September fastrack

[shwah]

The more I think about it, the less I like the Dual Class idea. The cars that the ITAC can convince themselves fall into this category - unreachable weight - should be moved. I don't see a good argument to have cars in two classes, other than the ones we have now (car in existing top class gets moved to new top class, lives in both classes during transition).

If a car truely cannot get to weight in ITA, why even leave it on the books there. Move them all.

"There's no way it would be a threat at the proposed weight. As for responsibilities to more than one individual, I have no idea who in the club it pleases to keep the car misclassed other than Chris Albin.
[/b]

Wow Jake. Your posts have not exactly driven towards any point other than one beneficial to you personally, yet you have the lack of class to question the integrity of someone that you obviously don't even know.

I say move the MR2 into B, unless the driver is named Jake, move those to S at current weight.

 

[Doc Bro]

Again, *I* might know in my gut the car is better in B, but, any move the committee makes needs to be defendable to the CRB, the BoD and the IT community at large.
[/b]

Jake,

I commend the members of the ITAC, many do- and are thankful for the efforts to make the club great. [Those efforts are LARGELY thankless- and for my part of that thanklessness I'm sorry to everyone on the ITAC]. The problem lies with inconsistencies in the messages. Why does something like the MR 2 or build level questionability etc(....basically all of this thread) get scrutinized to the Nth degree while (again, sorry Ben) the Fiero subframe issue get passed right along through? Does ANYONE on the ITAC know they don't just bolt up??? (Thanks to Ben's high integrity to publicly post that- otherwise we'd all be in the dark) Where is the defendable stance to the BoD, CRB or the IT community on that? I don't understand why the soapbox for one car or issue, while something else (outside of the philosophy of IT I contend) goes right along by.......we either live with loose rules or tight rules, not an interplay between the two.


R

 

[gran racing]

Guys, think what you would do if YOU were on the ITAC....[/b]

I'd add weight to the Audis, Golf III, Volvo, Alpha, the ITA Miata (just because I want to pick on Andy), reduce the Prelude's weight by 100 lbs.




Sorry, couldn't resist.

 

[Doc Bro]

I'd add weight to the Audis, Golf III, Volvo, Alpha, the ITA Miata (just because I want to pick on Andy), reduce the Prelude's weight by 100 lbs.
Sorry, couldn't resist.
[/b]

Dave don't forget that you'd give all racers opportunity to utilize PVC and duct tape to modify/replace/repair any part!!

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Dude, your like a brotha from anotha motha but seriously, man....it burns my buscuits when you say that. I get your point you don't need to explain it again, but do you REALLY (really, really,really) REALLY, expect someone to show you their buildsheet without any (intellectual property) omissions? Why do we have patents? Does a coach show the other coach his playbook for the sake of a better "competition"? Why do people pad their resume? Why do poker players wear dark glasses?? With the competitive nature of this venture you have to see the trace amounts of DA-DA-ism in that statement. When I was asking you for help with my custom header you were reluctant to give me the name of your guy (and ultimately didn't) and I was left to find my own. I certainly understand and don't fault you or mean disrespect, BUT, same thing, NO? With fellow IT competitors sitting on the ITAC I just don't see how the conveyance of unfiltered, unmanipulated information can flow with sincerity.


(Andy, I'm not trying to attack here, just trying to keep it fair, and point out a flaw inherent in the system.)


.02

R [/b]

You guys aren't getting the point. You can't singularly hold up your 'conclusion' as a means for change - and not show your 'work'. I don't think the ITAC/CRB needs to know methodology, just that 'the porting rule was exploited' or that 'the car has a custom intake designed with cool air in mind'. Telling us that all the areas for optimization were addressed, including info like 'race header' and not 'street' header, etc is what I am talking about. So as an example, I would explain my build like this:

Balanced and blueprinted
.020 over Mazda pistons
Intake and exhaust port matching per the rules
.5 compression bump
Service-limit valve job
Hi-flo 3rd gen air intake system
Mazdacomp full race header
Oil pan baffling and crank scraper
Lightweight crank pully
Fully programmable ECU
20 hours of dyno time (with sheets showing incremental increases as mods were tweaked)

Does that type of detail give away any 'secrets'? No, but it does give you one hellava idea how comprehensive the build was. More convincing than say, "He didn't fill me in on the details of the build...The only thing I think on that motor that has not been done/explored for more power is the ECU." If you are TRYING to prove that negative, you had better come to the plate with some convincing data, no?

(And I think you are wrong about me and the header thing. My header is bought from Mazdacomp but is subcontrated locally by Tubular Automotive in Rockland, MA - sorry for the confusion on that! I gave that info to BBRacing and they developed their own header for the 240SX's)

And on the Fiero thing, the difference is that someone is trying to tell us the numbers INSIDE of the process are wrong. We know they are assumptions, so show us where and how they are wrong - and show us your math. The Fiero request was a simple combination of like cars with the same drivetrains as an attempt to allow the 88 brakes on the 85-87 cars. Joe Diminno is considering a letter to the same effect for the SE-R/NX2000 twins.

 

[Doc Bro]

Andy,

I like everything you posted. Thanks for the clarity on what is(n't) necessary.

The Fiero thing as explained to me allowed for the complete swap of subframe assemblies not just brakes. If I'm misquoting I'm sorry, but I believe you need more info on the Fiero thing.

R


Oh BTW, nice job "forgetting" the 6-71 supercharger off your "buildsheet".

 

[JLawton]

Guys, think what you would do if YOU were on the ITAC....

[/b]

I would re-name Improved Touring to Production!!


And add weight to the ITA Miata and Dave's Prelude.....Just cause I like pickin' on Dave!!

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,
but I believe you need more info on the Fiero thing.

R
[/b]

You think? Here is the letter.

I believe this will encourage more entries of this type of race car in ITA. The braking power/stopping distance will not be markedly changed, just the near immediate fade of brakes will be somewhat mitigated providing safer and more competitive racing with this vehicle.

[/b]

 

[Doc Bro]

OK,....so the "same spec line" doesn't allow the subframe change, as well as the interchange of virtually everything else?

If that is the case than let's combine the Z3 with the 318is....they're "real close" too.

R

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

OK,....so the "same spec line" doesn't allow the subframe change, as well as the interchange of virtually everything else?


R [/b]

Being on the same spec line does open the door to many updates and backdates - but remember how similar these cars are. Same ENTIRE driveline, body, core chassis and rear suspension - so there isn't really much to UD/BD.

 

[Doc Bro]

Being on the same spec line does open the door to many updates and backdates - but remember how similar these cars are. Same ENTIRE driveline, body, core chassis and rear suspension - so there isn't really much to UD/BD.
[/b]

And that is the crux of the issue...the ASSUMPTION that everything bolts right up without modification.

R

 

[JoshS]

And that is the crux of the issue...the ASSUMPTION that everything bolts right up without modification.

R
[/b]

Rob,

The fact that they are on the same line means that anything that *can* be swapped without modification *may* be swapped.

If it requires modification of the parts in order to get it done, then it's not a legal swap.

What's the issue again?

If the original letter writer is wrong and you can't put '88 brakes onto an '87 subframe, and you can't put the '88 subframe into an '87 chassis, then nothing was accomplished other than some wasted time. If you CAN swap the entire subframes over, well, the committee decided there was nothing wrong with that, and it's within the spirit of the update/backdate rule.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

And that is the crux of the issue...the ASSUMPTION that everything bolts right up without modification.

R [/b]

Actually, it's a non-issue. If it doesn't bolt up without modification, it can't be UD/BD'd.

PS: I have owned 3 V6 Fiero's.

 

[Doc Bro]

I stand corrected.

R

 

[dominojd]

The Fiero request was a simple combination of like cars with the same drivetrains as an attempt to allow the 88 brakes on the 85-87 cars. Joe Diminno is considering a letter to the same effect for the SE-R/NX2000 twins.
[/b]

To whom would tht letter be addresed?

Dear Andy,

Get me freakin NX2000 Brakes.

Thanks

How would that work?

 

[JoshS]

It wouldn't help the SE-R and NX2000 to be on the same spec line, because you cannot update/backdate between body types.

 

[ddewhurst]

***The issue is rather complex, and the CRB has responsibilities to more than any one individual, or any one model of car.***

Mr. Prosess says add 270 pounds IIRC to the RX-7 & make it an ITB car. Is that all Mr. Process says to make it an ITB car? They'll be racen with the fast ITC cars, maybe.

As someone said in another post there are some people lost in time being goffy with reference to the power of a rotor motor. It takes torque to get to where the hp keeps it going. With no legs ya ain't going to get there. :026:

What does Mr. Process say the 270 pounds (2280 pounds to 2550 pounds) will do to the 101 ft # of torque ? Talk about an animal with no legs :026:

Is this above CRB group the same CRB that's has taken care of the G Production class ?

 

[Greg Amy]

It wouldn't help the SE-R and NX2000 to be on the same spec line, because you cannot update/backdate between body types.[/b]

Zing!!!

Actually, it's a non-issue. If it doesn't bolt up without modification, it can't be UD/BD'd.[/b]

Uuuuhhh, where in the rules does it say that? There is no limitation due to method of fastening in the update/backdate rule (9.1.3.C)...

 

[JoshS]

Zing!!!

Uuuuhhh, where in the rules does it say that? There is no limitation due to method of fastening in the update/backdate rule (9.1.3.C)...
[/b]

Where does it say you can modify the part?

9.1.3.B: "Other than those specifically allowed by these
rules, no component or part normally found on a stock example of a given
vehicle may be disabled, altered, or removed for the purpose of obtaining
any competitive advantage."

and 9.1.3.D: "Modifications shall not be made unless authorized herein."

 

[Greg Amy]

We're not talking about "modifying", Josh, we're talking about moving an assembly (be it a subframe assembly, a front nose clip assembly, a rear clip assembly) from one car to another. Why is it you assume that if it's welded, it must be modified to be moved? I can moved a welded part from one car to another without modifying it, as can others.

If you boys are banking on this ideal to keep folks from building one of them there Fee-Air-Os, you're gonna get an awful surprise one day...and you will lose your protest. Gar-un-teed.