Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 22

Thread: Why is the 12a so heavy in STL??

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Westminster, CO, USA
    Posts
    63

    Default Why is the 12a so heavy in STL??

    Just a couple of questions and thoughts. Why is the 12a approved at 2600 in STL. That seems way to heavy to me. Also, what do you guys think about allowing the 13B non ported into STL?

  2. #2
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Because they make infinity horsepowers. We learned that back in the '80s, beat Mazda to death with our knowledge, and suffered their "death of a million Miatas" as a result. History. Know it or repeat it.



    K

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Westminster, CO, USA
    Posts
    63

    Talking

    and zero torque.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,346

    Default

    Can't give you the "official" reason for that weight (I don't know it) but I can tell you that from personal experience rotaries really wake up with porting (I built a Racing Beat/Holley-equipped and -ported RX that would keep up with a Porsche Turbo in a straight line to 100 mph). So that wold be why no porting is allowed (if you want porting, STU beckons).

    And I don't buy the "no torque" argument, especially since the masses seem to think that STL will be a "Honda class", a manufacturer not exactly known for its massive torque output (what was my old sig line? "My Nissan's lugnuts have more torque than your Honda engine"...?)

    Let's also not forget that it's perfectly legal to toss that engine into a Miata chassis...

    Finally, note the car is legal in STU in IT prep and weight (but I recognize that's not really what you want).

    Given that ST is pretty much on a clean slate right now (moving away from World Challenge VTS sheets and towards its own set of standalone prep rules) I'm not surprised there's some confusion and dissatisfaction vis-a-vis the Mazda 12A rotary. After all, it's a legacy engine and not really used by a high volume of competitors right now, so I'm guessing it's a low priority. However, if you're interested in seeing less weight considered, I'd recommend you submit a request with a reasonable weight that you think the engine should get (keeping in mind that Miata thing; in my mind all specific engine allowances/deviations should be done with the optimal chassis it could go into) with your support for that number (why you think that way). I'm confident it will warrant at least a reasonable consideration.

    GA
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,082

    Default

    2. The Mazda 12A is permitted at 2600 lbs; porting is not permitted.

    2. All cars shall use the installed engine’s stock air metering device (e.g., throttle body) and intake manifold, unless noted otherwise.

    What am I missing
    dick patullo
    ner scca IT7 Rx7

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dickita15 View Post
    What am I missing
    Was that directed at me, Dick? I'm not sure what your question is...?

    To summarize:

    - The 12A-equipped RX-7 is allowed in STU in ITA trim (no porting) at 2280# (since the chassis was built through 1985).
    - The 12A engine is allowed in STU with "street porting" at 2350#
    - The 12A engine is allowed in STL with no porting at 2535# (changed Dec Fastrack).

    If anyone thinks these should be lower, please do submit a request for the weight you think it should be to the CRB at http://www.crbscca.com.

    GA
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  7. #7
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CT/NY/NJ
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Knestis View Post
    Because they make infinity horsepowers. We learned that back in the '80s, beat Mazda to death with our knowledge, and suffered their "death of a million Miatas" as a result. History. Know it or repeat it.



    K
    Quote of the Month, if not the year!
    Chris Rallo "the kid"
    -- "wrenching and racing" -- "will race for food!" -- "Onward and Upward"

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Greg Amy View Post
    Was that directed at me, Dick? I'm not sure what your question is...?

    To summarize:

    - The 12A-equipped RX-7 is allowed in STU in ITA trim (no porting) at 2280# (since the chassis was built through 1985).
    - The 12A engine is allowed in STU with "street porting" at 2350#
    - The 12A engine is allowed in STL with no porting at 2535# (changed Dec Fastrack).

    If anyone thinks these should be lower, please do submit a request for the weight you think it should be to the CRB at http://www.crbscca.com.

    GA
    Not directed at you specifically Greg , although I applaud you taking the role of publicly furthering these discussions. The original posters question was why the 12a was so heavy in STL. In that class I have not found any allowances for porting of a carb change. As far as I know there are no allowances that would let the car make any more power that it does in ITA/IT7. Given that like the original poster I am not sure why the cars was speced in STL at 255 pounds more than the IT car. Hence my question, what am I missing.
    dick patullo
    ner scca IT7 Rx7

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    CT/NY/NJ
    Posts
    1,157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dickita15 View Post
    Not directed at you specifically Greg , although I applaud you taking the role of publicly furthering these discussions. The original posters question was why the 12a was so heavy in STL. In that class I have not found any allowances for porting of a carb change. As far as I know there are no allowances that would let the car make any more power that it does in ITA/IT7. Given that like the original poster I am not sure why the cars was speced in STL at 255 pounds more than the IT car. Hence my question, what am I missing.
    +1
    Chris Rallo "the kid"
    -- "wrenching and racing" -- "will race for food!" -- "Onward and Upward"

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Westminster, CO, USA
    Posts
    63

    Default

    Yea I was basically wondering why a 12a RX7 has to weigh way more then ITA trim if you run it in STL? I was looking at the 1.8 Integra GSR which is classified in ITS, it gets to lose more then 200 lbs in STL trim. I know you can put these engines into different cars (like the miata with the rotary or the crx with the GSR motor) but, it seems like the 12a is still way to heavy. That was basically my point. Unless I'm missing something?

    What I would really like to do is run my ITS RX7 non ported 13B in STL or possibly build a 1st gen rx7 for STL but, if the 12a has to weigh 2600 then I'm just wondering what they would make the 13b run at? 3000 lbs. ?? I know this class is new and everything and not trying to bash the rules. Just trying to figure out what the thought process is on everything. Oh and I must have missed the weight change to 2535 lbs. but, it still seems a little high compared to other cars in the class.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Houston-ish
    Posts
    932

    Default

    That's because they make a million horsepowers.

    (sorry.. couldn't help it. I have nothing constructive to add to the thread.)

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    raymond NH
    Posts
    623

    Default

    You can say its 2535 all day,but its really 2600 once you add 2.5% for RWD. WOW a 320# weight reward cause I dont run a Honda. If I had a Honda I get to lose weight from my IT car.

    Still Missing Something???? Ready, Fight

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    The rotards weights are WAY off. Just pull them from the rules if this is the best ya can do!

    As has been pointed out, the car weighs a ton MORE in STL all while making no more power. When looking at the potential power to weights, it would make sense to allow the 13B WITH a street port - at 2600...and it still barely fits. Given the stock intake and AMD, around 190whp-200whp TOPS?

    Probably a great place for ITS RX-7's but 250lbs of ballast in a Miata doesn't sound all that great for the trouble.

    Suggestions:

    12A - street port @ 2400
    13B - street port @ 2600
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Purcellville, VA USA
    Posts
    902

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AS-RACER View Post
    Just a couple of questions and thoughts. Why is the 12a approved at 2600 in STL. That seems way to heavy to me. Also, what do you guys think about allowing the 13B non ported into STL?
    Short answer..... "We F'd Up!" Working at fixing it. Stay tuned!
    Chris "The Cat Killer" Childs
    Angry Sheep Motorsports
    810 417 7777
    angrysheepmotorsports.com

    IT,SM,SS,Touring, and Super Touring

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,082

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Rabbit07 View Post
    Short answer..... "We F'd Up!" Working at fixing it. Stay tuned!
    Thank you Chris, that is the answer I was looking for, nothing else really made any sense.

    I assume the fix would be to allow something for more power at the higher weight, some porting and or an alternate carb.

    Anybody know what an unported 12a can make with a Holley and an Racing beat intake.
    dick patullo
    ner scca IT7 Rx7

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    raymond NH
    Posts
    623

    Default

    According to tGA, a millon billon horsepower. I have no data to support my argument and Im wasting company time.

    How about a 2bbl Holly 2300 carb and an adapter to a stockish intake,since we are asking.

    Dan 77 IT7

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,346

    Default

    Dan, when I was messing with rotaries, there weren't any such thing as chassis dynos. Then I grew up, quit building model airplanes, and began messing with REAL car engines...



    tGA
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AS-RACER View Post
    Yea I was basically wondering why a 12a RX7 has to weigh way more then ITA trim if you run it in STL? I was looking at the 1.8 Integra GSR which is classified in ITS, it gets to lose more then 200 lbs in STL trim. I know you can put these engines into different cars (like the miata with the rotary or the crx with the GSR motor) but, it seems like the 12a is still way to heavy. That was basically my point. Unless I'm missing something?
    Yea, I figured they hated the sound of the rotary up there in the STL rulesmakers offices.
    It made no sense otherwise! An ITS car making 185hp, LOSES 200 ponds, while an ITA car making 125 (SIXTY less!) GAINS 320!! That's a 500 pound swing! So the ALREADY faster ITS car goes even FASTER, while the Slower than ITA car goes even SLOWER. Hahaha....somebody clearly hates the rotaries!!

    In other SCCA classes they allow "street porting", and have a tightly controlled easily available template that is used. Power output is well known. I'd suggest contacting members of that AdHoc (The STAC will have the CRB liasons on the call who can facilitate this).

    On this board, Steve Eckridge is familiar with the template and expected outputs, IIRC.
    Further, I'd suggest classifying both the 13B and the 12A, as the 12A parts are very difficult to get these days. The 13B at a reasonable weight is going to be the better draw. I think the ITS 13B would be a good candidate as is. No porting needed. The 12A though, would require porting as nearly any Mazda chassis would be impossible to make weight with, IF the weight was to be competitive.
    Last edited by lateapex911; 11-29-2010 at 08:41 PM.
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Black Rock, Ct
    Posts
    9,594

    Default

    This last post has made me think.

    HOW does the STAC set weight? here's a case in point:
    We know the Integra will weigh 180 lbs or so LESS than it would in ITS. Fine. So it should be faster than ITS. We know it's power. (And it gets to make some other changes, but lets ignore those for now).

    Now, take a ITS 13B rotary. What do you make IT weigh? Well, the engines are very close in curves/hp/tq. The 13B (in ITS/ST trim) comes a leeetle short, but, for giggles, lets make it a wash. So, it would weigh the same as the integra, right? Plus 2.5% for RWD.

    So, whats the Integra in STL, 2420? 2420 + 2.5% = 2480?
    Now, if understand it, the assumption of the rules makers is that somebody will put that engine in the corporations best chassis. So, that be the Miata. So, a 2480 lb Miata? Now we're talking.
    Somehow, I see the PTB saying, "Hold on, don't think so". (*, and **)
    Fine, but how will extra weight be added?
    I HOPE the STAC comes up with a repeatable, empirical, documentable and systematic way of doing it.
    Otherwise, they are headed for trouble.
    If there's POOMAs going in, they better be ready to defend, and fix them.

    *Also, just as a reference point, there IS an ITS Miata and, in some pretty competent hands, it hasn't set the world on fire. It's classed at 2375, and makes 160 hp in race trim.
    ** I say that because I assume they will want to add weight because I have a hunch they are creating a FWD centric class. Now, I hope I'm wrong, or that the results we've seen thus far are merely random, with no actual intent. Because it's a cool ruleset, and i'd like to see it be as open as possible, give as many formats/manufacturers/cars an equal chance, and not aimed at any one demographic.
    Last edited by lateapex911; 11-29-2010 at 09:05 PM.
    Jake Gulick


    CarriageHouse Motorsports
    for sale: 2003 Audi A4 Quattro, clean, serviced, dark green, auto, sunroof, tan leather with 75K miles.
    IT-7 #57 RX-7 race car
    Porsche 1973 911E street/fun car
    BMW 2003 M3 cab, sun car.
    GMC Sierra Tow Vehicle
    New England Region
    lateapex911(at)gmail(dot)com


  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    raymond NH
    Posts
    623

    Default

    Yes Greg I know your one of the originals with rotaries. But there is just something about a motor with only 9 moveing parts thats cool. It does sound like crap though. Mufflers hide that.

    I believe it was Kurt you were working with,long before I met Tan Dan Fisher,Brian Holtz and the other rotor heads. Do you think you can come up with the answer to our question on the carbs. Holly 2300 2 bbl 500cfm max or holly 4 bbl racing beat style. What would the expected output be. I havent tried either combo as the Nikki seems to be working the best right now,and there was no reason to try any others,but they are getting scarce as well as complete engines and housings.

    I know what a bridge port and a Holly will do but thats a story for another date. Lets just say PDA had an issue with me at Lime Rock a bunch of years ago. Really,who waits for a point by from a 911. Thought he was gonna go faster than that.

    Dan 77 IT7
    Last edited by Dano77; 11-29-2010 at 10:29 PM.

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •