Remote res.dampers...your opinion...

[Ron Earp]

I thought this was about RR shocks? Heck, now about those V8s in ITR.........

[JeffYoung]

Looks to me like the chances of V8s in ITR are.....remote.

[lateapex911]

Looks to me like the chances of V8s in ITR are.....remote.

Bad pun. The fat lady hasn't sung....

[JeffYoung]

So the reservoir is .... half full?

[jimmyc]

for the rx8 can the ITAC work bacwards from information that exists currently?

GAC has them at 2650 DRY. Against a strut baised 220whp FF 145ft/lbs car coming in at 2500 dry. And a DWS baise 220whp FF 165ft/lbs car coming in at 2600 dry.

I have some incar of a TSX and a RX8 at homestead, they look pretty evently matched on track, and yes i know on track should be used to class cars, but it is a starting point.


I'd say that 160whp number is a complete load of crap

[GKR_17]

We already have a starting point. The same one used for every ITR car. The stock hp from the manufacturer. Period.

Since you pulled in comparisons to GAC, look at the GAC Rx-8 (2650lbs) vs. the GAC BMW 330i (2875lbs). In ITR the 330i is 3290lbs, where should that put the Rx-8?
Or what about SCCA T3? The T3 Rx-8 is 50lbs heavier than the T3 Honda S2000. In ITR the S2000 is 3005 lbs.

As for the original topic - per May fastrack OE (and only OE) RR's are legal.

[dj10]

for the rx8 can the ITAC work bacwards from information that exists currently?

I'd say that 160whp number is a complete load of crap

The more I think about this and I've seen RX8's running pretty much in IT trim, I seconded this 160rwhp # as a load of crap too. I don't believe they are 220 hp either, probably somewhere in the middle. I'd have to see 1st hand to believe the 160#.

[jimmyc]

We already have a starting point. The same one used for every ITR car. The stock hp from the manufacturer. Period.

Since you pulled in comparisons to GAC, look at the GAC Rx-8 (2650lbs) vs. the GAC BMW 330i (2875lbs). In ITR the 330i is 3290lbs, where should that put the Rx-8?
Or what about SCCA T3? The T3 Rx-8 is 50lbs heavier than the T3 Honda S2000. In ITR the S2000 is 3005 lbs.

As for the original topic - per May fastrack OE (and only OE) RR's are legal.

the BMW is a good comparison, but i'd have to look over the allowances for the BMW. I think they are restricted to the hilt. More so then they would be in IT.

[lateapex911]

Correct. comparing cars from different sanctioning bodies running different rules (esp pro series rules which can change mid season, or even week to week, is dangerous.

However,the point about the RX-8 and the S2000 having similar characteristics is quite valid.

[GKR_17]

Correct. comparing cars from different sanctioning bodies running different rules (esp pro series rules which can change mid season, or even week to week, is dangerous.

However,the point about the RX-8 and the S2000 having similar characteristics is quite valid.

Absolutely correct. Just don't forget that it's equally dangerous to use the dyno data from one of those pro teams (who will make more money if the car gets classed light).

[JeffYoung]

But what do you do when the manufacturer's horsepower data is widely recognized as wrong? I truly don't have a dog in the fight and could care less what the car is classed at so long as it is right.

There's a fair amount of data showing the car stock making 165 whp, some more. There's other data that shows this is correctable via the ECU, and even more than says it is not.

I'm lost on this one. The car needs to be in R, and it needs to be there at the right weight. So what do we do with such conflicting information?

[GKR_17]

Let's be clear, when the Rx-8 was introduced, Mazda claimed it had 247hp. Just before delivery, the ECU was remapped to meet new emissions regs. There was significant controversy over the actual power output and Mazda revised the rating to 238. It seems the vast majority of complaints died off at that point. In 2005 the SAE updated their requirements on how hp is certified (and now includes independent observation). Using the new standard, the published number was reduced to 232 for 2006 and later models (with no changes to the engine). I think any claim that the stock power is less than 232 is ludicrous. Every other ITR car was classed based on stock numbers, there is no reason to deviate from that now.

I've pointed this out before, but I'd like to reiterate that while the dyno data submitted did show low output, it also showed 14% gain with only intake and exhaust work. It is clear this car should see significant further gains from ECU mods since all the emissions work can be undone.

Here are a few numbers from the process (assume net zero adders - all attributes positive except torque, made up for by best in class transmission):

238hp with 25% gain -> 3350 lbs (this is the standard process)
238hp with 20% gain -> 3210 lbs
238hp with 15% gain -> 3080 lbs (this is the lowest gain multiplier used on any car)

Now to be extremely generous, use the 2006 rating at 232:

232hp with 20% gain - > 3130 lbs

While I agree that on track data should not be used for classification purposes, it is worth noting that an ITR Rx-8 should weigh around 3050 lbs after direct comparison with other ITR eligible cars also running in either T3 or Grand Am.

The Rx-8 proponents claim the car should weigh somewhere between 2700 and 2800 lbs.

Tell me, who is unreasonable here?

[Knestis]

Everyone...? :026:

Just kidding there. Mostly.

I've seen it first hand so can say with confidence that the ITAC members understand all too well who benefits from what decision. The first assumption is that everyone is looking out for their patch, and we do get some really interesting input from members willing to "help." It all gets considered but with the recognition of the interests behind those providing.

K