May 2011 Fastrack

[JeffYoung]

You mean the 1st gen RX7 right?

This is totally different that what I am thinking for 'dual classing'. To me it's listing the same car, at its appropriate process weight in each of those classes...not the SAME weight.

Take my car (using 25% in all classes , not ever subscribing to the 30% multi-valve BS)

ITS: 2065
ITA: 2370
ITB: 2770 (wondering what kind of times my car would run with 425lbs of ballast)

But I say for tweeners and R to S and A to B because you would triple, or 4x or 5x the amount of weights in the GCR - AS WELL AS, force the CRB to allow a full calculation of every car. Besides the political BS, it's just not needed.

You don't need people cherry picking classes. In the case of the 2nd gen RX-7, the MR2, etc - go for it.

[Chip42]

spinnetti - what does your car weigh? I'm betting from your comments that it's about 2210, the old ITA weight - based on no known calculations. right now, if the car were to be processed in ITA using the standard multiplier, it would be 2030, unrealisticly low. All cars processed are assumed to be reasonably competitive based on power to weight in any class, but they pick the class that has the lowest realistic weight.
The pending ITB weight will be 2380 whenever that gets done (based on 125% of factory crank HP). If and when we (I sincerely hope that includes you) convince those still in need of convincing (certain CRB/ITAC members) to lower the power multiplier, you get more weight off, approaching or all the way to what was shown in andy's post earlier (2190). in short, you stand to LOOSE 20# total. and you'd still run with the ITA guys if your region groups ITB/A.

If you join the other 4AGE racers who care to see the process fully utilized, and argue for use of the known horsepower clause in the ITAC operations manual, you could wind up in a better position than you are in now, keeping all of your years of developement, and help others with simillar powerplants.

If ITB is a good place for these cars, and I bvelieve that it is, then getting them correctly classed in ITB will help keep the cars active, which will keep knowledgebases and parts sources going as well. we might even attract new 4AGE racers!

I know wheels are pricey, but you can get 4, 14x6, 4 on 100 K1TS koseis for ~$500, so it's not the end of the world, but the loss of a weekend. in the mean time, go ahead and use up the tires you have in ITB - trust me, in a good field the car wont podium anyway at its current weight. If anyone is running for points, offer to waive your points as you're just there for fun anyhow. sell your 14 or 15x7 panasports (they will sell, and for good money) and you'll come out even, if not ahead.

regarding other active IT Corolla GTS cars: I know for a fact that there are 2 in the SEDIV/CFR running around, a red one and a white one. both were A cars, I haven't seen the white one since the move down to B, but I became a dad just over a year ago and haven't been around as much as I would like. the white one was a pretty well developed car, running mid-pack in ITA.

[Chip42]

with regard to dual classing:

cars like the civic/CRX/del sol exist in multiple classes all over IT for any given body style due to the range of engines. simillar truth for BMW 3 series and celica/corolla.

thus "visual understanding" is a void argument.

I think dual classing should not be done except in VERY specific and special cases, like the creation of ITR. if a car cannot make weight/hp in it's class, and that is proven to the satisfaction of the ITAC/CRB, then reprocess it as appropriate. it's hard enough to keep up with errors and omissions as it is, why double the number of spec lines?

the wheel change arguemnt has merit, but no one has proposed a universally accepted solution to it, so certain entrants bite the bullet when their cars move accross lines. in cases where the car has a common bolt circle and wheel size, the sell off / buy new equation should work out so that it is less painful.

however - I think racing upclass should be allowed so long as the car conforms to the published ITCS spec line (i.e. an ITB car runs in ITA but keeps its 6" wheels and runs it's ITB weight). This poses no threat to strong competitors, and allows cars in spinnettis situation to run in a group he is comfortable with, or where there might be some competition. Class labeling will be tricky though. this decision shouldn't even affect the ITAC, it should be a decision for any region that wishes to allow it. if a driver in a car places well in the seasonal points, upclass, well then good for him - probobly not a very strong class in general.

[dickita15]

I just do not get the whole fear if confusion thing. Most all our races are alphabet soup now. If the goal was to not confuse the casual observer I think that ship has sailed. We are a participant driven sport. We need to let people race what they want as long as it is not unfair or unsafe. Now that we have a process that fairly classes cars what is the problem if a member asks for his car to be classed in a different class.

[Spinnetti]

spinnetti - what does your car weigh? I'm betting from your comments that it's about 2210, the old ITA weight - based on no known calculations. right now, if the car were to be processed in ITA using the standard multiplier, it would be 2030, unrealisticly low. All cars processed are assumed to be reasonably competitive based on power to weight in any class, but they pick the class that has the lowest realistic weight.
The pending ITB weight will be 2380 whenever that gets done (based on 125% of factory crank HP). If and when we (I sincerely hope that includes you) convince those still in need of convincing (certain CRB/ITAC members) to lower the power multiplier, you get more weight off, approaching or all the way to what was shown in andy's post earlier (2190). in short, you stand to LOOSE 20# total. and you'd still run with the ITA guys if your region groups ITB/A.

If you join the other 4AGE racers who care to see the process fully utilized, and argue for use of the known horsepower clause in the ITAC operations manual, you could wind up in a better position than you are in now, keeping all of your years of developement, and help others with simillar powerplants.

If ITB is a good place for these cars, and I bvelieve that it is, then getting them correctly classed in ITB will help keep the cars active, which will keep knowledgebases and parts sources going as well. we might even attract new 4AGE racers!

I know wheels are pricey, but you can get 4, 14x6, 4 on 100 K1TS koseis for ~$500, so it's not the end of the world, but the loss of a weekend. in the mean time, go ahead and use up the tires you have in ITB - trust me, in a good field the car wont podium anyway at its current weight. If anyone is running for points, offer to waive your points as you're just there for fun anyhow. sell your 14 or 15x7 panasports (they will sell, and for good money) and you'll come out even, if not ahead.

regarding other active IT Corolla GTS cars: I know for a fact that there are 2 in the SEDIV/CFR running around, a red one and a white one. both were A cars, I haven't seen the white one since the move down to B, but I became a dad just over a year ago and haven't been around as much as I would like. the white one was a pretty well developed car, running mid-pack in ITA.

Thanks for all the info. I don't know all about the % thing or the process to determine weight, so I'm not sure what to write the CRB with or how to support you in that.

Interesting how the math turned out. I'm pretty sure I know exactly how the weight was originally set, but I'll save that for another day. My car was exactly 2030 without driver prior to my last updates (more cage tubes) and right on 2210 with me in it as it sits (though I've gained weight since). So ITA process weight would be 2030 WITH driver? - yeah, no chance of hitting that. Its such a huge swing to go from 2030 to 2380 (I'm assuming with driver in both cases). It would be like dancing with ankle weights. No thanks.

After some reflection, I finally understand why I'm all fussy. Its not about the process, it being a good idea or not, or if I have a chance to win or not. Its about not having a choice and being impacted both from my long history with the car and financially. Imagine the city suddenly put in new streetlights, sidewalks etc. for the good of your neighbors then slaps you with a $3,000 bill you never knew was coming and had no say in. I think everybody is acting in good faith, I just don't like it.

PS
My Panasports are the ultralights, and unique to RWD Toyota's and 240Z's, not not like lots of people are looking for them. If I downgrade, I still want the best/lightest wheels I can find, so it will be 'spensive and I don't want to. The 6"- 7" thing is dumb anyway - its an arbitrary limit to try to differentiate the class. The "fit within the fenders" should be enough, but one whine at a time

[gran racing]

Dick, I know I've said it before but I'm really glad you are on the BOD of this club. And in addition to that, still express your views on places like this forum.

If the goal was to not confuse the casual observer

Agreed, we're participant based but also understand the dual, but not really all dual classification, will make people wonder why. SM, SSM, SM2 (I have yet to figure that one out lol). SCCA is a confusing place. Not saying other clubs aren't, but I'm an SCCA guy so that where my focus is.

[Chip42]

Thanks for all the info. I don't know all about the % thing or the process to determine weight, so I'm not sure what to write the CRB with or how to support you in that.

www.crbscca.com
I request or suggest you write in regarding these things (in separate letters):
1- you car, its weight, prep level, horsepower, etc... details on the build, particularly with regard to the motor are desired. this is less for you, now, then it is for the rest of the 4AGE set. one thing we're "missing" is a fully developed IT 4AGE. And don't be offended if you are told that yours is only 80-90%. that last 10% is serious territory. Whatever we can add to the body of knowledge will help all of us with this engine. I thank you for your help.

2- write in stating your desire to have the Corolla GTS moved back to ITA. I expect that if they do they will recalculate the weight as I stated, but it would be back where you want it. this wouldn't be the first time different cars with the same motor straddled classes. see 1ZZ-FE celica GT (ITA) / MR2 Spyder (ITS) or the 2ZZ-GE Corolla XRS (ITS) / Celica GTS (ITR). it's all about power/weight for the package.

PS - if you don't have dyno data for #1, let me know and I'll try to help out with the costs. I'm dead serious about that.

[StephenB]

Makes total sense Mr. P.! Even though it doesn't affect me personally I am going to send in a letter later tonight when I get home (Can't do it from a phone on the SCCA site) I am doing it because of my moral beliefs and encourage others to do so as well even if it doesn't affect you it probably affects someone you probably race with.

Stephen

I have not had a single letter I have ever written make it to fast track but maybe this one will make it

CRB Letter Tracking Number #5335

Stephen

[Spinnetti]

www.crbscca.com
I request or suggest you write in regarding these things (in separate letters):
1- you car, its weight, prep level, horsepower, etc... details on the build, particularly with regard to the motor are desired. this is less for you, now, then it is for the rest of the 4AGE set. one thing we're "missing" is a fully developed IT 4AGE. And don't be offended if you are told that yours is only 80-90%. that last 10% is serious territory. Whatever we can add to the body of knowledge will help all of us with this engine. I thank you for your help.

2- write in stating your desire to have the Corolla GTS moved back to ITA. I expect that if they do they will recalculate the weight as I stated, but it would be back where you want it. this wouldn't be the first time different cars with the same motor straddled classes. see 1ZZ-FE celica GT (ITA) / MR2 Spyder (ITS) or the 2ZZ-GE Corolla XRS (ITS) / Celica GTS (ITR). it's all about power/weight for the package.

PS - if you don't have dyno data for #1, let me know and I'll try to help out with the costs. I'm dead serious about that.

Well, is process weight in A 2030 with driver? If so, its a moot point. It'll never hit that... that is its empty weight.

I have not dynoed, and its got 20hrs or so on it but I've been meaning to. Somebody recently stole my nice Aluma trailer (uninsured) so I'm not going anywhere for a while. Its pretty straight forward - just .040 over, Compression close to the limit, cam timing corrected, match ported, balanced very well, total seal rings if I remember right, RC blueprinted injectors, TRD header, reasonable sized crank pulley, TRD ignition wires, Jacobs coil, Indexed Iridium plugs, supra fuel pump and 0-40 synthetic. That's about it other than desmog. I thought that was pretty standard stuff? Tuning doesn't seem to do jack on these motors, so its a stock computer, though I'd like to be able to adjust timing. I've considered going with an aftermarket computer, but haven't seen any evidence it helps this engine so far. I also played with fuel pressure a bit, but went back to stock. I had a "pro" build it (Wayne Snyder in Michigan - autocross guy with a automotive machine shop)... I don't know if that makes it a 60% or a 90%, but back in the day the MR2's had a hard time keeping up, though the other Corollas were slower than the MR2's - dunno if that was prep and experience, or the car. I'm curious what legal things you can do beyond that (clearly I'm a noob on that - I didn't sort through 50 heads for the perfect one for instance). If I wanted to be really crazy, I'd omit the 2nd compression ring, or run it real loose, run wider bearing clearances, cheater "stealth" coatings etc. but I didn't do any of that. I'm no engine guy, so not sure how much further people go and still be in the rules. I read them pretty close, and I'm not much for "stretching" them. I think its pretty solid, but these things don't make squat for power. There's just no headroom without serious mods unlike the Honda's for instance.

[jjjanos]

This is totally different that what I am thinking for 'dual classing'. To me it's listing the same car, at its appropriate process weight in each of those classes...not the SAME weight.

Take my car (using 25% in all classes , not ever subscribing to the 30% multi-valve BS)

ITS: 2065
ITA: 2370
ITB: 2770 (wondering what kind of times my car would run with 425lbs of ballast)

Again, I must ask, why not? If you want to slap 425 lbs of ballast onto your car and increase wear on consumables and the equipment, why not? Isn't this somewhat analogous to what NASA does with their PT class, but instead of mods, this would be weight?

But I say for tweeners and R to S and A to B because you would triple, or 4x or 5x the amount of weights in the GCR - AS WELL AS, force the CRB to allow a full calculation of every car. Besides the political BS, it's just not needed.

Then limit it to moving "up" in classes to non-tweener cars. I'm interested in learning what ITR car would need to weigh 5 times its ITR weight to have the correct HP ratio for ITB. I would say the move from R to A would be about a 50% weight increase.

Now, if someone wants to throw 1000lbs of ballast in their car and can do that safely, why not?

But being listed in multiple IT classes is no guarantee that you'll be able to double or triple dip ... after all, here in SFR, we run all of the IT classes together in a single race group. It wouldn't help at all.

Some places it would help without adjusting run groups. Some places might need to split IT into 2 run groups to do it.

I'll say again that since race groupings are done by the regions, there's no reason that nationally-based classing should be considering "the ability to double-dip" when figuring out how a car should be classed.

EVERY car should be allowed to move up the ranking system as it sits. If someone wants to enter their HP-legal HP car as an EP car, let them. If the ACs have done their job, the car won't be competitive.

[lateapex911]

Josh is right about the whole double dipping aspect and that being a regional problem. But, Spin is right that maybe in his area the class he's moving into has 2 cars, and they are both ugly cars driven by idiots, LOL. And the class he's leaving is typically in another run group, has 20 cars average, and he has great races with a bunch of guys for 8th. In THAT case, DC has a huge benefit on him, and he can choose to douple dip as well, should he want to.

I'm with Dick. The whole "confusion" thing is a red herrring. We have Miatas in EVERY non formula car class in SCCA, and we somehow figure out how to explain it to the ONE spectator that actually shows up. We can handle some DC.

I THOUGHT the E36 had a sunset clause for ITS/ITR inclusion, like 5 years. I guess we discussed it but that never got implemented?

[StephenB]

I am confused on why anyone would actually think that confusion is a legitimate argument. I do agree with what Andy said about the workload of doing each car.

Stephen

[Spinnetti]

with regard to dual classing:
however - I think racing upclass should be allowed so long as the car conforms to the published ITCS spec line (i.e. an ITB car runs in ITA but keeps its 6" wheels and runs it's ITB weight). This poses no threat to strong competitors, and allows cars in spinnettis situation to run in a group he is comfortable with, or where there might be some competition.

Well, this would be no good for me, I'd still have to run a B car in A. That would suck even worse. More like this: If you run in the "default" class B, you run 6" wheels at B process weight. If you run at A, you run 7" wheels at A process weight. Can't hit A process weight? too bad! You want to Run in C? you run at C process weight...Basically what Andy was saying I think.

[JeffYoung]

I'm 100% sure you would see some gains from a tuneable ECU. It may not be top end but you can spend a lot of time and money expanding area under the curve which is just as important.

How about exhaust? Have you had Burns or some one do computer modeling on your exhaust/header/merge collector design? Decent gains there for most who have tried it.

Every time I think I'm at 90% or whatever development I've found 5 other things to do/try.

Well, is process weight in A 2030 with driver? If so, its a moot point. It'll never hit that... that is its empty weight.

I have not dynoed, and its got 20hrs or so on it but I've been meaning to. Somebody recently stole my nice Aluma trailer (uninsured) so I'm not going anywhere for a while. Its pretty straight forward - just .040 over, Compression close to the limit, cam timing corrected, match ported, balanced very well, total seal rings if I remember right, RC blueprinted injectors, TRD header, reasonable sized crank pulley, TRD ignition wires, Jacobs coil, Indexed Iridium plugs, supra fuel pump and 0-40 synthetic. That's about it other than desmog. I thought that was pretty standard stuff? Tuning doesn't seem to do jack on these motors, so its a stock computer, though I'd like to be able to adjust timing. I've considered going with an aftermarket computer, but haven't seen any evidence it helps this engine so far. I also played with fuel pressure a bit, but went back to stock. I had a "pro" build it (Wayne Snyder in Michigan - autocross guy with a automotive machine shop)... I don't know if that makes it a 60% or a 90%, but back in the day the MR2's had a hard time keeping up, though the other Corollas were slower than the MR2's - dunno if that was prep and experience, or the car. I'm curious what legal things you can do beyond that (clearly I'm a noob on that - I didn't sort through 50 heads for the perfect one for instance). If I wanted to be really crazy, I'd omit the 2nd compression ring, or run it real loose, run wider bearing clearances, cheater "stealth" coatings etc. but I didn't do any of that. I'm no engine guy, so not sure how much further people go and still be in the rules. I read them pretty close, and I'm not much for "stretching" them. I think its pretty solid, but these things don't make squat for power. There's just no headroom without serious mods unlike the Honda's for instance.

[Chip42]

Well, this would be no good for me, I'd still have to run a B car in A. That would suck even worse. More like this: If you run in the "default" class B, you run 6" wheels at B process weight. If you run at A, you run 7" wheels at A process weight. Can't hit A process weight? too bad! You want to Run in C? you run at C process weight...Basically what Andy was saying I think.

I say, get the listing right in B and it'll be effectively the same car, but with a chance of running up front.

your car's build sounds good, but not super developed. yeah, general knowledge is that the 4AGEs don't see gains. thats why we need those who have tried to let everyone know what was done and what the results were. what we should find at this point is area under the curve which, while nice, has no effect on the process weight, only peak hp. it will help drivability quite a bit though. I'm not going to tell you how far to build your car, that's up to you, but I'd say you're at ~70% with the list you gave.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Again, I must ask, why not? If you want to slap 425 lbs of ballast onto your car and increase wear on consumables and the equipment, why not? Isn't this somewhat analogous to what NASA does with their PT class, but instead of mods, this would be weight?

I am for dual classing and maybe for multi-classing but you seem to underestimate the amount of people who would be pissed that their thropgies whould be taken away by 'lesser' cars. It's not something I subscribe to but trust me, a lot of people only think about their own world.

moving "up" in classes to non-tweener cars. I'm interested in learning what ITR car would need to weigh 5 times its ITR weight to have the correct HP ratio for ITB. I would say the move from R to A would be about a 50% weight increase.

I worded it badly. If you have an ITR car and wanted to move 'down', you would have to publish 5 weights for the car should they want to run all the way through to ITC.

someone wants to throw 1000lbs of ballast in their car and can do that safely, why not?

Can you do that safely?

aces it would help without adjusting run groups. Some places might need to split IT into 2 run groups to do it.

EVERY car should be allowed to move up the ranking system as it sits. If someone wants to enter their HP-legal HP car as an EP car, let them. If the ACs have done their job, the car won't be competitive.

Again, moving up is not a problem and an easly 'do' as long as you stay at your GCR weight. That's not really what I am considering dual classing. DC is a published weight with specs in multiple classes (to me). Do it for the handful of tweeners and for cars that have to change wheels.

[Gary L]

DC is a published weight with specs in multiple classes (to me). Do it for the handful of tweeners and for cars that have to change wheels.

Or a line item note that allows 7" wheels on dual-classed ITA/ITB cars? A small weight adjustment (on the ITB listing) to make up the difference perhaps, and no one has to buy new wheels. I realize the culture is against line item exceptions, but I've never understood why. To me this is the simplest way out.

[jjjanos]

I am for dual classing and maybe for multi-classing but you seem to underestimate the amount of people who would be pissed that their thropgies whould be taken away by 'lesser' cars.

I think anyone who complains about losing a third place in ITB/A/S/R to an ITC car has bigger problems than losing a trophy.

I worded it badly. If you have an ITR car and wanted to move 'down', you would have to publish 5 weights for the car should they want to run all the way through to ITC.

OK, I get it now. How much work does that really entail? If the current process weight is taken as correct, a spreadsheet will back out the IT-trim HP for the car and the weights for the car in the slower classes.

Can you do that safely?

Depends, is the ballast SFI 8765.23 compliant? In theory, yes. Take the Accura Legend (cause it's one of the first listings).
Curb weight: 3516lbs + driver (175lbs?) = 3691lbs
Say the cage weighs 600 lbs. Since, I do not need to take anything off the car, the implication is that this car is "safe" at 4291lbs. A 50% increase over the ITR weight is only 4700 lbs or about 400lbs over what SCCA implicitly says is a safe weight for that car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Or a line item note that allows 7" wheels on dual-classed ITA/ITB cars? A small weight adjustment (on the ITB listing) to make up the difference perhaps, and no one has to buy new wheels. I realize the culture is against line item exceptions, but I've never understood why. To me this is the simplest way out.

I don't like this one because its just anothe SWAG in the process. I see no need.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think anyone who complains about losing a third place in ITB/A/S/R to an ITC car has bigger problems than losing a trophy.

Agreed, but the letters will come. I have seen them. It's amazing really.

Think of it this way. Guy X works his way to a podium in ITS. I come in to run extra groups. I take his 3rd. Is he pissed? Should I 'be' there? Is it clear to him that I 'should' be slower? The same arguements from people who 'love' their run-group can and don't want to be forced out can be used about people who are allowed in that never have been.

Just sayin'