March 2014 Fastrack

[Matt Rowe]

In practice, thiugh its later brakes, early chassis, later trans, and middle engine with later internals and older, lighter block. So specifically NOT a real car as could be found in a showrooM, BUT legal per UD/BD

This doesn't change the real vs fabricated model debate but did we drop the part of the UD/BD rule that requires updates as an assembly? If not that precludes the idea of early block with later internals.

[StephenB]

We should find out more in march, I forgot that I specifically asked for same spec line and offered info in helping make a decision. :-)

Stephen Blethen,
Your letter has been reviewed by the Club Racing Board and a response will appear in the March Fastrack. Here are your letter details:

Letter: #13448*
Category: IT*
Class: ITR*
Title: Classify 2009 RX8 in ITR*
Request: I would like to expand the eligibility of the Mazda RX8 through 2009 on the same spec line as the 2004-2008.* thanks for your time, if you need additional info on the car please let me know and I can provide any information you are looking for.
Stephen Blethen*

[seckerich]

Go back and read until the end Stephen, your letter is referenced and the 09 is listed, not added to the existing spec line. Now it will require action to move it to the existing line.

[StephenB]

Thanks, didn't see it before. I thought I read the entire thing?.?

[Chip42]

This doesn't change the real vs fabricated model debate but did we drop the part of the UD/BD rule that requires updates as an assembly? If not that precludes the idea of early block with later internals.

No, in 1987 3 rib (early) blocks were sold with 21mm gudgeon pistons, and associate rods and crank. The motor did exist, the chassis stampings and brakes it would have come with were pretty specific, though. Late chassis, late front brakes (22mm wide rotor), early rear brakes, late body details.

The point is that if we allow this, and we have for years, we allow this. It can have effects that are simply trivial, like the mr2, or maybe that create better than expected outcomes.

[gpeluso]

Is it possible newer approach needs to be thought of..... Simply having allowances. IT cars are becoming much more expensive to build due to rules. So, the idea of this is entry level is false. Due to electronics I wasted an entire year trying to deactivate the abs and traction control.....is resulted in many limp mode scenarios . I had to spend $3500 for a standalone and countless hrs and 1 ruined motor getting it to work. Let the RX8 guys use the tranny for reliability.. Make it cheaper! If we were racing enduros I understand that it would be a true performance increase but we race 20-30 minutes.

Broad rules are tough.. Give all a change... Get rid of the idea that not all cars are guaranteed to be competitive..... By doing that you really create spec type cars....like the rx7 2nd gen.... All had roughly the same combo of go fast parts.

Also, when a car performs out of the expected level something has to be done. All motors are not created equal and some respond a lot better than others to bolt-ons.

Look at SM....... With originally tight motor allowance they had to allow cheats... Could not catch the guys effectively.... They now have greater engine allowances than IT. What makes all think this is not happening. Current rules are fine for 25 yr plus yr old cars.

I think it is near impossible to run rules by volunteers. Obviously there is passion here.....I believe all are trying their best.... However that doesn't mean things are good for the future of the class. Sad to see many IT cars at lemon races.

Greg

[Chip42]

Greg - your points are well taken. personally, I think our engine allowances are fine as they are pretty clear in what IS and IS NOT allowed. but you are right that newer cars are a lot more complicated, and racing is no longer even possible in many cases without substantial investment to rid them of their street-based computer systems. in the old days, you could pull AC and various interior bits, bolt on a header and go have fun. now, as you have learned, you pretty much have to replace the ECU and get it sorted out. some care are lucky to have OBDII tuners available that allow you to change calibrations and deactivate features, but even those are largely older. so the easy to build cars are going to be "old" cars, and parts availability are going to limit which are viable.

we'll continue to class new cars, because in reality the cost of the ECU and all that is a cost of running in front in IT in any car with electronic injection. by the time a full-tilt racecar is built, the cost of the street car you started with is a pretty small portion of the cost, even on much newer cars.

the "problem" is that IT became popular and the cost to run up front got higher. there are certainly winners and losers in the ITCS though - just no way to balance all those cars under our generic rules with basically small weight adjustments and 5 classes to cover ~40 years of automotive innovation.

but yes, we can take a less hard lined stance on things like improved components, even allowing some more better than stock aftermarket components - and we don't try to forbid those improved OEM parts, we just try to maintain spec lines that minimize "needed" mix and match and rare parts, and could result in cars that are too unlike those sold in this country. allowing better than stock aftermarket parts is a VERY slippery slope and could result in more "race" parts rather than "race capable" parts and further raise the bar on track and muddy the line with the Production category.

but LeChump? yeah, there's an attractiveness there, but the cars are just as old as anything in IT.