August 2012 Fastrack

[pfrichardson]

...are posted:

http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472

[Greg Amy]

Thanks Pam!

(Not unexpected...)

Improved Touring
ITA
1. #8502 (Raymond Yergler) Explanation of Weight Increase for ITA 1.8 Miata The ITAC and CRB are aware of the numerous discussions related to the recent change in weight for the ITA 1.8 Miata. Both bodies wish to make it clear this was not "reward" weight. Rather, a majority of both bodies felt that the incorrect stock horsepower number was used when using the IT process for setting the weight on the car. This has been corrected, and the resulting weight is within a small margin of that produced by using actual horsepower figures from dyno testing of IT builds.

Hmmmm....what's this boy up to...?

ITR
1. #4181 (Demetrius Mossaidis) Classify the 2004‐06 Acura TSX in IT
Classify the Acura TSX in ITR as follows:

[StephenB]

I hate to say this but I think we need to have some type of communication to know if a letter is still being looked at or not. To be honest if a letter is over a year old the person that put in the request may no longer care and it may be waisting valuable time that the ITAC and CRB probably doesn't have.


Also who should I contact on the ITAC if they messed up giving an explanation on a letter that was submitted. I assume the ITAC makes up the verbage that goes into the fasttrack.

Thanks,
Stephen Blethen

[JeffYoung]

Danny Doern is the ITAC chair. His e-mail is on the SCCA website I think.

If not, post here and Chip or I will pick it up. What did we get wrong on the Audi?

[StephenB]

Jeff,

Thanks for the reply.
1.) The 2.3 ITA car has 10.0 compression.
2.) They didn't change the weight on the lower HP rated engine in ITB they left both engines on the same spec line rather than splitting them and put a random response to refer to another letter which had nothing to do with the request.

I am honestly focused on the RX8 nowadays so I don't want to waist to much of your time on it. a year ago I probably would have been more concerned. Either way we should fix it, I know a few people still racing coupes and the 2.2 listed is significantly a better engine but very difficult to come bye. It would be nice to have the option to use the other engine and still be able to keep up.

[Chip42]

There are a few different audi coupe motors in the coupe / coupe GT ITB classifications. Steven was looking at the 2.114L, not the 2.226L GT, and I swept that letter up with the rest of the Audi stuff by accident. I've already started internal dialogue on the ITAC forum to readress the smaller engine. I'll take the heat for that one, and I appologize to Steven or anyone else with an interest in the earlier Audi Coupe in ITB.

[tom91ita]

Chip,

fyi. i have no interest in the audi but certainly DO appreciate you being prompt and explaining what happened.

everyone can make a mistake but the folks that will admit it are few and far between.



thanks,

tom

[StephenB]

Chip, do me one BIG favor. Don't spend a lot of time on my behalf. If it becomes an internal argument then don't bother waisting resources on it. I WAS going to do more racing with the Audi but I can't afford to run the Audi and the RX8. If I ever do anything with it I am certainly not building a new engine (unless I blew it up!)

Thanks for the quick response and explanation,
Stephen

How should I go about fixing compression on the ITA car? We are considering that option for Raymonds car. In the past we knew it would never compete and never noticed the error but maybe we will reconsider it now

[Rabbit05]

Chip ,
Good catch on the letters ....mistakes happen.



Now that the board has the factory manual...I am just curious as to why nothing was done with the 2.2 coupes ?

I wonder who I can contact to get a copy of the information the board is using to determine HP ?

It would be great to set myself, and the other 1000's of Audi CGT owners, straight on the stock hp of the KX...

[JeffYoung]

John, I still have that manual -- did I promise it to you? I'll still send, just got lazy and didn't mail it.

Is the KX the same motor that is in the Blethen's car? If so, all factory documentation was 110 I think, except for that one factory service slide that said 120.

[Rabbit05]

Jeff,

Yes, I am certain they run the KX.

I am almost positive, I don't have the book with me, that from 84 to 87 Coupes came with the KX engine (110hp). The earlier cars , according to the 81 to 83 manual...these coupes came with a WE code motor (100 hp). The 87.5 is the "special coupe" that is in ITA , that has the 2.3 and fancy rear disc brakes.

A factory service slide , I'd like to see that ,if possible ? Could I get a picture or copy of it ? (please )


While I appreciate the offer of the manual, I dont really need another one. Maybe Steve or Ray wants it ...or I think maybe Greg A had some interest in it as well ? My garage is too small for another book.

[mossaidis]

Thanks Pam!

(Not unexpected...)

Hmmmm....what's this boy up to...?

Quote:
ITR
1. #4181 (Demetrius Mossaidis) Classify the 2004‐06 Acura TSX in IT
Classify the Acura TSX in ITR as follows:

Actually, it's the 04-08 TSX now! I also requested the 03-05 Accord as well. I think both are good candiates for IT, though the TSX over the Accord considering their IT classifications. There are GOBS of these cars out there and LOTS of aftermarket support - why not?!?!

[StephenB]

Actually, it's the 04-08 TSX now! I also requested the 03-05 Accord as well. I think both are good candiates for IT, though the TSX over the Accord considering their IT classifications. There are GOBS of these cars out there and LOTS of aftermarket support - why not?!?!

I am not a Honda guy but I think this is an awesome addition!
What about the new civics?

Stephen

[mossaidis]

I am not a Honda guy but I think this is an awesome addition!
What about the new civics?

Stephen

Thanks Stephen - The 06 civic Si is listed in GCR under ITS at 3000 lbs, albeit a little heavy IMO. Where you suggesting non-Si civic as well?

[preparedcivic]

I am not a Honda guy but I think this is an awesome addition!
What about the new civics?

Stephen

The only issue I see with the classification is I don't think a TSX is going to get anywhere near weight (2760 IIRC). Stock curb weight is 3150. Loosing the sunroof and interior will bring it down to 2650 at the least, then adding a cage and even an average weight driver puts it back to around 3000.

I think it makes way more sense as a heavy ITS car at that weight, which is what E46 323's are.

For full disclosure, I've owned one as a street car for 7 years and 120k miles.

[mossaidis]

The only issue I see with the classification is I don't think a TSX is going to get anywhere near weight (2760 IIRC). Stock curb weight is 3150. Loosing the sunroof and interior will bring it down to 2650 at the least, then adding a cage and even an average weight driver puts it back to around 3000.

I think it makes way more sense as a heavy ITS car at that weight, which is what E46 323's are.

For full disclosure, I've owned one as a street car for 7 years and 120k miles.

I tend to agree as well. I initially placed my request for this car in ITR, yet changed my mind to ITS after evaulating the weights here. My only hestitiation on my opinion is that, I don't have the experience SCCA has with TSX as it relates to WC config and setup, etc. I figure the ITAC and CRB would have a LOT more information than I as far as ultimate weight after sunroof, interior, stereo, seats (lbs...), etc are riped out once they talked to the SCCA Pro racing.

I owned an 04 for 3 years and put on 50K miles. I loved it.

Any insight from the ITAC that could be spelled out here?

On edit: SCCA Pro racing has the 04-08 TSX classified at 2850 and 2725 lbs (limited prep), min weight with driver, in GTS and 2800 lbs with driver in TC. Interesting.

http://www.world-challenge.com/files...x_A_Ver_50.pdf

[JeffYoung]

D & Rob:

We kicked that one around for a long time. Our general preference is to put it in the higher class at the lower weight if at all possible on the theory that most folks like to race lighter cars.

However, we have in the past considered requests to move cars, even ones just classed (MX5 is an example) if there is good data supporting a "it can't make weight" argument, and we do NOT require an actual build before doing so.

[mossaidis]

D & Rob:

We kicked that one around for a long time. Our general preference is to put it in the higher class at the lower weight if at all possible on the theory that most folks like to race lighter cars.

However, we have in the past considered requests to move cars, even ones just classed (MX5 is an example) if there is good data supporting a "it can't make weight" argument, and we do NOT require an actual build before doing so.

kewl - thanks Jeff! now, who has $ to build one?

[preparedcivic]

Mine has to go through the next 8 years as the son's then daughter's car first.

[Knestis]

Mine has to go through the next 8 years as the son's then daughter's car first.

...at which point it will be WAY ready for an easy retirement in IT.

K