A word from the CRB on the recent changes...

[gpeluso]

Andy,

The hp/wieght you described is a little misleading. First of all when you are talking about the better RX7 builds , are you refferring to a motec type system or just a good build.? The reason I bring that up is because a very good BMW build without motec is around 195hp. If you truely are comparing the two there pretty equal. According to your math you used a very good build BMW vs. an average RX7 build. I don't see the apple to apple comparision. I Think 195hp w/o motec is a greeeeeeat build. According to your math, BMW's should not be restricted to less than 195whp to be considered even with a very good RX7 build. The BMW should not be limited to a hp compared to an average RX7 build, beacause there would be potential still left for the RX7. This is ofcourse using the existing weights of the two cars, just as you did. This is coming from a guy who can not afford motec and is hoping his new build is even close to 190whp, but I have a feeling its not.(I'll know Wednesday.)

Please Consider This,

Greg

I misread your post. When you said "his" engine, I thought you were talking about the to RX-7 at the ARRC. My bad.

Tell us who the engine builder is, what the extent of the development is AND if it has programmable fuel management. Qualify your data if you want us to validate it.

You know the RX-7 weight. We have dyno sheets from a BMW guy showing 195whp. IT IS THE LOWEST WE HAVE ON FILE. Top cars showing 210 with full, 100% developement. Why are you using only the numbers that serve your arguement? We are using numbers supplied by BMW owners.

The best vs. best caclulations have been done. 195 is a very good build. 210 is tops we have seen. 175 is an average Mazda build. 181 is as much as we have seen but have heard 182. The following are UNrestricted numbers.

195/2850 = 14.62
175/2680 = 15.31

or

210/2850 = 13.57
181/2680 = 14.81 (182/2680 = 14.73)
There may be some advantage, but it is track/gear dependent, not outright speed beneficial. If you you want speed, revving past your power peak is not gonna get you down the track. Holding a gear longer into a corner without shifting can have it's upside - but it is about smoothness and maybe a slightly better lap time, but it isn't about overall speed.

Re-read the account on the review of the Huffmaster RX-7 video. PULLED down the straight by an obscene amount of car lengths. Please don't use the example as to the equality, then discount the evidence that it lays the pipe to the RX-7 in terms of power.

AB
[/b]

[Knestis]

195whp ITS Mazda? Seriously? (EDIT - no, I don't think that's what you were saying after all. Never mind.)

Even if it is possible, it would be interesting to compare the areas under the curve on that dyno sheet, compared to a "195whp" straight 6 with variable valve timing.

K

[Joe Harlan]

195whp ITS Mazda? Seriously? (EDIT - no, I don't think that's what you were saying after all. Never mind.)

Even if it is possible, it would be interesting to compare the areas under the curve on that dyno sheet, compared to a "195whp" straight 6 with variable valve timing.

K
[/b]

I think I would like to see that one also...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

The hp/wieght you described is a little misleading. First of all when you are talking about the better RX7 builds , are you refferring to a motec type system or just a good build.? The reason I bring that up is because a very good BMW build without motec is around 195hp. If you truely are comparing the two there pretty equal. According to your math you used a very good build BMW vs. an average RX7 build. I don't see the apple to apple comparision. I Think 195hp w/o motec is a greeeeeeat build. According to your math, BMW's should not be restricted to less than 195whp to be considered even with a very good RX7 build. The BMW should not be limited to a hp compared to an average RX7 build, beacause there would be potential still left for the RX7. This is ofcourse using the existing weights of the two cars, just as you did. This is coming from a guy who can not afford motec and is hoping his new build is even close to 190whp, but I have a feeling its not.(I'll know Wednesday.)

Please Consider This,

Greg
[/b]

Be average, I meant excellent w/respect to the RX-7, no programmable fuel managament. It's easy to do an excellent build on an RX-7 - it ain't easy or cheap to find that last 7-ish hp.

If your build is less than 190whp, you will have a strong car, but you have left a lot on the table compared to what is out there.

I takes time and money to run at the front of ITS. Good luck! I am trying to do the same in ITA.

[MikeBlaszczak]

Mike that is BS and you know it.[/b]

I do? Around here, Vintage racing is cars from 1970 or newer; plus newer cars that are voted in or approved (by some process that I'm not familiar with). As far as I know, a 1969 car would go straight to grid.

Pretty clear what the intent of IT is. [/b]

Well, it was -- until it was changed.

[lateapex911]

Have they? I've read the whole thread, even the rhetoric. But I didn't read anything that makes me sure that the SIR will not affect cars with less preparation.[/b]

Mike, if thats your issue, it's not much of an issue...why does it really matter? Think about it. The big issue that the membership sees with this specific change is that the E36 has gotten a break, as the alternative, weight would most surely affect ALL cars, and most likely, the lesser developed cars would feel the pinch worse.

Yeah, it did. I wondered how guys could race those cars, with the technology being 30 years old and all. I thought that ITS was for recent cars, not vintage rigs. And that's why I wonder why the older cars aren't classified down over time.
[/b]

Where did you get the idea ITS was for new cars displacing older? The philosophy, intent and ruleset is categorywide, each class operates under the same set of goals. Nowhere has it ever been said ...not now, not ever that I am aware of, that the classes were unique. The "trickle down" approach is rife with pitfalls.

[MikeBlaszczak]

Mike, if thats your issue, it's not much of an issue...[/b]

Thank you for your friendliness and understanding.

why does it really matter? Think about it. The big issue that the membership sees with this specific change is that the E36 has gotten a break, as the alternative, weight would most surely affect ALL cars, and most likely, the lesser developed cars would feel the pinch worse. [/b]

Sure. But you're still not answering my original question.

Where did you get the idea ITS was for new cars displacing older? [...] The "trickle down" approach is rife with pitfalls.
[/b]

I didn't get that idea -- I just don't see how not adjusting for newer technology is a sustainable design.

Fewer pitfalls than trying to keep downright ancient cars in balanced competition with newer designs, engineering techniques, and modern technology?

[Joe Harlan]

Thank you for your friendliness and understanding.
Sure. But you're still not answering my original question.
I didn't get that idea -- I just don't see how not adjusting for newer technology is a sustainable design.Fewer pitfalls than trying to keep downright ancient cars in balanced competition with newer designs, engineering techniques, and modern technology?
[/b]

So Mike , You don't see where using technology to balance the class is not adjusting to newer equipment?

[Knestis]

... I wondered how guys could race those cars, with the technology being 30 years old and all. I thought that ITS was for recent cars, not vintage rigs. And that's why I wonder why the older cars aren't classified down over time. [/b]

That's NOT a completely unreasonable question. The truth of the matter though is that the reason it LOOKS like older cars should shuffle down to slower classes, is that the mean performance of any given class inches upward over time. That's one manifestation of what we broadly talk about as "rules creep."

The dynamic is that, as a new model of car is listed, it is either (1) generally slower, (2) about the same as, or (3) a little faster than the cars already in the class. More people tend to build the faster options because they want to be competitive - and a few build them really well, to be in front of those up front. As new cars get listed, the same thing happens over again. Showroom Stock C is faster now than SSA was when Greg went to the RubOffs (back when Moses still had his novice permit).

It's like natural selection, if you buy that load of crap, too. Critters that for what ever reason can't compete, don't get as much of a chance to pass on their characteristics through genetic procreation. Cars that can't compete don't get built (or built well, generally), and get replaced in the food chain by those that can and are.

It's this dynamic that the ITAC has to wrestle with constantly. Maybe the "design" of the e36 is just so "intelligent" that it doesn't follow those same rules...?

K

[Greg Amy]

Showroom Stock C is faster now than SSA was when Greg went to the RubOffs (back when Moses still had his novice permit).[/b]

What that a 'dis'? 'Cause I got 'dissed' once before and this sure seems a lot like that...

[Bill Miller]

Kirk's right, technology evolves. And while some people have marque or model loyalty, a large portion of people will build those cars that have an advantage. It just so happens that a lot of time there is an alignment between the popular cars (from a marque/model loyalty perspective), and the ones that people want to build. And the ability of the popular cars, is certainly one of the things that contributes to their popularity.

For those of you that are old enough to remember, what was the approx. ratio of FI cars to carbed cars, for say the 1980 model year? And, what was the price point of those cars w/ FI? Now, what is that ratio today (does anybody even sell a carbed car anymore???)?

But, one can only speculate how many E36 cars there would be, had they been spec'd at 3100 - 3150#. I would say that the number of 3rd gen. Supras on the track is a pretty fair gauge.

Kirk's right, technology evolves. And while some people have marque or model loyalty, a large portion of people will build those cars that have an advantage. It just so happens that a lot of time there is an alignment between the popular cars (from a marque/model loyalty perspective), and the ones that people want to build. And the ability of the popular cars, is certainly one of the things that contributes to their popularity.

For those of you that are old enough to remember, what was the approx. ratio of FI cars to carbed cars, for say the 1980 model year? And, what was the price point of those cars w/ FI? Now, what is that ratio today (does anybody even sell a carbed car anymore???)?

But, one can only speculate how many E36 cars there would be, had they been spec'd at 3100 - 3150#. I would say that the number of 3rd gen. Supras on the track is a pretty fair gauge.

[lateapex911]

Well, the general progression of the auto industry has been to make faster cars that are still somewhat efficient. Technology has had a big role in that, obviously. But...

Technolgy can be accounted for in classing, to some degree, and if the system works correctly, the cars are classed where they belong ...where they will perform to match the parameteres of the class once they are fully developed.

We can rehash what happened with the E36, but it's a long story, and the current process that is in use now, wasn't back when the E36 was classified.

But the bigger question here is really, what to do with the general trend? IF cars are getting faster, (and they are) how much can we artificially slow them to fit in the existing classes at the existing performance envelopes?

At some point, and I would submit that we are close to it now, if not already there, we may start not being able to class cars without overly handicapping them. Or rejecting classification requests. If the trend continues, a new class, with a higher performance envelope potential must be considered.

[zracre]

cars will always get faster and more efficient...even if the iron gets old, the rubber and bolt on bits get newer...making the older stuff keeep up. but eventually even the 325is will be a cool vintage car to someone...what then?? the 2118 Toyonda puddlebee will be whipping its butt!! people will complain that the 325 is not fast enough and needs a weight break!! this is racing and it will never end!

[Bill Miller]

Jake,

I agree w/ you 110%!

Evan,

Boy isn't that the truth. Just look at tire technology today, vs 15-20 years ago. Back then, there weren't a whole lot of choices for 'track' DOT tires. Yok A008R, BFG R1, Bridgestone RE71S (who remembers those?? :119: ), I think Goodyear had a track version of the Gatorback, and the old Hoosier bias plys. That was about it. There were no Toyos or Kumhos or Avons or Michelins. And let's not even talk about grip levels and durability. I remember watching a guy burn up a brand new set of Hoosiers in 1 day. This was w/ a 1st gen. RX7 at Bridgehampton (car was in ITS at the time).

And since we're totally hijacking this thread, here's a question for Kirk, Greg, or anyone else that was around when IT was born (and forgive me if this has been addressed before). How was 1968 chosen as the cutoff date for IT cars?

[zracre]

I will take a guess....What was the cut off date for showroom stock when IY came around...the point of IT IIRC was for old showroom stock cars to add some fun bits and go racing (best thing for scca ever!!)

[Fastfred92]

At some point, and I would submit that we are close to it now, if not already there, we may start not being able to class cars without overly handicapping them. Or rejecting classification requests. If the trend continues, a new class, with a higher performance envelope potential must be considered.
[/b]

Not only at some point but I think the time is NOW! What can we do to get the board on this and moving towards 2007. IT racing is at a point where Ron's ITR or whatever needs to happen.