G Production Proposal

[mustanghammer]

Originally posted by wlfpkrcn@Jan 18 2006, 11:27 PM
I posted this on the Prod board. Figured it fit with the current discussion.

So are we talking about racing an "IT" car in production or adding a new production car?
The way I read the proposal is

Clutch and flywheel are open, transmission is open, driveshaft is open, glass can be replaced with plastic, fiberglass body panels are allowed, new wheels with proper offsets to fit new body panels.

I don't see any big savings between this proposal and EP. Just the porting and rotating assembly work. If I am interpreting this proposal incorrectly please let me know. If it is a true (everything IT legal) plus slicks, Then that wouldn't be a bad thing.

[snapback]71196[/snapback]

Thanks for the question,

This is a request to add a new car to G Production.

Yes you are interpreting the proposal correctly. The cost savings would be as follows:

Engine Porting - Port Matching would not be allowed
Carburetion - Carb would be limited to the Niki OE carb or the IT spec'd substitute
Intake Manifold - Only OE would be allowed with some porting under the carb

Thanks for your questions

[mustanghammer]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 20 2006, 02:59 PM
Scott & readers, the following was posted by Jesse Prather (yes, motor shop but we ain't going to get this classing deal completed withoput the support of some KNOWN [sorry Scott] people.) on the Production site. Getting Dave Lemon & Mike V. from ISC racing would also help. Dave & Jesse worked on some serious words & pictures & presented for the description of Street Port to the CRB. Don't recall the results from the CBR/BoD but as porting stood previous nothing described Street Porting dimensionally......... The thing that is important to the IT rotor motor (all motors) is that it's an air pump. Air is allowed in & air is allowed out. The classing proposal at this time allows zero porting per the IT motor rules. But there is still a lot of increases that come from the carb, intake manifold & the exhaust. I my humble judgement we (Scott) need to include in the classing request (even tho the info falls under rotor motor IT rules) alternate intake manifold & carbs that allow increasing or decreasing air flow. We need to SHOW that we are not trying to get a class beater including providing a process to slow the car or speed up the car. I know for sure that a Spec 7 car with the OEM cast iron exhaust outlet ain't going to beat a G Production car. I can't say horsepower because then the nay sayers will jump on their white horse & ride to Topeka. Yes, I am making light of the nay sayers (not ment to be a personal putdown) but if the car is classed I will do my IT car to the max G Production car allowed & do my best to make the car proud.
Posted by Jesse:

Whew, you guys are really after it this time. Sounds like groundhog day again.

When I discuss the potential of a certain car, I like to use the fastest of a certain group of cars for the "bar". Take an ITA first gen car. Require stock fenders and an 8 X 13 inch slick which I believe will fit under the body work. Limited prep suspension just like IT and you have a starter GP car. This car will NOT beat a front running GP car.

You can start with a stock transmission only and adjust as needed. Basically an IT7 car with slicks.

I won't get into HP numbers because those don't prove jack.
On the other hand, I don't see the first gen. RX7 as a savior for any class anymore. They did the job for EP and now have gone away in the BIG numbers we used to see. FP is the up and coming class now.

There is an exemption for the rotary engine in all classes to run pump gas. On the plus side. An IT7 engine will run for multiple years if treated properly without a rebuild. I do hate those pesky Nikki carbs though. I would go for a Weber 48IDA and start the chokes small to start with. If the CRB would every consider this I could come up with some dyno information that is used on a certain National Champonship GP car and do some IT 12A work. Hmmm. We'll see. Sounds too logical.

[snapback]71386[/snapback]

Thanks David,

Great idea and will start contacting Rotary engine builders when I am off the road and have more time that I am stealing here.

BTW, the engine in my IT7 RX7 is now 4.5 years old and has not been apart since it was built by Prather Racing summer 2001. I beat the hell out of this engine everytime I drive it and it keeps coming back for more.

Thanks again David

[ddewhurst]

Scott, you may have allready looked at some Fastracks at the excuses the CRB uses for not classing a car & at other baged answers they have for not accecpting classing a car or accecpting a request. They are all items to have covered with data when you forward your requst.

One response I have not viewed for a while is "No interest". Response to cover that baged line would be to provide several names with e-mail address.

Scott P.

David D.

Dick P.

&

&

&

[mustanghammer]

No real changes - track added - but this is going to the CRB tomorrow. If you are in support, please write. the CRB.




Dear Sirs:

This is a request for the classification of the 79-85 12A Mazda RX7 into G Production as a limited preparation car with Improved Touring carburetion and an unported engine. I am making this request because I believe the performance parameters of the 12A RX7 are a good fit for G Production. I also believe that other cars currently listed in G Production set a precedent for the inclusion of the 12A RX7. Specifically these ?other? cars are the ITA and ITB classed Honda Civic/CRX Si that are listed as limited prep/IT induction engine eligible cars in G Production.

Specifics

Engine

* Unported, IT carburetion engine (this includes no port matching as specified in the ITCS)
* Allow removal of OE oil injection*
* Allow intake manifold porting under carb for first 1 inch**

** These allowances would serve to aid reliability and performance. This is in keeping with other examples of IT carburetion, limited prep cars that are allowed compression and cam changes.

Driveline

* Limited prep transmission allowances
* Limited prep clutch/flywheel allowances
* Final drive ratio unrestricted

Suspension/Brakes/Wheels

* Limited prep suspension
* GSL four wheel disk brakes (F 227mm ? R 236mm)
* 13 x 7 wheels

Weight/Track

* 2060lbs (2006 GCR E Prod. 79-85 RX7 12A Min. Wt.) minimum weight. Weight added for Limited Prep legal transmission changes.
* Front 60 inches/Rear 59 inches

I believe the inclusion of the popular 79-85 12A RX7 into G Production will bolster the numbers in this class while not upsetting the competitive balance that exists today.

Sincerely


Scott Peterson
Member 175876

[ddewhurst]

Scott, I'll send a letter in support of your request to class the car in G Production. Might you post this same letter on the Production site in an effort to collect all the support that may be out there.

Good job
David

[lateapex911]

Just curious, what do you guys who are more "in" the Prod world think the response of the G Prod guys will be??

On one hand, they need all the cars they can get if they want a class to race in.

On the other, they might not like anything new messing in the sandbox.

[Drew Aldred]

As a Prod guy who lurks here (lots of good general racing and car info !) I wrote a letter today supporting this request of the Mazda RX-7 into G Prod. I raced 4 seasons in GP with a Spitfire and ran last year in HP with a Scirocco. Small bore prod needs all the cars it can get, in my opinion H and G will be consolidated one day. It would be nice to still have a place to race even as a consolidated class rather than having our cars "retired" due to lack of numbers.

[mustanghammer]

Scott, I'll send a letter in support of your request to class the car in G Production. Might you post this same letter on the Production site in an effort to collect all the support that may be out there.

Good job
David
[/b]

I will get that done today. Thanks for the support

As a Prod guy who lurks here (lots of good general racing and car info !) I wrote a letter today supporting this request of the Mazda RX-7 into G Prod. I raced 4 seasons in GP with a Spitfire and ran last year in HP with a Scirocco. Small bore prod needs all the cars it can get, in my opinion H and G will be consolidated one day. It would be nice to still have a place to race even as a consolidated class rather than having our cars "retired" due to lack of numbers.
[/b]

Thanks Drew.

Coming from an existing Production Driver, your support means allot.

[ddewhurst]

Scott, letter sent.

Come on RX-7 owners, if you agree with the request to class the RX-7 LP/RS in G Production please send your support letter. The more the better.

[JeffW]

Hey Guys,

Take a look at the Prod Board. A GP Datsun 510 driver wants Scott's proposal put in FP and then add about 220 lb to the proposal to allow it in GP. Since he has a dog in this fight, his motivations are pretty transparent. It's basically "Not In My Back Yard" . He wants to severely hamstring a new competitor in the class to insure his own success. Sounds like some of the Spridget crowd in Prod. Livin' in the Good Ol' Days.

I will be writing a letter in support of the proposal as it is written.

Jeff

[ddewhurst]

Jeff, WE can use all the help available especially all the Production owners/drivers WE can get. IIRC he didn't mind the car in G as long as the weight was at the current ITA weight. I'll take that at 2280 at the get go rather than not being classed in G period. For what it's worth people in the past have requested the car be classed in F & it's been turned down. $hit the CRX is in ITA & F & I don't see a 1st gen rx-7 that can come close to beating a CRX in ITA trim. Never happen in F Production without porting.

I hope there are some behind the secens Production people who have been favorable in the past who write letters.

Way to many of the H & G people are protecting their turff & IMHJ because of them protecting their turff the numbers will fail H & G will get merged. Hope WE are there.

[mustanghammer]

Hey Guys,

Take a look at the Prod Board. A GP Datsun 510 driver wants Scott's proposal put in FP and then add about 220 lb to the proposal to allow it in GP. Since he has a dog in this fight, his motivations are pretty transparent. It's basically "Not In My Back Yard" . He wants to severely hamstring a new competitor in the class to insure his own success. Sounds like some of the Spridget crowd in Prod. Livin' in the Good Ol' Days.

I will be writing a letter in support of the proposal as it is written.

Jeff
[/b]

Thanks Jeff.

While I would hate to add too much weight to my proposed GP RX7 a letter from an exisiting GP driver is a good thing. As far as protecting their turf? I can't blame anyone for doing that.

In production trim I can get my pig to 2280 without a problem. If after a few years if the car needs help them perhaps the weight can come off.

As David said, lets get in the game!

Thanks for your letter of support!

[lateapex911]

I am surprised at the acceptance of a weight that you guys deem 200 pounds heavy, "just to get in the game", as you say.

How does the prod Ad Hoc committee actually set the weight? What is the "proper" weight for the car in the class?? There has to be a concrete and standard answer rather than "Well, it depends on how it does", LOL. (Thats not to say that their first answer will be spot on, and all factors will have been estimated correctly, but, as the car is a known entity in ITA, and this configuration is close to an IT setup, they DO have a good start in determining weight.)



But I'm not sure why racing in a class where you are known to be 200 pounds heavy would have any attraction.....

[mustanghammer]

I am surprised at the acceptance of a weight that you guys deem 200 pounds heavy, "just to get in the game", as you say.

How does the prod Ad Hoc committee actually set the weight? What is the "proper" weight for the car in the class?? There has to be a concrete and standard answer rather than "Well, it depends on how it does", LOL. (Thats not to say that their first answer will be spot on, and all factors will have been estimated correctly, but, as the car is a known entity in ITA, and this configuration is close to an IT setup, they DO have a good start in determining weight.)
But I'm not sure why racing in a class where you are known to be 200 pounds heavy would have any attraction.....
[/b]

Good question, I don't know. The Produciton VTS sheet asks for IT class and weights so they would likely use that information to determine minimum weights. The VTS also asked for the desired weight of the car in the proposal. My request is based on the listed wieghts for cars in the class, the wheel widths allowed and the base weight of an EP RX7. Will they use that? Don't know.

I think the difference between having an over-weight car in IT and Produciton is that in production adjustments occur more rapidly. So there is more cause for hope that correcting adjustments would be made sooner rather than later. This may be a "grass is greener " assumption on my part but my friends in EP have certainly had more adjusts applied to their car and class than I have in the last three years. It is a certainty that you can only get an adjustment for a car that is classed.

I think we would be naive to assume that they are going to class any car as being instantly competitive. Actually their track record seems to indicate the opposite. So there is the risk that we are throwing a party that no one will come to. Nobody knows the answer unless somebody asks the question.

[JeffW]

I don't have a GCR in front of me (and fishing through the online version is a PITA), but what kind of weight break did the Hondacuras get in the move from IT to Prod? That may me useful in determining if the proposed weight is close.

I have a straight, non-sunroof 1982 tub located in anticipation of this going through.

Production has appealed to me since I first got interested in SCCA, but listening to Spridget and 510 drivers talk about $10-$15K motors that need to be rebuilt every season was not very encouraging. I went with a 1st Gen in Spec7 because of the reliability factor, and to use it as a learning platform to eventually do a 1st Gen in EP. The GP proposal will be a great stepping stone. Or even a great final destination.

With Spridgets already classed in F, G, and H, and the Miata in F and G, and...,the precedent has already been set for having the same car at different prep levels in Production. Let's hope the CRB doesn't shoot themselves in the foot.

Jeff

[lateapex911]

Another question for you guys, and thanks for the considered answers...but what kind of supplies are you anticipating for the down the road rebuilds? It seems like things like side plates are gettign pretty thin, or expensive, and a lot of shops (Like ISC in FL) are bailing fromt the 1st gen altogether.

Do you have a secret stash??

[ddewhurst]

Jake, as a owner driver of a 1st gen & an ITAC member how about pretending for a moment you had a desire to race your car in G Production. How about a positive stroke for your friends (IT racers) who would like the car classed in G Production. It's another option classs to race with. From my perspective the Production folks should be happy that people would like their car of choice classed in an attempt to increase the race class size. I understand the on track difference of full prep cars & limited prep cars.

The fact that ISC is following a current trend is not a news flash to many of us. I could name some shops in the North East as could you that are serveing the Spec Miata crowd. They are business people.


***I'll take that at 2280 at the get go rather than not being classed in G period.***

This sentence ^ kind of says what it needs to say.

[mustanghammer]

Another question for you guys, and thanks for the considered answers...but what kind of supplies are you anticipating for the down the road rebuilds? It seems like things like side plates are gettign pretty thin, or expensive, and a lot of shops (Like ISC in FL) are bailing fromt the 1st gen altogether.

Do you have a secret stash??
[/b]

Man you are just a fountain of positive energy Just kidding!

I have considered this and I have a stash of unknown quality that I am adding to. I picked up a running 85 GSL for two cases of beer (domestic no less) and another 85 GS non-runner for $100.00. I plan on parting out the "beer" car and making a streeter out of the other one.

I plan to use this experience to learn how these cars work.

For what it is worth, the "racing" engine in my IT7 car starts it's 5th season this weekend. Given that an IT7 engine and the proposed GP engine are the same thing then maybe engine parts won't be that big of an issue....for awhile.

[lateapex911]

Ummm ok David. I said, "Thanks for your considered response"...sorry if I didn't come off positive enough. I was merely asking pertinent questions. ANd the engine issue IS an issue, but it's good to know that there are still bits available.

I am sure you aren't aware, but on ITAC biz that involves bigger picture thinking, I am always bringing up points to make migrating from IT to prod easier.

[JeffW]

Miata in E and F. I knew that.

A friend is building a BMW Z3 for EP. It is currently classed in ITA with the 1st Gen (This could start the whole 1st Gen to ITB discussion again.) He is considering asking the CRB for the Z3 to be listed in FP with the IT engine in the name of reliablity. None of these requests is breaking new ground.

Jeff