PDA

View Full Version : Making a Classification Request



Banzai240
02-05-2004, 01:02 AM
Just some helpful advice...

PLEASE, if you are going to request that a car be considered for classification, (maybe even reclassification), you HAVE to send in a completed Vehicle Technical Specification form. It will expidite the process, because it it's not there, the ITAC/CRB are going to return your letter and ask for one. Contrary to popular believe, we DON'T have all this information at our fingertips.

Please, contact Jeremy or the SCCA Technical department... or e-mail me for goodness sake, and ask that they (I) send you a copy of the VTS for to fill out BEFORE sending in your request. It will definately speed the process...

THANKS!


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

02-05-2004, 01:18 AM
Thanks Darin, hey I have a question for you, theres a 240SX around the corner from me I can get get for a couple hundred bucks, needs a qtr panel and it wont pass smog, how competitive are these cars in ITS/ITA and are they classified in production?. and, what years/models are better than others? also which years are rear wheel drive?. thanks in advance.

------------------
Daryl Brightwell
ITA RX7 #11
NORPAC
ITA RX7 #77
SOPAC
http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=101&password=&sort=1&size= medium&cat=500&page=://http://www.calclub.com/gallery/show...m&cat=500&page= (http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=101&password=&sort=1&size=medium&cat=500&page=)
EP this summer





[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited February 05, 2004).]

Banzai240
02-05-2004, 02:55 AM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
... how competitive are these cars in ITS/ITA and are they classified in production?. and, what years/models are better than others?

If it's an '89-'90, GO FOR IT for ITA. It's not the cheapest car to develop, but I have my connections, so doing it isn't tough.

If it's a '91 to '94, or '95-'98, then it's ITS. I think that it will eventually be a decent car. The '91-'94 models should be able to achieve minimum weight of 2650. The '95-'98 models, however, are heavier from the factory and I have my doubts that one could actually be brought down to minimum weight.

The advantage you will have in ITS with the '91-'94 model, besides weight, is that you will have the option of running the '91 camshafts, which had about 16 degrees more duration than the '92+ cams... Because of the "update/backdate" deal, you could use the '91 head up to '94. Of course, the '95-'98 model is longer, has a little wider track, and likely better aero, so it may be a wash.

For a couple of hundred bucks, I'd say GO FOR IT! It's a great car, and it's RWD... Best of all, it doesn't go "Brraap, Braaap-Braappp", or Zoom-Zoom... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Feel free to contact me privately if you have further questions or need more information...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited February 05, 2004).]

Knestis
02-05-2004, 08:53 AM
If I could find one for a couple hunnerd bucks, I'd buy it just so I could enter drift competitions...

K

Banzai240
02-05-2004, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
If I could find one for a couple hunnerd bucks, I'd buy it just so I could enter drift competitions...

K

Hmmmm... Maybe we need to put the "Dual Purpose" statement back into the IT rules... Only this time "dual" would mean that you can trailer it right from the Drift competition to the Racetrack! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

02-05-2004, 12:08 PM
Thanks, I have been thinking since last august that if my next rotobanger dosnt last longer than a pair of cheap sneakers all my 7's are getting V8's. I know how to build piston engines myself unlike the rotary, I could eliminate a big portion of my racing cost's. Im hearing it already, "Looky thure, the little Zip can's gotta Ferd init".

Banzai240
02-05-2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
I know how to build piston engines myself unlike the rotary,

To be honest with you... the Rotary isn't that much of a mystery to build, once you've had a couple apart. A cold refrigerator and a lot of vasoline, along with some careful measuring of the various seals, and you're in business... http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

However... Wait until you feel the torque of the KA24... It is Nissan's 4-banger truck motor, after all...

02-05-2004, 01:31 PM
The 240 is an 89, I'll pick it up

Diane
02-08-2004, 01:27 PM
Darin, can you send me one please? (this board doesn't show emails in our descriptions)

Please send to [email protected]


Thanks!

Diane
#21 ITB NER-SCCA

M2cupcar
02-11-2004, 05:34 PM
Darin-
Where are the procedures for requesting vehicle classification listed? I searched through the GCR (pdf) over and over and couldn't find anything. So I emailed Jeremy and he forward my letter/request onto John B. who then sent it on to the CRB for review. It's for the 99 Miata in ITS. Am I safe, or should I still request and fill in a VTS, the resubmit?
thanks, Rob

Banzai240
02-11-2004, 09:22 PM
Originally posted by M2cupcar:
Darin-
Where are the procedures for requesting vehicle classification listed?

Good question... I've never looked.

There is a good bet that the VTS for your vehicle may be on file with the Technical department, since the car is currently in SS... If he can find it (keep in mind that they have recently moved and some things may have gotten misplaced), Jeremy or John can probably dig it up for you. It REALLY needs to be included with the request, because we can't possibly know the specifications for every car, and don't often have access to this stuff in a timely manner.

If you can get a copy ASAP, feel free to e-mail it to me and I'll get it to the entire ITAC to go along with your request...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Quickshoe
04-13-2004, 07:07 PM
Darin,

I am considering requesting a car model to be classified in IT that currently is not eligible (2000 model). It is also not currently classed in SS or T. Do I need to wait until it is eligible? Or do I need to get the ball rolling now so that I can hope to race it the first season it is eligible?

Do I need to state a case for the class I believe it should be listed in? Such as "Please consider adding the 96-2000 Honda Civic Couple HX model in ITC. I belive it would be a good fit with cars such as blah. blah. blah with very similar specs. Or do I submit the request for classification and cross my fingers they don't toss it in ITR http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif ?

Thanks for your response...are the procedures outlined anywhere in the GCR? I looked as well and didn't find anything.

Banzai240
04-13-2004, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
I belive it would be a good fit with cars such as blah. blah. blah with very similar specs. Or do I submit the request for classification and cross my fingers they don't toss it in ITR http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif ?


That would work! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

If you submit the car with as much VTS information as possible, I think you'll find that it should end up in the correct class... And I think you can submit that one at any time, since it should be eligible by 2006, right? I don't see any reason we can't get it on the books sooner.

The more factual information you can provide, the better for us to make a recomendation, so things like factory HP numbers, similiar platforms already classified and the differences between them, etc., all help to guide the car to the correct class...

Send it in!



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Quickshoe
04-21-2004, 11:03 PM
Darin,

Could you please send me a VTS form? I checked on the new website and didn't see it listed in the many available forms.

Thanks!

e-mail is quickshoe(at)earthlink(dot)net

Banzai240
04-22-2004, 01:05 AM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Darin,

Could you please send me a VTS form?


You have mail!



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Quickshoe
04-23-2004, 01:26 AM
Thanks Darin,

You have mail as well.

Catch22
04-23-2004, 11:38 AM
Darin,
Thanks for the guidance, its very helpful. SCCA workings are becoming less mysterious each day, which is a very good thing.

How about requesting a weight adjustment? Should you basically do the same thing as requesting a reclass?

Thanks,
Scott

Banzai240
04-23-2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by Catch22:
How about requesting a weight adjustment? Should you basically do the same thing as requesting a reclass?

Thanks,
Scott

Well... since adjusting weights in IT is currently not legal... it doesn't really matter how you do it! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

If PCAs get passed by the BoD in August, then I would strongly suggest that YES, you fill out a VTS sheet and provide any data you can that demonstrates the cars potential... Keeping in mind that the first thing looked at currently are the specifications of the car and how they match up with others in the class.

Also, thanks for the kind words... we're just trying to do our part to get these rules to make a little sense...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Dave Zaslow
04-24-2004, 07:28 AM
Darin,

I would like to see the VTS sheets on file made available to members, even if there is a fee attached for copying/mailing. Perhaps the new scca.com site, besides having a list of cars and classes they can run in, could have a link to access these sheets as pdf files. I'll volunteer to do the ITB files if they can be sent to me.

Dave Z

Knestis
04-24-2004, 08:54 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
...If PCAs get passed by the BoD in August, then I would strongly suggest that YES, you fill out a VTS sheet and provide any data you can that demonstrates the cars potential...

That was the sound of a line being crossed.

I could be wrong but the suggestion here seems to be that members will be allowed to REQUEST that their car be considered for a PCA. From earlier conversations, I let proponents of this plan convince me that this would NOT be the case - that the trigger for the PCA process would be internal, generated by the ITAC.

IF this is the case - and PLEASE tell me one way or the other - then the only operative difference between "PCA" and "competition adjustment" is the timeline restrictions in the new plan. Right?

Kirk

(who is now worried again)

Banzai240
04-24-2004, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Kirk

(who is now worried again)



Yah... 'cause heaven forbid we make some sensible reclassifications or adjustments to IT... The whole structure could crumble if we do that... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

In many cases... some of us are not aware of potential mis-classifications until someone brings them to our attention... What difference does it make is Joe-racer brings it to our attention, or we discover it ourselves?

People request/petition for things all the time and we have no problem saying no when they don't make sense... why would that change?

Just relax already... can it really get worse than the "car of the month" club we have today??



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

Bill Miller
04-24-2004, 02:55 PM
Well... since adjusting weights in IT is currently not legal... it doesn't really matter how you do it!



You crack me up Darin, you really do. But wait, it's not an 'adjustment', it's a 'correction'! ROTFLMAO!!!!!


Kirk,

You really didn't think that this wasn't going to happen, did you?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

Catch22
04-24-2004, 03:17 PM
I must agree with Darin. I see no issue with competitors bringing issues to the fore in the form of adjustment requests.
Where things go wrong is if the board handles said requests incorrectly by showing favoritism and politics.

Yes, I know... Please don't tell me. I KNOW!

But you have to start somewhere. I think what's going on is a good start.

Scott, who sold his Integra GSR because he just didn't want to fill a non-dominating car with lead and a spare tire and would love to see that car classified at a reasonable weight so it COULD chase down some of these BMWs everyone's always bitching about.

Just my little old opinion though.

Knestis
04-24-2004, 08:33 PM
Okay - this is still largely academic because it hasn't come to this yet but humor me and play the "what if" game for a minute:

1. It will be OK for me to request that my car car be considered for a PCA (weight adjustment downward), right?

2. Will this be allowed after the car has been classified for 4 years (ie. can I decide that the "rare occasion" clause be considered)?

3. Is it OK for me to ask for my competitor's car to get MORE weight during the first four years of classification? After that?

4. This is going to be important - will requests for PCAs be put out for member feedback? Up until this happens, the barn door might still be closed but as soon as it DOES, the decision stops being about "manufacturer's published specifications," "racing performance relative to other vehicles," and "actual racing performance." (I'm giving up on the system not being based on perceptions of on-track performance.)

5. When PCAs are applied, will the CRB publish its rationale for doing so - the considerations on which the adjustment is made? This would be an opportunity to head off the greatest potential failure mode of this kind of system, even if it isn't grounded in a strict formula. The fact that there IS no formula makes this of particular importance and, if someone can't explain the thinking behind the change, the horses are well and truly headed for the hills.

6. If Joe Racer can request that his car be favorably adjusted, AND if member input (lobbying) is acceptable, AND if the process isn't transparent, AND if the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause remains on the books, doesn't anyone but me see the potential for this to go very wrong? How about in 5 years when the current ITAC membership has turned over?

K

lateapex911
04-25-2004, 01:03 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:

5. When PCAs are applied, will the CRB publish its rationale for doing so - the considerations on which the adjustment is made? This would be an opportunity to head off the greatest potential failure mode of this kind of system, even if it isn't grounded in a strict formula. K

This (The classic one word response from the CRB) has always been a real issue with me. I understand theres a lot to do in not a lot of time, but if they discussed it, and they rejected it, they must have had a reason why. The past, many summations have been almost "snooty". A few seconds morefor the secretary would make a huge difference.

I have no problem with members writing a letter to alert the CRB of a perceived situation, but if the response is "No, too much performance potential", it makes me think that it wsan't considered or discussed.

I would prefer a statement with the reasoning behind the decision...heck, I'd prefer they wrote something like: "Ha ha! THAT'S funny...what are we idiots?? You think your BMW is too heavy?? Look around pal!" At least that way you'd know they talked about it!

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 25, 2004).]

Catch22
04-25-2004, 01:05 AM
This is going to be important - will requests for PCAs be put out for member feedback? Up until this happens, the barn door might still be closed but as soon as it DOES, the decision stops being about "manufacturer's published specifications," "racing performance relative to other vehicles," and "actual racing performance." (I'm giving up on the system not being based on perceptions of on-track performance.)


We are in agreement. It has to be done right or we're in for a mess. If weight starts getting added to a certain car because ONE guy in ONE region is kicking everyone's ass, we have a problem. But I'm choosing to assume it will be done right, long term. I guess maybe I'm just optimistic.

Again, this opinion is coming from a guy that had a wonderful NASA race car (Honda Challenge) but SOLD it when he decided to go SCCA racing because the minimum weight was so unrealistic and crippling to the car. My '94 Integra GSR had a whole lotta cage (8 point, NASCAR bars, Petty bar, and excess triangulation in the rear), was fully IT prepped, and had a 225lb driver behind the wheel but STILL needed about 80lbs of ballast to make minimum weight. This is in a car that has yet to be accused of dominating or potentially dominating anything in ITS. This is just plain silly. Again, just to make sure the point is made... So silly that I SOLD the car. I loved that car.

Maybe I'm just looking at things through rose colored lenses, but I choose to think that we can improve these silly listings (the 92hp 88-91 Honda Civic DX in ITA while all of the VW GTIs are in ITB is another stupid assed classification) and can hopefully do so without making a bigger mess.

Scott, willing to take the chance to hopefully make IT make sense.

gran racing
04-25-2004, 04:00 PM
I still think the boards should review cars when a request is made by a member. Yeah, maybe that civic should be in ITB. All it may take is taking a few minutes to write a letter and the board will consider it.

I'd hate to see the board spending their time on cars that no one has expressed interest in having it reviewed.

Jake - I agree that it is tough to take the too much potential reason. I'd rather hear too little weight, too much HP, ect.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

Bill Miller
04-26-2004, 12:19 AM
Hey Scott, add the 96hp Datsun PL510 in ITC, and it's just something else to make you scratch your head. You've got cars that make w/in a couple of hp of each other, spread across three different classes.

Kirk,

You know where I stand on this. I think there's a HUGE potential for this PCA thing to go very wrong. And I already raised the question about what happens w/ the changing of the guard. All I got was a flip answer from Andy.

Jake,

I would love to see a little more information to go along w/ the decisions. If they think some car has too much performance potential, what's the issue w/ actually explaining why?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608