More pics of my ITS car

[C. Ludwig]

I've posted some more pics to a new forum. Have the cage in and the car is done for the most part. http://community.webshots.com/user/rrxp689

Chris

[rlekun]

Chris,

Looks great! I've got a lot of offseason work to do on my 1st Gen ITA car that you could do for me. I'll even pay for all the materials!
Like the N02 switch!

On a serious note, is the console mounted kill switch the only one on the car? If so, I'm a little concerned for your safety...and your ability to pass tech. It really should be located where more easily accessible from the outside.

[tderonne]

I agree, that kill switch would be pretty hard to get to through the window.

And, where did the heater controls go? I'm no an RX7 guy, so I don't know what the center stack looked like before the gauges, but I don't think I see any heater controls.

And, as I keep looking, the "cage 3" shot makes the main hoop look like it has more than 190 degrees of bend, or is at least very close. Perhaps the camera angle? Perhaps oversize tubing?

Not trying to be destructive, just asking about what I see. Everything may be ok.

And, that blue EP car is the car that Eric Skirmants built. He sold it after the 2000 Runoffs, to a guy I can't remember.

Tim.

[ddewhurst]

Chris, rlekun & others have more experience than I do so you might ask them about brake ducting. My first times out with a Spec-7 I had ducting to the side of the rotor as it looks like your ducting is. Hot brake issues were ongoing. Then I installed the Mazda Comp ducts that direct the air to the center of the rotor & through the vents & the hot brake issues are gone.

Then again maybe I have my foot on the brakes to much. ???

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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv Milwaukee Region Spec-7 #14

[B90278]

your car looks good but i would be worried about being hit in rear those fittings won't take much to break

[Chris Wire]

The car looks like it is coming along nicely (motor excluded). I agree with Tim, the cage looks questionable when put up against the +/- 10 degree rule. That said, there are more than a few cars like that in the SE and every year they pass tech.

You may also want to rethink the master sw. location, as I think GCR is pretty clear that the switch must be accessible from the outside of the car. Just in case you get your bell rung!

My concern would be for a more obvious item, and I would like some additional feedback about it from others. In the picture of the radiator, located at http://community.webshots.com/photo/285410...30267hmYWaEnkyh , it looks like a panel has been installed in front of the core support to create an "air box" for the radiator. In discussions with various tech people over the years, the general opinion was that any ducting to the radiator was legal if it was PART OF the radiator. IOW, if you tig welded some panels to the front of the radiator to trap or direct air, they were okay if they didn't attach to the body. As RX7s don't like overheating, this is an area that I am investigating.

------------------
Chris Wire
Team Wire Racing
ITS Mazda RX7 #35

[C. Ludwig]

Thanks for the constructive criticisms guys. The master switch was/is a concern of mine. The only reason I put it there was because I'd noticed alot of World Challenge cars have theirs mounted in the center stack. That and it provides easy (atleast for me with long arms) access from the outside from BOTH sides of the car.

Never thought about the bar! I gave the GCR to my cage builder and went over it all with him. Now you got me worried. Cross your fingers.

And the panel in front of the rad is illegal most likely. I installed that one day on a whim and have since realized it shouldn't be there. For the time being it is a good place to sit tools and will be easily removed. Like your idea Chris.

Hopefully I can get the car teched in the next few weeks. I'll let you all know what goes on.
Chris

[BALLZOUT]

Nice shots of the car big "C",if the only thing the boys could bag on you about was the switch and a degree or two on a bar... you must'a done something right. Those pictures print up real nice, so off I go to my shop to apply (steal) some of your tricks. Hey thanks for the reply on the (BAC) (ACV) deal, all along I wanted to use the old toss the "smog" rule, but I DON'T know RX's and I did not want to go through hell getting the old girl to fire off. What region are ya from ?? Do you need to cover the fuel cap too w/a bulk head, I thought you needed to cover the top of the can up to the vent-line-cap cover and from there we could leave it open to the world??????One last line and I've got to poke fun at the shot of the blaaaaack blob of oil comming from under the car !!!! PS, why did the engine let go ??? Rick

[Silkworm]

Originally posted by Chris Wire:
My concern would be for a more obvious item, and I would like some additional feedback about it from others. In the picture of the radiator, located at http://community.webshots.com/photo/285410...30267hmYWaEnkyh , it looks like a panel has been installed in front of the core support to create an "air box" for the radiator. In discussions with various tech people over the years, the general opinion was that any ducting to the radiator was legal if it was PART OF the radiator. IOW, if you tig welded some panels to the front of the radiator to trap or direct air, they were okay if they didn't attach to the body. As RX7s don't like overheating, this is an area that I am investigating.

I've been looking for a rule that addresses this, but can't find anything that specifically says yes or no. ITCS D.8.b says that openings can be cut in the front valance to allow for ducting to the radiator, but doesn't specifically mention any rules on how that ducting gets added, where it can be placed, or how it can be mounted.

I'd really like to know, I'm about to install the radiator in my RX-7, and I'd like to setup ducting directly to the radiator and oil cooler.

PaulC

[ddewhurst]

Paul, I do not know if there is a rule that says you can do what your talking about but there is a rule that says in effect if it dosen't say you can you can't.

See 17.1.4.B Intent

Other than those specifically allowed by these rules, no componet or part normally found on a stock example of a given vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining any competitive advantage.

Have Fun

David

[Silkworm]

Thank you David, I'm *well* aware of that rule and it's silly sideeffects. However, as I've heard variations of "You can shroud the radiator if it does/doesn't attach to the body", and since the rules DO say that you can have holes for the purpose of ducting to the radiator, but not how or where it must be attached, I'm left scratching my head.

PaulC


------------------

[Chris Wire]

Silk (as in 'smooth as'?)

I think we need to separate the term "hole" from the term "duct", because IMO they are different. A hole, to me, would be the opening in the valence to allow the air in. A duct, to me, would be the panels guiding the air to its destination. Now I believe that the ducting is allowed if it is attached to the radiator only, since you could then make the point that it is part of the radiator. And radiators are, essentially, unrestricted except for location and plane. Since spoilers/air dams are also allowed, you could attach the duct work to the air dam w/o attaching it to the body and also be legal, IMO. The problem lies when you construct duct work which attaches to either the radiator or air dam, and also the body work. That would make it illegal. Again, in my opinion.

Lastly, let me say that I don't want to come across as nitpicking Chris' car. He has obviously spent a lot of time on it, and he has done a very nice job. I also appreciate the fact that he shares the pictures with us, knowing he may receive input, good or bad. I hope my car turns out as well.

------------------
Chris Wire
Team Wire Racing
ITS Mazda RX7 #35

[Knestis]

As a possible solution to the kill switch issue, you might run a T-handle cable (like those used with manual fire ext systems) from a hole in the end of the switch key through the cowl to a point in front of the windshield on the driver's side. Label it with the spark sticker and rescuers can pull it to flip the switch remotely.

This used to be standard practice on FIA rally cars and I have seen club racers in the past use this answer. I THINK that it is generally approved of by tech folks but you might check with someone in advance.

Kirk

[Silkworm]

Chris,

You got it

David,

Sorry about that, that was harsh and I apologize. I just get very frustrated with the ITCS, and all of it revolves around that one rule.

PaulC

------------------

[ddewhurst]

Paul, no offense taken many of us do $hit out of frustration.

On the other hand Chris Wire, rather than respond to your cuteness I just said to myself we are each different & that's a good thing. Please take part in the radiator discussion following.

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.

This post is all in the intrest of learning. I look forward to response & discussion.

Have Fun

David

You guys from the other side of the lake can jump in to. In the discussion.

[rlekun]

I'm a bit confused (as I tend to get) on the above discourse on ducting to the radiator. The original concern was raised since one of the photos has a non-OE top panel creating, I'm assuming, the fourth (top) side of an airbox in front of the radiator, right? Did the second gen RX-7 not have a top panel in front of the radiator like the first gen? Or is the concern that the piece is not original equipment?

Regarding the comparison of brake ducting, the 2001 GCR states that no alteration of the body work for this purpose. Of course we get into the "intent and interpretation" area here but I think they're just trying to make sure no one does some creative porting through headlight and marker openings or NACA ducts in front of the rear wheel wells. Since I don't run a front air dam, my front brake ducts are attached on the top of the lower radiator box panel...so they are sharing space with the radiator opening/grill area. Yes, that makes them attached to the lower panel, but I don't think anyone would dare construe that as altering the bodywork. I use those wonderful (as in cheap) plastic V-shaped downspout concentrators dumping in to 3" automotive ducting which feed Mazda competition ducts at the rotor.

Again, if the 2nd Gen didn't come OE with the radiator airbox, then I understand the dilema. But on the 1st gen, no additional ducting to the radiator has ever been necessary for my car. I have been using a stock radiator too, and it seems to run cool enough. (I can't give you a temp since I just use the stock gauge on water temp).

[ddewhurst]

rlekun, my response is in a learning mode & was not with reference to the picture of the alum top pannel of the 2nd gen race car. My response is to Chris Wire, Paul, or anyone else with reference to stated opinions as per above posts of Tech Inspectors & others that this that & other things relative to radiator ducting are illegal.

With reference to the GCR/ITCS rule 17.1.4.D.8.b "Openings are permitted for the purpose of ducting air to the brakes, cooler, and radiator." Ducts for brakes & valance/spoiler/air dam openings (hole) are stated one 3 inch diameter to each front brake. A size is not specificed for he radiator duct so fabricate to suite the space between the radiator & behind the grill.

The same people who wrote this rule 17.1.4.D.8.b that specifies that we can have brake & radiator ducts knew while writting the rule that the brake & radiator ducts require being secured in place to be functional & for safety reasons. Therefor these same rule writters accecpted the fact that at minimum holes would be drilled so that reasonable sized fasteners could be used to secure the brake & radiator ducts.

I am not suggesting cutting, bending or modifing any stock part of the body or structure other than they knew that holes would be opened for reasonable size fasteners.

On a 1st gen, a radiator duct can be extended forward of the stock four sided duct to just behind the grill to better direct a larger amount of air to the radiator. It may not be needed but there is a non-ducted space where additional duct could be installed.

Have Fun

David

[stephweiss]

FYI, the February FastTrack 'clarifies' some of the radiator/brake ducting language. I don't know if it's entirely applicable to your situation.

http://www.scca.org/news/fastrack/02-02.pdf

[ddewhurst]

Steph, thanks for the Fastrack info. That info on rules update still does not satisfy the concerns that were stated above by 2 or 3 people. Their concerns as I read them are that they are hesitant about what they can & can not secure the brake & radiator ducts to. Tech Inspectors & other people have stated to those above that the ducts can't be secured to this that & another thing. All I was trying to do is start a positive discussion relative to securing brake & radiator ducts with fasteners.

To my common sense logic, when the rules state that you can have brake & radiator ducts then you can drill reasonably sized holes to secure the ducts with fasteners.



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

David Dewhurst
CenDiv Milwaukee Region Spec-7 #14

[stephweiss]

I'd have to agree. If a duct goes from the front spoiler to the brakes, there is an assumption that it a) attaches to the brakes somehow, and doesn't get run over by the tires and so must be held in place by something.

Back when I had 'em, mine were just tie-wrapped, but it would certainly be more elegant if they were more securely fastened. I'd still squish 'em every time I turned too severely when driving through the paddock, but they would be elegantly squished.

Steph