March 2014 Fastrack

[Chip42]

09 injectors are higher volume, 2 now do the work of 4. Rules require update and backdate as entire assembly so not a performance difference , besides we are usually over fueled in these. I run 50% or less duty cycle.

If you want us to buy an 09 just to strip for everything to build an 04 you really have to see how stupid that arguement is. We changed the vin rule to allow drivers to build ITB cars out of ITC cars (Honda) that are similar, but much more different than the RX8 tub differences. Do you not see the complete failure in your logic that now drives our RX8 shell cost out the roof now that the early cars are getting as cheap as the RX7 was?

Your list of changes is a little lame. Bumpers do not make a model change. Electronics are free with ECU rule anyway. Do you even have a clue what is different in the rear suspension or are you chasing the same unicorn that got this car over 3000# originally? Not being snarky either, but lets use facts, not myth. Trans, yes, and plenty of cars in IT have 2 or 3 seperate ones listed on their spec line, different lights, bumpers, etc. Two wrongs don't make it right is fine, unless we have to race against them, then it is just wrong to set a different bar to meet half way through the game. Sometimes you guys over think all this to solve what???? A perceived problem you have yet to identify of any car that is an overdog because of update/backdate. All it does is give us options to build cheaper cars.

DX coupe and hatch, not really a valid comparison. Can you bolt the hatch to a coupe??

The Kia/Ford, etc is not even worth answering, really???

I respect you Chip, but your arguements do not really hold water with what has been accepted practice in IT for many years, and now gets changed for one car.

Agree to disagree.

this isn't defying precedent. we just moved 2 RSX-S listings to ITS. they have minor bodywork and engine differences between them, nothing drastic. They have different K20 engine designations but the actual part changes are minor, different hp ratings (actually, the 05-06 have 2, thanks to SAE certified HP coming into play) but really aren't all that different compared to say, the S4 and S5 ITS RX7. again, just because THAT pair of cars was allowed, before the VIN rule, before a lot of more modern allowances, and before IT started having pro level build energies spent on it, doesn't mean we SHOULD do the same when we class cars now. we are much less interested in "fixing" old classifications that would obsolete or cause expense to existing race cars than we are in preventing new mistakes now.

the argument about updating the car to the 09 spec using the VIN rule was semantic, I said as much. I'm not OPPOSED to including this car on the same specline, so you are arguing against a firm position I don't hold, nor do I think anyone on the committee holds. we read the lists of changes for 09 and decided the cars were different enough to call it a separate car. I haven't agreed to disagree with you, but we did make a decision that you disagree with, and *I* am stating only WHY we made that decision. *I* suggest we be very careful to make sure we don't change it just "because X said to". that said, IF WE ARE WRONG WE CAN FIX IT. the discussion, however, is a good one to have regardless of the outcome of the RX8.

as I understand it, the bolt-on bits of the suspension were beefed up a bit and there were some tweaks to the geometry, heavier duty hubs, different exhaust sensors, a second knock sensor (tuning advantage? I don't know). each of these, hell all of these, would pass the sniff test. when coupled with the sheet metal, lots of interior and nav system type crap that doesn't matter, and the IT-open parts you already pointed out, shocks and final drive and the like, and the engine changes, new trans (not ratios, new transmission family) official designation change to "series 2".... maybe we should have punted. maybe the CRB rejected it and that's why it's not in the fastrack. but we chose to make a new specline. again, read above - if we are wrong, we can fix it. that isn't unprecedented either. I assure you there was no malice, no campfire stories of world-beating RX8s on the prowl killing off ITR, it was a purely procedural decision.

re: Hondas and the VIN rule - those cars are identical to each other but for the bolt ons that change their spec line (and thus, class). the rule was intended to allow a cheaper and more available source of bodies. Since we are debating a single specline (or the argument for making one) UD/BD is the real issue here, not the VIN rule.

[Knestis]

It would be nice - for the 1000th time in the last 15 years I've said it - if people with a horse in any particular race would take the broader view on the ITAC's efforts to get procedures squared away in a general sense, rather than judging the effectiveness of a policy, practice, or standard in terms of whether their particular horsey gets beat.

Most of the inequities and simple goofy crap that we've had to deal with came about because a *vast* majority of classing and specification decisions in the category were made based on a view through a soda straw, powered by individual lobbying efforts.

K

[seckerich]

It would be nice - for the 1000th time in the last 15 years I've said it - if people with a horse in any particular race would take the broader view on the ITAC's efforts to get procedures squared away in a general sense, rather than judging the effectiveness of a policy, practice, or standard in terms of whether their particular horsey gets beat.

Most of the inequities and simple goofy crap that we've had to deal with came about because a *vast* majority of classing and specification decisions in the category were made based on a view through a soda straw, powered by individual lobbying efforts.

K

I had to wait a day to respond to this so it would be more level headed.

Many of us have been in IT through multiple ITAC groups, all with different perspectives on IT nervana. The rules and processes we have in place today are by far some of the best I have seen. One of the tenents of IT has always been update/backdate that allowed racers a wide range of cars to scavange parts from. The z cars know the lightest doors and bumpers, the BMW guys know the proper subframe, diff, etc. The RX7 guys know the best shell and the best intake/motor combo. This has been done in every class and make of car for over 15 years.

Has it hurt IT? Do we not have some of the closest racing between models in recent history?

With all due respect Kirk, get off your high horse and lecture someone who gives a crap. I say this the same way I would if we were standing at the track talking. You support these new directions where we change perceived problems that do not exist for the sake of a cleaner spreadsheet. You and I had this discussion when you helped class the RX8 over #3000 originally and I told you it was dead. Only one crazy enough to build one was Buzz Marcus by Speedsource and he sold it for pennies on the dollar for a track day car. Did that long term view help IT? Was he selfish? How many ITR cars not displaced BMW's do you see? Not exactly taking off is it? Now you tell me I do not have a 1000 ft view and am selfish for asking that you maintain a reasonable update/backdate?

Kirk I guess IT was so good right now that you had Cameron build an STU car and you drop in to the forum to share all the reasons. You leave the catagory and tout how stupid we are for building regional only cars and lecture us on how selfish we are to ask for things when we actually have money invested and skin in the game. I have personally put more drivers in IT cars in the last 2 years than you have ever owned I would imagine. Now you support "caution" from your point of wisdom as past ITAC member. Really?

This is not just about the RX8, but I would support the Honda's being on the same line too if the tubs are near the same and just the driveline options are different. If the best you can build is still the benchmark car at the same weight, what is the big deal.

I was over this BS a few years ago when you guys first classed the car and packed the motor with atf and put it away. Saw fastrack and pulled it out this weekend and gave it a bath and started it up. Then I went home and saw this BS about a seperate spec line and had Chip tell me about this new direction of better seperation of spec lines going forward.

If this post comes off mad, I'm not and it is hard to put tone into this. I know most of you guys and respect you. I firmly disagree with some of your views and believe you are getting to the point of micromanaging IT and fail to see the big picture. Unfortunately you fail to see how you change the overall landscape of the catagory when you do these changes midstream. Step back and ask why and who told you that you should or could do this.

[Flyinglizard]

For a specline change the question should be; do the UD/BD make the car faster or just last longer?
And.. Why are coolers not allowed? They dont go faster.

Re Mk 3 Golf, maybe the Cal gear set should not be allowed.

[Chip42]

steve - please answer this question:

what makes the series 2 RX8 NOT a separate model from a series 1? by the same token, what would you consider a clear and operable line of seperation between vehicle generations or trims that would present a need for a separate specline?

basic points we hold to:
engine designation - a B16A2 Civic Si =/= a D16Y8 Civic EX - they look the same and have 1.6L 16V 4cyls but the similarities stop there. in such cases we use separate lines (many examples to pull from)
major generational change - no one would argue that an 82 and 84 corvette are the same car, though they at least mostly share a motor and many other "details". many such examples.
2 mechanically identical cars badge engineered into different brands - some sheet metal or cosmetic differences aside, and illegal to swap by UD/BD unless the whole set of changes is made to completely change "brands". we class these on separate lines. example firebird and camaro of many different generations.
major sweeping updates including engine parts, full transmission, sheet metal and bolt-ons to a carry-over frame/tub, manufacturer identified transition point established by a naming system (i.e. series 1, series 2), and cosmetic and driver comfort appointments. new spec line?

again - this isn't a fortified position, it was the CONSIDERED OPINION of the committee that the cars were different enough to need a new specline. I implore you to tell us why we are wrong and to do so with details that are both specific to the RX8 and justified from an objective view of IT norms. if we messed up, we WILL fix it. if we didn't, please don't get sour grapes. no one is trying to HURT any car, there are NO politics at play here, and we ARE ACTIVELY discussing how to make ITR more attractive and more clearly separate ITS and R. We just try to make classifications and rules that remain consistent with IT philosophy and put the cars where they make the most sense, which I'll agree is subjective.

we've all dealt with cars getting the shaft for real or perceived issues - when we care enough to see them set right, we settle down and do the hard work of convincing the PTB / yahoos on a con call of the correct answer. at least in this case you are arguing with interpretation and understanding, NOT conviction and ego.

[Ron Earp]

we just moved 2 RSX-S listings to ITS.

I believe these are 200hp rated stock cars aren't they? Does this open the door for 190-200hp cars in ITS? I know folks interested in asking for the classification of a 191hp car and a 200hp car in ITS, if it is now possible I'll advise them to write letters.

[Chip42]

we really need to NOT look at base hp on cars as the "what fits" number, because cars weights are on the rise, we will see more whp on newer cars, but they will often come with a lot more mass, too. so they will fit the power/weight "miller ratio" of a lower class than one might expect due to JUST the OEM hp number.

so yea, have the requests sent in. if we decide it doesn't fit S, we may recommend R, or vice versa, just as we always have.