March 2014 Fastrack

[StephenB]

Steve is the most knowledgeable. But I can do some digging as well. Just FYI, I do know my shinka 05 has stiffer under chassis parts.

For the long races we ran in ITE and or used NASA classification. We ran the 09 transmission, and coolers for the trans and rear end. All of which are not legal in ITR hence the reason we changed classes.

Sadly I have already broken 2 04 transmissions (developed a 3rd gear crunch). I honestly didn't believe they would be that bad and thought I could just be careful when I decided to build, also thinking in a few years I could just use the 09 if it was that bad. So yes I do want the 09 transmission which is why I requested it. 1 broken Tran equals 2 entry fees

[Chip42]

I think the transmission reliability discussion is a separate one from the 09 RX8 being separate from the -08 cars. I appreciate why those of you WITH -08 cars would want them to be grouped together in order to have that improved transmission, but the question is S1 vs S2 cars first. addressing it from the "-08 has a weak transmission" position definitely hurts objectivity.

[StephenB]

I think the transmission reliability discussion is a separate one from the 09 RX8 being separate from the -08 cars. I appreciate why those of you WITH -08 cars would want them to be grouped together in order to have that improved transmission, but the question is S1 vs S2 cars first. addressing it from the "-08 has a weak transmission" position definitely hurts objectivity.

I was just trying to be transparent in why I actually put in the request, I don't want to fool anyone, I wasnt being "objective" in my request.

Stephen

Regardless of the RX8 this is a good discusion to think about.

[seckerich]

You are correct Chip, I am semi serious. BEFORE you make these classifications is the time to ask, not after. As said before, unless it is a change that makes the car faster for IT and changes the process weight then it is wrong. Like I said the vin rule lets me make an 09 out of any shell so I can still get there, you (the ITAC) just make it harder for no good reason. More than happy to go over the differences, nothing to hide. It is all out there with a simple google search for anyone interested. As for the transmission and objectivity lets be real. The only reason anyone ever asks for something on a given make is to get the best they can, nobody is objective. Yes, we have been patiently waiting for the better trans to be legal. Guilty as charged. That said, have you ever had information from me that was found to be false? I have provided many different adhocs with info on Mazda's over the years. Mainly because I have worked on them and have the parts available to measure and give accurate info.

The 09 on had a 4.77 gear, changed from 4.44 , open in IT.

Dropped to 4 injectors from 6, no change to intake other than injector boss. No change in rated power and none found with IT mods, we are already way high as is on perceived power. The peak Grand Am numbers used were with the 09 setup, same as the early intake.

New, beafier trans built for the car insted of a MX5 drop in. Irrelevant to IT process.

Brakes the same.

Supposed to be better rear suspension, but still no better than an 04 with IT mods.

Lip spoiler on nose, open in IT anyway.

Rear bumper slight change, you argue the aero if you want, but not considered in IT prep.

Stiffer front shock tower, but also used on the 05 in some models so already legal under the rules.

Slightly lighter, but still nothing with our porky #2850.

Letter going in today to request it be added to current line in GCR, suggest others do the same.

Just looking through ITR and there are plenty of cars that have very long spec lines for components of different years. Precedent is definitely there. You are fixing a nonextent problem.

[Chip42]

steve - of course no one is doubting you, this discussion is less than 3 days old...

are the 09+ injectors a higher rating? could those be installed into an -08 intake to create more fuel volume capability? etc... you say you can VIN rule the -08 to an -09. OK, what's stopping you? then you get the trans you want and you already have the chassis, and the raced weight is the same. I'm not trying to be snarky, I realize that's probably an expensive proposition, but I think that fact also supports our position here.

I could care less that the body looks different, that happens. tail lights and tweaked body contours are common. if the car only had sheet metal changes, or just the beefed up suspension components, or just the electronics changes, or just the transmission, or just.... it would have been an easy "yup, add that to the specline" but it's all of that. we decided that there was enough difference to deserve its own line.

as far as other speclines already having a lot of changes on them: so what? 2 wrongs and all that.

I have some questions for everyone here:

what defines the model for a specline? when are there enough changes to warrant a new specline?

why is the RX8 S1/S2 split NOT a model change, but the same year and all relevant mechanical parts Honda civic DX coupe and DX hatch on separate lines? (AFAIK, it's power steering - but the effect of that is not captured in the spec line weight.)

Where do we as a community draw the line over "what matters" and "doesn't matter" in IT prep? - and I'll offer that "being the same under the process" is NOT the same thing as being the same for the purposes of classification. if it were, I could theoretically stuff some kias and mazdas with the same valve sizes, bore, stroke, engine architecture, rated power, gear ratios, brake sizes, and suspension architecture on the same line, despite a decade of age and completely different manufacturers, because mazda sold engine designs to kia and everyone makes their small cars with a strut front.

[seckerich]

steve - of course no one is doubting you, this discussion is less than 3 days old...

are the 09+ injectors a higher rating? could those be installed into an -08 intake to create more fuel volume capability? etc... you say you can VIN rule the -08 to an -09. OK, what's stopping you? then you get the trans you want and you already have the chassis, and the raced weight is the same. I'm not trying to be snarky, I realize that's probably an expensive proposition, but I think that fact also supports our position here.

I could care less that the body looks different, that happens. tail lights and tweaked body contours are common. if the car only had sheet metal changes, or just the beefed up suspension components, or just the electronics changes, or just the transmission, or just.... it would have been an easy "yup, add that to the specline" but it's all of that. we decided that there was enough difference to deserve its own line.

as far as other speclines already having a lot of changes on them: so what? 2 wrongs and all that.

I have some questions for everyone here:

what defines the model for a specline? when are there enough changes to warrant a new specline?

why is the RX8 S1/S2 split NOT a model change, but the same year and all relevant mechanical parts Honda civic DX coupe and DX hatch on separate lines? (AFAIK, it's power steering - but the effect of that is not captured in the spec line weight.)

Where do we as a community draw the line over "what matters" and "doesn't matter" in IT prep? - and I'll offer that "being the same under the process" is NOT the same thing as being the same for the purposes of classification. if it were, I could theoretically stuff some kias and mazdas with the same valve sizes, bore, stroke, engine architecture, rated power, gear ratios, brake sizes, and suspension architecture on the same line, despite a decade of age and completely different manufacturers, because mazda sold engine designs to kia and everyone makes their small cars with a strut front.

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.

[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.

[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.

[Greg Amy]

My 2 cents...if the make/model/drivetrain (and in most cases, body style) is the same, and the standard formula calcs result in the same weight, then it has traditionally been a "same spec line" car. In a quick cursory review of the ITCS, I didn't see a same make/model/drivetrain/body style that was split among multiple lines (didn't review in detail).

what defines the model for a specline?

STAC struggles with this one on occasion due to engine swap allowances; see last year's Miata M2 '99-vs-'02 debate. While we have not codified anything (and there's nothing in process to do so) generally speaking we rely on the manufacturer's chassis codes for reference. An M2 Miata is the same car '99-'02 (chassis code NB) and the '95 Integra RS is the same car as the '98 Type R (chassis code DC).

Not an all-encompassing regulation, just a general guideline.

...when are there enough changes to warrant a new specline? ... Where do we as a community draw the line over "what matters" and "doesn't matter" in IT prep?

The crux of the matter.

Regardless of what you decide, you need to be consistent. Historically, that argument was moot and not considered; witness many cases of mixing-and-matching to get something more than what the manufacturer provided (cough, ITS RX-7, cough). We've had that argument many, many times on this very board, and the agree-to-disagree answer has always been "warts and all".

But now, with the separate spec line on the RX-8 you're moving the target.

Which is fine -- as long as you're consistent. And consistency mean going back and re-classifying all existing cars that may possess a potential mix-and-match advantage. But to do it by suddenly picking a point in time and saying "ok, from here on out we'll classify them separately" is not consistent.

GA

[JeffYoung]

Kirk asks a fair question.

What SHOULD teh criteria for different spec lines be?

Steve gives us good background -- update backdate is a part of our culture.

We need to find the balance in there somewhere.

[StephenB]

Would you prefer opinions on here, brown board, scca.com or letters sent in?

Thanks,
Stephen

[JeffYoung]

Here first, if that is ok.

Stuff gets lost on the brown board in the noise sometimes, or turns into pooh flinging.

Greg also raises a good point. If we cahnge the approach, do we go back and correct things?

Logically yes, but that could cause huge problems.

[seckerich]

As Greg states Chip, it is a change in philosophy to now decide to be more granular in your spec line seperation. It has always been a staple in IT that you could go buy the oldest, and cheapest version of a car and then update it to the newer spec with parts, rather than starting over with a much newer chassis. See Kips 944 as an example. It has been an ITS car with 2 different engine packages, and then an ITR car with yet another. Now EP if that gives you a clue to trends.

The Renesis is a Renesis, no cams or other goodies to change. Same as the 13B was a 13B in the second gen RX7. Contrary to Gregs statement the 90 GTUS was the target and nothing else was ever combined to be faster than the car as classed. Those cars had many variations over the years, but it all bolted on with no change to the chassis. That was always the restriction with update/backdate, as well as changes to the entire assembly when it came to motors, trans, etc. Honda, Porsche, BMW, etc have all made use of this to build cars out of from early tubs.

If you guys in good faith decide to take it upon yourselves to change this and be more particular, what future ITAC has to come back and clean up the mess you make by moving the bar. You should have experience in this as you are now doing with the reclassification/cleanup process in ITB? You need to think this through.

[Chip42]

The 944 is not the eample you want to use, its just like the hondas, a VIN allowance, NOT UD/BD. You want us to treat this like the ITS RX7 and we are debating the validity of that WRT other IT classifications.

The crux is, is the series 2 the same car, or not. Is it a 944S vs 944 or a S4 vs S5 RX7?

[Ron Earp]

The crux is, is the series 2 the same car, or not. Is it a 944S vs 944 or a S4 vs S5 RX7?

None of this:

The 09 on had a 4.77 gear, changed from 4.44 , open in IT.

Dropped to 4 injectors from 6, no change to intake other than injector boss.

No change in rated power and none found with IT mods

New, beafier trans built for the car insted of a MX5 drop in.

Brakes the same.

Supposed to be better rear suspension, but still no better than an 04 with IT mods.

Lip spoiler on nose, open in IT anyway.

Rear bumper slight change, you argue the aero if you want, but not considered in IT prep.

Stiffer front shock tower, but also used on the 05 in some models so already legal under the rules.

Looks like a new car or spec line. I know you guys don't want to repeat mistakes of the past, but I don't think there is any danger here. Same horsepower, same chassis, minor parts improvements that we see on many IT classifications.

I can understand wanting a codified process and wishing to apply it in all instances though. I like logical processes myself. But because of that I'm a proponent of applying the processes across the board and being consistently consistent. That means applying The Process to ITB, ITS, ITA, ITC to re-align all of those classes, then coming back through and splitting out into separate lines all the models that would, by the logic applied to the RX8, require separating out. I doubt anyone wants to go there, but the ITAC needs to choose - be consistent with rule applications or fly by the seat of the pants.