It's here...

[Knestis]

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

Page 40

K

[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?

[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.

[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!

[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!

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 20 2006, 11:56 AM
The puddlebee may not be classed as it is beyond the performance envelope of IT? I don't know just a guess based on my limited understanding.

Knowing what we do today about the performance potential of the E36 would it have been classed in ITS as within the performance potential?

Purely an uneducated guess (but I am trying to learn) but maybe it shouldn't have been classed in IT but now that it is here doing the best possible with it?

[snapback]71423[/snapback]

Well, I asked this, because I was thinking of the '86.5 - '87 3.0 7M-GE engine rated @ 200hp. The car is spec'd @ 3380#. Maybe it's just a case of nobody racing one.

Please don't get me wrong, I think the ITAC have done a great job!!

[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

[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

[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.

[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.

[stevel]

Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 20 2006, 05:33 PM
As someone who just picked up weight I am seeing plenty of downside on additional brake and tire wear, changed dynamics in suspension geometry and handling. I think it can be pretty easy to get into the downside of weight adds doing more than to adjust power to weight potential. At some point it makes more sense to decrease the power than to add weight, IMO. Unless the argument is that they are so advantaged in handling and braking that you want to impact that as well as power to weight.

[snapback]71421[/snapback]

Ed, don't worry about it. Our camp is actually excited about this change. Why? Because we were a good 70lbs overweight to begin with and the cars were still competitive with the Acura's (most of which were at weight I believe). We just couldn't get them down to weight with the hatchback version of this car. So, with the Acura's gaining 125lbs and us (our 240's anyway) only gaining 30 or so lbs. Our guys will be even more competitive. And seeing that at times we were running at 2600lbs brakes were not a problem (with the right pads they could actually outbrake the Acura's with there small brakes) and they still handled like a dream, and depending on the corner of the track, sometimes better than the Acura's. I know our two 240 drivers are looking forward to this.

steve

[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.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by stevel@Jan 20 2006, 09:21 PM
We just couldn&#39;t get them down to weight with the hatchback version of this car.

[snapback]71455[/snapback]

Definately an ancillary benefit of the adjustment upward, is that the hatchback is now a viable option for ITA... That means more cars available!

Let&#39;s face it... As long as it&#39;s competitive, it&#39;s always easier, and usually less expensive, to build a car that needs to be heavier, as opposed to one that needs to be lighter...

Maybe you guys won&#39;t be getting so cold on those late fall or early spring race days! (meaning... you can keep your heaters in tact, etc... )


Thanks for all the positive, and optimistically negative, feedback guys... We are trying out best, and have our fingers crossed that this works the way we&#39;ve been thinking it will... I hope you all see that it was an honest effort to get things in balance... Hopefully that is what we have done...

Now... GO BUILD THOSE CARS!

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ddewhurst@Jan 20 2006, 05:47 PM


.......
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.

[snapback]71463[/snapback]

What about me???



David, the RX-7 could have worked in B, but there were issues...adding the weight would suck, of course, but we never determined an actual amount.
The cage issue was a killer, and everyone always wanted to make it work in A, if at all possible.

That said, it&#39;s still no overdog in A. At many tracks, it will still be a "tweener" even in the best hands. But at other tracks, it could be fun.

ITA will be great. The Integra is gaining weight, but not many...if any, ever made min weight anyway, so I am not sure if there will be a huge effect on them. So, depending on tracks, the contenders will be both Miatas, the Teg, the CRX, the 240SX, the NX2000, the Neons, and maybe even cars like the MR2 and the Fiero and the RX-7, and even others could be there up front... I doubt we&#39;ll see many Corvairs, though! Darn!

On the E36, (Jeff, mostly), we did discuss the possible alternatives to the restrictor, and I think that your worry about the whole group leaving due to the SIR is, hopefully, wrong. Process weight for that car is big, IF you choose middle of the road HP numbers. Even heavier if you believe the upper numbers. It seems that some are able to get big numbers from that engine or......

So, adding over 200 pounds..WELL over...... would have really added up . Remember, they run the same 7" wide wheels, and at some point, tire response and wear goes non linear. So the weight ACTS like more. So we gave alternatives to the CRB.

While the SIR will cost money to implement, it&#39;s not a lot in the grand scheme of things, and in the end it should be a net savings in consumables like tires and brakes, etc.

Personally, I think that the E36 guys should be OVERJOYED....the SIR will cancel any overdogs HP wise, whether due to cams or whatever, and the have nots won&#39;t feel a thing. The haves should be clipped enough to fit the process.

Remember, the top dogs in the class say they are held up by the E36 in the corners and the braking areas....but they can&#39;t get to them on the straights. Hopefully, the SIR will result in fairer fights, AND save money in the long run.

I think the concept of IT...the philosophy...includes, where possible and appropriate, measures to help keep racing affordable..or at least to help avoid throwing money away. I think this is in line with that. Keep in mind that the car is stock at 189hp, but is really underrated...it is an anomoly, and if there were a class above, consideration would have been given to moving it and letting it really fly.

We&#39;ll see.