924Board.org

[ryoji]

Whoever considers being in the F/P, the linked discussion interests you.

http://www.coloradoscca.org/prodcar/viewtopic.php?t=2465
_________________
R.I.P.:a 924 ITA race car

[924RACR]

Gotta love those screwed up rules!
_________________
Vaughan Scott
Webmeister
'79 924 #77 SCCA H Prod racecar
'82 931 Plat. Silver
#25 Hidari Firefly P2 sports prototype

[Neil924]

George Bush must be in charge of those events!

[jjadczak]

Seems to me that a lot of time is spent wrangling over these rules. I guess there are a lot of lawyers over there. I think this is why Prod group can be such a headache to deal with sometimes. It seems that while a few number of folks have responsed to this particular thread - it is aparrent that people fear change.

Who gives a rats ass if we wrangle over full prod rules or limited prep rules, etc if the car hasn't turned a wheel yet or is even going to be competitive. The 924 could be an absolute dog in Production but no one really knows.

I got a headache reading the posts. My interpretation of the rules was that it seemed ok to go with disk brakes but if people are going to be sooo concerned about that then maybe it's not worth the effort (and more importantly $$$$ needed) to go into Production. If it's really come down to reviwing cars with a fine tooth comb, then that's going to be hassle really fast.

I also gather that Productions guys really are not fans of limited prep cars playing on their turf. If they keep that up all us will go over to NASA and stay there.

Jeremy Jadczak

[AndyFranklin]

I sent off an email to the CoompBoard earlier today asking for clarification. I'm betting that the answer comes back that the intent is to say "a configuration that was available from the factory", requiring the same size and type of rotors and outlawing aftermarket upgrades.

And, yes, it is kind of apparent that a lot of the full-prep guys are really into defending their turf against us "newcomers." But it seemed there was a bit of fear when we were allowed into FProd, that the 924 would be an overdog. I don't see how we will overcome 35 years of development for the Spitfires.

OTOH, that is also why we need to share information, to shorten the development cycle. The Prod VW community has banded together for the same reason, and are starting to show the results.

And if you thought this brake thread was convoluted, check out the one about suspensions and chassis mods!

[924RACR]

Well, well founded or not, a base assumption I have about LP is that it's designed to allow you do little more than bolt slicks on a IT car and go play in Prod - legally, if not competitively. The idea that an IT-legal configuration would not be legal in LP is a joke, and I'm guessing that perhaps the Club Racing Board needs to do some revising and updating of the PCS to reflect that. Otherwise the whole intent of LP goes down the drain, IMO.
_________________
Vaughan Scott
Webmeister
'79 924 #77 SCCA H Prod racecar
'82 931 Plat. Silver
#25 Hidari Firefly P2 sports prototype

[jjadczak]

"OTOH, that is also why we need to share information, to shorten the development cycle. The Prod VW community has banded together for the same reason, and are starting to show the results."

I agree with you on this Andy. One of the reasons were building a second car is that we can speed up the development process. We haven't run enough events to really see how these cars can be quick. Once we start to run with Ryogi and John Brown, I think were gonna push each other and as we do, we might not share as much

I think once we get the new car ironed out and up to speed were really gonna be able to gather credible data. The other thing is that were really new with this. I'm still learning HOW to drive and what to feel and learning about tire pressure, sway bar adjustments, etc. A guy like Vaughan already knows that and has set up his car accordingly.

So I'll start the ball rolling.....In our view invest in the largest set of rear torsion bars that are available (30MM available from www.paragon-products.com). They make a world of difference.

Jeremy [/quote]

[AndyFranklin]

Here is the (disappointing) answer from Topeka....

Andy,
PCS section 17.1.1.B.2. says that classification will be the based on
the specs for the base model as delivered in the US. Unless
specifically authorized, no options of any type are permitted.

Since the base model was only available with rear drums, the car would
need to retain that configuration for FP.

-Jeremy

[924RACR]

That's effin' moronic. Hopefully our attempts to move to ITB will be more productive. If not, well, there's always NASA!!!

We can see how serious the Club Racing Board is about growing Prod.

Have fun, Andy... if you can!
_________________
Vaughan Scott
Webmeister
'79 924 #77 SCCA H Prod racecar
'82 931 Plat. Silver
#25 Hidari Firefly P2 sports prototype

[jjadczak]

That totally sucks because we're planning on running the rear disks. Like I said earlier, I don't think the Prod guys like us playing on their field.

Speaking of pulling together our limited resources, hey, Andy how about submitting a email to the comp board about moving our cars from ITA to ITB? Every one helps even if you don't personally benefit from it.

Jeremy

[ryoji]

My understanding WAS that LP was created to increase the number of participants in Prod class, targeting IT guys with minimal changes and keep maintenance(upgrade) cost minimal. I guess I wasn't.

If they can not accept the IT's accepted upgrades, don't they defeat their attempts by themselves?

As Vaughan said,

[AndyFranklin]

I had forgotten that the M471 was legal in IT. I think I will go back to Jeremy with that information.

[AndyFranklin]

I sent off my reply to Jeremy and the CompBoard requesting that the M471 brakes be allowed.

I also asked about the anomaly that the Prod spec was more restrictive than the IT spec, and requested that - for all cars - the minimum LP prep be set as the IT spec so that this situation cannot occur in the future.

Thanks, Royji!