March 2014 Fastrack

Here's what I remember:

1. With the RSX, we had a real live request from a guy building the car for IT to move it to S. He's working with OPM and they believed the car, given curb weight, was a better fit in S. We'll probably see more higher than "normal" hp cars with higher than S average curb weights end up there. There is some talk of shifting the bogie for R slightly up, lowering the weights on all existing cars. THe perception, and I agree, is that the wrong bogie was chosen for R (the E36), since it is on the bottom end of the R scale, not the middle. No action on that yet, but there is talk of it.

2. Stephen, the decision on the 2009 RX8 was to add it, but to do so on a different spec line. Too many changes from the early model.

3. I frankly don't recall the discussion on the VWs. I'm not an expert on them, and tend to just listen and vote with what teh experts say if it makes reasonable sense.
 
I can barely get the rx8 to weight now :( uggg.

Bummer on the 09 deal. That implies I need to change bumpers and such to classify one of ours as an 09. I am curious on what the multiple things are, nothing that I know of that would Frankenstein something any better. If I were to pm anyone can I get some of the details discussed?

Thanks for the update, do you think that will be in the April update?
Stephen
 
The E36 is considered at the low end of R? Still seems pretty competitive....

Was curious if folks read the recent GRM issue on the E36 Putting out 240hp to the wheels with IT level mods....might have been 220 with cams making 240. The author made a big claim on that!

Was surprised that article didnt kick off its own thread :-)
 
Actually, Ben, we had evidence of 220whp on the E36s back in the mid-00s, circa 2003 or so. That's why it got a restrictor and begat the idea of ITR...

Man, has it really been that long...? What was the year(s) that Bimmerworld were running the ITS cars and wiping up the world? My benchmark for the apex of all that was the year George Roffe attended the ARRC and came back all a-fluster about how f*****g fast the BMWs were...and we were all like, "um....duh. What do you think we've been talking about these past couple years...?" I'm thinking 2004...?

Edit: yup, he was there in 2004: http://www.improvedtouring.com/forums/showthread.php?t=16806
 
Dude that is depressing - 10 years...and the debate on what coin that car makes still goes on.

So what is the target HP and TQ for ITR these days? I liked the thought of reducing R weight on existing cars...everybody knows how underpowered and overweight MY car is :-) lol ( insert my with any driver name)...:-)
 
The E36 isn't considered 'low' in ITR by any means. It is at about the lowest possible min weight in ITR given a 30% multiplier, which is soft. 35% is even light producing a theoretical 210whp.

The 09+ RX8's might be too different. The motor (3rd oil injector in each rotor housing) and the rear suspension geometry are different besides the body work.

While precedent is set on the motor and bodywork for being ok to UD/BD, the suspension geometry (no idea how significant) could be the sticking point...and very well should be.

If there are on different lines, you would need to change all of that stuff to be compliant.

On the RSX - what info did he use to prove a 'better' fit? I haven't seen any data that shows it couldn't get to minimum weight...and that's all that counts, right?
 
It was in the latest GRM?? I missed it.

Roughly speaking, ITR starts (with some justified anamolies) at 190 stock hp and goes to 240 stock hp, purposefully excluding the S52 BMW motors.

ITR and the power/weight ratio was 'built" around the 189 hp E36 325is at 2750. This was a mistake, as it effectively made all of the other cars in R too heavy (for the most part) and prevented us from including in R a number of cars in the 240-250 stock hp range since they would be ridiculously heavy at those numbers.

I can't speak for the whole committee obviously but the idea is that we bump R up a bit, reduce the power/weight multiplier so existing cars lose some weight, and we include some of the 240/250 stock hp cars in R.

At the same time, there is a realization that many of the tweeners in R/S -- the MX5, teh Celica GTS, the RSX, the TSX, the Civic Si belong in S as they are heavier curb weight cars and more esaily make weight in S with a full complement of "racer stuff:" cool suits and radios and such.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
The E36 isn't considered 'low' in ITR by any means. It is at about the lowest possible min weight in ITR given a 30% multiplier, which is soft. 35% is even light producing a theoretical 210whp.

.
Click to expand...

Yes, it is. You misunderstand. Setting the class multiplier around a car at 2750 race weight that made 189 stock hp with a 30% gain resulted in all a bunch of cars north of 200 hp being too heavy when the same multiplier was applied.

We (I was a part of it) picked the wrong bogie car for ITR. We should have picked something in the fatter part of the stock hp curve, like the 300ZX, and built off of that.
 
JeffYoung said:
There is some talk of shifting the bogie for R slightly up, lowering the weights on all existing cars. THe perception, and I agree, is that the wrong bogie was chosen for R (the E36), since it is on the bottom end of the R scale, not the middle. No action on that yet, but there is talk of it.
Click to expand...

Yes please. Base ITR around the 350Z and push ITS up a bit so the low end of the current R could come down to S. The window for both S and R are 20+ years out of date for modern cars. Cars with 2L motors shouldn't have to weigh 11tybillion pounds in S. :blink:
 
Hi Jeff it was two isues ago I think. Liking the thought of losing some poundage in
R. Seems that over 3000 lbs is a magic threshold where tires and brakes are consumed waay faster.
 
shwah said:
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.
Click to expand...

How does it do in the torque department? Does it see equal gains in the grunt as it did in hp when jumping from the 8V to 16V?

I know it does not matter as it is on track performance and all that.. but a new A3 VW build just beat the fastest and most developed (or atleast one of) ITB honda in SCCA right now. I still think if you go ITB and want to win... get an A3. If the 12A gets classed in ITB.. that could be a great cheap canidate.. as it already walks the fast ITB cars in the straights and that after coming out of the corners sideways on old NT01 or RA1s.
 
Last edited:
JeffYoung said:
Here's what I remember:


2. Stephen, the decision on the 2009 RX8 was to add it, but to do so on a different spec line. Too many changes from the early model.



Curious to know for what reason. Cars have the same motor and are set at the same weight. If there was a difference that would impact its performance in IT it would come up with a different weight. That said you have just created a complex system for no reason. With the vin rule it is a moot point as we can build any shell to 09 spec.
Click to expand...
 
Can't remember who on the committee did the research on that but the list sounded extensive (of changes).

If we are wrong, I'll certainly reconsider it.

Let us know (in more detail) what you think.
 
I'm with Steve. What reason is there to have a different spec line for the 09+ RX8s? The differences I've seen mentioned are slightly different bodywork, different rear suspension geometry and different oil injector plumbing. And I've seen Mazda PR that says that the chassis was stiffened. If those are adequate criteria, you've got a lot of other cars that ought to have separate spec lines. Just off the top of my head, 2nd gen RX7s have multiple body configurations, 1st gen RX7s have two different rear suspension geometries, and Fox Mustangs have 2 or 3 different cross members. Numerous cars on a single line have different listed HP ratings in covered models, which counts for a whole lot more than an added oil injector. If these weren't sufficient in the past to necessitate a separate spec line, I don't see why it should be an issue with RX8s. And using the Process, they are all irrelevant, anyway.

Unless there is a difference in listed HP for the 09+ cars, or there is good (Process-quality)evidence that an IT build gives the later cars a bigger boost than the older RX8s, the Process ought to say there is no difference between older and newer cars.
 
I will get some things together Jeff. I know the differences, and they are not anything that is considered in the process, thus they do not have any performance difference. Many cars on the list have a lot more differences than this one. The biggest thing we all want is the new transmission that is a toploader and actually has a 3rd gear cluster after more than one race. The early trans is junk. It was basically a MX5 trans and is very weak. They were fixed for 2009. Motor has 4 injectors , not 6, but same intake design. Power in IT trim unchanged. Either way there is nothing that can be combined to make a car better than either model on its own. Thanks for having an open mind. :023:
 
Glad to see SCCA look at the 16V.
The USA 16V came with AC and power steering AFAIK. It is possible that Canada had a 16V Rocco without AC and PS. I have never seen one.

The stock 16V has less open valve time than the RD 8V and just a little more compression.
All done with both very legal the 8V wil run right with the 16V @ about 50# more . The 16 carries about 40# more nose weight, spins a lot of valve parts along with the PS pump.
2325# would not make it a front runner IMHO. The squirted Mk 3 with early cam specs and double springs will still out run it up to around 2450#.
If the 8V wheels @108-110 with CIS, 111-113 squirted
the 16V spins around 113-115 (CIS, with PS and alt working)
The ABA 2.0 is well into low 118-120 or maybe a little more.

The 8V should be 2250#, the 16 @ 2325,
the ABA @ 2450 or maybe 2400.
Based on actual rollers. These are values used for the few VW Cup races. Some issues that we had; all of the 16V had too much compression, the wrong intake cam. The 8V had much of the same. We speced the Brazilian 268 cam for the 8V and allowed the two intake cams for the 16 V and it worked out fine with 50# spread .
I built 2 SCCA ITA 16V for customers and we promptly swapped to the 8V. same lap times.

I will roll these all in the next month or so, back to back on the same tires etc. I dont run any SCCa ABA legal engines tho.
 
Tom's right, it would appear there are other cars that have more differences than the RX7 but still appear on the same spec line. In most cases the differences have no affect on the stock horsepower, but in a few cases they do.

Off hand I can think of no cars, RX8 included, that have any changes in the same specification that fundamentally alters the suspension to the point that the IT Formula takes it into account. That being said one would think the cars would all reside on a single line.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top