Teach me about ITR 325's

[Greg Amy]

...I do see a possible issue when a superior injection system can be used on a higher stock compression motor it was never paired with.

From GCR 9.1.3.C, the same paragraph that allows updating/backdating: "Additionally, it is not permitted to 'create' a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies."

Ergo, it is permissible to "update" to match the specs of a "superior" car, but you cannot create a car with a combination of equipment that the factory never delivered. What you describe above would be illegal.

To clarify my point from my prior post, all I'm saying is that by splitting out different-spec cars, such as the S4 and S5 RX-7, you create the opportunity for someone to race the "lesser" car competitively without being forced to upgrade to the "better" specs. Without that split no one can race the base S4 competitively.

If you think that's best for the category in pursuit of simplicity, I can understand. But, I respectively disagree: being forced to upgrade the lesser-expensive, easily-obtainable model to more-rare, more-expensive specs is most assuredly not "simpler" for anyone except the rulesmakers... - GA

[lateapex911]

From GCR 9.1.3.C, the same paragraph that allows updating/backdating: "Additionally, it is not permitted to 'create' a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies."

Ah, yes, i forgot about that..

To clarify my point from my prior post, all I'm saying is that by splitting out different-spec cars, such as the S4 and S5 RX-7, you create the opportunity for someone to race the "lesser" car competitively without being forced to upgrade to the "better" specs. Without that split no one can race the base S4 competitively.

Yup, I agree, that's why i wrote teh letter to get the Porsches separated. More options, no downside.

[seckerich]

And before you class that S4 I can tell you it does a lot more than you think with a "proper" ECU. Main limitation was the electronics and the intake can be made to work. The lower compression rotors are not a huge limiter.

[shwah]

While I certainly respect the valididy of the conversation, I do think that it would be real dangerous to start mucking around with the classification of the ITS RX7. It is classed really well right now, based as much on what we know the 'right' one can do (or more) than on the spec sheet of the OEM car. There is a real risk of getting the lower rated rotary wrong - in either direction - and doing a disservice to the class in the process.

Further to Kirk's question - can I turn my FRONT 'small bumper' assy to a 'big bumper' assy on my Golf, while leaving the REAR as is? I did, because I found a big bumper used cheap and wanted to try it. I believe I am within the rules to do so , because they are separate assemblies, and they were delivered at different times on my model (heck in model year 1990 the Golf was delvered with both styles). I'm sure this is the case in other places, Kirk's motor changed from the 'beefy' forged crank, piston oil squirter bottom end mid-model year if I recall for instance.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Back on topic: my pick for ITR would be an E46 325is...

[robits325is]

Back on topic: my pick for ITR would be an E46 325is...

I think you mean 325ci (325i - Sedan). That is the model I like as well. 2,800lbs might be tough though.

[JoshS]

I think you mean 325ci (325i - Sedan). That is the model I like as well. 2,800lbs might be tough though.

I'd pick the Z4 2.5i over the 325Ci. Same suspension design, same engine. Smaller chassis, lower CG, etc etc. Not sure about aero though.

[Knestis]

Topic, schmopic.



K

[Eagle7]

From GCR 9.1.3.C, the same paragraph that allows updating/backdating: "Additionally, it is not permitted to 'create' a model or type of car by updating or backdating assemblies."

Ergo, it is permissible to "update" to match the specs of a "superior" car, but you cannot create a car with a combination of equipment that the factory never delivered. What you describe above would be illegal.

To clarify my point from my prior post, all I'm saying is that by splitting out different-spec cars, such as the S4 and S5 RX-7, you create the opportunity for someone to race the "lesser" car competitively without being forced to upgrade to the "better" specs. Without that split no one can race the base S4 competitively.

If you think that's best for the category in pursuit of simplicity, I can understand. But, I respectively disagree: being forced to upgrade the lesser-expensive, easily-obtainable model to more-rare, more-expensive specs is most assuredly not "simpler" for anyone except the rulesmakers... - GA

Ouch. If I understand you correctly, virtually all the S4s (86-88) are illegal. The S4 has a different front bumper cover and different body side-molding than the S5 (89-91). I think you are saying the S5 engine (and any other S5-only parts) can't be used with the S4 body, because that combo never came from the factory. That would be earth-shaking.

[seckerich]

Ouch. If I understand you correctly, virtually all the S4s (86-88) are illegal. The S4 has a different front bumper cover and different body side-molding than the S5 (89-91). I think you are saying the S5 engine (and any other S5-only parts) can't be used with the S4 body, because that combo never came from the factory. That would be earth-shaking.

Actually no. Side molding can be removed so that is a moot point. The bumper covers should be changed as a pair to bring the tub up to 89-91 spec. You are not allowed to create a model, just bring that tub to match the desired years spec. Nothing earth shattering.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The RX-7 seems to be unusual as far as spec lines go. So many models and a pair of engine outputs. If I read correctly, Kirk is saying the the spec line defines the model - and agree because 99% of the spec lines are singular models. In order to be fair to this car, it would make sense to break them out.

So I am sure there are Franken RX-7's out there that started as early cars and were updated to later cars by assembly. From an on-track performance standpoint, they can't perform any better than the 89-91 GTUs because all the good parts are on that car.

[Eagle7]

Actually no. Side molding can be removed so that is a moot point. The bumper covers should be changed as a pair to bring the tub up to 89-91 spec. You are not allowed to create a model, just bring that tub to match the desired years spec. Nothing earth shattering.

OK, turning my original question inside out, are you saying that if I use any S5-only parts on my S4 tub, that I must replace all S4-only parts with S5 parts, except those with explicit allowances, like body side molding? And if I choose not to remove my S4 side molding that I am illegal? This would be a big paradigm shift for me that I'm still trying to wrap my brain around.

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK, turning my original question inside out, are you saying that if I use any S5-only parts on my S4 tub, that I must replace all S4-only parts with S5 parts, except those with explicit allowances, like body side molding? And if I choose not to remove my S4 side molding that I am illegal? This would be a big paradigm shift for me that I'm still trying to wrap my brain around.

I don't think that is the case. Again, we all need to agree that the spec line defines the model. As far as the ITCS/GCR are concerned, all 1986 to 1991 RX-7's are the same model. You can update/backdate ASSEMBLIES from anything on that spec line.

As you know, it is not possible to create a car that is better than the 1989-1990 GTUs no matter what you use because they are all the same or lesser parts on the S4's.