Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 120

Thread: December 2013 Fastrack

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,346

    Default December 2013 Fastrack

    Going to beat Pam to the punch this month, as we have a lot of changes in ST that will generate discussion...

    11/14/13- Preliminary Minutes
    11/14/13- Preliminary Tech Bulletin
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Asheville, NC US
    Posts
    1,626

    Default

    Any reason we lost the injectors on the Mini? Not sure how we catch a Solstice without fuel. Have one and building a second one so curious.
    Steve Eckerich
    ITS 18 Speedsource RX7
    ITR RX8 (under construction)

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by seckerich View Post
    Any reason we lost the injectors on the Mini?
    You didn't. Injectors are free in STx, it was struck as a redundant note.

    Back story is that there used to be a line there where a combo of some pulley (JCW?) required stock injectors, and one pulley (stock?) allowed open injectors, but when that combo was removed the redundant note was not.

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

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Did this note just make IT a legal national class that will allow you to qualify for the runoffs?

    Production
    1. #12279 (Philip Royle) Allow IT cars to run in Production in IT trim
    Thank you for your letter. Add 9.1.5.B5.: 5. Any Improved Touring car meeting all the requirements of ITCS 9.1.3 may compete in the Production class in which the same make, model and engine displacement car is classified. For Improved Touring cars competing in Production, the level of preparation and modifications will be as determined by ITCS 9.1.3 and not by PCS 9.1.5. This is intended to allow Improved Touring competitors to become more familiar with Production to assist them in determining whether to modify their cars to meet the requirements of PCS 9.1.5 and also to permit Improved Touring competitors to compete in all events open to Production cars.
    Track Speed Motorsports
    http://www.trackspeedmotorsports.com/

    Steven Ulbrik (engineer/crew/driver)
    [email protected]

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by quadzjr View Post
    Did this note just make IT a legal national class that will allow you to qualify for the runoffs?
    A great move, IMO.

    Of course, almost everybody with a 2L 4-cyl was able to do the same thing in STL for the last two years...now everyone else (well, those that have a corresponding car in Prod) can go to The Show.

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

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    774

    Default

    the classificaton of the B18C5. Not quite sure why the 1" porting note has to be there. Is that not the rule for all STL builds?

    Also why more weight for the RWD? didn't a FWD qualify 3 and 4 at the runoffs?

    Good to see my request got through.
    Last edited by quadzjr; 11-14-2013 at 03:58 PM.
    Track Speed Motorsports
    http://www.trackspeedmotorsports.com/

    Steven Ulbrik (engineer/crew/driver)
    [email protected]

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Wheaton, IL
    Posts
    1,893

    Default

    Why the hell is someone asking for a VW Passat to be classified in Touring 4?
    Chris Schaafsma
    Golf 2 HProd

    AMT Racing Engines - DIYAutoTune.com

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by quadzjr View Post
    the classificaton of the B18C5. Not quite sure why the 1" porting note has to be there. Is that not the rule for all STL builds?
    Early (1997) Type R B18C5s were hand-ported from the factory. Subsequent B18C5s were subject to a CNC clearance process (something that typically may be part of a good IT/STL-level engine build anyway). The CRB would not approve (and I would not have supported) the engine if we allowed the factory porting in, since it would not be able to be scrutineered (what part was done by eunich ex-Ninja Shinto monks, and what was done by the competitor?)

    That note is an exclamation/clarification that the ported B18C5 engine will not pass scrutiny in STL. Any porting work, factory or otherwise, is prohibited. If you've got a hand-ported '97, you'll need to either get one that is not ported and/or start with a replacement casting (e.g., B16A/A2/A3 head).

    - Greg
    Last edited by Greg Amy; 11-14-2013 at 11:11 PM. Reason: Typos
    Not my circus...not my monkeys...

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Raleigh NC
    Posts
    3,682

    Default

    ITS
    1. #11724 (Willie Phee) Classify Acura TSX in ITS
    The CRB requests member feedback for this question. Please submit letters to crbscca.com. Should the 04-08 Acura TSX remain as currently classified in ITR at 2760 lbs or be moved to ITS at a weight of 3175 lbs?


    ---

    Bring it on into ITS with 205 stock hp @ 3175 lbs and some 15" wheels. Hoosier guys will love it.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    tGA - stupid (maybe?) question:

    STL now has weight penalties (understandably) for certain engines, RWD/AWD, etc... are these applied successively, or are they summed before applying the cumulative % penalty over the chart?
    e.g. the B18C5 has a 2% penalty. if RWD this would be chart *1.055*1.02 (1.0761)or *1.075?

    at 1800cc this is 2430 chart, 2615 as successive, 2612 as summed.

    I recognize it's 3lbs in this instance, but that's enough to get bounced at impound.

  11. #11
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by quadzjr View Post
    Good to see my request got through.
    now where the hell are we going to find one of those?

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    192

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip42 View Post
    tGA - stupid (maybe?) question:

    STL now has weight penalties (understandably) for certain engines, RWD/AWD, etc... are these applied successively, or are they summed before applying the cumulative % penalty over the chart?
    e.g. the B18C5 has a 2% penalty. if RWD this would be chart *1.055*1.02 (1.0761)or *1.075?

    at 1800cc this is 2430 chart, 2615 as successive, 2612 as summed.

    I recognize it's 3lbs in this instance, but that's enough to get bounced at impound.
    I believe any adjustments are each done as a percentage of base weight, then all added to the base weight.

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Mar 2001
    Location
    Connecticut
    Posts
    7,346

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip42 View Post
    STL now has weight penalties (understandably) for certain engines, RWD/AWD, etc... are these applied successively, or are they summed before applying the cumulative % penalty over the chart?
    Quote Originally Posted by JS154 View Post
    I believe any adjustments are each done as a percentage of base weight, then all added to the base weight.
    I would disagree, Eric. STx is an engine-centric category, and the engine weight is the baseline for everything. Additions for specific engines should be factored into that baseline. So IMO you'd tally up all the stuff for the engine, and that's now your new base weight for the chassis it's installed into.

    Example: B18C5 Type R engine installed into an S2000 chassis. Engine is 1.8L so 2430 pounds. B18C5 get +2%, so 2479. Gets installed into a RWD S2000 chassis, so +5.5% over 2479, thus 2615#.

    If there's reasonable disagreement in this, then it's something we should clarify/codify.

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

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    don't wait for disagreement, codify it NOW before there's a problem. again, that problem is AT WORST 3 lbs with a 2% engine modifier but if this system becomes a more common practice, you could expect that delta to grow.

    and as I said above, 3 lbs is enough to bump you at impound, and it's 3# higher the tGA way than the tEH way. just state the order of operations, and do that every time you add percent weight changes to other allowances.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    774

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip42 View Post
    now where the hell are we going to find one of those?
    I believe one is on a kart sitting right between two racecars at the moment.
    Track Speed Motorsports
    http://www.trackspeedmotorsports.com/

    Steven Ulbrik (engineer/crew/driver)
    [email protected]

  16. #16

    Default

    Yes, you beat me to the punch. The revised Prelims are now up.

    ...are posted:

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

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,499

    Default

    So it was requested that the renisis to be eliminated from STL but it looks like it just lost weight and then they added a restrictor? And the type r engine that races in ITR with the renisis is being added?

    Greg, can you clarify? I am searching for an auto rx8 to possibly do a few swaps to run in STL but again I am thinking of sticking to IT until STL gets sorted out in a few years.


    Thanks, Stephen

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Feb 2001
    Location
    Trussville, Alabama, USA
    Posts
    1,085

    Default

    Another rules nerd question: STL fuel cells. A car built to IT specs can have a non FIA cell. A car crossing over to STL needs a FIA cell?
    Chuck Baader
    White EP BMW M-Techniq
    I may grow older, but I refuse to grow up!

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Northeast
    Posts
    7,031

    Default

    Lemme try! Before Greg gives us the real info:

    Stephen - yes on your two comments. Greg asked for the Renisis to be removed, and the committee decided that they would just handicap it instead of that. Lower weight but I am assuming an educated guess on how much power they took away.

    The addition of the Type R engine includes a weight penalty assuming because the cam spec is outside the rule-set? Interesting.

    Chuck - your fully IT compliant car can run in STL provided it meets the engine size requirements (non ITR) no matter what rule is or isn't specifically compliant in STL. It just has to be 100% IT with no mixing and matching or rule-sets.

    On edit: I wouldn't put a dime into an RX8 for STL right now. There is committee issue with the motor design, and RWD adders keep on rising. A good plan would be to run one in ITR for a couple more years and see what happens...but just like in ALL National classes, you win the runoffs, expect a lead trophy (or RP or...).
    Andy Bettencourt
    New England Region 188967

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sunnyside, NY
    Posts
    1,196

    Default

    Demetrius Mossaidis aka 'Mickey' #12 ITA NESCCA
    '92 Honda Civic Si
    STFU and "Then write a letter. www.crbscca.com"
    2013 ITA NARRC Champion and I have not raced since.

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
  •