October fastrack is out

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Jake@Aug 19 2005, 09:05 PM
Good move on the 94-95 Miata going to ITA.

Yup, I agree. But, as I've said to others privately, I think it's too light. That car has a lot of potential to be a class-killer, but I hope I'm wrong.

And I'm peeved that I sold my '94 SM literally days before I got word about this change. Had I known this, especially given the weight, I would have dumped the NX in a heartbeat...sold it for a killer price, too...sigh...

[Jake]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Aug 20 2005, 12:13 PM
And I'm peeved that I sold my '94 SM literally days before I got word about this change. Had I known this, especially given the weight, I would have dumped the NX in a heartbeat...sold it for a killer price, too...sigh...

[snapback]58693[/snapback]

Arrgh... that's tragic! I've got this thought in the back of my mind that if I sell the MR2 and get a SM or Spec Serra Integra, the MR2 will move to B instantly after.

[RP Performance]

Maybe time to convert some 1.8 SM cars to ITA. I have one but after converting my 1.6 last winter that might be too much work. Does anyone know if the 4.8 rear will work in the 1.8 housing? We need to keep my 1.8 in SM trim to try and win the 12 hour again in "06"

[RP Performance]

Also forgot, my ITA 1.6 Miata is for sale. I will put an ad in the classifieds soon.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Aug 20 2005, 12:13 PM
Yup, I agree. But, as I've said to others privately, I think it's too light. That car has a lot of potential to be a class-killer, but I hope I'm wrong.

[snapback]58693[/snapback]

This one took a LOT of discussion by the ITAC... Based on the classification process for IT, this as classified is within 25lbs of where it should be... The problem with making it any heavier is that, because of the current SM cage rules, EVERY car out there built to the SM rules would have to replace the entire cage to come race ITA, because SM allows a lighter weight tubing than IT at the same weight...

So, this one WAS a bit of a compromise, which was made in an effort to help protect the investments of the competitors...

Keep in mind, however, that we have an Ace in the hole on this one... Because the 1.8 in SM is required to run a restrictor (43mm I believe), and we now have PCAs, which allow us to make adjustments... If it is proven that we've underestimated the performance potential of this car, we have the option of requiring that a restrictor be added back to the specs...

In doing the classification this way, we were able to get the car in at a legal weight for the cage, yet still protect the other competitors from a potential "class killer"...

Hopefully somewhat of a win-win for the class...

Also... I don't know if I'd go bailing on my car before the December BoD meetings... Some interesting things could happen at the end of the year...

[Jake]

Well, it certainly had no business being in ITS with only 128hp stock. Seems like the best decision that could have been made considering the restraints.

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 20 2005, 11:07 AM
...we have an Ace in the hole...a restrictor...

[snapback]58701[/snapback]

Yeah, Darin (and you-know-who else), I'd forgotten about that ace. I really hate restrictors, but I see it as an acceptable compromise. Though, I'd have preferred that the car come into ITA *with* its associated SM restrictor, with consideration to remove it later, rather than vice versa. It's always easier to remove restrictions (weight or otherwise) than to add them.

Regardless, as I noted, this car belongs in ITA. I'm sure it will add to the exitement in a class that has been completely transformed over the last 5 years, one that in my opinion is the best IT class we've got... GA

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by GregAmy@Aug 20 2005, 06:33 PM
Though, I'd have preferred that the car come into ITA *with* its associated SM restrictor, with consideration to remove it later, rather than vice versa. It's always easier to remove restrictions (weight or otherwise) than to add them.

[snapback]58710[/snapback]

Using the IT classification process, and also knowing some real output numbers for IT prepped 1.8L Mazda motors, the car is VERY close at the classified weight... The wt/pwr ratio is just about right for the class...

We are trying to NOT use restrictors, but in these special cases, they may be necessary... It might be in the best interests of IT for us to investigate the idea of using single-inlet-restrictors rather than flat plate restrictors, because, as the GT guys have discovered, the SIRs are an excellent way to absolutely limit the output...

After all the discussion, it is my believe that this Miata WILL be a competitive car in ITA, but not because of it's wt/pwr ratios... More likely because there are a TON of them out there, sharing development and ideas, and competiting in sheer numbers... Because, on paper, this car has about the same potential as the 1.6L already classified in ITA...

We'll see... I know it's a stretch for many of you, but I would hope you can see by now that there ARE people watching this kind of thing and ready to make adjustments if they are needed...

[RP Performance]

Don't forget that is still 175 lbs more then a 1.6. Not sure if you can get that much more out of it. I still think that the 1.6 might be a better car.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by RP Performance@Aug 20 2005, 10:00 PM
Don't forget that is still 175 lbs more then a 1.6. Not sure if you can get that much more out of it. I still think that the 1.6 might be a better car.

[snapback]58714[/snapback]

Exactly... With the ONLY difference in IT being the displacement... I believe these cars will actually equate quite well... I think the 1.6 liter car is very close to idealy classified for this class...

Does anyone have any real data on what a 1.8 is capable of putting out in IT trim???

[Greg Amy]

Brett, my SM-prepped &#39;94 (C-package, no ABS, de-powered power steering) weighed exactly 2374 with me in it. I personally weigh about 190-200 in my driver&#39;s pretties. So, the car is *right there* with 13 pound Koseis and the spec suspension. You can see why I&#39;m pissed I sold it...<grin>

Darin, most of the SM development has been on the 1.6s. Reliable wheel power on that car has been rumored to be from 95 on a crate engine to somewhere in the 105+ range on a Sunbelt engine. The 1.8s came with 10 more ponies stock and more torque, so your power-to-weight is close. However, I base my concerns on the fact that the Spec Miatas have historically run pretty decent times compared to the ITA boys, especially at the slower tracks like LRP. Given the (crappy) stock header, inlet restrictor, the (less than optimal) spec suspension, Toyo 15" tires, limited rear end ratios, and 13-pound wheels, there&#39;s KEE-RAPLOAD of development left in that car. Get one of the SM hot shoes in that car (like Prince de Pedro) and that car has a damn fine shot at ITA glory.

Doncha worry, though: if I ever get my stuff together, you boys will be crying to Topeka for weight additions on the NX...<grin>

[RP Performance]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 20 2005, 10:28 PM
Exactly... With the ONLY difference in IT being the displacement... I believe these cars will actually equate quite well... I think the 1.6 liter car is very close to idealy classified for this class...

Does anyone have any real data on what a 1.8 is capable of putting out in IT trim???

[snapback]58716[/snapback]

My guess is that it is not going to be that much more then a 1.6. Just did not looking and maybe it will be better. The 94-95 had 128hp and 96-97 had 133 hp stock.

[Catch22]

And the thing that will always hold the Miata in check... Aero.
The 1.6 can&#39;t even hang with a good CRX down the back straight at Road Atlanta. I can&#39;t imagine that the 1.8 with the extra weight would do much better.

Pure speculation.

But I do think it was a good move. Weight looks good too.

[ShelbyRacer]

OK, so I have a question (go figure).

Were ANY of the current ITAC members on board when the Neon was classified in ITS? If so, WTF was everyone smoking?

I will admit, when I first saw the proposed Miata classification, I about flipped, but I&#39;m starting to understand some of the reasoning (though I may not agree with all of it).

Unfortunately, this just adds to the questions I&#39;ve always had about the ITS Neon fiasco. I&#39;m sure this has been beaten to death, so this really is more of a rhetorical question, but one has to wonder...

So, a comment on the roll cage vs. weight issue. I understand the reasoning of allowing the move and making an easy transition, but why would ultimate safety take a back seat to convenience? In this case, it was close, but I think it sets a bad precedent (and yes, I know, there&#39;s no such thing as a precedent in SCCA). Do this also mean that if a car on the high side of the break is too slow and you drop a few pounds, that you won&#39;t go under the break point? Please don&#39;t say that in that situation it&#39;s OK because it&#39;s more safe, because I&#39;m constantly being told by people on this forum that if there&#39;s a performance advantage, you have essentially no choice but to do it, as you said above (which is why we can&#39;t just "allow" other things that make sense).

I guess I&#39;m the only one who suddenly sees some guy bringing a Miata and running ITA in one group, SSM in another, and SM in a third, just by unbolting a few things... Then again, I&#39;m not sure if that a horrible thing or not... Maybe it&#39;s just sour grapes since I don&#39;t own one or have one to sell... :P

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Aug 20 2005, 03:07 PM
... The problem with making it any heavier is that, because of the current SM cage rules, EVERY car out there built to the SM rules would have to replace the entire cage to come race ITA, because SM allows a lighter weight tubing than IT at the same weight...

Hmm. This sets a precedent that makes me a little concerned. I understand the logic but making IT spec decisions - irrespective of the restrictor option being available - to accommodate rules in other categories, seems like a very dangerous approach.

This step makes it evident that, in terms of policy, making it easier for 1.8 Miatas to migrate from SM to ITA is a bigger priority, than is consistency of application of policies and practices within the IT category. That smacks of reactive rather than strategic planning, which might seem appropriate given the rise in popularity of SM, but is likely to have unintended consequences.

Would the same response be applied if someone suggested (again) that they would run both IT and Prod, if the glass/headlight/lens rule in IT were eased?

Heck - if smaller tube is OK in an SM over 2500 pounds (or whatever it is), maybe the rollcage rules are the issue and should be addressed.

Kirk (for whom everything has potential policy implications)