It's here...

[Doc Bro]

How about the "development process" of the car. In other words if you know your car will be restricted to say 200 hp then is there any reason to go all out. The lead approach equalizes as well and seems more consistent with the IT philosophy.

If I were given the choice of limiting the HP to a defined #, and having less weight I would definitely take that as opposed to unrestricted legal HP and gaining lead.........who wouldn't?

I think the ITS e36 got a very generous and financially rewarding break. I'd be shocked if there were a ton of upset e36 ITS guys.

Good job guys for making it happen!!!

R

[Knestis]

http://www.scca.org/_FileLibrary/File/GCR2006.pdf

Page 40

K

[tderonne]

First of all thanks for all the time and hard work.

Second, a small gripe. Missed a car. ITA Ford Escort GT. Currently classed at 2430 pounds. Kind of an also ran in ITA. Not an ITB car by any means. It's twin, with the same powertrain, the Mazda Protege, got a break from 2510 to 2280 pounds.

Guess I need to write a letter. Seems like a simple thing to do.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by tderonne@Jan 20 2006, 01:49 PM
First of all thanks for all the time and hard work.

Second, a small gripe. Missed a car. ITA Ford Escort GT. Currently classed at 2430 pounds. Kind of an also ran in ITA. Not an ITB car by any means. It's twin, with the same powertrain, the Mazda Protege, got a break from 2510 to 2280 pounds.

Guess I need to write a letter. Seems like a simple thing to do.

[snapback]71436[/snapback]

Isn't this the thing about PCA's we were all worried about? Additional letters to correct specific cars? I'd hate to be the guy sorting the CRB mail.

And Tim, if anything the numbers on the Escort seem to be in line with everything else, the protege seems a bit light now for some reason. I assume that's based on the adders being used.

[tderonne]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Jan 20 2006, 07:02 PM
Isn't this the thing about PCA's we were all worried about? Additional letters to correct specific cars? I'd hate to be the guy sorting the CRB mail.

And Tim, if anything the numbers on the Escort seem to be in line with everything else, the protege seems a bit light now for some reason. I assume that's based on the adders being used.

[snapback]71438[/snapback]

Maybe a typo on the Proteges? 2280 is a huge change from 2510.

And yeah, not trying to open a can of worms, just a 2280 car vs. a 2430 with the exact same powertrain, brakes, and suspension is pretty lopsided. Same exact inputs into the performance model. Ford ovals aren't THAT heavy. Darn Mazda conspiracy!

[BMW RACER]

1. BMW 325i/is (2 & 4 door) (92-95), p. 18, change the specs to read as follows: Notes: Trunk mounted fuel cell with no larger capacity than
stock. 27mm SIR required and must comply with GTCS section 17.1.2.F.4.i.10.

I'm confused! Going down from 56mm to 27mm restricter is a big jump, is that right?

I don't have my 2006 GCR yet. What is GTCS section 17.1.2.F.4.i.10?

[JamesB]

GTCS 17.1.2.F.4.i.10. Single Inlet Restrictors
a. The intent of this rule is to have a sealed system from
the Restrictor to the Intake Ports of the Cylinder Head.
All of the air entering the Intake Ports shall pass through
the specified Restrictor. Modification or addition to any
part of the Intake System that allows the introduction of
air into the Intake Ports that has not passed through the
specified Restrictor is prohibited.
b. The Engine Air Intake System must be fitted with an
aluminum air restrictor. The Intake System is defined
as an assembly of parts, including but not restricted
to: the Restrictor, Restrictor Housing, Ducting, Filters,
Air Box, Velocity Stacks, Throttle Body, Carburetors,
Manifold and Manifold Gasket up to the Intake Ports on
the Cylinder Head.
c. The Restrictor must be round in shape. The maximum
ID of the Restrictor is listed on the vehicle’s spec line.
The Restrictor’s maximum ID must be maintained for a
minimum length of 3mm. Restrictor mounting/placement
within the intake system is free, but must allow
accessibility for measurement. It is acceptable to have
some minor disassembly of the intake system to provide
access to the Restrictor for measurement. Measurement
device and restrictor shall be similar temperatures when
used.
d. Sealing the Restrictor from its supply of air must cause
the engine to stop within 4 seconds. This check is to be
made at an engine speed of approximately 2500 rpm.
The sealed airbox must withstand this test. Pressure
sensors present inside the intake system must be
disconnected during this check.
e. All GTL cars that have either an IR or SIR size (restricted)
listed on their spec line shall utilize an SIR for National
competitions.

[xr4racer]

Andy, as a person who has been involved in all of the GTL SIR debate for a couple of years, what have you seen to lead you to believe that it works? I am sure you are aware of the huge problems that this has caused in GTL and that are looming in GT2. Many people in those classes that are national and runoffs motivated have balked at spending the approximately $1000 necessary to just get the SIR and a sealed airbox, let alone all of the engine development and testing necessary to maximize the use of a SIR. Granted the engine development side of the equation does not pertain to the IT ranks but at least some of the cost does (approx $350.00 for the SIR).
Don't get me wrong I am extremely happy with the work that you and all of the board have done with the weights. I have a 2nd gen RX-7, but I am looking forward to the Datsuns, GSL-SE's etc. being up front and seeing more of the previously "weight challenged" cars being built and out there competing. I am not so happy to have the SIR included in the same sentence as IT. Hopefully the BMW competitors will not go elsewhere as a result. If this is just a one time radical move to fix a clearly wrong classification, then it is wonderful, if it is "the view for the future" I am not so excited about it.

Matt Miller
#7 ITS RX-7 MVR

[its66]

Great job guys, this is the type of thinking that we need.

I know that race results aren't the sole determining factor, but, in CFR, the 325e basically annihilates the rest of the field. IF they find a way to actually pull the weight out of the car legally, the 325e will likely pull even further away from the rest of the field.

What do these cars seem to do elsewhere?

[RacerBowie]

Originally posted by its66@Jan 20 2006, 02:43 PM


Great job guys, this is the type of thinking that we need.

I know that race results aren't the sole determining factor, but, in CFR, the 325e basically annihilates the rest of the field. IF they find a way to actually pull the weight out of the car legally, the 325e will likely pull even further away from the rest of the field.

What do these cars seem to do elsewhere?

[snapback]71435[/snapback]

I have never heard of another fast 325e anywhere. I know the stock one I own is a slug. There is one at Rd. Atl sometimes that is off the pace. I always heard there was no way to get them to rev, but that is heresay.

I am a little bummed about the 50lbs for the 1.6 miata, but that is the way it works. I am sure we will have some fun racing this year!

[DavidM]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 20 2006, 12:23 PM
Picked up 100 pounds, but until I see otherwise I will say good to the overall process - and I will say great job on the effort put in on the project.

ITA battles should be real interesting in 2006.

[snapback]71415[/snapback]

Yeah, guess I'll have to read the GCR section on how to mount ballast now . I was right at minimum weight with after race fuel. I think the intention of the changes is good and applaud the effort. Time will tell if the results match.

I'm scratching my head on the BMW restrictor plate. Weight affects more than just acceleration. The BMWs will be slower on the straights with the plate, but will still be able to brake in the same place (maybe even later since they won't be carrying as much speed) and still carry the same speed though the corner. Tire wear isn't affected either (as somebody else mentioned). I'm not in ITS, but I think I'd be a little peeved if my car got weight and the BMW got a smaller restrictor. Can I put a restrictor on my 240 instead of the extra weight? I'm guessing the big issue with my car was power as well. [I'm not really asking for that, but you get the point.]

David

[JeffYoung]

Andy, thanks for the clarification on the BMW being an anomaly.

I guess, the immediate post above, I just don't see the reason for a single-make anomaly where the problem could be corrected by weight -- weight that should have been there in the first place.

I'm not ticked about it or anything, and frankly am more concerned that the BMW drivers will feel MORE singled out and more likely to go run BMWCCA and not SCCA with this new rule than before. Weight is easy to put in and take out -- setting up an SIR car v. a non-SIR car does not seem to be.

It just seems really contrary to what IT is about. I thought we set the weights at a reasonable percentage curb weight with mods for performance and then let people have at it with the engine.

[Andy Bettencourt]

1. I am looking into the Protege thing.
2. The CRB chose the SIR over the weight. They must have decided that 3100+ lbs was too much and the SIR was the better solution.
3. Individual cars did not get singled out for gains or reductions, the process dictated the results. It is not a penalty for performance. It's just numbers that can be defended and repeated. No dart boards.

PCA's would be used for exactly the Protege issue. If it is a mistake, we can fix it. What we won't use them for is a "Please reduce the weight of my xxx by 30 pounds because it will make it more competitive..."

AB

[seckerich]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Jan 20 2006, 02:19 PM
1. I am looking into the Protege thing.
2. The CRB chose the SIR over the weight. They must have decided that 3100+ lbs was too much and the SIR was the better solution.
3. Individual cars did not get singled out for gains or reductions, the process dictated the results. It is not a penalty for performance. It's just numbers that can be defended and repeated. No dart boards.

PCA's would be used for exactly the Protege issue. If it is a mistake, we can fix it. What we won't use them for is a "Please reduce the weight of my xxx by 30 pounds because it will make it more competitive..."

AB

[snapback]71447[/snapback]

Andy and all those involved in the process--thanks for all the work. I believe the CRB is still all wet with the BMW and the restrictor, but I will wait to see what effect it has before I make any assumptions. The car will still brake, corner, and accelerate off corners the same as it does now. We just might still be able to see it when the speed tops out!! A prelude weighs more and it was not a problem?? Spec BMW will not end with this. Great to see the help the slower cars in the class got--should be some fun racing.

[turboICE]

Definitely was a response to the question of what are the downsides to adding weight instead of restricting power and not a complaint. My prior post indicated that I was going with good for the class until I saw otherwise. I think ITA racing is going to be even more exciting.

[JeffYoung]

You guys in A have a great class right now. The CRX, the Integra, the 240sx, the Miata and now maybe the 1st Gen RX7 again have a shot at winning. Should be very interesting next year.

[R2 Racing]

OMG, for the first time ever my fat ass is going to make weight!

My '92 Integra picked up an additional 115lbs to 2595 but being that it always weighed in at about 2580 anyway, it's a great thing for me! Now the rest of the Integra and CRX drivers will be lugging around all of the extra weight I've been since day 1.

[xr4racer]

As I stated earlier, I have been waiting for these type of changes for a long time, but many do not make any sense. In my class, ITS, looking into the weight changes they look good on paper until it comes time to try to do it. Many are totally impossible. For instance GSL-SE can lose 180 lbs, 280Z -225 lbs, 280zx -240 lbs. Obviously these are unattainable weights with the current rules. Why not add weight to the faster cars and reduce the slower cars by less? What this encourages is minimal cages and removing items not allowed in the rules.
In addition all of the cars must not have ben put through the "process" because either the ITA Capri I or Capri II is terribly wrong because they are identical cars mechanically with the Capri I at 2390 and the Capri II at 2670. 280 pound difference with the same brakes, engine, trans etc???

Matt

[1stGenBoy]

Originally posted by xr4racer@Jan 20 2006, 10:03 PM
As I stated earlier, I have been waiting for these type of changes for a long time, but many do not make any sense. In my class, ITS, looking into the weight changes they look good on paper until it comes time to try to do it. Many are totally impossible. For instance GSL-SE can lose 180 lbs, 280Z -225 lbs, 280zx -240 lbs. Obviously these are unattainable weights with the current rules. Why not add weight to the faster cars and reduce the slower cars by less? What this encourages is minimal cages and removing items not allowed in the rules.
In addition all of the cars must not have ben put through the "process" because either the ITA Capri I or Capri II is terribly wrong because they are identical cars mechanically with the Capri I at 2390 and the Capri II at 2670. 280 pound difference with the same brakes, engine, trans etc???

Matt

[snapback]71459[/snapback]

Matt,
This was the sentence that was in fastrack. Maybe this might help.

"If the car is not on the list, we have no legitimate data showing a need for adjustment or the car is no longer run in SCCA events."

I'm sure we missed some but, we did try our best. We did not want to guess at cars we had no idea on if they were out of wack or not. Andy explained the whole thing better than I could anyway.
If something is clearly wrong I'm sure we will get it staightened out.

Bob

[ddewhurst]

I'm late to this party.

I would like to thank the ITAC/CRB/BoD for allowing the 1st gen RX-7 12A to remain in ITA & for the 100 pound reduction in weight.

Weight reduction:

Car/driver dry today at 2360#

Driver 220# shall lose 30#

Eliminate tar/sound stuff est 20#

Remove door glass/stuff est 30#

Car/driver dry now at 2280#

I bet I can find some more legal #&#39;s for reduction. <_<

Thank you

ps: Andy, Darin & George, sorry for the $hit I gave you over the past year (?) about the potential reclassing the 1st gen RX-7 to ITB. In my mind ya did the correct thing. Adding 220# & 6 inch rims made zero safety sense to me.