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

[JeffYoung]

On a more serious note (from me?), 2-3 HP can be very expensive to acquire. Should it be a gift to those with power steering?

It can also be expensive and impossible to prove you've acquired it.

I've got probably 40-50 dyno runs over the last 3 years. 2-3 hp is dyno noise. You get that much variation in results back to back same conditions just minutes apart.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The Miata example isn't a good one as that car just got a weight adjustment using the 'what we know' theory. The most fair way to do it would be to determine a % gain factor...say 1 or 2% (based on actual research, could be more, could be non-existent based on results) and simply add it to all cars with power steering, and then allow them to remove it.

There is a faction that thinks that average gains in IT are greater than 25%, so maybe allowing this and moving the number to 30% could work.

OR, we could leave it alone because nothing is broken...my vote.

As to SM's...it's not just the pumpkin. It's chassis bracing from 1.8's allowed on 1.6's. It's other stuff too, no GCR in my hand. Again, my issue is that RIGHT NOW, a full prep 1.6 or 1.8 SM does not have the performance envelope of the ITA Miata...so there is no issue allowing them to compete while prepped to the SM rules...but the rub is simple:

What if the SMAC/CRB decides to allow the MX5 in...and tries to balance them all in one class? 1.6's get spec cams and 2 points of compressions, 1.8's get spec cams, 99's lose their restriction....you can't have your class dependent on another classes rules that doesn't care about your class. Work it regionally.

[Ron Earp]

It can also be expensive and impossible to prove you've acquired it.

I've got probably 40-50 dyno runs over the last 3 years. 2-3 hp is dyno noise. You get that much variation in results back to back same conditions just minutes apart.

Truth. Checking my hard drive team stang has 67 dyno pulls between the two cars since May 2012. We do statistically analyze our pulls, as well as curve fit them and integrate for area under the curve. We calculate that a couple of percent seems to fall into the noise of the measurement with the noise being comprised of a variety of components.

[Chip42]

2-3hp is 5% change in ITB. that's debated HEAVILY and can be 50#. how much of our lives here and on committee of various incarnations has been spent debating 5% gain or 50# on ITB cars? how much hoopl was raised by 50# on a miata? it might be in the noise of the dyno, and that's part of OUR problem, but it's not noise in the process, it's a major modification to the lower classes and one of the places where the process and its inputs fail the lower hp / wider mixed technology age classes.

re: power steering. I also suppor the change as I feel i screws SOME cars and helps many. but it's not outside fo the philosophy in my oppinion, certainly adds ease of service and keeps people happy because racecar. the problem just becomes a sudden increase, albeit small at the higher ends of development, in all cars now allowed to run depowered. that just moves the curve a bit. I believe ron is correct that you wouldn't notice it at all in ITS+ but I think as you dig into A and easily in B the effects will be more pronounced, though there's also the truth that many cars down at thos elevels never had the PS option anyhow. the part that worries me is when removal of power steering becomes a defacto requirement as opposed to a nicety - like 0.040 over motors are now - there are cars and drivers who benefit from PS and I woudln't want to HURT them in this way. Id vote for allowing depowering though.

I could be convinced that allowing unmodified SM cars into IT a'la SM in ST is OK so long as NA goes to A and NB to S, and that we have some assurances or veto authority over decisions of the SMAC so that they do not change their performance envelope above where it is now and unbalance the allowance in IT. either way, the feeling of getting screwed that jimbo noted is a very likely outcome and I go back to that and a lack of real need to make this allowance when I say I do NOT want it.


keeping the customers happy is a double edged sword. getting car counts up through artificial means and allowing mods, swaps, changes, or updates to keep cars on track (trans gears, rear end housings, power steering, ecus, whatever) has the effect of moving the class further away from the entry level "bolt on and go" origins to something altogether new and more "prod like". I'm all for making it easier and for finding ways to help keep the old cars on track but not when it caries potentially large shifts in the performance envelope. this is why I support many rules in IT that exist to limit the platform, such that a number of other modifications have a reduced effect (cage boundaries is the common example, reducing effectiveness of many suspension parts to small gains over less "pimpy" upgrades).

[gran racing]

I do wonder how those currently racing in ITA would feel about this as well. Many are not so happy about there being so many Miatas already. Add even more... After numbers in IT? Overall goal of IT and how this fits?

From an overall SCCA viewpoint, I still think it's just a matter of where these cars end up and not concern of losing them. We already have the tools built.

[Ron Earp]

I do wonder how those currently racing in ITA would feel about this as well. Many are not so happy about there being so many Miatas already.

Heck, the SCCA is a Miata club already. Take a gander around the regional paddock and compare Miatas vs. other cars, excluding Spec Racer Fords, and it's pretty clear in the production based categories Mazda/Miata is the most populous car. Accommodating them into the framework of existing classes makes the most sense to me instead of creating yet another SCCA class in a club with too many classes.

[mossaidis]

Bring it.

[Chip42]

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.

[Matt Rowe]

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.