March 2014 Fastrack

[Ron Earp]

240 Zs came with three different heads, two different carbs, at least 3 different intake manifolds, and two different transmissions across the production run from 1970-1973. How many spec lines should they have had when they initially classed the old Datsuns?

Additional examples:

*ITS Jensen Healey - has more factory cams than the engine has valves. Lots of parts.
*ITB Mustang - lots of heads, cams, induction changes, etc.
*ITS Mustang - many parts, not ITB Mustang status though
*ITR Mustang V6 - similar to the ITS Mustang
*ITS TR8 - Convertible, coupe, FI, carb all on one line

I do understand the ITAC not wanting to repeat process mistakes made in the past. But it doesn't appear that we're in danger of creating a problem with the RX8. Indeed, if we were to assume that we have created problems in the past, for example, the ITB Mustang classing is what we're trying to avoid, what was the impact on SCCA ITB racing of that classification?

[spawpoet]

Additional examples:

*ITS Jensen Healey - has more factory cams than the engine has valves. Lots of parts.
*ITB Mustang - lots of heads, cams, induction changes, etc.
*ITS Mustang - many parts, not ITB Mustang status though
*ITR Mustang V6 - similar to the ITS Mustang
*ITS TR8 - Convertible, coupe, FI, carb all on one line

I do understand the ITAC not wanting to repeat process mistakes made in the past. But it doesn't appear that we're in danger of creating a problem with the RX8. Indeed, if we were to assume that we have created problems in the past, for example, the ITB Mustang classing is what we're trying to avoid, what was the impact on SCCA ITB racing of that classification?

Exactly. IMHO the ITAC is worrying about a problem that doesn't exist here. Relatively substantive changes between model years is very normal, and has been something that has been looked past through 30 years of classing cars. It's the whole reason the update/backdate rule exists. In the case of the RX-8 the changes for the 09' model year just don't seem all that significant, especially when compared to other classed cars that have never become overdogs themselves via update/backdate.

[Ron Earp]

Another is the 85- 88 Pontiac Fiero GT & Formula V-6 2.8. If I'm not mistaken, this car has a one or two year only front suspension that is much prefered over the earlier design.

[Spa67]

Another is the 85- 88 Pontiac Fiero GT & Formula V-6 2.8. If I'm not mistaken, this car has a one or two year only front suspension that is much prefered over the earlier design.

yes, but it was the rear

85-87 (or 84-87 it really does not matter) used a rear suspension made from the front suspension parts of what ever the Chevrolet K-Car equivalent was a the time. I think it was the Citation?

That's what made the car so cheap to produce. Just about everything but the tub was off-the-shelf. Take a FWD driveline and shove it behind the cockpit.

In '88 they created a proper rear suspension, improved the brakes, and earned rave reviews. Then they killed the car-Classic GM!

[240zdave]

yes, but it was the rear

85-87 (or 84-87 it really does not matter) used a rear suspension made from the front suspension parts of what ever the Chevrolet K-Car equivalent was a the time. I think it was the Citation?

That's what made the car so cheap to produce. Just about everything but the tub was off-the-shelf. Take a FWD driveline and shove it behind the cockpit.

In '88 they created a proper rear suspension, improved the brakes, and earned rave reviews. Then they killed the car-Classic GM!

If I remember correctly, the V6 GT version was faster / quicker than the Trans-Am, which was not going to happen, and contributed to the demise.

[Ron Earp]

If I remember correctly, the V6 GT version was faster / quicker than the Trans-Am, which was not going to happen, and contributed to the demise.

I don't remember it that way. I had a Fiero, another friend had the Formula version, and they were no threat to my buddy's Trans Am. Maybe a Tran Am from 1974, but not from 1987. I could believe it faster crushing cones though.

[JeffYoung]

We do have a problem. The problem is not knowing where to draw the spec line distinction.

Some of the cars currently lumped together probably shouldn't be with the 79 to 93 Mustang leading the way. Others, either due to history or practical reasons should.

I do not want to upset the balance in IT right now but we do need a rule on this.

Stephen offered some damn good basics for starting with one.

Other thoughts?

[Wreckerboy]

yes, but it was the rear

85-87 (or 84-87 it really does not matter) used a rear suspension made from the front suspension parts of what ever the Chevrolet K-Car equivalent was a the time. I think it was the Citation?

That's what made the car so cheap to produce. Just about everything but the tub was off-the-shelf. Take a FWD driveline and shove it behind the cockpit.

In '88 they created a proper rear suspension, improved the brakes, and earned rave reviews. Then they killed the car-Classic GM!

Interesting. I always thought the front suspension received the updates, as it was (allegedly) directly from the Chevette.

[Chip42]

fiero front was Chevette sourced throughout the run, IIRC. 88 rear was a pretty substantial improvement over previous years.

As Jeff says - we don't have anything better than a desire to see giant cluster speclines like the ITB mustang (again, poster child - not a problem in the class) NOT be repeated. to that end we may be more conservative than the community wants or expects. but either way, we need to reach a consensus on what is and is not a change or accumulation of changes sufficient to warrant a new specline. input constructive to that end is appreciated.

Ron's point about cars with constant ongoing changes like the SN95 mustang and Jensen Healy would be nearly impossible to codify if we were to try and break them up - and typically they were changes that didn't warrant noise from the manufacturer, so little to go off of to base the decision on anyhow. does having information vs not having it deserve punishment, as it were? I don't think so. almost seems we should just not try so hard to be so clear and everyone would be happier.

[seckerich]

Still having a hard time seeing why you feel the need to fix this. You say the Mustang is not a problem, and is basically the poster child for readily available parts sources. Then at the same time say it should never happen again. Look at Ron and the Mustangs and see the developement they have done with so many different cylinder heads to get a potent ITS car. In your world that would not happen, because all those slightly different heads would be on different spec lines. Who is pushing this?? I sure don't see it as the drivers so what is the issue? Stop overengineering this Chip, the system we have works well.

PS, got the entry cert and have you guys covered for May.

[Ron Earp]

but either way, we need to reach a consensus on what is and is not a change or accumulation of changes sufficient to warrant a new specline. input constructive to that end is appreciated.

I believe that the desire to have a process to determine when a new specline is to be used it a noble one. But practically, I feel the best you can do is create some language around specline classification that allows the ITAC wiggle room to determine it on a case by case basis.

Engines are certainly the most common talking point in a class that is horsepower to weight based. Typically when a manufacturer doesn't change a horsepower or torque rating but changes parts, then there is no gain for the racer - but not always, and it is good to see the ITAC investigating cars being classed to be sure there are not unintended consequences of a particular classing. The ITB Mustang creates a unique situation for the racer, but, it balances out because the racer is going to build the best example of the car s/he can to compete in the class. As long as the car isn't an illegal combination of parts and isn't an over dog, then no harm is done. Determining the former could be difficult, but cheating shouldn't be considered in the context of classification.

Suspensions might be the more difficult subset of a car for classification processes. In my recent experience the IT car benefits far more from suspension development than horsepower, but suspension changes will be somewhat subjective as to effect on the car in race trim. Moving a pickup point 1" higher for more anti-dive, re-enforcing a pickup point, or lengthening the lower control arm 1.25" are measurable changes for sure, but harder to quantify when compared to a ten horsepower gain. Certainly you can’t ignore suspension differences but you’ll need to use good judgment to determine if they warrant a car on another spec line, but with the assistance from those that know about the cars it’d be possible.

I don’t think there is a looming classification problem for IT unless we choose to make it so. Sure, there might be a car or two out there that is problematic but mostly things are on an even keel. Let's keep it simple. IT is a good place to race and we all appreciate the ITAC for trying to keep it that way.

[spawpoet]

fiero front was Chevette sourced throughout the run, IIRC. 88 rear was a pretty substantial improvement over previous years.

As Jeff says - we don't have anything better than a desire to see giant cluster speclines like the ITB mustang (again, poster child - not a problem in the class) NOT be repeated. to that end we may be more conservative than the community wants or expects. but either way, we need to reach a consensus on what is and is not a change or accumulation of changes sufficient to warrant a new specline. input constructive to that end is appreciated.

Ron's point about cars with constant ongoing changes like the SN95 mustang and Jensen Healy would be nearly impossible to codify if we were to try and break them up - and typically they were changes that didn't warrant noise from the manufacturer, so little to go off of to base the decision on anyhow. does having information vs not having it deserve punishment, as it were? I don't think so. almost seems we should just not try so hard to be so clear and everyone would be happier.

We are trying to give you info constructive towards your end. It seems a lot of people don't think the 09' RX-8 reaches the threshold to which it belongs on another specline. I very much appreciate that you guys are further refining the process to keep newly classed cars from upsetting the apple cart. But IMHO it is more likely to be problematic if you significantly depart from past precedent. Newer cars will gain little to no advantage from update/backdate while older cars can, have, and will. I think coming up with some guidelines for when to split out a car onto a new specline is fine, but again I think it would also wise to basically follow the precedent for how cars were split out in the past, except for the most egregious examples of cars that had many many changes like the Mustangs.

[Chip42]

well, if the rest of the committee agrees with the 4-5 of you on here, our jobs just got a lot easier.

I think we can let this one die for now. new prelims in ~1 week!!!

[seckerich]

With over 2800 views Chip, you could be safe to say it is more than 5 people interested in this. Thanks for being so open and willing to debate this stuff.

[jjjanos]

John, Joe, Josh, Jim, Janos, Jamie, who ever you are... READ the thread.

RELIABLE TRANSMISSION. Is that simple enough?

Stephen Blethen.

Great, you've got a reliable transmission in a car that remains an overweight pig. Still fail to see how this opens the flood gates to building these cars.

You've still got a DIFFERENT motor in the car - which doesn't always justify a new spec line, but don't attempt to call a Guernsey a Longhorn.

Stop overengineering this Chip, the system we have works well.

You realize the system that "works well" put it on a new spec line? The ITAC decides whether it should be new or the same.

[Knestis]

When I was working on the "ITB do-over" spreadsheet (was it that long ago?) I vividly remember thinking, "nobody has really pushed the Mustang option" - particularly since the current race weight has zilch to do with the process being applied to the BEST of the engine options. Chip or someone can confirm but i *think* I actually split them out into several (three?) separate date ranges in that exercise, based on what appeared to be the best estimates of where generational changes resulted in different OE power specs.

Apropos of nothing, as they say...

K

[Ron Earp]

You've still got a DIFFERENT motor in the car - which doesn't always justify a new spec line, but don't attempt to call a Guernsey a Longhorn.

I'd be hard pressed the call a motor with two less injectors and a different oil squirting pattern different, especially when the pertinent specs, the horsepower and torque figures, are unchanged.

What attributes of an engine would demand a new spec line;

*Different distributor?
*Block with different casting bosses and motor mounts?
*Different piston compression height?
*Different cylinder head castings with different combustion chamber shapes?
*Piston with different ring thickness?
*Cam with three degrees more duration?
*Heads with different water passages?
*Forged rod the same weight as a powdered metal rod?
*Different oil pans?
*Different front cover?
*Different balancer?

Right now in ITS there are multiple cars with these attributes, some with multiple attributes, that exist on the same spec line, with identical horsepower and torque rating across the years. I won't argue that some of these attributes are more desirable from a racer perspective, but they don't change the balance of competition.

If we were to go back and consider these changes and create new listings for these cars we'd expand the number of IT listings by 20 or more. And it would do nothing to make IT more competitive or keeping IT an entry class that is flexible enough to be attractive to newbies and old hands alike.

You're an IT racer, what do you race and would you prefer to start breaking classifications apart into multiple years throughout all the IT classes?

[JeffYoung]

I thought Stephen B's post was an excellent start and I think Ron's was as well.

I also think Greg and Steve make excellent points about stability and not changing things mid stream, while Kirk, Chip and myself don't want to see unintended results (frankly I think the ITB Mustang COULD be a problem but I digress) from spec line snafus.

So where is the common ground? It seems to me that you go back to core IT values that we talk about everyone in a while:

1. Same basic engine architecture. Different manifold or slightly different head design? Ok no problem same spec line. Going from 2v to 4v or something like that? Different spec lines.

2. Same basic body structure. Coupes and converts should probably be separate spec lines. Hatchs and trunks same. Etc.

3. Same basic suspension design. Moving a few pick up points, etc? Not a fundemental change. Change in basic suspension architecture, i.e. going from struts to IRS? Different spec line.

4. Brakes? I don't know that I see anything here I would consider so fundamental to require a different spec line.

5. Tranny? Same.

So for me, I would propose items 1 through 3 as the basic characteristics as to what goes on a Spec Line.

applying them to the RX8, I'd have to reverse my vote. I still am bothered by some of the differences, but after thinking through the policy, and rule I would like to have in place for all, rather than focusing on the differences, I think the car should be the same Spec line.

Thoughts?

[Andy Bettencourt]

A week in Florida on business created a long read for me tonight!

So to make sure Steve's point about the ITS RX-7 is hammered home and people stop using it as an example:

The car that people 'create' is the GTUs. Best brakes, best chassis, best trans ratios. 1100 of them made from 1989-1990. Racers take any chassis they can find and put in the S5 motor, correct brakes, proper trans ratios, maybe decide to change a front or rear bumper cover, some taillights and go. Same suspension from 1986-1991, same engine output from 1989-1991, etc. You can NOT create a better car by mixing and matching anything from 1986-1991 that exceeds the performance of a GTUs. End of discussion.

If anything, you could pull the 146hp version and classify it as 2450lbs ITS car or even a 2750lbs ITA car. But people will still take there early cars and transform them into the S5 variant because the cars are the same.

If the RX8 (and I am speaking generically here because I know the answers) uses the same bolt on parts, you have two ways to go:

If it's the same HP and the stuff that is different is not part of the 'process' AND can be bolted on per UD/BD, then you have a same spec line car.

If the HP gets raised, you have another way to go. You determine if that reason of the bump is NOT something you can change in the process (like cams, heads, chassis layout, base CR, etc) then you can add a spec line (like the RXS-S) or you can just combine the cars at the higher weight and effectively require all the 'old' cars to upgrade to maintain competitiveness.

Since the 09 RX-8 chassis is no different than that if a special edition that is legal and was available in 05, this is not a factor. The engine is not a factor. The transmission, while uprated is not part of the process.

So we can agree that the 09 RX8 would be 'best of the spec line'...not because of outright performance, but because guys may want to UD to the stouter gearset. Place them on the same line.

Mechanical differences that account for HP or any other 'non changeable' item in the ITCS are flags for separate spec lines - when those changes result in a higher weight per the process.

[Greg Amy]

The car that people 'create' is the GTUs....You can NOT create a better car by mixing and matching anything from 1986-1991 that exceeds the performance of a GTUs. End of discussion.

Sounds like the GTU needs its own spec line at a higher weight..."end of discussion"...?