March 09 Fast Track

[JoshS]

In this month's Fastrack there is a submittal to "Allow the removal of the windshield washer system" and was submitted by Hullinger –the response to this request is “This is outside of the parameters of the class philosophy”….I know where the Purpose and Intent of Improved Touring are documented within the GCR. The only reference to "philosophy" (that I have found) is in the reference to the statement "that we will give you a place to race you car and have fun, but not guarantee that you will be competitve". I have never seen a documented statement titled "Philosophy or Parameter of the Class Philosophy". Please let me know where such a document can be found so that we can use it as a reference for future submittals. I am sure that many competitors in Area 3 would like to be made aware of the IT class philosophy”. We are being indoctrinated that words "shall" mean something. If this is the case I would like to familarize myself with the said "class philosophy" . Now if no such document or statement on philosophy exists, then the rationale for rejecting this request is invalid. Therefore Mr/Ms Hullinger should be given the courtesy of a more creditable response from the CRB or the ITAC why their request was rejected. Any member of SCCA who submits a "rules change request" should be given the courtesy of a creditable, logical, rationale response. Not some nebulous, meaningless statement in response.
Respectfully , David Ellis-Brown

Dave,

The CRB writes the actual responses that appear in Fastrack. But when the ITAC discussed this as well as the similar letters that you have written, basically we felt that these rules are not difficult to meet, and there's no compelling reason to change.

After a member's letter has been acted on, any member is welcome to contact an ITAC member directly and ask about the discussion that occurred around that letter.

Josh

[jjjanos]

In this month's Fastrack there is a submittal to "Allow the removal of the windshield washer system" and was submitted by Hullinger –the response to this request is “This is outside of the parameters of the class philosophy”….I know where the Purpose and Intent of Improved Touring are documented within the GCR.

Removal is useful, not necessary therefore not consistent with class philosophy.

9.1.3.B (First sentence)
"It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car."

Which is a total and complete load of horse dung. Most of what we are allowed to do to the cars do not satisfy both of those requirements - useful and necessary simultaneously.

Necessary - cage, racing seat, belts, tow hooks, fire extinguisher (what a minute, we aren't allowed to have that last one.)
Useful - everything else in the rulebook, plus those safety items.

Off the top of my head...
Alternate final drives? Useful, check. Necessary, no.
Gut the interior? Useful, check. Necessary, no.
The allowable suspension mods? Useful, check. Necessary, no.
Non-stock intakes? Useful, check. Necessary, no.

In short, the statement that something is not consistent with class philosophy is meaningless. It amounts to nothing more than "Because we say so a/o because we are afraid of the parable of horribles."

[JoshS]

It amounts to nothing more than "Because we say so a/o because we are afraid of the parable of horribles."

And/or because there needs to be a good reason to make a change in order to make one.

[Knestis]

The philosophy of each and every category is manifest in the decisions applied by the Board, as informed by the recommendations the category's ad hoc committee.

From either my ITAC perspective, or from my point of view as a member/racer, the philosophy if IT is pretty darned consistent and clear. Yes, no question - there have been decisions over the quarter century existence of IT that seem (to me, others, even a majority perhaps in some instances) to be inconsisent with that philosophy, but I daresay that isn't the real issue here.

The problem is that no matter how clear the philsophy-in-action is, there will always be some folks who would prefer that the philosophy - broadly stated or in detail - be DIFFERENT than it is. For one to say that he doesn't understand something that's been explained over and over, in both words and actions, is disingenuous if in fact the issue is that one disagrees with that philosophy.

More specifically, David, it's been my experience that if someone doesn't agree with the substance of a decision, no amount of explanation is going to change that or assuage their irritation at being told "no." We WILL get another request, some time in the next 12 months, to change the rules to allow the removal of something that the rules require stay in place. As Josh points out, unless there is a really compelling reason to make the change (removing vent windows to facilitate egress from cars, made harder with the advent of H&N devices comes to mind) the answer is going to be "no."

If someone makes a request KNOWING that has been the case in the past, and doesn't present compelling new information, then the problem is NOT that they don't understand the philosophy: It's taht they want to change it.

K

PS - ...and a clause in the ITCS that attempts to spell out this philosophy? It would only become fodder for word-parses trying to find an allowance somewhere. (e.g., "useful and necessary"). What is useful to one racer might not be useful to the category. The ITAC makes its recommendations to the board based on what we think is good for the entire group.

[frnkhous]

unfortunately I no longer have access to it but 210whp is the limit of the rx8(grand-am spec which is similar to it prep). You simply aren't gonna get a car that isn't ported to make more than that. Honestly I question whether it is even that strong. they make around 168-178whp from the factory(I think that is correct from memory) so it makes more than a 20% jump but it was overated by the factory and that could be proven. Dyno sheets from multiple people with low mileage stock cars could confirm. I'm sure some of you could witness the runs if you wanted. If you couldn't prove the overating from the factory i'd say you did the right thing to be leary of the 210whp numbers. Andy you have dyno numbers for grand-am mx5 i'm sure it has more torque than the rx-8's so you should have an idea what the power output would be on one.

[Ron Earp]

In 2005 the SAE introduced a new horsepower / torque reporting protocol with improved precision and accuracy. Manufactures now us the J1349 method:

http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/

What is the RX8 output of say a 2008 model (assuming they adopted the new standard and adopted it later than others)?

Ron

[JeffYoung]

Ron, it's a subject of great debate. The stock hp rating (even before the change of the SAE standards) was reduced by Mazda when it became clear the cars were not making the advertised power.

I've seen the 165 to 180 stock whp numbers as well, but have also seen written that the car's computer gets fooled by a dyno and doesn't fuel properly when on it.

It's a tough question all around.

[gran racing]

Why / how would a car get fooled by a dyno?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why / how would a car get fooled by a dyno?

Modern computer systems. Rumor has it that when the RX-8's computer senses a significant discrepancy between front and rear wheel speeds, like on a chassis dyno, it reigns in fuel and timing.

Never verified this but it certainly could be one of the reasons that the car only puts 170ish hp to the groung on most dynos. You also have to know what settings to change on your dyno in order to properly measure a 2-stroke.

[Ron Earp]

Yep, I'm aware the early models didn't have as much poke as Mazda claimed.

I say again, does Mazda now adhere to the new J1349 method and what is the hp output of the motor that adheres to the J1349 method?

The method didn't exist when the first RX8 came out. If Mazda now adheres to the J1349 standard then year models that adhere to the standard will produce the stated horsepower. Since updating and backdating are allowed the car could be classed on the J1349 certified number and the earlier information ignored.

Sure, it'd require competitors to make sure they have the "latest and greatest" stuff, but that is what we racers do anyhow.

[shwah]

Modern computer systems. Rumor has it that when the RX-8's computer senses a significant discrepancy between front and rear wheel speeds, like on a chassis dyno, it reigns in fuel and timing.

Never verified this but it certainly could be one of the reasons that the car only puts 170ish hp to the groung on most dynos. You also have to know what settings to change on your dyno in order to properly measure a 2-stroke.

You mean to properly track engine speed? Not if you use a dynapac and the gear ratios to measure engine speed rather than the ignition system. All your measuring is lb-ft, which are the same regardless of engine type, and calculating hp based on engine speed.

[Ron Earp]

Taken from a Mazda press release:

The 2006 Mazda RX-8 is available as either a 232-horsepower model fitted with a six-speed manual transmission, or the new 212-horsepower model fitted with a six-speed automatic with steering-wheel-mounted paddle shifters for a Formula 1-style driving experience.

Both horsepower figures are SAE J1349 Certified Power, which is a new method of rating vehicle power for 2006. The SAE J1349 is an automotive standard written by the Society of Automotive Engineers to provide manufacturers with a method of certifying the power of engines.

The press release can be found here:

http://rotarynews.com/node/view/757

So it would appear that it'd be a good bet to use the 232 horsepower figure for classification of the RX-8 starting with the 2006 model. Updating and backdating would allow 2004 MY RX-8s to use whatever it is the later models have to produce the J1349 certified horsepower.

[frnkhous]

Modern computer systems. Rumor has it that when the RX-8's computer senses a significant discrepancy between front and rear wheel speeds, like on a chassis dyno, it reigns in fuel and timing.

Never verified this but it certainly could be one of the reasons that the car only puts 170ish hp to the groung on most dynos. You also have to know what settings to change on your dyno in order to properly measure a 2-stroke.

or it could be that mazda was making excuses for a "240hp" car that only made 180 at the wheels max. Which is 25% drivetrain loss an I can only hope they didn't screw up that bad.

Sorry but i've seen the numbers speedsource and others that weren't speedsource cars in grand am and the dyno sheet is never more than 210. which makes 170-180 look reasonable. roughly 15% improvement in it trim would seem to make an adequate multiplier if you use the 180 number. Nother ridiculous about asking to be classed at that level. I'll see if I can get a buddy to send someone on the itac a nonspeedsource dyno sheet from a grand am car so that you can see it from multiple sources.

Sorry but I don't see how correcting for this car would have been smoke and mirrors back room deal, this was a well documented problem to the extent that I believe mazda gave money back to owners much like they did the the mx-5. Don't think this was in any way being hidden. I really like rx-8's(don't own one) and while I don't wanna race one I think they would be a relatively cost effective itr car to build.

If the info is put there and you guys are proven wrong by a legal car and promptly take action I don't know why somebody would get horribly upset. If someone could provide as much documentation that say the s2000 couldn't make it's power goal then I'd say the comparison would apply but I doubt you'll find s2000's in the state with as much power development work(in what amounts to IT trim) as the rx8.

[JeffYoung]

If you could that, that would be great.

Thanks.

Jeff

I'll see if I can get a buddy to send someone on the itac a nonspeedsource dyno sheet from a grand am car so that you can see it from multiple sources.

[seckerich]

Another good source is Charlie Shatzen at Mazcare in Atlanta. He is very active with the RX8 club and tunes a lot of cars for track duty. Most of the sheets I have seen are in the 195-199 range. Dual use cars with intake and exhaust mods but stock computer. All done on the dynojet at Speedlab. PM me if you need contact information. All the Speedsource cars were originally done with Motec M600 and full Grand Am (and IT) legal mods so they make slightly more. I will provide those for a data point. If anyone has dyno results that either support or disclaim the numbers we are posting, please send them to the ITAC and be ready to back them up. No smoke and mirrors or back room deals, lets just get real numbers and let the chips fall.

[Knestis]

... So it would appear that it'd be a good bet to use the 232 horsepower figure for classification of the RX-8 starting with the 2006 model. Updating and backdating would allow 2004 MY RX-8s to use whatever it is the later models have to produce the J1349 certified horsepower.

This is interesting but the idea is complicated by our age/eligibility rule. With the VIN rule gone, it's possible to build a race care out of a 2006 MY RX8 but it has to meet the specifications (all part numbers and spec's, the whole ball o' wax) of one that's among the years listed in the ITCS.

K

[Duc]

Modern computer systems. Rumor has it that when the RX-8's computer senses a significant discrepancy between front and rear wheel speeds, like on a chassis dyno, it reigns in fuel and timing.

That happens, run a new Mustang on a single wheel dyno and they will get different power ratings than a 4wd dyno. I will see if someone I know has run an RX8 on a 4wd and gotten a difference.

[GKR_17]

Most of the sheets I have seen are in the 195-199 range. Dual use cars with intake and exhaust mods but stock computer. All the Speedsource cars were originally done with Motec M600 and full Grand Am (and IT) legal mods so they make slightly more.

The original Rx-8 proposal included a dyno sheet that you said was from a full prep Grand-Am car. That sheet showed under 197 hp max. Now you say it's 'slightly' more than 199. I've heard there's a lot to gain in the computer, what exactly is 'slightly'? This is precisely why we shouldn't be using competitor supplied dyno data.

Regardless, there is absolutely no evidence that this car isn't competitve as is. The T3 Rx-8's (at the same spec weight) seem to run good ITR times, and they should be significantly faster with the increased mods allowed in IT.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Regardless, there is absolutely no evidence that this car isn't competitve as is. The T3 Rx-8's (at the same spec weight) seem to run good ITR times, and they should be significantly faster with the increased mods allowed in IT.

Just to validate your assertion...can you provide track records for a few tracks on that? Please also provide the ITS records so we can see if the ITR record is soft. We don't have maybe more than one ITR record up here that is faster than the ITS record - yet. Still a young class here.

[Knestis]

An IT Haiku by Kirk

Lap times mean bupkes
Lack of speed can't be proven
A fruitless pursuit

K