February Fastrack

[JeffYoung]

GUys with actual knowledge of the 1st gen RX7 also said it could never make its new ITA weight. Until Dick proved them wrong with an actual build.

The race weight in R is close enough to the curb weight that it looks possible.

Untrue Ron. To me, it looks like guys with actual knowledge of MX-5 Cup and GAC cars have written in and asked that the MX-5 be put in a class that it can actually make weight. That IS the classing philosophy and it applies to the MX-5. It will be a pig, but it will be a pig that can make weight.

The Boxster was just Ben having a brain-fart.

[tnord]

MX-5 has front hub issues that the lighter race weight should help with as well.

[Chip42]

MX-5 has front hub issues that the lighter race weight should help with as well.

"warts and all"

[tnord]

yeah yeah, i get it. but if it were ME running that car (and i had nothing to do with this decision btw..) i'd rather stretch to get to min weight and be a couple hundred pounds lighter than i would run heavy, slow, and paranoid about front hubs blowing up at Road Atlanta at the apex of T12.

[lateapex911]

GUys with actual knowledge of the 1st gen RX7 also said it could never make its new ITA weight. Until Dick proved them wrong with an actual build.

The race weight in R is close enough to the curb weight that it looks possible.

Not entirely true, Jeff, I have actual knowledge, and I was on the ITAC calls. I said, when the subject came up:
1- There seems to be some significant discrepancies about what 'equivalent' cars can weigh. Some guys say it can't be done, but they are wrong.
2- Dicks build was 'aggressive'
3- I think you CAN get an RX-7 to weight, BUT, it will take a comprehensive effort, and some higher expenses. I've gotten mine to 2100 empty. I can go 20...maybe 30 more, but that will cost me a super $$ seat to lose 8 pounds, and hollow sway bars to lose another 8, and a 6 hours easy of scraping and painting to lose the rear noise insulation worth 6 pounds. I could also lose about 6 pounds from switching from steel tailpipes to lighter alloys. So, maybe 28 total, but all but the seat is weight where I want it. (low, or to the rear, or to the right, or all three) And money out of my pocket, where I want IT!.

Which is exactly where I said we could be: At weight or slightly below, but with lots of effort and money.(Don't ask me about the %$&# hoops and $ I've spent on stupid light wheels. Grrrrr)

To me, the last 60 or 70 pounds is the hard part. Full body scrape, super light wheels, fastidious removal of all allowable components, expensive exhaust, expensive wheels, expensive seat, and on and on.

[tom91ita]

....To me, the last 60 or 70 pounds is the hard part. Full body scrape, super light wheels, fastidious removal of all allowable components, expensive exhaust, expensive wheels, expensive seat, and on and on.

full body scrape? are we talking liposuction now to get to the 180 # driver?

[dickita15]

Dicks build was 'aggressive'

Aggressive is kind. The car was a rotisserie build that took maybe 1000 hours. I was actually tying to prove it could not be done. I exploited every gray area I could do in order to drop weight. For instance the rules say you can remove the e brake so I ground every bracket off the frame that the e brake system used. I spent over 20 hours with the wiring harness on the bench to remove every wire that I thought the rules could interpret could go away. I used the lightest year body (early) but updated the front fenders and bumpers to late because they were lighter. I used an 8 gallon fuel cell that meant I ran out of fuel in the 45 minute race at Mid Ohio.

Jeff is right I proved it could be done if you accept all the judgments I made during the build. But even so should someone have to spend that kind of effort to get a car to weight? I really do not think it should be necessary in a class that has IT’s philosophy. It really is not something a sane person would do.

[lateapex911]

Aggressive is kind. .....
Jeff is right I proved it could be done if you accept all the judgments I made during the build. But even so should someone have to spend that kind of effort to get a car to weight? I really do not think it should be necessary in a class that has IT’s philosophy. It really is not something a sane person would do.

Yes, the RX-7 is a unique problem. It's a tweener of sorts. It got squeezed out of ITA in the mid to late 90s when the PTB added cars and blew the weights/performance. When we did the Great Reorg, there was only so much jamming the Genie back in the bottle that we could do. Weight got added to the cars that were misclassed too light, (who still cry 'foul, we should not be punished because we did a better job prepping")*, and removed from the cars that were classed to heavy. The RX-7 really can't get to the weight it needs to be to truly be competitive in A.
(If it wasn't for the existence of, and the popularity of IT-7, and the need to switch wheels to a smaller width, it would be an ITB car.)

*I'm STILL hearing that, LOL

[RedMisted]

Jeff is right I proved it could be done if you accept all the judgments I made during the build. But even so should someone have to spend that kind of effort to get a car to weight? I really do not think it should be necessary in a class that has IT’s philosophy. It really is not something a sane person would do.

Exactly. I've got a Mustang that will never make its 2670 minimum weight.

I'm at the point where sanity and insanity begin to blur.

I'm qualifying at only 104-105% (ave.) of the fastest ITR cars.

I'm currently at 2935, should be able to get another 70 pounds out of the car. That's if I desire to spend several thousand dollars replacing the cage with lighter chrome moly, getting an ultra-light seat, replacing the panhard bar with some other rear axle locating device, and scraping/pulling what VERY little is left to remove.

I'm not in this sport to screw around, drink beer and dilly-dally in the paddock. I want to raise hell at the front.

But it sure won't be in my car...

No tears for me, please. I'm the guinea pig in the Great 3.8 Mustang ITR Experiment.

[JoshS]

On the wheels thing -- sorry Jeff, but you've got some things wrong.

The request that was the genesis of the Fastrack question was to allow smaller wheels than stock on the Protege MP3 (which is not an ITR car). Stock was 17". The easy answer is "no" since as a general practice we are not wild about line-item exceptions ... but it got to a pretty involved conversation about the current rule and its seemingly arcane complexity which probably doesn't accomplish much. If anything was to change, the idea was that simplifying the rule would probably be the best approach. Eventually we got ourselves all twisted around in circles and it was suggested by a CRB member that we ask all of you for input.

The current rules state, basically (the wording is more complex than this in the book):

In ITR: you can use ANY SIZE up to 17". If your car came with larger than 17", you can use that.

In ITS/ITA/ITB/ITC: You cannot use smaller than stock, and stock is the size listed on the spec line. You can use a larger size up to 15" if stock was less than 15". If stock was more than 15", then you are limited to that size.

[dickita15]

You know on the wheel thing I am not sure why we need to restrict diameter at all. In some categories they are use wheel size to control brakes but that is not a factor for us. As has been said gearing is open anyway, ride height is already limited. I suppose you could argue whenever we add options we add to the testing cost of the full out efforts but I think we are more likely to see some people who can save by using more easily available or cheaper wheels and tires.

[JeffYoung]

I'm pretty sure that is exactly what I said -- request came in because a non-ITR car had stock wheels larger than 15".

I do agree the choice is between a blanket change to the rule, or line item exceptions.

We did briefly talk about gearing, and need to discuss that here, because it is one of the consequences of the rule change.

Andy/Jake/Dick -- my point was not t focus on the ITA RX7 specifically, but to use it as an example. Lots of people said it couldn't get to min weight and it did. The ITR MX-5 is close enough to curb weight that we think it possible it can do so in ITR.

Chris, no offense, but I've seen your car and there is a LOT of weight that can come out of that sucker! Talk to Ron. He seemed to think the 3.8 could get close to 2700ish.

On the wheels thing -- sorry Jeff, but you've got some things wrong.

The request that was the genesis of the Fastrack question was to allow smaller wheels than stock on the Protege MP3 (which is not an ITR car). Stock was 17". The easy answer is "no" since as a general practice we are not wild about line-item exceptions ... but it got to a pretty involved conversation about the current rule and its seemingly arcane complexity which probably doesn't accomplish much. If anything was to change, the idea was that simplifying the rule would probably be the best approach. Eventually we got ourselves all twisted around in circles and it was suggested by a CRB member that we ask all of you for input.

The current rules state, basically (the wording is more complex than this in the book):

In ITR: you can use ANY SIZE up to 17". If your car came with larger than 17", you can use that.

In ITS/ITA/ITB/ITC: You cannot use smaller than stock, and stock is the size listed on the spec line. You can use a larger size up to 15" if stock was less than 15". If stock was more than 15", then you are limited to that size.

[gran racing]

Is there any realistic way to calculate how much of a performance gain their is between using a 6" and 7" wide rim?

Too bad the RX7s aren't in B.

[RedMisted]

Chris, no offense, but I've seen your car and there is a LOT of weight that can come out of that sucker! Talk to Ron. He seemed to think the 3.8 could get close to 2700ish.

Well, much of what you saw is now gone. Also, I spent an entire day at a race prep shop creating a laundry list of things to do to reduce weight and the end result wasn't encouraging. Plus, I've had people with some SERIOUS racing and car building cred practically beg me not to throw any more money at the car, and one of them is a trusted friend who doubles as a valued sponsor.

Look, I'm not being negative, just realistic. I still get sporadic email inquiries from individuals interested in building one of these cars. I tell them to think carefully if they want to go the SN-95 Mustang route in ITR. But I also tell them that if they're looking to race a car in IT's fastest class that will be relatively dirt cheap to build and maintain, while putting down respectable, if not fast lap times, then look no further...

[GKR_17]

...replacing the cage with lighter chrome moly...

Chromoly is no lighter than mild steel. It's stronger so you can use less of it, but the GCR minimum tubing sizes are the same for all alloys - don't waste your money there.