March 2014 Fastrack

What are the HP levels on the 16V VW's that got moved to ITB?

What was the feedback/request that got the RSX-S moved to ITS - weight not attainable? Who supplied the data? 2790lb curb weight with 200/210hp? Interesting.

I hate summaries that don't summarize anything:

STL
1. #13375 (Robert Schader) Specification Line Car
Thank you for your letter.
The CRB will continue to monitor the performance of the class and make adjustments as needed
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I see they moved all of the 16V VW's to ITB. Of course they added weight, I went from 2320 to 2560 with the Scriocco. Seeing that I couldn't get the car below 2400 lbs as it sits I know that I can make that weight by putting the accusump back in, the spare tire, and perhaps the stock pass. seat. With a full load of fuel I won't be that far off.

Maybe SCCA will drop that weight a bit after a couple of years just as then did to the MR2 when it moved from ITA to ITB. Or I can at least hope?
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
What are the HP levels on the 16V VW's that got moved to ITB?
Click to expand...

123hp. Not your typical flowing 16v head. A LOT of exhaust port restriction that could be addressed with porting and bigger exhaust cams, if it were not for IT rules...

That is a lot of weight for the GTI's small brakes (same as the A1 and A2 8v cars), and these cars carry more front end weight. I don't recall if any were available with manual steering, and obviously the head and intake is a bit heavier. Not sure that I see them keeping up with A3 VWs (maybe....), let alone Hondas in ITB.
 
Greg Amy said:
127 IIRC.

Remember the whole WDYT discussion on this? Looks like they chose ITS for both.

No point in airing details of member dissatisfaction with our FWD/RWD weight process.
Click to expand...

1. Ya, I think 123hp sounds about right for the 1.8's. 2.0 that still remains in ITA were 134hp?

2. I guess I'd like to hear from the people who own/built them on what weight is attainable. It doesn't seem like the curb weights mesh. ITR weight was 2665lbs. Seems very attainable.

3. Maybe not the 'details' but at least the 'subject'. Seems very selective.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
3. Maybe not the 'details' but at least the 'subject'. Seems very selective.
Click to expand...
Not necessarily "selective", it's that any details are just not useful information. You know that, you've been there. Nothing was changed, nothing new was decided, its publication in Fastrack was just a courtesy, confirming considering and printing the results. If it had a title of "I don't like how you're setting RWD weights" you'd probably want more info anyway... :shrug:

We can't publish everything in Fastrack - it would take too much time and space - so the CRB focuses on the details of those letters that result in changes to the regs. Everything else is, well, pretty much "thanks for your input."

If you really want the details, I'm sure the author of the letter would be glad to send them to you....but we won't publish that as a courtesy to the submitter. - GA
 
Greg Amy said:
Not necessarily "selective", it's that any details are just not useful information. You know that, you've been there. Nothing was changed, nothing new was decided, its publication in Fastrack was just a courtesy, confirming considering and printing the results. If it had a title of "I don't like how you're setting RWD weights" you'd probably want more info anyway... :shrug:

We can't publish everything in Fastrack - it would take too much time and space - so the CRB focuses on the details of those letters that result in changes to the regs. Everything else is, well, pretty much "thanks for your input."

If you really want the details, I'm sure the author of the letter would be glad to send them to you....but we won't publish that as a courtesy to the submitter. - GA
Click to expand...

We will agree to disagree. I see nothing wrong with "Please reduce RWD penalty" or "Please increase % for RWD in STL" with the resultant "The STAC has made a recent change and will continue to monitor the class competitiveness." As it was published, it serves zero purpose other than to the author. Hardly a productive use of space. If the SCCA wants to communicate with just one person, do it in email.

Each letter can, and should, be summed up in one sentence, with the appropriate answer. I have seen a lot of improvement in this area lately and this one seems in-congruent with that progress.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
I see nothing wrong with "Please reduce RWD penalty" or "Please increase % for RWD in STL" with the resultant "The STAC has made a recent change and will continue to monitor the class competitiveness."
Click to expand...
If all request letters were as pleasant, well-written, and straightforward as you describe ("please sir, may I have another?") then that would be fine. They rarely are. And I think you know that.

GA, suddenly wondering if Andy is new to this "Internet thing"...or to article comments sections, or to the kinds - and format - of letters that the CRB gets...
 
AHHHHHH Yet another car with more factory HP than the first gen RX7 gets moved from A to B. So happy all the cars I used to be racing with are now moved to a class that will enable them to remain viable race cars....

Kinda half joking here...........
 
Like I said, there has been a lot of improvement in this area in recent history. I know that it's something the ITAC has focused on improving with nice results.

It really isn't that hard to summarize a letter in a concise and polite manner, it just takes some effort. The entry we are talking about was a total waste of space.
 
Last edited:
Dano77 said:
AHHHHHH Yet another car with more factory HP than the first gen RX7 gets moved from A to B. So happy all the cars I used to be racing with are now moved to a class that will enable them to remain viable race cars....

Kinda half joking here...........
Click to expand...

While I agree that the 12A RX-7 would be a solid candidate for ITB, lets remember that the factory HP rating is just the first step in the calculation. What REALLY matters is what it makes (or is estimated to make) in IT trim. That is the number that creates your multiplier for your class factor.
 
Looks like Brian Blizzard is going to ITB... confirm? If so, great for ITB, bad for ITA. That boy can move at LRP.
 
OK, so back onto the RSX-S. In looking really hard at the FT, it looks like the ITAC-sponsored letter might have been a proactive move triggered by the request from letter #11955 to have the ITS Civic with a similar motor moved to ITR (not recommended).

I am sure I am wrong but I like the logic! :)

These cars have a real life weight difference of about 250-300lbs so the separation seems to make sense. I know a team who is building an RSX-S for ITR and they claim they have data showing the car should end up about 2400-2450 without driver.

Any ITAC member care to shed some light on this? Thanks!
 
I am being selfish for a second...
I put in a request on the rx8 that I thought the itac sent a recommendation to the crb on already. Can anyone verify that? I was hoping it would make the March publication.

Thanks, Stephen
 
StephenB said:
I am being selfish for a second...
I put in a request on the rx8 that I thought the itac sent a recommendation to the crb on already. Can anyone verify that? I was hoping it would make the March publication.

Thanks, Stephen
Click to expand...

The addition of the 2009 or something different?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top