGT and IT2, as well as CProd and DProd. Think of the possibilities! I bet even Darin could live w/ that one!


But, this is really just tilting at windmills, as the folks in Topeka have already thrown the rulebook away w.r.t. class participation numbers (I'm sure there are a few old SSA folks that wish they would have done that back in '99!).

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[x-ring]

Originally posted by Knestis:
...but c'mon - who honestly believes that there was a 9:1 CR ANYTHING imported into the U.S. in the early-mid '70s?

K

Gee Kirk, I do. The 240Z in '70 and '71 had a 9.0:1 CR engine. I think it dropped slightly (maybe to 8.8:1?) for '72 &'73.

Ty

[jlucas]

Originally posted by Knestis:

I'm intrigued by the recommendation that the '94-95 Civic EX be moved from S to A effective 1/1/05 (emphasis mine). One the one hand, it's nice that the CB is willing to consider this obvious change - since it didn't require an adjustment, errr, weight change - but 2005?

Kirk, maybe it's a typo. I'd inquire to National if your that interested. I'm sure Downing will be on the phone as soon as he see's this.


[This message has been edited by jlucas (edited December 23, 2003).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by jlucas:
Kirk, maybe it's a typo.

I don't think it's a typo, but I have no idea why the long lead time... For some reason, a lot of these things are being pushed out to '05 by the CRB, and I'm not sure why that is...


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.

Sounds like someone is wanting everyone else to conform so that PRODUCTION can benefit while not making any drastic changes itself at all... I don't think it works that way...

The proper feeder system would have SS to IT, to some form of "IT on Steroids", to "IT on Steroids" with more engine prep and slicks, to GT... That way someone could start a car and develop it up through the classes...

Right now, that can't be done unless you pick a car that was hand selected for Production because it filled a need.

I find it interesting that Production seems to feel it's so special that everyone else should conform to it's needs, when, in reality, it's the one with the problem...

There is a wealth of cars out there for a supply, you just have to figure out how to accomodate them. AND, there are lots of drivers out there, fragmented into catch-all classes, who could be drawn to the fold if you just provided a level of prep beyond IT that fit their interests, and the cars they are driving... (street touring Hondas, Acuras, Subarus, Mitsus, etc...)

Solo seems to have it figured out... but Club just doesn't seem to be paying attention...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...start a car and develop it up through the classes...</font>

I agree with your position, with one clarification: there is no reality to the idea of "developing" a Prod car into a nationally-winning GT car.

I like GT - a lot - but there is very little value in trying to modify any tub-based car into a GT car if you want to be the top dog. Every top-flight GT car is a custom-built tube frame chassis with minimal "stock" parts. You start completely from scratch with your racing parts catalog to build it.

GT-1? Tube-frame car with fiberglass/carbon fiber Dzus-fastened panels, powered by a Roush-built engine going through a racing transmission to a racing third member. GT-3? Tube-frame car with fiberglass/carbon-fiber Dzus-fastened panels, powered by a Toyota Atlantic engine going through a racing transmission to a racing third member. All suspension parts are racing-only items, custom built for the wheelbase and track required by the rules. SCCA GT cars are to production-based cars like NASCARs are to the Ford Taurus (or whatever they're racing now...)

Once you divorce yourself from the idea that GT is a natural progression within the club tin-tops model, you quickly see that Production is the epitomy of production-based racing in SCCA Club racing.

Given this, any discussions in regards to GT should be taken on their own merit as a totally separate ideal within the club structure. The fact that a tub-based car "can" race in GT is irrelevant to the bottom line.

GA

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grega:
I agree with your position, with one clarification: there is no reality to the idea of "developing" a Prod car into a nationally-winning GT car.

Greg,
I can agree with what you are saying, but this club can afford to keep a place for purpose built race cars as well. The only real problem with GT isn't the chassis anyhow, it's the motor programs... You can get a nice rolling chassis, pretty much ready to go for $8,000 and up... The motors, however, are simply out of reach for most...

That being said, I'd like to clarify one thing I said ealier.... "IT on Steroids with more engine prep and slicks" was meant to convey the idea of Limited Prep Production style classes... The reason that any reference to IT was used here at all is because the current Production structure just doesn't accomodate the majority of even the most current IT cars, so something would need to be done to allow ALL cars classed in the lesser prepped classes to fit in...

I agree that Production is a good example of developed "Production" cars... unfortunately, it's the example from 20 years ago...

It would only take a few minor tweaks to bring it up to date (and NO, I don't mean allowing wings and body kits...!). Stabilize the Restricted Prep engine rules and allow for modern tire sizes and you'd be well on your way...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Auburn, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited December 23, 2003).]

[BVNitta]

Re the Opel CR, when I get the straight dope from Dennard and/or Legere I'll post it. It seemed like this petition has a lot of history behind it - more than the 10 yrs worth Peter suggests... BTW, Kirk, the Opel GT with the same 1.9L motor, comes stock with 9:1 CR. I'll go out on a limb and guess the scenario - when the Mantas were marketed in the US, some customers concerned with the anemic performance may have had Buick retrofit them with 9:1 pistons. Was there enough demand for Buick to offer the higher CR motor as an option ? Don't know.. The issue may have been partially resolved with Opel offering fuel injection in '75 Mantas (which is one thing Opel drivers can legitimately take advantage of and get a good bump in performance).

Bhima

PS: Looks like about 10 different discussions going on in this one topic. Let's create a new topic for the Manta CR if/when we get more data.

[RacerBill]

I don't know if there is any point to this particular fact, but I just counted the number of car models that are listed on the SCCA's searchable database of classified cars, including GT, SS, IT, Prod, AS, and Touring, counting only once cars classified in more than one group, and counting each line only once even if it lists like CRX and CRXsi - 394 different makes/models! Not counting Formula and Sports Racers!

IMHO, GT and to some extent Prod has evolved into what was formerly called Modified (when racers would cram V-8's in Austin 3000's, etc.). The Sedan classes were very close to what IT is today. Not saying it was a lot better, but it was more pure racing.

I also believe that there should be something for everyone - if you want showroom stock, pure race, or whatever in between. But I do think that we have too many classes where you have to spend a fortune to run anywhere near the front. If the club is going to grow, we need to develop the middle ground, which right now happens to be IT.

David D, PROD cars cannot change control arm mounts at all other than bracing them, if its a rx7 you can only cut the A arm pivot sleeve off and weld it to your own custom made arm which gets you nothing but a bunch of wasted time, some moron thought he was going to gain some advantage and asked for "any" control arm and the comp board laughed and wrote the rule like they did as a cruel joke.