Results 1 to 20 of 78

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

Hybrid View

Previous Post Previous Post   Next Post Next Post
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Sunnyside, NY
    Posts
    1,197

    Default

    Bring it.
    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.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Orlando, FL
    Posts
    1,391

    Default

    what's wrong with just dumping the B6 and installing a BP of the correct vintage into an SM NA and calling it an ITA car? so long as head prep and other things are kept within IT specs, a 1.6L NA chassis built for SM is for all intents and purposes a 1.8L NA chassis (mirrors are open in IT, VIN rule is gone, etc...) and legal to IT specs as such (chassis - motor still has that head work allowance). someone please correct me if I am wrong.

    there's enough people still in SM willing to buy pulled SM prep engines that eventually the supply of them will be used up while nice IT compliant engines are installe din their place should the owner wish to come play in our sandbox. there's plenty of places to run the cars as configured to SM, I really don't think we need to add IT. despite that, most regions seem to have no problem letting the SM cars run in the IT group so the change doesn't really seem needed as it's not keeping "customers" away.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Enfield, CT, USA
    Posts
    488

    Default

    Not to be picky but looking at engine pulls to extrapolate power steering pump loss numbers appears to be the wrong approach. You would be better off trying to get drag loss numbers on the pumps themselves. Data from way back in the day is probably limited but I would be shocked if engine manufacturers today don't carefully spec that requirement and require the suppliers to provide it. I suspect someone either on this forum or from the CRB has connections in the auto industry.
    ~Matt Rowe
    ITA Dodge Neon
    NEDiv

  4. #4
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Since I'm a splitter, so apparently no longer allowed to have opinions about IT rules in particular, I'll speak in the abstract...

    If the point were "participation" or "just getting out there," the solution is in the catch-all kinds of classes that already exist, for which an SM - or any number of other cars - are already eligible, but will potentially be woefully off the pace of a really fast example of the class. Or we could have an entire group and call it "open passing HPDE 4" or some such.

    Point being, that's NOT the point.

    The underlying desire is to be able to RACE, to compete, but to do so conveniently with the same car already run in another class, without spending any additional money to make it fit the existing rules. It's very dangerous to let folks who are looking to compete but are playing the secret-really-wanna-race game into a category by falling for that charade. That camel will get its nose under the tent and start asking for more allowances in no time flat. Or, if the people who are currently lobbying for that option really DO just want to be there, there is nothing to keep the guy who shows up in a couple of years from pushing it.

    And conflating conversation about whether a particular new allowance is a good idea for a RACING category with discussion of including cars built to a different ruleset on some basis of PARTICIPAING...? A terrible idea. If New Rule X might a good idea, it should be considered all on its own. If the crossover allowance might be useful, it should be considered separately. I tend to think the latter is never a good idea but at least untangle them so you don't potentially have policy aims at cross purposes.

    K

    EDIT - OR maybe STL cars should be allowed to run in ITS. It would increase participation.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Dec 2001
    Location
    raleigh, nc, usa
    Posts
    5,252

    Default

    Or maybe let existing ITS cars (ALL of them) run in STL....lol.
    NC Region
    1980 ITS Triumph TR8

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Location
    Somewhere in the swamps of Jersey
    Posts
    399

    Default

    ... or all of those "ancient" 1.6 SM cars could come and run SSM with WDCR. We "only" had 30+ cars last weekend and 43 at MARRS 1 earlier this year. Jus' sayin'...
    Hero To The Momentum Challenged

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
  •