The new ITA class

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by cherokee:
... and the E36 looked ok on paper, you don't know until you get one out there, then it is too late.

Actually, NO, the E36 does NOT look good on paper... Based on what is already in the class, my paper shows it about 100-150lbs too light. This is based both on speculative, as well as "real" output numbers...

AND, what we are trying to do is make it NOT "too late"... If we can get a mechanism in place to correct for errors in judgement, miscalculations, or just plain missing the mark, then these things don't have to be as final as they are today...

You are right, however, about the evolution of the classes... There comes a point where you will have no choice but to stop protecting the older technology at the expense of newer cars... However, I still believe that there are ways to integrate the two...



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

[cherokee]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Actually, NO, the E36 does NOT look good on paper... Based on what is already in the class, my paper shows it about 100-150lbs too light. This is based both on speculative, as well as "real" output numbers...

Then if the E36 did not look good on paper how in the _ did it get classified with the specs it did....the same way the Z4 got it's in SS?
You here have said that the Z3 looks too heavy, are we trying not to have another E36 type mistake.

I agree with you 100% on "mechanism in place to correct for errors in judgement, miscalculations, or just plain missing the mark", But moving cars to another class that are no longer at the top of their game is not doing that. If you can't make them any lighter and no one wants car specific CA's the only other option is to let them slowly fade away.

"However, I still believe that there are ways to integrate the two..."

I am not so sure without car specific CA's. or re-making all the IT classes. The 7 has given just about all it can give, you are going to have give it a bone if you want to have it run up top again...in ITA that is.

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Notice my careful choice of words - the same exact rule that other cars currently enjoyK

How about .040" over ?

As much as I enjoyed the Rx7 and would like to see it run up front I think allowing street porting would be a huge mistake. A street ported 1st gen would be too fast for A. I don't know about "well over 200HP", maybe an '89 13B, and then we aren't talking about at the wheels.

If we want all the rules the same for everyone do you want to allow the piston motors to have any crankshaft pulley allowed?

If you really want street porting allowed in rotaries are you going to allow the piston engines to have any valve size, cam lift and duration? I didn't think so...

[Jake]

1. Nobody needs to get their panties in a bunch over the Z3. The spec weight is 2675lbs, and only the 1.9L 138hp Four cylinder is listed.

2. As most people have stated, giving a performance enhancement to a certain car opens a can of worms that most of us don't want to open. Moving a car down a class and adding weight is much more palatable. For the sake of argument, how much weight would you have to stack on an RX7 as to not upset the delicate balance of ITB?

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by cherokee:
Then if the E36 did not look good on paper how in the _ did it get classified with the specs it did....the same way the Z4 got it's in SS?

I have no idea how the ITS E36 got classified... (I'm assuming that's what we are talking about here...) It was before my time. I have, however, analysed it right along with the rest and in the same frame of mind, and it comes out as being about 100-150lbs too light for ITS... By contrast, the 240Z and the 2nd Gen RX-7 are really close, and, guess what... the real world shows the same thing...

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">You here have said that the Z3 looks too heavy, are we trying not to have another E36 type mistake.</font>

Some assumptions were made with the Z3 concerning it's output potential and it's stated factory HP... Also, some experts were consulted. Additionally, a little weight was added because of the excellent transmission ratios (1:1 5th!!), excellent brakes, well balanced handling, factory 16" wheels size, etc.... It's classified about 145lbs more than the 240SX, and about 195lbs more than the Acura... Does that seem unreasonable??? Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Further, the experts we've consulted agree with the weight, and also suggested that the car would likely have difficulty making that weight, as it's a pretty heavy car to start with...

All in all, I think you'll find that it was very fairly classified.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I am not so sure without car specific CA's. or re-making all the IT classes.</font>

Without actually guaranteeing you, I just about promise you that there is NO ONE on the CRB or the ITAC that has any desire to allow "car specific CA's". I can guarantee you that I will fight tooth and nail against any effort to allow this, as I believe it would completely mess up an otherwise stable and workable set of rules...

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">The 7 has given just about all it can give, you are going to have give it a bone if you want to have it run up top again...in ITA that is.</font>

If there is something that can be done within the scope of our rules that can get any number of IT cars more properely classified, it will be considered. If not, I would rather fall back on the "no guarantee" clause than follow the route of allowing "car specific CA'"... I'd rather have you pissed at me for that than mess up our class with such a direction...


As for the 12A Street-port being able to make over 200hp... If you don't think that is possible, you aren't talking to the right people for your engine builds, because I can promise you that it is VERY possible. The EP RX-7 is only allowed a "Street-Port", and I can assure you that Tony Rivera, Jesse Prather, and others are getting that kind of power out of them. Granted, that's with a 48IDA and 38mm chokes, the Nikki is no slouch and a Yaw preparred one isn't going to lose THAT much to the IDA...


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



[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 26, 2004).]

[122 Vega]

Some assumptions were made with the Z3 concerning it's output potential and it's stated factory HP... Also, some experts were consulted. Additionally, a little weight was added because of the excellent transmission ratios (1:1 5th!!), excellent brakes, well balanced handling, factory 16" wheels size, etc.... It's classified about 145lbs more than the 240SX, and about 195lbs more than the Acura... Does that seem unreasonable??? Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Further, the experts we've consulted agree with the weight, and also suggested that the car would likely have difficulty making that weight, as it's a pretty heavy car to start with...

All in all, I think you'll find that it was very fairly classified.

This is why I am sure I should give up on my Cosworth Vega ITA project altogether. With a weight of 2680 and a factory rating of 110 hp, I would never, ever be able to finish a race without being lapped again and again. Now the Neons are 138 hp and 2450 too? Even in race trim I could only pull maybe 134 hp out of the CV 2.0 at 7500rpm. Plus I am stuck between no alt carbs and 30 year old f/i.

I wonder why the Mazda Protege is only classed to '98? shouldn't the 2000 be legal for next year (2005) and the 2001 in 2006?

Britt

------------------
12 weeks till graduation!

Vintage IMSA Cosworth Vega

[Jake]

Vegaman,

Perhaps you should write to the CB and request the Vega be reclassed to ITB. You make a strong argument. As for the last gen Protege - that would, of course, need someone to ask for it to be classified. Clearly it shouldn't be in the same spec line as the other generation.

[122 Vega]

Oh, I didn't know that you had to make a request for it to be classed. I know that there is a section in the GCR that explains it, but I thought most SS cars were automatically classed after the four year period. Pays to read I guess.

thanks,

Britt

------------------
10 weeks till graduation!

Vintage IMSA Cosworth Vega #0515

ITA Cosworth Vega #0109 in progress

[chuck baader]

You guys are killing me I am building an ITA BMW e30....128hp/2750#. Maybe I can lobby the board to drop the weight to about 2500 Chuck

[titanium]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
As for the 12A Street-port being able to make over 200hp... If you don't think that is possible, you aren't talking to the right people for your engine builds, because I can promise you that it is VERY possible. The EP RX-7 is only allowed a "Street-Port", and I can assure you that Tony Rivera, Jesse Prather, and others are getting that kind of power out of them. Granted, that's with a 48IDA and 38mm chokes, the Nikki is no slouch and a Yaw preparred one isn't going to lose THAT much to the IDA...

OK.
I'll take the 200 HP and move us to ITS!!!
That would be a ride!!!

Oh, and as long as I'm dreaming, How about a 110 db sound limit!!!!
That would be great!!! Blow by those bimmers and let 'em know it!!!
*******************************************
Rodney Williamson
#93 IT7
www.titaniummotorsports.com

[Geo]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
If we want all the rules the same for everyone do you want to allow the piston motors to have any crankshaft pulley allowed?

Actually, we're going to require the piston engined cars to remove their camshafts.

What do you think, Wankelboys?


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

[moto62]

Wow! A lot has happened today. Yikes! 200hp out of a 12A with a Nikki carb? Aint gonna happen, and if it did, I'd skip right over prod and go to GT. . Ok! Street porting the 7 probably won't happen and there really arn't any other enhancements that can be done except maybe a real alternate carb (the current alt carbs cannot produce as much hp as a Nikki so why bother), port matching like the pissed on cars are allowed to do (no great gains in hp there. Maybe 1 or 2), open ECU....oh wait... the 7 doesn't have one so the 7 is pretty much stuck where it is. (1st after the last honda). I don't agree with moving it to B because it will become the class killer even with narrowerer wheels and 200lbs added and just for conversation sake, if the 7 was moved to B, my girlie man Acura would be put into the classifieds tomorrow for sale or trade for about three RX-7's.
I am curious about the Canadian ITA street ported 7's as far as how well they fare against the rest of the field, Honda's in particular. Can anyone enlighten us on this?

Dave and Jake, thank you for your kind words

Now back on to the real topic. The new ITA. As an Acura driver...bring 'em on baby they're going down yo. As a 7's driver..Ok.That's it. Who do I talk to about IT7?
Ray

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by moto62:
...bring 'em on baby they're going down yo...

Hey, remember that killer pass you pulled on me at the OMP Challenge? Just try that shizzat, again.

Feelin' lucky, punk?

[Jake]

'05 is going to be fun in ITA with the new non-Honda blood. Best part is I get to see all the action when the leaders lap me!

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grega:
Hey, remember that killer pass you pulled on me at the OMP Challenge? Just try that shizzat, again.

Feelin' lucky, punk?

God, I can't wait to watch ITA this year. Greg, you have to come up to NHIS for a Double or two...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[gran racing]

Make that next year...although ITA is always a great class to watch.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by Jake:
'05 is going to be fun in ITA with the new non-Honda blood. Best part is I get to see all the action when the leaders lap me!

Me too
But I'm working on it.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX7 #13
CenDiv WMR

[lateapex911]

First, Cherokee, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I DO think that, in light of past classing mistakes, and the ongoing technical advances, that certain reclassing of cars is needed. Sending legions of active cars out to pasture with "tough luck, bub", is NOT what a member driven organization should be about. Remember, the class was MUCH different before certain cars were added, and the ECU rule was legalized. If the competitor can provide proper documentation that a particular model has enough development, and has been driven by good drivers in the right environment, then the CRB owes the competitor the consideration of either PCAs, or reclassification. Personally, I don't care if the car has a huge following or not, as long as there is proof that the homework has been done, and the car is NOT in the game where it is currently classed.
And yes, I do think you should beleive that thinner wheels and more weight will make a difference! Send me private email and I can show you my data regarding setup. They are pretty fussy about a good setup, and without it, they go slower.

David D-

What will it take to get a 7 to run at the front??? A combination of factors.

First, I am opposed to street porting of the intake and exhaust openings, for the same reason that they are disallowed in the first place, and the smae reason the ECU rule should have never been legalized. Too open ended. Too much potential. When cams are legal for piston engines, then we can look at it.

So...whats left? I submit that:

A weight break will help. Too bad these cars can't loose much more, but if you give me a weight break I will have 50 pounds or more off the car tomorrow. 2280 is a good goal.

We are allowed, as are other cars, to run an alternative carb. I suggest that carb choice be revisited, and in light of the after the classification fact of the ECU rule, this would be only fair. Precedent already exists for alternative carbs. Just change the carbs allowed.

Secondly, any port matching allowed on a piston engine should be allowed on a rotary. The gains are minimal, and the compliance check is easy.

Third, I submit that the interface of the rotor and the port be looked at, and that the rotor be allowed to be chamfered in this location. (Sort of equivivlent to a piston engines valve seat being triple angled). This will result in a small gain of power, (no torque though!) but I like this idea for its controllability. There is only so much that can be done here without damaging the rotor. Therefore, any gains are automatically capped. Builders claim this mod is worth 5 or so Hp.

I feel the above list is all grounded in allowances already given other car models in the ITCS, and are therefore logical and just. Unfortunately, I doubt that they alone will be enough.

The addition of weight to the front runners as well would be needed.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited March 28, 2004).]

[ddewhurst]

Thanks Jake.......

[Quickshoe]

Jake,

I think you have some good ideas. Ones that will help the Rx7's but not make huge gains--like a street port would.

The additional alternate carb deal concerns me. I think it might hurt more than help. The Rx7 already has an advantage over most other carbed cars in that its' stock carb is capable of flowing more than the alternate carbs. The current alternate carbs are not an upgrade. If a 48IDA (for example) is added to the list, how much will some of the other cars benefit from the change? Or are you suggesting an alternate carb for the rx7 only?

Chamfering the rotor housing/rotor interface (as I am interpreting it) is not quite like a valve job. I know you said sort of--but I disagree.

The port shape, size and location control the "cam timing"--when the "valve" opens, closes and therefore duration. It also is "valve size"--how wide open it is. "Cam Profile"--how fast it opens and closes. Doesn't changing the shape of the rotor effect one or more of the above? How does a valve job do the same?

And lastly, I have got to disagree with the weight break you suggest--its not enough to run with the Hondas.

------------------
Daryl DeArman
I Love RX7's...they taste like chicken :P