IT should really think about welcoming Older SM's....... Without a new class..

[gpeluso]

I think the writing is on the wall for the older SM cars(1.6) and soon to be na 1.8 cars in SpecMiata. A few of the IT rules make it tough for a SM to transfer.... Depowering racks ( yeah I know they made a manual) and the torsen rear end that most have from a 99. These cars are starting to sit and can be bought cheap... .these great cars need a home and IT needs numbers. IT should take advantage of SM being a National class and taking big dollars to win. I personally built a SM this year to have more people to run against. I currently have an ITR e46 BMW that I have $40k + in that I would sell today for $16.5k to fund another miata for IT or STL.

Looking at the ProIT series is a great example.... It would not exist without inviting current SM's...... Matter of fact..... Almost every racing organization will fail on a weekend with SM's paying for multiple entries. It's time to open up the rule books for simple changes and start having deeper fields.

Waiting for the food throwing at me now.
Greg Peluso

[jwasilko]

Good timing as the specpinata folks are talking about where the NC (MX-5) will fit into SM.

http://mazdaracers.com/topic/4506-is...to-spec-miata/

[Dano77]

Oh yeah Lets open this pandoras box.

The simple answer is that a Miata with a 1.6 and a Miata with a 1.8 are both legal cars for IT right now. Build it to the rules that currently exist in IT and your done. OR Leave it in SM trim and run in SM.. Dont see any reason to allow Competition Adjustments for this model car only. Quite frankly this conversation has been had many times, and its getting old. Build it to the Rules in PLACE, or dont run IT! Its that F***** simple

[gpeluso]

Dano77
this weekend I am Running SM and parking my IT car..........your right,it is simple. Haha
Just thought timing was good....

Greg

[Greg Amy]

Where are the conflicts in the regs? Where are the cars not compliant to IT regs now? Put together a detailed proposal to submit to the CRB; if you want to hash it out before submission, post it here.

GA

Edit: I have submitted several times a proposal to allow de-powering of the racks. I've been rejected each time. The general concern centers around two points: that's not the way it has always been done and it would upset the "balance of power". I counter that the first point is irrelevant except in the context of stability, and we have "what we know" for the the second point.

As for the Torsen rear ends of the 1.6s, given lack of availability I would not oppose a line-item allowance to change the pumpkins to '99 to allow the Torsen. But it ain't gonna happen on its own; you need to request it and convince the ITAC to support it to the CRB.

[gpeluso]

Dano77
this weekend I am Running SM and parking my IT car..........your right,it is simple. Haha
Just thought timing was good....

Greg

[Dano77]

Look Im not trying to start a fight. I just dont see a need to change a set of rules or even the philosiphy of the rules to suit a certain car that is prepped to a different set of rules. The IT rule set works as designed. Certain cars have warts. The 1.6 Miata is one of them. I get that.

I also get that without the Miata the club would clearly go broke. I am actually surprised that the SCCA made it this far without the Miata from day one in 1948.

The Miata is eligible in SM,SSM,SM2,STU,STL,SMT,ITE,ITEZ all without a conflict of rules. With minor changes its also in SPU. A few more changes and it goes to EP FP GTL, GT3,GT2. Thats almost 50% of the closed wheel classes, Why do we need to Change an entire rule set to allow it to be Compliant in ITA and ITS as well. Run it as it is, take your chances in IT. IF some one does throw paper,and its non-compliant, take the lumps and move on.

And its way more than a PS rack being de-powered, or a rear diff from a different spec line.

Sorry Greg if I seem pissy, just tired of having this conversation every weekend with some one who thinks their car is being unjustly discriminated against is all.

[Greg Amy]

...just tired of having this conversation every weekend with some one who thinks their car is being unjustly discriminated against is all.

LOL! I hear ya, brother. But you just can't keep pressin' down and pressin' down on the back of the oppressed...it's time for JUSTICE!

[Ron Earp]

I'm not overly concerned one way or the other. I do feel like more classes in the SCCA is not an improvement, but you guys see it differently and that's fine by me.

[gran racing]

Ron, I truly do agree with you that just creating new classes is typically not the answer. I mocked SM2 here a while back when I first heard about it and how of course we needed yet another Miata class. Yet at the same time seeing it's popularity, how people in that group approach it, and then racing in the class a couple of times changed my mind. Keep in mind that many of these drivers gravitate towards the "Spec" nature of racing. Don't think we can ignore that as spec classes are the most popular within SCCA (believe outside of SCCA too).

In the end it's really a balance. More classes isn't always the answer but neither is opening the rules up within an existing category.

Even though I now race a Miata in IT, I'd love to see ways to encourage other makes within the category. I know, nothing can beat a Miata. (One of the biggest reasons for my move is a shop owned by a friend was tired of one-off cars and is arguably one of the several top Miata shops in the country.)

[Ron Earp]

The cars are competitive in ITA/ITS now. I don't know if these competitive cars have depowered PS racks or not, but I don't think anything is going to give you grief over it. It'd be nice to see the rules changes to allow folks to remove PS though.

However with a bit of work you can de-power the rack: pulley on the PS pump that is an idler around a bearing pressed on the PS shaft, remove the innards of the rack (i.e., my rack is busted), remove the vanes in the PS pump (i.e., my pump is busted). That said, I love the PS on the Mustang and feel it is a contributing factor to it being a very tossable and easy car to drive.

[Greg Amy]

It'd be nice to see the rules changes to allow folks to remove PS though.

Being able to de-power the rack would make my potential decision to prep the STL Integra to ITR a lot easier. Right now, finding, buying, and re-installing all the PS parts and bits and pieces is the biggest PITA of all the items I have to do to get there...

Regardless, that would address one of the three biggest differences between SM and ITA, the other two being 1.6L final drive swaps (I think that could get line-item'd without much grief) and head prep (unfortunately, already "tech shed legal").

I opposed inclusion of SM-spec cars into ITx a few years ago when it was first proposed. "Because Improved Touring" I'm still leaning that direction. However, if we could address the power steering issue as a category change, and the final drive issue as a line-item change, and simply accept that we cannot enforce the head prep issue, then that would alleviate having to allow the entire category.

GA

[gran racing]

Are there gains to be had by having a de-powered rack vs non-powered?

[Ron Earp]

Are there gains to be had by having a de-powered rack vs non-powered?

Most certainly but the absolute value will depend on a variety of factors. I tend to believe it is minimal and won't affect your lap times at all. Some have done some testing and will quote numbers, but when you examine the testing I've found it far from conclusive and decisive.

[gran racing]

a fully complaint SM car is not compliant with IT but it's also not better than a fully built IT car, even one without more than slight intorturation of the roffe corollary. to include that in IT certainly wouldn't upset the balance of the class

I don't even want to begin going down that road. Might as well allow cams in cars to more easily attain HP / Tq numbers that could be achieved through a expensive and time consuming build. Same general concept and not a part of the IT philosophy, at least now.

I liked having power steering in my Honda. Sure is a workout to drive my Miata at times. With an injured shoulder, big bend at LRP is tough on it.

[Dano77]

Regardless, that would address one of the three biggest differences between SM and ITA, the other two being 1.6L final drive swaps (I think that could get line-item'd without much grief) and head prep (unfortunately, already "tech shed legal").


GA

Rear Subframe braces attached to body allowed on early model cars as well. 90-93 may upgrade to 94-97 rear subframe braces. Different spec lines. Drivers floor pan can be modified to accept a seat. Tunnel may be modified to accept a seat.


Yes these are nitpickey items, but they are Non-Compliant to the IT specs and specifically allowed in SM specs.

There are more but I need to repair a rocker panel today and cant look at the list yet.

[Ron Earp]

...and there are cases of cars with and without PSon different speclines due to trim or body type (think civic) with the same publsihed hp ratings, the ability to underdrive a parasitic system that is an effective gain over the cars without it, etc... no argument, and it's not the CRB. 'nuff said. you know where the letter form is.

The manufacturers did not publish two different horsepower specs based on the type of steering installed in the car and I’m sure we do not have that level of resolution in IT classing. How many cars came with manual and power steering racks? How many of those cars are racing? Wondering about ITS since I know some of those cars…

240,240,260,280Z – all manual
RX7 – manual and power available
TR8 – power only
Mustang – power only
300ZX – power only
Miata – power only I think for ITS years
240SX – power only?
E36 BMW 325 – power only?

FWIW NOTHING matches the process anyhow. E.G. all the popular ITS stuff is 5% or more above expected power, big motor cars like Jeff's TR8 and the mustangs are well above process weight and power (by how much I do not know, but they do allow that they are well over both). we're just lucky everythign has found a good relative balance due to all the hard work by the competitors

The process greatly underestimates gains for a variety of reasons:

*The level of R&D that would be done on IT cars that encompasses many, many facets of the engine development program.
*No distinction between two valve and four valve motors.
*Ignores what modern EFI can do for engine output compared to carbs, or even compared to early EFI.
*Largely ignores displacement and factors only peak power, although there is a "torque adder" that we know when to use when we see it.

With respect to the last point, earlier this week I got interested in area under the horsepower curve and performed some calculations based on my own dyno data. Back in the day, a version of my 260Z engine and a version of the Mustang engine were making the exact same peak power, 169 rwhp. However, the area under the horsepower curve in the best 2000 RPM wide power band for each motor was considerably different with the Mustang having a 16% advantage. Both of these engines exceed their IT process power. The 260Z was rated at 138hp from the factory and went on to make as much as 176-180hp at the wheel when everything was perfect. Parity with these two cars or engines was, as you say, by blind luck. The Z can make its 2480 lb process weight, the Mustang can't and races at about 13% heavier than the Z which is within spitting distance of the 16% horsepower area under the curve advantage.

As stated, most cars are above their 25% process power, but given how things shake out on track I’m not sure any “IT approved” formula or correction could improve things. I do think a new process using a max cam duration, a max lift, factoring displacement, and valve curtain area could create a very interesting and level class, but that’s another topic.

. It's time to open up the rule books for simple changes and start having deeper fields.

Back to this, so what is needed for SMs to come in droves to IT?

1. PS elimination allowance
2. Ability to run a larger torsen/rear end

[Flyinglizard]

The 1.6 SM has been legislated to the middle of the pack or less. The resulting values are now around$5K . Many are running Chump due to this. keep them from going chump would be a good start. IMHO.

Ask for member input regarding PS depower.

Please ask the people that pay the bills.
I doubt that 1 in 100 want to keep it as it is. The rack is the easy part, the lower column pieces are not and get expensive.

[gran racing]

Again, what's wrong with running them in SM2? Nothing on the cars needs to be changed, IT doesn't need to modify it's ruleset. Everything is already in place and done. Seems simple to me.

[Chip42]

The manufacturers did not publish two different horsepower specs based on the type of steering installed in the car and I’m sure we do not have that level of resolution in IT classing. How many cars came with manual and power steering racks? How many of those cars are racing? Wondering about ITS since I know some of those cars…

exactly my point. cars sold with both will have a single output number. my hunch is that would be the no PS number but we simply don't know. in some cases this is combined on one specline (ITA: NA miatas, from your example) and in others it's on different lines (ITB: civic DX 3dr, no PS. LX 4dr, only PS. same published hp, same engine designation, same weight, different speclines.) theres almost no reasonable or even nearly reaosnable way to "process" this.

...given how things shake out on track I’m not sure any “IT approved” formula or correction could improve things. I do think a new process using a max cam duration, a max lift, factoring displacement, and valve curtain area could create a very interesting and level class, but that’s another topic.

I, and I'm sure most of us, have no interest in making a new process. it's objective for the most part as it is, and an objective imperfect system is better than a completely subjective imperfect system.

Back to this, so what is needed for SMs to come in droves to IT?

1. PS elimination allowance
2. Ability to run a larger torsen/rear end

head prep allowances in SM are HUGE compared to IT (even grey area IT). read the SMCS, you'll love it. there are some other swaps that cross IT speclines the cars that share platforms (NA, NB ) like bracing and brakes aside from the rear center section on the NAs.