More pics of my ITS car

[C. Ludwig]

TDERONNE and others. Checked the cage measurement in regard to the 180* rule the other night. As you thought it measured 198*. Went back and read the GCR and it says in regard to that rule that if any of the measurements can't be met then the cage will be constructed of tubing meeting the next largest weight class. As mine is constructed for the heaviest weight IT class and the tubing is approved for up to 4000lbs on AS cars I should be OK. Is that what you meant by oversized tubing? Hate to think we'd have to cut the hoop out for 8*! Thanks for the heads-up!

As for the brake ducting. One of you guys said something about it looking like the duct went to the swept part of the rotor and not the center. The duct hits both about 50/50 but is angled toward the center. As far as I can see there is no way to get more center coverage. My ducting plate "looks" very similar to the one on the Mazda Comp site. Is there something I'm missing?

After consideration I think I'm gonna either move the kill switch or put in a second one.

Thanks again guys!!!

Chris

[ddewhurst]

Posted by Steph:
"I'd still squish 'em every time I turned too severely when driving through the paddock, but they would be elegantly squished."

Now I have had my chuckle for the day. Thanks Steph


Chris L., your 50/50 duct may work very well. At a price the Mazda ducts are fabricated in a manner that the air is kinda sealed off & must go through the center of the rotor. My original comment was for info only.



------------------
Have Fun

David Dewhurst
CenDiv Milwaukee Region Spec-7 #14

[tderonne]

Let me take a stab at a couple items you've mentioned.

First, the front spoiler section.
It's talking about what we can do when we add a spoiler. It dictates what space the spoiler can occupy in three dimensions. It says that it cannot cover up any original opening. It also allows the spoiler to have holes and ducting to a couple things.

Any ducting allowed by this rule alone would have to be contained within the spoiler.
It also says we can cut a 3" hole in the front valance for the purpose of ducting air to the brakes. All this allows is for two non-original holes to be cut. Assumably this is in the spoiler section because a front valance is in the exact same area as the spoiler is allowed to be.

Things this rule alone does not allow:
Brake ducts
Radiator ducts

There is a separate brake duct rule in the brake section. There it says we can add brake ducts. It doesn't say how many or where they have to be, but it does say no new openings may be made. (2001 ITCS, 17.1.4.D.6.
So we know brake ducts are ok.

As for radiator ducts. We know radiators and radiator fans (and hence fan shrouds) are open. This is where the attached idea comes in. If any ducting is part of the new radiator, fan assembly, or spoiler, it's specifically allowed.
So radiator ducts are ok, if a reasonable person would view them as part of the new radiator/fan, or spoiler.

A reasonable interpretation?


[Slightly trimmed QUOTE]Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Now lets have a possitive disscussion about ducting to the radiator. I have read in previous posts about the ducting to radiator opinions of people including Tech Inspectors.

2001 ITCS, 17.1.4.D.8.b says we can have holes/openings in the spoiler/airdam/valance & up to a 3 inch duct leading to each front brake.

This rule says I can do the above but did not state how & what I could secure the duct to. The rule also did not state if the duct could or should be directed to the center of the rotor or to the outer edge or the rotor.

With this information I installed my brake ducts & did not concern myself as to what or where I secured the brake air duct or the metal Mazda brake duct that directs air to the center of the rotor. Now if a Tech Inspector, competitor or some other person questioned/stated that the methods used on my car to secure the brake duct did not meet rules specifications I would very politely & with a smile on my face ask the person to show the rule in the GCR/ITCS that states in writting where a rule specification was not followed.

Did some of you folks approach brake duct completion via the same process or did you call SCCA headquaters & ask exactly what, where & how to complete your brake ducts ???

The same rule that specifies that you can have brake ducts specifies that you can have a radiator duct. The radiator duct will be a material/air passage with a very different non specified physical size/shape than your brake duct so my question is. Why wouldn't you approach the securing process for the radiator duct the same as the process you used for securing the brake duct ??? Presuming you didn't ask SCCA headquaters how to secure your brake ducts.

Again with the radiator duct that I installed I would ask the objecting person to please show the rule in the GCR/ITCS that states in writting where a rule specification was not followed.[/QUOTE]

[BALLZOUT]

Just a quick fix for the original perplexing observation of our fine friends "red racer" via his awesome shots . If you understand the principal of the "cool plate " atop the core support aft of the bumper mount, you'll note that from the factory, auto manufactures use foam, or rubber, to seal that opening against the hood, witch is doing exactly what our fancy aluminium piece is . So to fool "any" techy, just use the foam/ rubber trick on the hood side, people don't look up... unless they're talking to God, and He's the only one we really need to answer to, not some SCCA character

[ddewhurst]

Tim, with reference to brake & radiator ducts. Everything that is within these posts is for the purpose of my learning & all completed with a smile.

Per your post:
"So we know brake ducts are ok."

We agree that brake ducts are ok per 2001 ITCS, 17.1.4.D.6.b, 17.1.4.D.8.b. & the Feb Fastrack.

What I was stating along with these written rules was that the rules writters knew that the ducts needed to be secured in place for functional & safety reasons & that holes would be drilled in whatever part for fasteners to secure the brake ducts.

Is there any thing that can not be drilled for the purpose of securing the brake ducts ?

Per your post:

"As for radiator ducts. We know radiators and radiator fans (and hence fan shrouds) are open. This is where the attached idea comes in. If any ducting is part of the new radiator, fan assembly, or spoiler, it's specifically allowed.
So radiator ducts are ok, if a reasonable person would view them as part of the new radiator/fan, or spoiler."

"(and hence fan shrouds)", most fan shrouds are behind the radiator & where is the written rule that includes the shroud with the fan & or radiator ?

I would rather read & implement per rule ITCS, 14.1.4.D.8.b.
Openings are permitted for the purpose of ducting air to the brakes, cooler, and radiator.

When the entire rule is read it in effect states that there can be duct to the radiator in the space behind the grill.

What I was stating along with this written rule was that the rules writters knew that the duct needed to be secured in place for functional & safety reasons & that holes would be drilled in whatever part for fasteners to secure the radiator duct.

Is there any thing that can not be drilled for the purpose of securing the radiator duct with reference to this rule ? This is not in reference to ITCS 17.1.4.D.3.a. & c.

Have Fun

David

What I write is focused on 1st gen RX-7 Mazda.



[This message has been edited by ddewhurst (edited January 12, 2002).]

[Silkworm]

Dupe

[This message has been edited by Silkworm (edited January 12, 2002).]

[Silkworm]

David and Steph's arguments are exactly my mindset, it doesn't make sense to limit how I attach the ductwork without a rule stating how I can attach the ducting.

Btw, Steph Weiss, are you the person that runs/ran the how to build a 4th gen A-sedan Camaro web page? If so, you're the primary reason I'm going down this path

PaulC
88 RX-7 PS-1/ITS
http://www.lcaf.com/silk/RX-7/rx-7.html


[This message has been edited by Silkworm (edited January 12, 2002).]

[stephweiss]

Originally posted by Silkworm:
Steph Weiss, are you the person that runs/ran the how to build a 4th gen A-sedan Camaro web page?

Yep. That's me. It's still out there at http://members.aol.com/ascamaro98.

But I have to admit some curiosity as to how you made the brain-swap from a big American AS car with big American pistons to a little furrin sportycar with no pistons....

(When Kurt used to run his ITA RX-3, one of his competitors in a piston car stuck a 'Total Seal Piston Rings' decal on the back bumper. It was still there when he sold the car, just for grins. And we still have a garage full of rotaries. I guess once it's in the blood...)

Steph

[Silkworm]

Well, I drive a 99 TA every day. I was going to go A-sedan, but I hate the idea of taking a 4th gen and puting a carb on it. Then I thought about CMC, but decided against it when I had a 2nd gen RX-7 collecting dust in the driveway. So here I am

PauLC