SCCAForums.com

The June Fastrack has the PAC/SEB proposal for GP.  The plan is to add some cars, but with limited preparation to make them less expensive and easier to build.

Check it out at http://scca.com/documents/Fastrack/08-fastrack-june-solo.pdf 

---

Steve Hudson
DP Miata

Personally, I think a limited prep GP is a great idea, and long overdue.  Being able to bring in some "slightly faster" cars from DP and EP with a friendlier prep level will open it up to a broader audience. 

My only reservation is that the overall lists seem incomplete.  If you remember, I had proposed a class change for the Fiat 128 to GP last year, which got turned down.  So, now we have a vehicle nearly identical in power, weight, prep ability to cars in GP and cars on this proposed limited prep GP list, but it isn't allowed in GP.  Where is the consistency?  Perhaps there are just a few more smallish cars than need to be brought into GP in either full prep, or limited prep.  Or both.  Give the option to run either prep level and deal with the weight issue.

 

The inclusion of the Porche 914-4 1.8L is interesting too.  But it begs the question...why aren't other similar 1.6 to 2.0L sports cars from the time period on the list?  Fiat 124 Spider, Alfa etc.  Again, it just seems like the list might be missing a few.

 

Chris H.

 

 

Chris,

We relied pretty heavily on the work done by our comrades in Club Racing to develop the proposal.  We didn't address other potential additions to GP that weren't already on the GCR Limited Prep list, as time constraints precluded duplicating the detailed specifications that Club Racing has refined over an extended period of time. The cars included were from G & H Production, and we erred on the side of caution, in not including a few cars, where there were concerns that performance potential might not be in line with current GP cars.  We stayed away from Limited Prep F Production cars, as those clearly seemed too fast for GP.  If you feel this approach was too conservative, or have other input regarding the proposal, please submit your comments to SEB@scca.com.

There certainly may be other cars that could be considered for a move to GP.  However, we haven't identified any cars languishing in other classes that seem to offer significant potential for swelling the ranks of GP.  If anyone thinks we missed something, feel free to submit a proposal to the SEB.

-Steve

---

Steve Garnjobst
#75 XP
'99 Mazda Mutant

Snore.  I don't see much there that would get anyone under 40 excited about Prepared except maybe the Hondas.....which are platforms that already have a reasonably competitive place to play in Prepared.   I'd be surprised if this added more than 5 cars to the class at Nationals by 2012.   When you've resorted to asking people build Renault Alliances, non-16V Swift 1.3s,  Datsun 210s, Ford Fiestas, or Fiat 124s to bring participation up in a class, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.  GP, thy future is bleak indeed. 

---

Once you go Mac, you never go back!

The long wheelbase SOHC Fiat 128 sedan seems like a natural here.  The 128SL and 3P with the 87" WB might not fit, but several cars on the list are not that much different in size. 

BTW, the 1592cc and 1608cc Fiat 124 Coupes are DOHC.  Some early 124 sedans had push rod motors, later ones are DOHC.

Gene Cooley

Howdy,

gary p:

Snore.  I don't see much there that would get anyone under 40 excited about Prepared except maybe the Hondas.....which are platforms that already have a reasonably competitive place to play in Prepared.   I'd be surprised if this added more than 5 cars to the class at Nationals by 2012.   When you've resorted to asking people build Renault Alliances, non-16V Swift 1.3s,  Datsun 210s, Ford Fiestas, or Fiat 124s to bring participation up in a class, you're really scraping the bottom of the barrel.  GP, thy future is bleak indeed. 

Ditto, but I'd love to be proved wrong.

I'm surprised that there isn't a limited prep choice for a miata or mr2 here.  Seems like with the old weight from back in the "combined DP" days & limited motor/suspension work it'd be a good fit?

Mark

marka:

I'm surprised that there isn't a limited prep choice for a miata or mr2 here.  Seems like with the old weight from back in the "combined DP" days & limited motor/suspension work it'd be a good fit?

It's probable a Miata (and other cars listed under F Production Limited Prep) would be significantly faster than the current GP cars.  To slow them down enough, allowances would need to be further limited and/or weights would need to go up.  The hard part is determining what those limits should be to keep the cars competitive, but not dominant. Feel free to suggest a methodology where more cars could be added to the mix - preferably using the GCR Limited Prep rules & car listings as a starting point.

---

Steve Garnjobst
#75 XP
'99 Mazda Mutant

I was just thinking of what kind of power a 1.8L 914 engine would make on a budget.

NOT much.  However with big bucks an E production engine with high RPM and a narrow power band about 180 ish.   Not and Autocross engine. Oh and about 25,000 dollars.

An autocross engine good heads 2,000 bucks the rest of the motor to the limit another 3 grand if you are thrifty. maybe 120 HP with about 100 ft lbs of torque. all Flywheel numbers. 

 

Pass on GP

 

---

Want to go faster, please send money.

hi i am new to the forum and would like to add my 2 cents. I have an 85 crx that is a budget racer. I have been to the nats a few times and could not believe the money that is sunk into the EP class. I cannot afford to pay out the kind of money to have the big horses that the fast cars have. I like this addition of other cars to the GP class. I hope it does well and I am going to try to make mine GP legal. is there any more clarification of intake manifolds? if I use the stock crx si intake does it have to be completely stock? are injectors open?  do I have to use the stock throttle body? can I use the stock computer but have it reprogrammed? there is no allowances for 40 dcoe sidedraft webers ( or any dual side drafts)? thank you for listening to my ramble.

---

did you eat a bowl of stupid for breakfast??????

To get a complete set of rules for the proposed "Limited Prep" cars, you'll need to look at both the June 2008 Fastrack, and the GP section of Appendix A in the Solo Rules.  Per the Fastrack, you may port match the intake manifold, and perform a few other minor modifications.  I see no allowance for alternate intake manifolds or throttle bodies.  Note: throttle body diameter is one of the primary "choke points" utilized to limit engine power.  Alternate injectors are OK.  I believe the engine computer would be covered by the general Prepared rules, since neither the GP Appendix or Limited Prep rules address this engine component - in which case, re-programming would be OK.  Nope, the Limited Prep rules don't allow the 40 DCOE's.

Not an official opinion, etc., etc.

-Steve

---

Steve Garnjobst
#75 XP
'99 Mazda Mutant

I'll second Steve's interpretation of the rule.  You must use a stock manifold and throttle body.  The manifold and head can be port matched (I think limited to 1" in either direction).  Fuel system components are unrestricted, so you can use any injectors and ECU you want.  I really don't see the GP rules making a Honda motor build all that much cheaper than an EP build.  All you are saving is the head porting work and the manifold costs.  Everything else is going to be about the same cost.  The GP motor ought to last forever, which is nice.  I also don't think that the difference in power is going to be enough to not make the Hondas an overdog in GP.  You should be able to get 120hp at the wheels of your CRX in GP trim, which is only about 20 less than my EP motor makes.  Most of the extra power is in the high rpms and is rarely useable anyway due to wheelspin.  If the times ran this year at Nationals are a good indication of current GP potential, I think the new cars are going to mop up.  Then we will have to listen to GP whine again about not being competitive anymore.

 -Chris    

Chris Raglin:

...If the times ran this year at Nationals are a good indication of current GP potential, I think the new cars are going to mop up.  Then we will have to listen to GP whine again about not being competitive anymore.

 -Chris    

 

See also:  the goal.  :)

Chris Raglin:

If the times ran this year at Nationals are a good indication of current GP potential, I think the new cars are going to mop up.  Then we will have to listen to GP whine again about not being competitive anymore.  

 

The times for GP are somewhat representative.  The X1/9 that won is a reasonably well prepared car.  I have driven it and know it has more potential than we saw this year.  Not a LOT but more.  As Steve G. noted above, the throttle body is a choke point and the X has been choked alot.   It has to run nearly a stock carb in GP.  Its limited to a 36mm 2 bbl Weber.   This motor could make another 25 to 35 hp with unrestricted inake. 

Note that Steve Bolinger won DP in '05 in a "GP" Sprite.  Back then my MR2 had to weigh 1980 lbs.  That's over 200 lbs more than the current DP weight formula.  I think this is more representative of GP's potential.  No they aren't going to beat DP but the class I don't think is where it could be.   I do think the Honda is likely going to dominate the current GP as we see it now. 

I don't like the limited prep allowance.  I have been involved with preping a "limite prep" production road racer and I really don't think there is that much savings.  Developement still proceeds at the same pace.   There is some savings in one time expenses for things like chassis fabrication and cylinder head porting but that is limited savings.

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
http://www.terriehoward.com

Looking at STS results, you'd only need to go a second faster per course (from 2008 Nationals) to equal GP times. I would think that just taking a stock ('89-91) Civic Si motor (with STS mods, minus the cat, and perhaps allowing the SP overbore) and trans in the '88-'91 Civic DX body makes more sense as limited prep than a 11.0:1, cammed, carbed, ported DX motor. Or even just the Civic Si without opening the motor.

---

David Avard
89 Honda Civic Si black (STS)
07 Mazda 3s (HS?)

Davard:

Looking at STS results, you'd only need to go a second faster per course (from 2008 Nationals) to equal GP times. I would think that just taking a stock ('89-91) Civic Si motor (with STS mods, minus the cat, and perhaps allowing the SP overbore) and trans in the '88-'91 Civic DX body makes more sense as limited prep than a 11.0:1, cammed, carbed, ported DX motor. Or even just the Civic Si without opening the motor.

 Civic is limited to 1.5, and there's no allowance fo de-stroking, so an 88-91 Si is no good.  An 88-91 DX fits, but with the DPFI it's limited.  I think the 86-87 Si is the one to have.  MPFI, 1.5L.  It can easily be adapted to run OBD software to get rid of the mechanical distributor and then it's just as tunable as the STS cars.

I fully understand what the rules say. What I was trying to say was that if you wanted truly "limited" prep, using a stock Civic Si motor rather than building up a DX motor would make more sense.

 The comparison between STS and GP was to show just how well a Civic would do in GP. 

---

David Avard
89 Honda Civic Si black (STS)
07 Mazda 3s (HS?)

I think that the perfect car for this class is the 84-87 crx. way easier to get to min weight. mine weighs 1470 with carbs, rollcage, and a stock windshield. light enough to be fast with low HP.

---

did you eat a bowl of stupid for breakfast??????

I like the whole limited prep concept to add cars to GP, and until proven otherwise I don't think they'll dominate.

 In fact, I suggested to the SEB years ago a limited prep concept, but since that was a concept invented on the road racing side the attitude then was "it ain't solo" as the rationale to ignore it. That's another subject, but one autocrossers need to get past.

 I drive my GP Spitfire in both solo and road racing, it is GP over there too (or was, HP now). I've raced against limited-prep G Production cars, most notably an MGB and a Volkswagen Golf. The biggest problem I had with them is that is impossible to "steal" a straightaway. My Spitfire is a full-prep G Prod car (Okay, it could have more money thrown at it, but it is set up under the full-prep rules). What I found racing against Limited Prep cars with half-again as much engine as mine (my 1147cc against an MGB's 1800) is that I'm faster in the corners but they just drive away from me on straights. Result: I catch up in the turns and bang on their tailpipe, bit if they drive good lines, although slower, there's little I can do but wait for a mistake. The races I won was because I pushed them into a mistake late enough in the race and got enough lead they couldn't catch up again before the checker (once in literally the last corner of the last lap).

 The point being: Solo doesn't have those long straights. We're all about the corners. I'd usually even out-qualify those limited prep cars on the race track only because I was doing corners quicker. They advantage they have over my car on race tracks basically go away on autocross courses. But not so much that they become uncompetitive either. IMHO, the proposal has the potential to be a very good fit for G Prep.

---

--Rocky Entriken

Rocky / Steve - If the cards fall in such a way that a Fuel Injected Honda ends up on top, will that car still be accepted, or will the rules be "fixed" so that some LBC still wins.

DILYSI Dave:

Rocky / Steve - If the cards fall in such a way that a Fuel Injected Honda ends up on top, will that car still be accepted, or will the rules be "fixed" so that some LBC still wins.

Well, knowing the history on this one I would say yes. 

 

---

Steve Hoelscher
#27 DP - Toyota MR2
http://www.terriehoward.com