View Full Version : The new ITA class
whatever anyone may say here , at every race I have ever been to, you could poll every driver sitting in his car on the grid and all will agree with this statment. "I Ricky Racer would like to be able to think that with my 10k to 15k IT car if prepped and driven correctly has a chance of getting to the front of this race". If they didnt they would be doing something else that weekend.
cherokee
04-16-2004, 10:34 AM
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
you could poll every driver sitting in his car on the grid and all will agree with this statment. "I Ricky Racer would like to be able to think that with my 10k to 15k IT car if prepped and driven correctly has a chance of getting to the front of this race". If they didnt they would be doing something else that weekend.
Yes they would agree with it but it might not be the reason that they are there. There is not a lot of money if you win, the trophy's are cool but are the realy worth the couple hundred bucks you pay to enter. I am out there for the fun of doing it, I have had more fun fighting for last place the when I won my only race. It is a release for me, a time away from the crazyness of everyday life. It is all part of the experence.
I know somepeople only care about winning and that is fine, and maybe I will change my views after I have been racing for a while, but for now I am just having fun doing it.
planet6racing
04-16-2004, 10:54 AM
No offense, but I wouldn't say that. I have clearly defined goals for all of this:
1) Have fun.
2) Learn how to drive the car.
3) Learn how to safely race with others.
4) Learn what to do in all kinds of situations that one may encounter.
5) Learn to trust others and the corner workers.
6) Learn new tracks.
I know that I'm not competitive now, and that I may not ever be competitive in IT. I read the rulebook before I started building my car and accepted that. When I've learned from the above and want to be guaranteed a shot at the front, I'll be changing classes, either to Production, AS, formula car, or Showroom Stock. Until I get to those classes, I do not expect any equalization of the field.
However, I can say that I know of a couple of Saturns that have won in ITA, therefore I know that the car has the potential to win. That could influence the way I feel, but it was also one of the reasons why I built this car.
What was the original topic again, anyway?
------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
Good points!! I am convinced that even with $15-$20K my little MR2 is not going to win ITA. Actually, knowing that saves me money! But, that fact isn't going to do a thing to keep be off the tracks (for reasons mentioned above).
cherokee
04-16-2004, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
No offense, but I wouldn't say that. I have clearly defined goals for all of this:
1) Have fun.
2) Learn how to drive the car.
3) Learn how to safely race with others.
4) Learn what to do in all kinds of situations that one may encounter.
5) Learn to trust others and the corner workers.
6) Learn new tracks.
I know that I'm not competitive now, and that I may not ever be competitive in IT
I am not offended, But all of those things are fun to me, and you missed the best part of the whole experence the other racers, the down time between races. I went to the races for 3 years just to talk to the folks there and to see new people. Its fun to lounge beside your car and have someone come up to ask to look at it. If you are only in this for winning then you are setting your self up to be unhappy. There is so much more that you can take away from the club racing experence....that sounded corny.
This did drift off topic just a little bit http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
planet6racing
04-16-2004, 12:15 PM
Actually, Cherokee, I'm in the same boat with you. If it's not fun, it's just like work. The downtime is fun, but the most fun is camping overnight at the track and telling wild and crazy stories that may or may not be true.
I was actually targeting more at 7'sracing (can't remember if that is Daryl or Jake) comment about running up front.
That and I'm trying to drive this to 300 posts...
------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
gran racing
04-16-2004, 01:54 PM
The point really is that if a car is currently in a class and when looking at it in greater detail should be in a lower class, the car should be moved to that class. And small adjustments to weight to help it fit into a class that make much more sense is not a bad thing.
We'll go with Jake's MR2 again. To simply reclassify it into ITB without a small weight adjustment would not be correct. If, as others have said, a little weight were added to the car (say 2,450 lbs) it would be a good fit.
If a car in its present class totally doesn't make sense but would in another, the reason not to do it is why? And no, I'm not saying to go around and start doing this all over the place. And I'm also not saying to take an ITA CRX si, add 500 lbs and put it into ITB. Alright, a little extreme example but you get the point.
Why shouldn't various cars classifications be reviewed from time to time as the classes evolve?
I really think SCCA IT is going in the right direction...
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
cherokee
04-16-2004, 03:11 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
Why shouldn't various cars classifications be reviewed from time to time as the classes evolve?
Just to keep things going....
Because by doing this you would eventually end up with the CRX si in ITC as better and better cars come down the pike. I also think that there is no way the older cars that are already there going to have a chance. The newer cars with the better everything, will just slowly walk away. Independant front and rear setups are just better, just like FI is better then Carbs, cars with no distribuiter<sp>, on and on.
Banzai240
04-16-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
Independant front and rear setups are just better, just like FI is better then Carbs, cars with no distribuiter<sp>, on and on.
Ummmm.... the 510 in ITC has Independant front and rear...
It's entertaining to see how far you guys will move the extremes when talking about this stuff...
The pattern of this type of discussion is what prompted me to ask the question earlier for a list of potential ITC bottom-feeders that might potentially be displaced by cars moving to ITC...
The fact that not ONE of you has given me even a SINGLE car leads me to continue to question whether this would indeed be a problem.
You guys seem to like to discuss the POTENTIAL for a problem to exist, but when one actually sits down and looks at the situation from a rational perspective with actual data, it becomes pretty clear that the "problem" may not be the thing you are discussing, but rather the belief that there is one in the first place...
------------------
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 April 16, 2004).]
Knestis
04-16-2004, 05:04 PM
I figured that your list could be inferred simply by taking the three or four frontrunners out of the GCR list.
It seems to me that the combination of "not going to be competitive" with "slow, even if it were" has pretty much chased away all of the 1.4 Alliances, old Hondas, Datsun 1200s, etc.
K
Banzai240
04-16-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
It seems to me that the combination of "not going to be competitive" with "slow, even if it were" has pretty much chased away all of the 1.4 Alliances, old Hondas, Datsun 1200s, etc.
K
............ Ummmmm........ yah...... .... Well.....
Not exactly a hotbed of popular cars you're noting there Kirk...
This is what I'm talking about... I'm more concerned with the overall health of IT and level of competition than with protecting a few niche vehicles that are on the books but people aren't really interested in racing in the first place. (a strong argument for doing a "sweep" of the ITCS specs is in this discussion somewhere...)
You've listed a perfect example of taking one extreme in this argument... The truth is more likely that these cars were never really that popular in the first place, so the fact that they couldn't compete could be a very secondary issue...
I don't know about you guys... but I don't know if I'm interested in an IT that is designed around letting anyone drag whatever they happen to have no use commuting in anymore out onto the track and be able to compete in it...
Older popular cars are fine, but older cars that never really had a race-following in the firstplace??? Should we kick the E36 out to help those???
Additionally, these cars STILL have the IT intended "place to race"...
------------------
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 April 16, 2004).]
Bill Miller
04-16-2004, 05:50 PM
I don't know about you guys... but I don't know if I'm interested in an IT that is designed around letting anyone drag whatever they happen to have no use commuting in anymore out onto the track and be able to compete in it...
Older popular cars are fine, but older cars that never really had a race-following in the firstplace??? Should we kick the E36 out to help those???
Additionally, these cars STILL have the IT intended "place to race"...
I'm not really sure how you get from here to there Darin. Why would any car have to be 'kicked out' to address competition issues w/ older, not-so-popular cars? What's one have to do w/ the other?
As you said, IT provides the 'place to race'. It almost sounds like you're saying they popular cars may get adjusted, but don't expect the poorly subscribed ones to.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Banzai240
04-16-2004, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'm not really sure how you get from here to there Darin. Why would any car have to be 'kicked out' to address competition issues w/ older, not-so-popular cars?
I don't believe I said that anyone has to be "kicked out"... But do you really want to base your future on cars that people no longer race? Put another way... should we NOT move the 1.7L VWs to ITC because of the potential of rendering a 1.4L Renault uncompetitive? I get there from here by believing that one would be a car that would actually get raced, and the other is simply one that is still on the books...
As you said, IT provides the 'place to race'. It almost sounds like you're saying they popular cars may get adjusted, but don't expect the poorly subscribed ones to.
I'm not saying that ANYONE is going to get adjusted... That part is actually secondary to this discussion, or at least my part of it. Before anyone starts getting adjusted, we have to have some sort of baseline for comparison. Should that be the one-off, poorly subscribed model, or one that people are actually out there racing?
I haven't been deeply involved in readin this whole thread, but it seems as though the general theme has to do with moving cars and potentially displacing cars. I simply want to know... Just WHO is going to be displaced? Is this REALLY an issue? If so, HOW BIG of an issue is it?
So far, I have only been given the small list that Kirk supplied...
All I can say further about that is that at some point, you have to decide just how much of the future you are willing to forsake in the interest of protecting the past. If you stand to gain 20 cars across the country in ITC at the risk of displacing two or three, isn't that a risk worth taking?
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Originally posted by planet6racing:
No offense, but I wouldn't say that. I have clearly defined goals for all of this:
1) Have fun.
2) Learn how to drive the car.
3) Learn how to safely race with others.
4) Learn what to do in all kinds of situations that one may encounter.
5) Learn to trust others and the corner workers.
6) Learn new tracks.
I know that I'm not competitive now, and that I may not ever be competitive in IT. I read the rulebook before I started building my car and accepted that. When I've learned from the above and want to be guaranteed a shot at the front, I'll be changing classes, either to Production, AS, formula car, or Showroom Stock. Until I get to those classes, I do not expect any equalization of the field.
However, I can say that I know of a couple of Saturns that have won in ITA, therefore I know that the car has the potential to win. That could influence the way I feel, but it was also one of the reasons why I built this car.
What was the original topic again, anyway?
yes I would have to agree with all of that too but "on the grid" I dont think anyone would disagree with ricky's statment.
------------------
Daryl Brightwell
ITA RX7 #11
NORPAC
ITA RX7 #77
SOPAC
http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.p...m&cat=500&page= (http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=101&password=&sort=1&size=medium&cat=500&page=)
EP this summer
Darin's right on track here (again!)
Big picture here is to stop the drivers from junking their popular affordable-to-run IT cars because of classing decisions that need to be updated. A good example of a great move is the Neon to ITA move - a whole bunch of SS Neons now may have a new lease on life.
Darin, to answer your question, there are other bottom rung ITC cars such as the VW Beetle and the Yugo, but as you accurately point out, just about no one runs these anyway - so if we can help keep the population of RX7's in IT and possibly add insult to injury to the (maybe) one guy that runs a 68 swing axle Bug in IT, I call that progress.
Originally posted by Jake:
Darin's right on track here (again!)
I couldn't agree more!
IT is now a bit over 20 years old. A lot has changed, but the rules and classifications haven't kept up.
It's my belief that IT would be healthier (it's NOT broken IMHO, but it does need some change) if a little more attempt was made to balance the classes. In doing so, there is no need IMHO to do away with the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause. That clause shouldn't be a reason to just say screw it either.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Hotshoe
04-17-2004, 12:16 AM
I have not had a chance to add my .02 lately but I had a 1st Gen RX7 point to ponder.
Ready: How about dropping the 84 & 85 GSL-SE down into ITA? Now that would give them something to talk about. I would be tempted to build one if they would.
I did start a 2nd Gen RX7 for ITS but gave up because of the BMW
Just trying to help get to 300
Interesting. Heck, if you did that, you could probably put them in the same spec line as the ITA RX7, and if you did that, it would allow all RX7's to use the 13B. Hmm....
Knestis
04-17-2004, 11:10 AM
Now that's a lateral-thinking ideaa. Very clever, Jake.
K
F.I. ? Poor slobs like me wouldnt know what to do with F.I., thats why we run fossilized cars. Naw, just give us a 48 IDA weber and we'll run down them FWD little Microprocessered grocery getters.
[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited April 17, 2004).]
Bill Miller
04-17-2004, 05:17 PM
Darin,
You actually did mention 'kicking out' the E36 to 'help' the undersubscribed ITC cars. That's why I asked you why anyone should have to be 'kicked out'. Those were your words, not mine.
And George, there in lies the rub. If you don't take out the 'no guarantee' clause, yet you adjust some cars, and not others, especially w/o a known basis for determining degree of or how to initiate said adjustment, you've got a real can of worms.
You run into all kinds of scenarios. From "Hey, you knew that car wasn't competitive, you shouldn't have built it." to "Well, the SUX 9000 is such a popular car, but it can't compete anymore, so we're going to adjust it." to "well, that car's already in the bottom of ITC, and hardly anybody races one, so it gets nothing." to ????
I'm sorry, but I don't buy into Darin's "Hey, it's better if we don't tell you how we do things." approach.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Banzai240
04-17-2004, 10:44 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,
You actually did mention 'kicking out' the E36 to 'help' the undersubscribed ITC cars. That's why I asked you why anyone should have to be 'kicked out'. Those were your words, not mine.
Please tell me where and in what context I said this, because the thought has NEVER crossed my mind, so I'm not sure how it would end up being typed on my keyboard...
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Originally posted by Bill Miller:I'm sorry, but I don't buy into Darin's \"Hey, it's better if we don't tell you how we do things.\" approach.</font>
Again, I don't know who you are quoting here, but I have never said anything about "not telling" you "how we do things"... I believe I've already explained how some of the recent items were decided, including an explanation of how the weights were derived... Arguably, I'm the most outspoken and open SCCA committee/board member you've ever encountered, so I find it frustrating, if not humorous, that you would accuse me of such a thing...
Once again... I'm not sure that I see a problem with moving cars to ITC from ITB... Quite frankly, after doing some light reading this afternoon, I'm even more convinced that some of the recent (not yet published) changes we are proposing make a ton of sense... and these are to OLDER cars... I think it should breathe some new life into things... Your mileage may vary...
Now if you'll excuse me... I have some more remodeling to do. Have to get this done so I can finish the darn car!
Later,
------------------
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 April 17, 2004).]
RSTPerformance
04-17-2004, 11:23 PM
Daren you posted that on April 16, 2004 05:32 PM... But I don't think it was umm err seriouse...
I think you were being sarcastic... at least I hope so!!!
Raymond
Banzai240
04-18-2004, 12:21 AM
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
Daren you posted that on April 16, 2004 05:32 PM... But I don't think it was umm err seriouse...
I think you were being sarcastic... at least I hope so!!!
Raymond
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Older popular cars are fine, but older cars that never really had a race-following in the firstplace??? Should we kick the E36 out to help those???</font>
Raymond... I can assure you that this was said with and EXTREME amount of sarcasm!! That should be fairly obvious by the context in which it was said... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif
Guess I'll have to get back to utilizing emoticons to make that clear...
------------------
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 April 18, 2004).]
RSTPerformance
04-18-2004, 01:54 AM
LOL... I know Darin...
That statement was "not your norm" and I thought it was obviose but oh well.
I do appriciate all the good things you suggest or help impliment to make things better...
Am I helping reach 300? hope so http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif First race at 8:00am tomorrow morning.. why am I up... oh ya stuff still isn't all packed!!!
time for a 3 hr nap http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
Raymond
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'm sorry, but I don't buy into Darin's "Hey, it's better if we don't tell you how we do things." approach.
I don't thinkn that's Darin's approach.
We (the ITAC) have published in Fastrack how the classifications are made. There is NO mathematical formula and I seriously doubt there ever will be in IT.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Knestis
04-18-2004, 09:28 AM
I believe that you're correct, Geo. The culture of this organization is so grounded in subjective, on-track comparisons of performance that it's never going to happen.
It helps me resolve the issue to remind myself that we started out as a handful of sportsmen - a "club" that was generally exclusive, in the sense that it had no inclination to allow in anyone who didn't adhere to its norms. I seem to recall something about applications for SCCA membership requiring letters of recommendation of existing members...
The SCCA system of "competition adjustments" is based in a paradigm much like that of golf handicaps: A sociological approach to leveling the field. A formulaic system of classification flies in the face of that norm, since it is a technological solution to the problem.
A formula won't be accepted in IT because constituents raised in the handicapping environment are relatively happy with the status quo. Those who can afford to make the "right" choice can do so. Those who can't are satisfied to be on the track with them.
Insert your closest local school choice discussion here for purposes of comparison.
It's no coincidence that voting and leadership-participation patterns in the SCCA are similar to those exhibited in local politics, too. Those with something to lose are highly motivated to have their interests well represented come decision time.
The question is whether or not this sitution is desirable in the long term - for the SCCA as an organization, at least. To return to the education analogy, there is no other viable (affordable) option available to a family disinfranchised by public education.
There are however other options emerging in the marketplace of racing organizations. (Note that I pointedly did not use the word "clubs.") Is the club going to adapt to this changing context? Does it WANT to? The answer might be "no" and that's fine if it's what the members want.
Yeah, the top of the ITA hierarchy is going to LOOK a lot like IT2 would have but I still think that we missed an opportunity to fundamentally change the clubbie handicapping paradigm, if only in ONE class, at a time when a huge group - an entire market segment of cars - was marginalized by the existing system.
It's is not the case that a formula "can't work." It is true that this organization won't LET it work.
K
Bill Miller
04-18-2004, 11:10 AM
Kirk,
I think you hit the nail on the head w/ that one. I hadn't really thought about it like that, but I think that's it. Not that a formula couldn't work, but that it wouldn't be allowed to work. Takes away a certain amount of power and control if it's acknowledged that a more objective process might work.
Darin,
First off, it was Andy that made the comment about not publishing a formula, not you. Sorry for attributing that to you. However, he did say "He and others" believed that, so maybe that's how I associated it w/ you. Anyway, no matter, wasn't you that said it, so I apologize for attributing it to you.
As far as you being sarcastic w/ your 'kick them out' comment, whatever. I would think that since you're on the ITAC, you might want to measure your words a bit better. Oh, and you should be careful, you don't want to sprain your arm by patting yourself on the back.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Originally posted by Knestis:
It helps me resolve the issue to remind myself that we started out as a handful of sportsmen - a "club" that was generally exclusive, in the sense that it had no inclination to allow in anyone who didn't adhere to its norms. I seem to recall something about applications for SCCA membership requiring letters of recommendation of existing members...
Whoa Kirk. Yes, this is how the club was formed some 50 odd years ago. But all that has been changed for some time. The club and the people in it has changed dramatically since that time. Live in the present, not the past.
Originally posted by Knestis:
The SCCA system of "competition adjustments" is based in a paradigm much like that of golf handicaps: A sociological approach to leveling the field. A formulaic system of classification flies in the face of that norm, since it is a technological solution to the problem.
A formula won't be accepted in IT because constituents raised in the handicapping environment are relatively happy with the status quo.
I think you are missing a very important fact here. IT has been wildly successful as a category. It still is. Membership feedback continues to tell us (the ITAC) that they (the members) are overall generally quite happy with IT and don't screw it up. Instituting a classification formula now, after 20 plus years of IT racing with great success would turn it on it's ear. This is the reason Kirk. It may not suit you, and indeed there are others it doesn't suit, but IT cannot be all things to all people. The club is not going to risk totally screwing up a category that is still wildly successful. That is the culture we are talking about. Not some weird elitest mentality.
Furthermore, there are people out there (myself and at least one other member of the ITAC that I know of) who would support the MT proposal of a year or two ago. I would be inclined to build a car for it. I think MT would be even more successful than IT. But someone has to start it. I'm not going to. I'm too far along with my IT car right now and I have devoted what volunteer administrative time I have to the ITAC. But if you were to make a serious effort at launching MT, I would not only get the word out, but support it strongly. Are you willing to make happen what you feel should happen? How strongly do you believe in this?
Originally posted by Knestis:
There are however other options emerging in the marketplace of racing organizations. (Note that I pointedly did not use the word "clubs.") Is the club going to adapt to this changing context? Does it WANT to? The answer might be "no" and that's fine if it's what the members want.
The club is working on listening much closer to not only what the members want now, but to try to figure out what they will want tomorrow. I've said it before and will say it again, Steve Johnson is changing the culture in the SCCA and while yes, some of the old culture still exists, change is happening. And it's very positive change.
Originally posted by Knestis:
Yeah, the top of the ITA hierarchy is going to LOOK a lot like IT2 would have but I still think that we missed an opportunity to fundamentally change the clubbie handicapping paradigm, if only in ONE class, at a time when a huge group - an entire market segment of cars - was marginalized by the existing system.
Kirk, all I can say is you put together a very workable set of rules for MT. If you believe what you write, make it happen. I'll go so far to say that if the SCCA didn't help, NASA would. I'd hope the SCCA would help put this together. I'd personally lobby the CRB to try to get the regions to support it rather than lose out to NASA. It won't happen overnight and you'd have to invest some personal time and commitment to making it happen, but I'd bet big-time that's how IT got started.
Originally posted by Knestis:
It's is not the case that a formula "can't work." It is true that this organization won't LET it work.
Oh Kirk, that is pure horsepucky. Put your money where your mouth is and do something. And so the literalists on this forum don't get the wrong idea, I don't mean for you to literally fund the creation of MT. I meant invest your time and effort.
A mathematical formula isn't going to happen in IT, not because a bunch of elistests in a smoke filled room hate it, but because the membership doesn't want IT screwd up. So launch MT already. I think it's a brilliant formula and lobbying for a mathematical formula in IT is no more than pissing in the wind at this point.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
[This message has been edited by Geo (edited April 18, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Geo (edited April 18, 2004).]
Bill Miller
04-18-2004, 03:01 PM
A mathematical formula isn't going to happen in IT, not because a bunch of elistests in a smoke filled room hate it, but because the membership doesn't want IT screwd up. So launch MT already. I think it's a brilliant formula and lobbying for a mathematical formula in IT is no more than pissing in the wind at this point.
That's pretty funny George. Especially since a forumla is at the heart of the PCA classification process. And if you don't understand that, what else do you call how you're going to take all those technical aspects of a car into account when it's classified and spec'd? The problem is, it won't ever be 'formalized', and worse yet, probably won't ever be refined. And BTW, Andy has already said that he felt that it wasn't in the best interest of the members to publish a formula, which could imply that one already has been developed. So, go blow that smoke some where else.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
DITTO, and George, Im not sure I am all that happy about the club dropping the "recommendation from a member in good standing rule".
Speed Raycer
04-18-2004, 07:17 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Interesting. Heck, if you did that, you could probably put them in the same spec line as the ITA RX7, and if you did that, it would allow all RX7's to use the 13B. Hmm....
I was just skimming the last 50 or so posts until I saw that... what an interesting idea! Not sure of the ramifications one way or the other, but interesting nonetheless.
I find it interesting that few ITA RX7 owners are chiming in either commenting on the new ITA or the possible move to B. I think most have become used to being mid pack and just want a place to compete whether in ITA, B or 7.
------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/rudder_racing/images/RX7_Pictures/SRsRX/sig58.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com) http://www.angelfire.com/mo3/rudder_racing/images/IzzysImgs/IzzysLogoDSsmall.jpg www.izzyscustomcages.com (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)
Knestis
04-18-2004, 07:39 PM
Note that my comments above are not about black helicopters and trilateralist-type conspiracies. They are simply observations about culture and how difficult change is.
When I say, "the organization won't let formulas work," I'm not talking about stonewalling tactics of those smokey elistists: I'm talking about the CULTURE of the entire organization and some very fundamental paradigms that, while they are seldom explicated in conversations like this, drive a lot of the decisions that happen.
K
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
That's pretty funny George. Especially since a forumla is at the heart of the PCA classification process. And if you don't understand that, what else do you call how you're going to take all those technical aspects of a car into account when it's classified and spec'd? The problem is, it won't ever be 'formalized', and worse yet, probably won't ever be refined. And BTW, Andy has already said that he felt that it wasn't in the best interest of the members to publish a formula, which could imply that one already has been developed. So, go blow that smoke some where else.
Bill it's amazing how you have so much to say about something you know nothing about.
There is no mathematical formula. Too many subjectives.
And I guess you got the information about PCA being based upon a formula from all the ITAC conference calls you attended.
You should know about blowing smoke Bill.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Originally posted by Knestis:
Note that my comments above are not about black helicopters and trilateralist-type conspiracies. They are simply observations about culture and how difficult change is.
When I say, "the organization won't let formulas work," I'm not talking about stonewalling tactics of those smokey elistists: I'm talking about the CULTURE of the entire organization and some very fundamental paradigms that, while they are seldom explicated in conversations like this, drive a lot of the decisions that happen.
K
Kirk, what I am saying is that you cannot expect a category that has evolved quite successfully over 20+ years to suddenly throw out everything that has been done and start over which is damned near what you are expecting.
I'm also saying I personally think a well put together formula-based category can work an can be accepted - just not in IT. I furthermore have countless times pledged my support if you were to try to move MT forward.
From my end, I don't know what else I can do (since I'm willing to help, but won't do it for you).
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Knestis
04-18-2004, 10:06 PM
I really do appreciate the support for the MT2 idea but this isn't about trying to convince the world that my ideas are "good." I was only making a Sunday morning editorial observation and I'm frankly not sure that the time is anything like near right for the MT concept in SCCA.
K
JeffYoung
04-18-2004, 10:53 PM
Maybe this will get us to 300....
I like IT racing as it presently stands. I think my car is probably correctly classed.
Who agrees?
Originally posted by Knestis:
I really do appreciate the support for the MT2 idea but this isn't about trying to convince the world that my ideas are "good." I was only making a Sunday morning editorial observation and I'm frankly not sure that the time is anything like near right for the MT concept in SCCA.
K
I never thought you were trying to convince the world your ideas are "good." However, I think your idea for MT is good. Seriously.
I also think that the time could indeed be right for MT. I honestly don't see any radical changes for IT. The category has been successful enough that it's easier to muck it up than to make it better.
However, there does seem to be a desire, and perhaps a need to fill with a new category just about IT that allows more modern modifications as well as slighly more advanced modifications. I think the formula for MT could work very very well also. It could take pressure of IT in certain areas such as some people's desires for it to be a national category (I think if MT grows as I think it can, it would make a excellent candidate for national status). It would address competitive issues between cars in a very clear, mathematical fashion with clear allowances to equalize the performance paramaters.
You question the timing, but Production isn't really growing, GT seems to largely be dying. What should fill its place? I could see MT filling a need.
That's my feeling, right or wrong. But I don't think there is any mentality that simply will not allow a mathematical based rule set.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Bill Miller
04-19-2004, 12:17 AM
George,
Too many subjective parameters for a formula to work in IT, yet it'll work just fine for MT. You crack me up!!!!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,
Too many subjective parameters for a formula to work in IT, yet it'll work just fine for MT. You crack me up!!!!
Bill, you need to pay more attention.
I never said there were too many subjective parameters for a formula to work in IT. Please, search for it. It will keep you busy for hours.
What I said was there isn't a mathematical formula for IT. Don't expect one because there are too many subjective parameters being used. Never said it couldn't work. I said it will never happen because such a formula will turn IT upside down.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
[This message has been edited by Geo (edited April 19, 2004).]
Jeff, WHAT ARE YOU $#$&^%$#$# THINKING, LOL
cant you tell were reinventing the wheel here and doing sicko-analisis at the same time? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
Hotshoe
04-19-2004, 01:56 AM
Okay.... let me start something....
Speed Raycer .... what is midpack? The only time I see that is during pit stops in an ECR. And I almost always finish in top three with the ITA cars.
Jeff Young: Let me drive that Triumph.....Better charge up another bottle...heh..heh
#99 IT7 SEDIV 2000,2001,2002 SARRC Champion
What happened in 2003? 10 wins and a DNF... you go figure...Rear Steer??? When you go fishing make sure you take a HOOK! Get the picture? I'm suffering from a mental BLOCK. So I am told...but I'm BETTER now. Get my POINT?
I'll get down from my soap box now.... beware of the strong sarcasm ....LOL
JeffYoung
04-19-2004, 05:39 AM
Rick, you wouldn't know what to do with all that torque......
Seriously, I do wonder what someone who knows what they are doing could do with my car. It's still very driver limited, although I'm finally after a year sneaking up on the back of the ITS pack. The 280zs and 944s and E30s better watch out.
Bill Miller
04-19-2004, 07:19 AM
Yeah George, that's it. And pushing a bunch of cars around the current categories isn't going to turn things upside down. Especially when there seems to be no rhyme or reason as to how the decisions are made Yeah, you go right on believing that. Like I said before, a reclassification request gets shot down becuse the car would be deemed 'too fast' for the new class, yet 2 months later, same car is up for the same move, in '05. Yeah, these people know what they're doing!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
oanglade
04-19-2004, 09:10 AM
You can always feel free to volunteer for the job if you can do better...
------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA
planet6racing
04-19-2004, 09:30 AM
Jeff:
I'm with you. I'm there to have fun and learn. My car is not the obstacle keeping me from the front and I know it. Sure, I've spent countless hours toiling on the car, re-working this, improving that, but that is just the Engineer in me. I'm still the problem!
Ony:
I'm not sure I want Bill to volunteer for the ITAC. His interests are in Production...
------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
ITSRX7
04-19-2004, 09:33 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,
Too many subjective parameters for a formula to work in IT, yet it'll work just fine for MT. You crack me up!!!!
Boy, when you go to the track for 4 days and actually race, you miss a lot!
Bill,
I think a formula based system can work when 100% of the cars and drivers are starting from ground zero. Totally level playing field with no history or grandfathered cars or people to piss off.
The method for reclass considerations and adjustments is based on number crunching and then very subjective pieces. No single formula can do it all. I think it has to be given the past/present/future of the classes and cars.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)
[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited April 19, 2004).]
dickita15
04-19-2004, 09:48 AM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
The downtime is fun, but the most fun is camping overnight at the track and telling wild and crazy stories that may or may not be true.
just like posting here. (g)
Oh yea, camping at the track, waking up sunday morning.
http://members.aol.com/fastnblue/lagunasundayam.jpg
Good times and hairy times, heres a shot at Buttonwillow of three of us going for the same corner, the only that one made it was the car on the outside getting passed, my buddy Edik in the Acura spun on the inside taking me off the track with him.
http://members.aol.com/fastnblue/threewide
JeffYoung
04-19-2004, 12:21 PM
300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300 300!
Now what was this thread about again?
And my favorite arriving home to the little woman, HERES A 10 FOR THE 300TH POST
http://members.aol.com/fastnblue/a5.jpg
------------------
Daryl Brightwell
ITA RX7 #11
NORPAC
ITA RX7 #77
SOPAC
http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.p...m&cat=500&page= (http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=101&password=&sort=1&size=medium&cat=500&page=)
EP this summer
Sneak peek at the new EP car anyone?
http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=448
http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.p...m&cat=500&page= (http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=447&password=&sort=1&size=medium&cat=500&page=)
http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.p...m&cat=500&page= (http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.php?photo=446&password=&sort=1&size=medium&cat=500&page=)
ddewhurst
04-19-2004, 01:50 PM
Sure, we get lots of peeks at the stuff in the garage & only one peek at the stuff in the play room. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif
Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David
ps: We did the same bitch at the Sprints last year. She does get around. That sleeping on the table must be standard operating procedure for her. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif
emwavey
04-19-2004, 02:48 PM
Kirk, thanks for your time and effort for showing us what IT could be. I think your suggestions have gone a long way to help reclassify some cars that were in ITS to ITA.
As someone who just bought his first ITA car, I welcome the new cars in ITA.
For the record, I passed up an ITA/7 car that was my school car in the Southeast because it is an underdog here in the NE. I instead bought an overdog, or at the time it seemed like it anyway.
USTCC seems like the closest thing to what I would see as an ideal ruleset for IT... but I know this is not an ideal world. Besides as the new owner of an 89CRX Si, my car would be put to pasture since it has no back seat.
Most of all, I'm really looking forward to just going out and driving/racing.
dave, newbie-dude
Bill Miller
04-19-2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by planet6racing:
Ony:
I'm not sure I want Bill to volunteer for the ITAC. His interests are in Production...
What makes you say that Bill? Because I currently drive a Prod car? You can bet that if I had no interest in IT, I sure wouldn't spend time here. BTW, not sure if Chris is still running his car as 'dual purpose' or not, but there are already ITAC members that are racing Prod cars. And, I believe Darin has more posts on the Prod board than he does here. So, I'm not really sure what you meant by that comment.
Andy,
I have never said that whatever formula that would be developed, should be applied to the existing IT cars. Maybe some, yes, but probably not all of them. Here's one of my issues w/ a subjective classification/specification process. Without a defined set of guidelines, what happens when you get new people in that have a different set or priorities? Things change. Wouldn't it have made it a lot easier on you guys had this set of guidelines already been in place?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
ITSRX7
04-19-2004, 05:46 PM
Bill,
What is to say that a new set of committee members couldn't tweek, revise or otherwise change that 'formula'? That argument is either valid ALWAYS, regardless of what is in place - or not valid at all. Talk amongst yourselves...
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)
I think everyone is overlooking the most important point in classifying and/or trying to find a way to make the older cars in each of the classes at least competitive enough that the drivers will continue to compete in IT
What's the major factor? COST!
When you allow an "overdog" into the class such as the E-36(just as an example) owned and driven by people who have large budgets and then go on to dominate a class as they have here in the DC region, the older cars in the class get parked, or sold.
If you allow cars with 20+ years technology advantage over the rest of the class, and they aren't spec'd properly to keep them from dominating the class, you increase the costs associated with older cars trying to remain at the same level of competition as they once had. Many times, the cars they are dominating are at their highest potential already within the rules. Spending more money on them is wasting money as they will not be able to compete at the same level as they once enjoyed versus the yearly budget to run the car.
IT should not become what caused the downturn in Production car counts. There's a limit to what some people will be willing to pay to go out and have fun on the weekends, and we are seeing decreasing numbers of "older" IT drivers that still compete on a regular basis becuase the price to be competitive in their classes has reached a limit where they aren't getting their money's worth out of their car budgets. They keep spending and spending, yet, they keep getting further and further from the front of the field.
IMO the open ECU rule is as much to blame for the problems as is anything else.
Car A is classified, and then because of the ECU rules, can simply "plug in" an extra 30+hp for X amount of dollars. Cars B, C, D and E that have been competitve for 5-10 years and are prepped to the maximum of the rules, yet have carbs, are at a fixed state. Car A meanwhile, as the driver gets more time behind the wheel decides he can finally afford to do that "high dollar" ECU and suddenly goes from being mixed in the pack of cars B-E, is now running 1-2 seconds faster per lap. Is it fair to the drivers who have supported IT for years to be left in the dust, simply due to a loophole that was left in the rules only due to it being so difficult to police?
Leave the open ECU rule in place, but restrict them with plates to negate a small percentage of the gains they may achieve, or allow the rest of the field PCA's to remain reasonable competitive.
If the IT rules have to be re-written to allow PCA, then so be it. It may be the only way to keep fields full on a regular basis.
Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
IMO the open ECU rule is as much to blame for the problems as is anything else.
It certainly doesn't help matters much. IMHO the rule has been opened up too much, but ECU modifications are going to happen whether legal or not because they cannot be policed.
Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
Car A is classified, and then because of the ECU rules, can simply "plug in" an extra 30+hp for X amount of dollars.
No way. Getting 30hp from remapping the ECU is a pipe dream. Anyone who tells you differntly is trying to sell you something (like their ECU).
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
dominojd
04-19-2004, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
No way. Getting 30hp from remapping the ECU is a pipe dream. Anyone who tells you differntly is trying to sell you something (like their ECU).
I would say 10 hp if your lucky running race gas.
racerdave600
04-19-2004, 08:13 PM
As someone who has spent 3 years building an underdog ITA car (MR2, looking to be on track this year), I have a bit of interest in this. I was hoping for a reclass or other adjustment, as there is no way that an MR2 can run with some of the other ITA cars. (I'm going to put a friend of mine who is an SCCA and IMSA champion in the car at the ARRC hopefully to get a clearer idea.)
Although I knew this going in, it was my least expensive alternative as I had much of the parts needed, as well as the car. That still doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to have a shot at competitiveness. My take is as follows:
What myself and others want is not to have our cars classed in such a way that in dominates, all we want is a place that as our development as drivers, and as our cars are prepared to a higher level takes place, that we have some chance of running at or near the front. Most people do this because they are competitive and like to race, not because they have money to throw away and this seems like a good idea.
What the SCCA lacks in my opinion is the insight that people use up their disposable income on a hobby that at a stroke of a pen, can render their investment totally worthless. Nothing is harder to sell that an outdated uncompetitive race car.
A case in point, my friend who has 4 National titles in Solo II (DSP), has had the value in his car dropped to about a 4th of what it was only 2 years ago simply because of car classing. His car is developed to the point where there is no more legally (over 200 dyno pulls alone testing various exhaust set ups and fuel curves etc.) to be had. I have other road racing examples as well, but you get the idea. I'm sure there are a few ITS guys who can relate.
Although no one builds a race car as an investment, there are still many of us that can't afford to build new cars everytime the SCCA decides it wants to obsolete something, and I for one would look for alternative series to go play.
Having crewed in IMSA, Nascar, and SCCA, I can say that this is not limited to this club, but the big difference is that this is not professional. It's guys like myself that do this for the fun of it in a "club" atmosphere that do spend a large chunk of our disposable income on a sport we love. For most of us, we will never move on, but we would still like to be able to excel in our chosen area of play if we choose to develop in that direction.
I'm kinda rambling here, but I do feel that if the SCCA drops the ball on IT, it stands to open the door up more for many other series to come in and take up the slack. If that happens, it can weaken the structure further up the ladder. There is a big picture here to consider as well.
Just my thoughts...
Dave
Originally posted by racerdave600:
Although I knew this going in, it was my least expensive alternative as I had much of the parts needed, as well as the car. That still doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to have a shot at competitiveness.
I think this is a valid concern. This is a difficult issue. You did know going in that you had no guarantees. I do think that we need to explore this issue more and that there is more that can be done in this area. But, there are others who have an equally valid point that there a no guarantees and no comp adjustments.
Originally posted by racerdave600:
What myself and others want is not to have our cars classed in such a way that in dominates, all we want is a place that as our development as drivers, and as our cars are prepared to a higher level takes place, that we have some chance of running at or near the front.
But as you know, there is no provision to assure this. That said, I want the same thing and I agree that probably most people want the same thing. The difficulty lay in determining the performance potential of every car before they are built. And therein lay the problem. So, short of comp adjustments (which still don't guarantee squat and make for a moving target) what do you propose?
Originally posted by racerdave600:
What the SCCA lacks in my opinion is the insight that people use up their disposable income on a hobby that at a stroke of a pen, can render their investment totally worthless. Nothing is harder to sell that an outdated uncompetitive race car.
First of all, we (you, me, everyone who is a member) are the SCCA. The SCCA is not some robot or some computer that makes arbitrary decisions. That said, I think the ITAC we have now is accutely aware of this and is trying to take some active steps to improve matters, but it's not a simple matter.
Originally posted by racerdave600:
It's guys like myself that do this for the fun of it in a "club" atmosphere that do spend a large chunk of our disposable income on a sport we love. For most of us, we will never move on, but we would still like to be able to excel in our chosen area of play if we choose to develop in that direction.
I can assure you that every member of the ITAC falls into the description you just gave.
Originally posted by racerdave600:
I'm kinda rambling here, but I do feel that if the SCCA drops the ball on IT, it stands to open the door up more for many other series to come in and take up the slack. If that happens, it can weaken the structure further up the ladder. There is a big picture here to consider as well.
And I think the current ITAC generally (although not unanamously) feels the same way.
Yes, these are just words, but we are finally starting to see positive steps and I think we will see more. That is my opinion. IT, IMHO is not broken (it's in fact quite healthy), but also IMHO it needs some updating to it's largely 20+ year old rules.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Especially when there seems to be no rhyme or reason as to how the decisions are made
LOL - that's what you call a few very well thought out reclassifications and adjustments that virtually everyone applauded? I recall the only complaints I've heard were that they were long overdue. We should all be happy that Grumpy Miller isn't in charge. Bill, can you think of anything positive to say about the most successful amateur road race class in the country if not the world?
[This message has been edited by Jake (edited April 19, 2004).]
Quickshoe
04-19-2004, 11:11 PM
Originally posted by racerdave600:
What myself and others want is not to have our cars classed in such a way that in dominates, all we want is a place that as our development as drivers, and as our cars are prepared to a higher level takes place, that we have some chance of running at or near the front. Most people do this because they are competitive and like to race, not because they have money to throw away and this seems like a good idea.
Agreed, that is probably what most people want. The problem is that if your not yet fully developed car is capable of winning or beating fully developed cars (assuming equally driven), what happens when your car is fully developed?
IT is a happy "resting" place for many racers. They aren't moving on to bigger and better. It is still, in the grand scheme of things, a cheap place to race. Therefore well within the means of many who choose to race there. When that is the case you are going to have to race against people that have been doing this gig for a long time. You can't expect to beat them while you and your car are still in the early stages.
The only way I have seen this avoided in other lower cost forms of racing is some type of rule that excludes drivers with certain accomplishments from racing in certain classes.
Bill Miller
04-19-2004, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Bill,
What is to say that a new set of committee members couldn't tweek, revise or otherwise change that 'formula'? That argument is either valid ALWAYS, regardless of what is in place - or not valid at all. Talk amongst yourselves...
AB
Not exactly Andy. How do you figure that a futer ITAC/CB could change the guidelines w/o putting it out for review, or providing some valid justification as to why a change was needed?
Ok Jake, how do you explain how a car is 'too fast' to be reclassified one month, and two months later, the same car is one of these 'well thought out' reclassifications that you mention? Or, how one car gets moved, yet two VERY similar ones w/ the same powerplant don't (FX16 vs. AW11 MR2 and AE86 Corolla)?
And positive things about IT? Yeah, it's a great category that has plenty of room for improvement.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Banzai240
04-20-2004, 12:20 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Ok Jake, how do you explain how a car is 'too fast' to be reclassified one month, and two months later, the same car is one of these 'well thought out' reclassifications that you mention? Or, how one car gets moved, yet two VERY similar ones w/ the same powerplant don't (FX16 vs. AW11 MR2 and AE86 Corolla)?
Hey Miller... You are bitching at the wrong people and you know it. You are VERY well aware by now that the ITAC is NOT the group making the final decisions on these issues. We've told you where we stand on them. We are NOT the final word.
This can be explained VERY simply... The ITAC, in both cases, recommended the changes. In the first, the CRB shot it down. The ITAC then insisted on keeping the issue open, and were able to convince them to change their opinion.
On the second, the majority on the ITAC recommended the move. The CRB shot it down. Some on the ITAC insisted on keeping the issue open. The CRB still shot it down.
Hey, we tried, and continue to do so (I think another letter on the MR2 is on the books right now, so it will get addressed again and, once again, I will fight like Heck to get it moved...)
You don't like whats happening... How about focusing your animosity toward your area Directors... they are the ones that pick the CRBs and the CRBs pick the ACs, and the BoD, along with the CRB, are the ones that make the ultimate decisions in these cases...
But then, you know that already, now, don't you...? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif
------------------
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 April 20, 2004).]
gettim Darin, Dave, you sound like a guy thats raced outside this club most of his life like me, and cant quite understand some of the logic thats passed as logic here so long. I got into this club building a PRO7 car, disagreed with the roll cage rules (no stiffening) and switched it over to ITA not realizing the extent of the "intent" rule. Never would have built it if I knew, 12k later im stuck with a backmarker. Stupid me. I fought the ECU rule and won with the "No added external sensors" added to the GCR, so dont think I havnt tried to fix what I can. But the no comp adjustments EVER rule means ill never be happy here and that and the train of thought of some that frequently show their moronic veiws here convinced me to spend another 25k to race in EP where there is at least a shread of thought put into competitiveness being an important part of why a guy would spend thousands of dollars for recreation. Its lame and unheard of to have a set of rules written in this way. good luck with your MR2 and because I own a P.O.S. I cant sell ill no dought have a stake in this bastard class as long as it is run this way. PCA'S are a start, but I would like to see the members have more input into true comp adjustments so people dont have to spend 50k in three years to be competitive. rant mode off, I've just spent 10 hours shaping bondo and fiberglass, can you tell?
Bill Miller
04-20-2004, 07:31 AM
Listen Darin,
That comment was made in response to a comment Jake made. I had originally commented about decisions that seemed to have no 'rhyme or reason'. We all know that the ITAC has no decision-making authority. You've made that painfully clear, time and again. We don't need to rehash how the ITAC has been thrwon under the bus by the CB in FasTrack.
Anyway, that's not the point. I was complaining about decisions that were made w/o rhyme or reason. And since the ITAC doesn't make decisions, and since I didn't mention the ITAC, you can safely assume that I wasn't complaining about the ITAC. So get over yourself already.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Or, how one car gets moved, yet two VERY similar ones w/ the same powerplant don't (FX16 vs. AW11 MR2 and AE86 Corolla)?
Ouch! You had to go there and open my old wounds again. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
(score 1 for Bill)
oanglade
04-20-2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by dominojd:
I would say 10 hp if your lucky running race gas.
I've seen cars gain that and maybe a bit more only messing with A/F ratios and ignition timing, but I bet that the cars whose ECU controls cam timing, for example, can get quite more than that.
(now, back to the regular topic programming...)
------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA
OTLimit
04-20-2004, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
BTW, not sure if Chris is still running his car as 'dual purpose' or not, but there are already ITAC members that are racing Prod cars. And, I believe Darin has more posts on the Prod board than he does here. So, I'm not really sure what you meant by that comment.
For what it's worth, Chris has two cars. Every year he continues to run many more regionals than nationals, and I don't expect that to change. His frustration level with Prod changes from week to week (depending on how the car is doing), but I don't expect him to stop doing that, either.
As one of the least vocal members of the ITAC, Chris still spends a lot of time discussing and considering issues because he is a member of the committee and feels that what he contributes is important. But when all they get is harassed, is there any wonder that he doesn't take part in these public discussions? Does it matter if Darin also takes in interest in Prod? If it is the logical next step, what's the issue of trying to facilitate a better transition?
Bill, please, get a life. I know you can be a very reasonable person if you want to. There is no formula, and the black helicopters are not coming for you.
------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers
Greg Krom
04-20-2004, 12:43 PM
>> Or, how one car gets moved, yet two VERY similar ones w/ the same powerplant don't (FX16 vs. AW11 MR2 and AE86 Corolla)? <<
I'm guessing it's because they are really not that similar. I know the engines are very similar, but I think thats where the similarity ends.
The drive layout (a rather large component of vehicle performance) of all three vehicles are completely different...
The MR2 is a mid engined, rear drive "sportscar", the Corolla is front engined rear drive. Meanwhile, the FX16 is a front engine front drive car, theoretically the "worst" format of the three.
Doesn't make sense to start by reclassifying the one with the least amount of potential, thus reducing the possibility of creating an overdog? Come the end of the day all three of these cars MAY belong in ITB, or the may not. I think the FX16 will tell us whether one or both of the other two belong in ITB as well.
Originally posted by oanglade:
I've seen cars gain that and maybe a bit more only messing with A/F ratios and ignition timing, but I bet that the cars whose ECU controls cam timing, for example, can get quite more than that.
Good point. Hadn't thought of that. I think 30 is still a pipe dream, but it would certainly increase the power potential and improve the area under the curve dramatically.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Banzai240
04-20-2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Greg Krom:
I think the FX16 will tell us whether one or both of the other two belong in ITB as well.
One thing I found interesting when comparing the FX16 to the MR2 was that the FX16 is classified 75lbs HEAVIER in ITA than the MR2. (2445 vs. 2370lbs)
Were I to believe that a consistant process was used to classify these cars, I might be led to think that the FX-16 was considered to have MORE potential than the MR2, based on it's classification weight...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Greg Krom
04-20-2004, 01:20 PM
Or an FX16 chassis is just heavier than an MR2, further reducing the potential of the FX.
Banzai240
04-20-2004, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by Greg Krom:
Or an FX16 chassis is just heavier than an MR2, further reducing the potential of the FX.
...assuming that stock weight has/had ANYTHING to do with classification weight...
I can tell you for certain, based on my own car, that this isn't always the case! (2650lbs... Yah, right! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif )
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
The MR2 is probably the heaviest one in race trim. A lot more weight comes out of a 4-seater than an MR2. My 87 will never see 2370 even if I go on a starvation diet and run with no fuel. I've removed EVERYTHING legal including the e-brake mechanism.
For all those who believe in formula based classifications, did engine/drive layout ever pop out as a classification coefficient? If we were talking about big hp and torque I think a RR or MR would be better than a FR, but with these weeny little engines, I doubt it makes a whole lot of difference.
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
gettim Darin, Dave, you sound like a guy thats raced outside this club most of his life like me, and cant quite understand some of the logic thats passed as logic here so long. I got into this club building a PRO7 car, disagreed with the roll cage rules (no stiffening) and switched it over to ITA not realizing the extent of the "intent" rule. Never would have built it if I knew, 12k later im stuck with a backmarker. Stupid me. I fought the ECU rule and won with the "No added external sensors" added to the GCR, so dont think I havnt tried to fix what I can. But the no comp adjustments EVER rule means ill never be happy here and that and the train of thought of some that frequently show their moronic veiws here convinced me to spend another 25k to race in EP where there is at least a shread of thought put into competitiveness being an important part of why a guy would spend thousands of dollars for recreation. Its lame and unheard of to have a set of rules written in this way. good luck with your MR2 and because I own a P.O.S. I cant sell ill no dought have a stake in this bastard class as long as it is run this way. PCA'S are a start, but I would like to see the members have more input into true comp adjustments so people dont have to spend 50k in three years to be competitive. rant mode off, I've just spent 10 hours shaping bondo and fiberglass, can you tell?
boy was I miserable last night..
gran racing
04-20-2004, 05:23 PM
The discussion about having the potential to be competitive...I personally have no problem getting beat by another driver that is simply a better driver. Instead I try to learn as much from them as I can. I also don't have an issue getting beat by a car that is better prepared then mine (don't ask me this at the track though). I would love to see IT limit the benefits gained by simply spending more money on go-fast parts. It is frustrating when a car is in a class where no matter what is done to the car and no matter how good of a driver is in the car, it still won't be competitive while at the same time it would make a great fit into a different class. -This is a general statement no matter what car I am/will drive. And yes, SCCA is working hard on these.-
I do agree that technically everyone "chooses" their race cars and if I choose an uncompetitive car, it is my fault. In my case the car was stolen, partially stripped (Stereo, seat damaged, paint scraped), was fortunate to get insurance money, and had a wife with a bad idea (for her at least).
ECUs - yeah, I too wish that ECUs were not allowed to be modified. And I am saying this knowing that my car might benefit from ECU modifications (never looked into it before). But at the same time, since there is no realistic way to police the rule it seems fair to allow a modified ECU. Hate to say it, but monitoring it with the boy scout's honor system isn't going to work. The idea of a restrictor plate? I don't see this as a good method of controling ECU modifications.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
Bill Miller
04-20-2004, 05:37 PM
Lesley,
Those comments were only in respone to Bill's comments about my 'interests' lying in Prod. I don't think the type of car one races necessarily has anything to do w/ their ability to contribute to input on the advisory committee. Maybe w/ formula cars vs. sedans, but certainly not w/ two production-based categorires. And believe me, I don't think there are any black helicopters out there. I just don't trust a subjective process.
As far as gains from an ECU, I believe James Clay said they saw 'significant' gains w/ the re-programmed E36 ECU. Was it 30hp? Don't know, but I'd bet money it was more than 10.
Now, back to the FX16/AW11 MR2/AE86 Corolla. What do the results show? Has one of those cars dominated over the other two? It's a pretty rare situation where you get to evaluate essentially the same powerplant in three different drive configurations. I don't recall seeing anything that would indicate that one of those configurations is measureably better than the other two.
And, finally something that Darin and I agree on, spec weight has nothing to do w/ curb weight.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Bill Miller
04-20-2004, 05:37 PM
/edit/ duplicate post
[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited April 20, 2004).]
The AE86 is probably the best to race because it has a HUGE aftermarket parts bin due to its cult status in Japan. LSD and gearing changes are fairly common. Did I mention that on IT classified someone is selling an LSD tranny for my MR2 for ONLY $2350 - and that's a deal. (is my car even worth $2350?) Of course the cost and availability of aftermarket parts really should have nothing to do with classing.
One problem with all these cars is there really isn't much you can do with the 4AGE motor and stay legal. I have yet to see anyone with dyno data on a 4AGE with more than 100hp to the wheels in IT trim.
With only 1.6 liters these cars are fairly well optimized from that factory at 112hp. Toyota (and Lotus) engineers aren't stupid. I HAVE seen dyno data that shows NO gain with the addition of a header. I have seen data that shows a performance LOSS after port matching. And I do know people who have put a LOT of money into these little engines.
Banzai240
04-20-2004, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
I HAVE seen dyno data that shows NO gain with the addition of a header. I have seen data that shows a performance LOSS after port matching. And I do know people who have put a LOT of money into these little engines.
I have seen some dyno data that shows a bit more than you are reporting here, but not enough more to make a valid case for keeping this car in ITA... Considering a FULL-TILT E-Production MR2 motor only makes around 180-185hp, there isn't much of a chance that this motor is going to produce much beyond what is being reported in IT trim...
Sure, it handles pretty well, but NOT well enough to overcome the 30hp or so disadvantage and 2-3 point wt/pwr disadvantage that it has against the current top 4 or 5 in ITA...
Considering the class of cars recently introduced to ITB, this car is an underdog even to some of them...
But what do I know...??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Bill Miller
04-20-2004, 11:55 PM
Jake,
When I ran my AW11 MR2, I talked to the TRD guys in Cali quite a bit. IIRC, there was a guy named Bob out there (his last name escapes me, but I have it written down somewher). I looked into an LSD and different R&P for the car, and IIRC, it was about what that tranny you mentioned is going for. Not to mention that it would have taken MONTHS to get from Japan.
And Darin, since you think the AW11 will be an underdog in ITB, I can only assume that you'll support the move of the Rabbit GTI to ITC.
Another intesting point about the FX16 vs. the AW11 MR2. The FX16 actually gets .4 pts more compression (9.4 vs. 9).
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Banzai240
04-21-2004, 02:09 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And Darin, since you think the AW11 will be an underdog in ITB, I can only assume that you'll support the move of the Rabbit GTI to ITC.
If the mechanics/specifications of the GTI seem to make sense for ITC, then of course I would support it... Why would you think, or what have I said/done in the past that would make you think I wouldn't?
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
lateapex911
04-21-2004, 05:59 AM
Originally posted by Speed Raycer:
I was just skimming the last 50 or so posts until I saw that... what an interesting idea! Not sure of the ramifications one way or the other, but interesting nonetheless.
I find it interesting that few ITA RX7 owners are chiming in either commenting on the new ITA or the possible move to B. I think most have become used to being mid pack and just want a place to compete whether in ITA, B or 7.
Whew...what a thread. Been gone a few days...or about 100 posts, so heres a random reaction sampling.
As a 1st gen RX-7 driver, the future ITA sucks. Period. The march down the results sheets has turned into a tumble. The new models have been brought in in such a way as to make them competitive at the front of the pack. Which is fine, and as it should be. But if you're in an RX-7, an MR2, a BMW 2002, a Fiero, etc, your semi-worthless car just got even more worthless. See the guys comments about buying an ITA car ...CRX over RX-7. Duh.
About ECUs. 30 Hp? Well, maybe they facilitated the ability to get 30 out of the higher end motors, maybe not. But we should be referring to percentages, not raw hp anyway. Either way though, you know what?? I would kill for 10 hp!!! Thats a chunk! And it's the chunck my competiton was given post classing that I did not get.
Class moves...Moving a car from a class where it gets its butt kicked to a class where it has a chance hurts nobody, and helps many. If you are now at the front of your class, and new cars enter that can compete, you will: keep winning because you are a better developer/engineer/ preparer/driver, OR you will lose, because you need to BE a better developer/engineer/ preparer/driver, if the new car was classed in a proper way. If not the system will correct.
(And i fail to see how moving the bottom of ITA, which is made up of cars selling used for around $3500, will ruin the "affordability" of ITB. Doesn't get much more affordable than that!)
Formulas. IF we could toss out half the classed cars, AND we could start with a clean sheet of paper, then formulas could work. But I'm afraid the horse is out of the barn. I understand the reasoning that an anti formulaic sentiment is embedded in the organization, but I disagree. It's just too darn tough to make it fly, and fly straight.
Why do I race? Yes, for all the fun reasons mentioned, but I'd be lying if I were to tell you I was happy getting my ass kicked miles from the front lap time-wise. You're darn right I want a fair shot at the front, if I've done my job.
Classes- IF the BoD and the CRB were to approve another IT class, that would be great, but I really doubt that will happen. We need to make it work in 4, and it CAN be done. Trickle down is the most logical way.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 21, 2004).]
Bill Miller
04-21-2004, 07:51 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
If the mechanics/specifications of the GTI seem to make sense for ITC, then of course I would support it... Why would you think, or what have I said/done in the past that would make you think I wouldn't?
Well Darin, the request was made to move, along w/ the request to move the 1.7 VWs. You've commented on how you supported the move of the 1.7 VWs, yet have not mentioned the Rabbit GTI.
Interesting note on the Rabbit GTI when compared to the 2.0 A3 Golf and the 1.6 Rabbit.
Rabbit GTI - 1.8 8v/90hp stock/14x6 wheels/239mm vented disc/180mm drum/2180# spec wt.
Golf III - 2.0 8v cross-flow/115hp stock/14x6 wheels/257 mm vented disc/227mm solid disc/2350# spec weight.
Rabbit 1.6 - 1.6 8v/75hp stock/13x6 wheels/239mm solid rotor/180mm drum/2000# spec weight.
Golf III makes 25hp more than the GTI (stock), has a progamable/chipable ECU, has 4 wheel disc brakes (w/ larger ones in the front), and weighs 170# more
Rabbit 1.6 makes 15hp less than the GTI (stock), but does get the G-grind cam, has the same size brakes (albeit solid front rotors vs. vented), and weighs 180# less, and only gets 13x6 wheels.
The Rabbit GTI has a slightly closer ratio tranny than either of the above cars.
You tell me which two cars seem closer in specs/performance potential.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
oanglade
04-21-2004, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
One thing I found interesting when comparing the FX16 to the MR2 was that the FX16 is classified 75lbs HEAVIER in ITA than the MR2. (2445 vs. 2370lbs)
Were I to believe that a consistant process was used to classify these cars, I might be led to think that the FX-16 was considered to have MORE potential than the MR2, based on it's classification weight...
I'll give you another one:
ITA Escort GT vs. ITA Mazda Protege LX
Same motor, compression ratio, valve size, suspension, transmission/ratios, brakes, wheelbase.
The Escort is a 2 door hatchback and the Mazda a 4 door sedan, both built on the same platform.
The Escort runs on 15" wheels, the Mazda on 14's.
The Escort is listed at 2430 lbs and the Mazda at 2510 lbs.
(Both are candidates for ITA-LITE with the MR2, RX-7, etc. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif )
------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA
Banzai240
04-21-2004, 11:21 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Rabbit GTI - 1.8 8v/90hp stock/14x6 wheels/239mm vented disc/180mm drum/2180# spec wt.
Rabbit 1.6 - 1.6 8v/75hp stock/13x6 wheels/239mm solid rotor/180mm drum/2000# spec weight.
You tell me which two cars seem closer in specs/performance potential.
First and foremost, I don't believe the factory HP numbers advertised for these cars. They don't jive with the numbers given to us from several IT/VW experts, and they don't make any sense when you consider how the VWs perform on the track against equally prepared competition. Using the stock numbers and assuming even a 30% improvement for IT prep, this car would have to weigh about 1850lbs to be on par with the 510 in ITC... Since we all know that the VW is more than a match for a good 510 at it's current 2000lbs, I think it's safe to assume that the factory numbers are off, and that this car is making some decent ITC HP. This is a case where some real-world experience should be considered...
The 1.6 and 1.7 cars are much closer in output than comparing the 1.6 and 1.8... While I don't disagree that the 1.8 may need some relief to stay in ITB as time goes on, I, and the well-respected VW racers that the ITAC consulted agree that the 1.8 would be too much for ITC.
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Asok #25
04-21-2004, 04:15 PM
Bill
If you want the Rabbit GTI moved down to ITC then I want the BMW 320i 1767cc e21 moved down as well. Almost the same numbers as the VW but 280 lbs. heavier.
I think 90 to 95% of the cars classified are where they belong. Including those two cars.
Bill Miller
04-21-2004, 05:29 PM
Ok Darin, show me some data that support your claim that the stock hp numers are wrong. Pretty easy out, to question the stock numbers when you don't like the story they tell. I looked at the Summit Point numbers over the last 5 years, the fastest Rabbit GTI runs about where the top ITC cars are (1:33). BTW, what's stock power on an L16?
Asok,
You want the car moved, ask.
[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited April 21, 2004).]
Asok #25
04-21-2004, 06:20 PM
Bill
Check out Derek Ketchie...
http://www.arrc-online.com/results_2002/ra...2002_group2.pdf (http://www.arrc-online.com/results_2002/raceresults2002_group2.pdf)
He might of had a top 3 if...
Those mad Rabbit Gti's are a little to fast for ITC.
Banzai240
04-21-2004, 07:03 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Ok Darin, show me some data that support your claim that the stock hp numers are wrong. Pretty easy out, to question the stock numbers when you don't like the story they tell.
Bill... give me a break... you should know by now that I NEVER take the "easy way out"... pretty much everything I do is the hard way... If I had wanted the easy way out, I'd have ignored you...
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
BTW, what's stock power on an L16?
The 510 L16 is listed at 96hp from the factory. Consulted experts say that these can make around 115hp in IT trim... or about a 20-25% improvement.
Using that same process... and assuming even a 30% improvement in power for the 1.6VW, are you really trying to convince me that it only makes 97hp?? That would give the car a 20:1 wt/pwr ratio, compared to an 18.8 for the 510... The 510 should walk away in the straight, but it doesn't. On any given day, a VW will compete quite handily with a 510.
This is why I question the stock HP numbers...
Don't you find it curious how these German cars, like other German cars, seem to perform at a level higher than what their factory specs would indicate?
With Chris Albin on the ITAC, and Mark Coffin only an e-mail away, as well as other sources for reference who have first hand knowledge of these cars, do you really think we'd take the time to move the 1.7 and leave the 1.8 if we didn't think that there was good reason to do so?
Jordan OUT! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
------------------
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 April 21, 2004).]
gran racing
04-21-2004, 09:01 PM
Kinda like the Corvette vs. Camaro. Show me the dyno numbers not the numbers that the manufacturer published.
I don't think Darin is saying that people are lying, but that the published numbers may not be accurate.
And in defense of Darin, I do have to say that it is pretty increadible that he is willing to put his neck on the line here as he constantly does. Many people would simply ignore the IT forum or at least topics such as these, but he doesn't. Regardless if you agree with him or not (and I personally do for the most part) you at least have to respect he helps shed light on what is going on and why.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
Originally posted by oanglade:
The Escort is listed at 2430 lbs and the Mazda at 2510 lbs.
(Both are candidates for ITA-LITE with the MR2, RX-7, etc. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif )
ITA-LITE - I kinda like that. It really isn't such a bad idea. A class filled with cars that are too slow for ITA, but we're too scared to blow up ITB with. It would probably be one of the largest IT classes. It could also be ITO for IT Old Skool. :P
BTW, I've been racing more and more with EMRA instead of SCCA. Their IT-type classing system is much like the SCCA, but my car for some odd reason fits in a class that sits between ITA and ITB.
ST-1 = ITS
ST-2 = ITA
ST-3 = (where my MR2 and the AE86 is classed)
ST-4 = ITB
ST-5 = ITC
dyoungre
04-22-2004, 10:26 AM
Jake,
Is there a link for EMRA, where we can look at the classifications? It sounds like we were going to come up with the same conclusions - why not use their solution as a thought starter? I know of many mid engine (fiero, MR2) and RX7 owners that believe they've just found a home.
------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61
gran racing
04-22-2004, 12:38 PM
Not so sure you'll want to hear this, but your RX7 was in ST2 as of 2003 (probably still will be in 2004). EMRA is updating the classifications and will post them shortly - they are a bit outdated and not all cars listed in the various classes are still in those classes. I do know the 7 was in ST2 last year though. But you should still check to see what happens when they update their classes....
www.emraracing.org (http://www.emraracing.org)
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
lateapex911
04-23-2004, 01:30 AM
Are EMRAs rules identical to IT specs for their ST classes?
EMRA is a cool organization, but they don't put on too many races. And NASA has nothing in the New England area. SCCA is pretty much it for us around here.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Bill Miller
04-23-2004, 07:46 AM
EMRA is a very good organization, and is a nice alternative for people in the Northeast.
Jake,
Bob Kress and I were the ones that were responsible for getting the AW11 moved from ST2 to ST3. At the time, we were the only two that were running those cars. I thought I heard that Bob wrecked his car last year, and was getting out of it.
As far as EMRA's ST rules compared to IT goes, yes, they're close, but there are some crucial differences. The first one is that there is no weight spec for EMRA classes. You can get the car as light as possible. Second, all cars get to run 10.5:1 compression, or .5 point over stock, if stock is >10. Third, EMRA has the concept of modifications and class 'bumps'. You are allowed a certain number of 'exceptions' (I believe 2), before you car is moved up to the next higher class.
The EMRA classification sheet is VERY old (I belive the AW11 MR2 is still listed in ST2). I don't think it's been updated in at least 5-7 years. I'm glad they're finally getting around to it. It used to be that the classes were approx. ITS - ITD, w/ some blending/crossover at the boundries. I think now, it's shifted a bit. They also have 6 classes, w/ STGT at the top of the heap. I can go into more detail if someone would like, but I have to go to work now.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
gran racing
04-23-2004, 08:49 AM
Jake,
As Bill said there is more you are allowed to do with your car with EMRA. BUT I know you would do very well with them as your car is.
Mr. MR2 Jake and I usually go the the Glen and LRP events - definately different than SCCA but really a lot of fun. See you at the May SCCA race...
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
all you rotary haters out there should love this one, my engine builder informed me yesterday he was going to have to use my old worn rotor housings because for almost 2 months Mazda has the 79-85 rx7 12a rotor housings listed as NLA, yes thats "NO LONGER AVAILABLE" since there are no aftermarkets we have no choice but to go with the still available rx3 12a housing which are interchangable, with a bump in HP of say 10. yes ill be sending that letter to the CRB today. I will also call maz comp and ask that they supercede that part number to speed the changeover.
[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited April 23, 2004).]
just checked, stock 79-85 12a rotor housings pulled from menu completely.
Knestis
04-23-2004, 12:02 PM
Is the RX7 eligible under any of the vintage racing organization's rules yet?
(ducks, runs for cover)
K
Ma, git the scattergun, one of them yellabellys jus poked his head out..
Mazda says they may go back into production once a large stock of rx8 housings are in place, hmmm, in the meanwhile..
Dano77
04-26-2004, 07:48 PM
As for a vintage series. the only one we know of is HSR.They are kinda an outlaw/unlimited vintage group.IE former winston cup/trans_am vs IMSA GTU RX-7....
dan-o
lateapex911
04-27-2004, 08:51 PM
I don't think so Kirk, most vintage organizations require that the car be from '73 or earlier, or 25 years old minimun, and have racing history, before they will consider adding it to the list. The Volvo historic series was looser, but still a no go...
As Dan-O says, the racing history issue is most often the issue.
And of course, most vintage bodies on these shores operate under the 13/13 rule, which puts them half way between lapping and racing.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
13/13 Bleck, I get that driving home from work.
Quickshoe
04-28-2004, 09:43 PM
Boy this thread has been all over the place.
Warning! Rant coming. If you don't feel like possibly getting your shorts in a wad skip this post.
The fact that a club has rules against contact makes it somewhere between a lapping day and racing? Don't almost all clubs have rules against contact? Okay, so is it the penalty? Can't the SCCA suspend you for 2 months and put you on probation for 6 months for a single offense? So what does that make them?
SCCA, VARA, HSR, OWRS, IRL, F1; they all have rules against contact, they all have penalties, some of which are quite $tiff.
Maybe vintage racing creates visions of gentlemen putzing around in a parade, moving over and pointing anyone by who begins to fill their mirrors. I assure you that is not the way it is. It is people racing sometimes very expensive and/or unique cars where it isn't acceptable for Johnny Newcomer (who's been watching all the NASCRAP he can find for the past 10 years) to come out to the track and show us that rubbin' is racin'.
I have raced open wheel, closed wheel, pavement, clay, oval, road course, vintage and non-vintage. I am quite capable of banging my way around someone in front of me. It really doesn't take much skill to move someone out of your way.
While it may be fun, when all participants are willing, it sure isn't racing in my book.
If the fact that an organization frowns on it makes you want to race elsewhere then maybe you should race where (A) it is encouraged, (B) speeds are low enough that injury is not likely and © the car is cheap enough that you can have another one ready next Saturday night.
It is tons more difficult to pressure someone into making a mistake, or racing them through a corner or series of them cleanly, to complete a pass than it is to nudge someone out of the way.
Good racing,
--Daryl (Race me clean and hard. Try to punt me and I'll put you in the %^&%&^ weeds) DeArman
had to borrow your MO Raymond.
on edit--you thought my spelling an grammar was poor when I am not ranting!
[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited April 28, 2004).]
[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited April 28, 2004).]
RSTPerformance
04-28-2004, 10:48 PM
Dayrl-
In the past I have thought a lot along the lines of Jakes comment, however I really can't argue with anything you said...
Nicely put Daryl!!!
Raymond "Their is always another view" Blethen
PS: I am still not a huge fan of vintage racing, I just a kid!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
Brother Daryl, to me clicking mirrors in a turn just adds to the rush of racing, now give a 800HP Mclaren M8F or a Bud moore Mustang or anything thats a brown short ride and you could sign me up in a new york minute. when I make my second million....
lateapex911
04-29-2004, 12:04 AM
One time I was walking the paddock at Lime Rock during a vintage event, and came upon a guy with an old Porsche. He was packing up, but his race wasn't until later that day, and I asked what was up.
Seems he had been excluded for a spins. One in practice the previous day that did no damage, and a second that morning that left some scuffing on the bodywork from a tirewall. He said the car had been "twitchy" and couldn't figure out why. He figured it was him! After the second spin he found a loose bushing. Ding!
He said he went to the organizers and explained, but they were unimpressed.
Of course that was his point of view, but it left an impression with me.
I hope those who share the track with me will tell you that I will fight for a spot if we're close to each other, but I will be a gentleman if you are dramatically faster...in all cases I try to avoid any contact.
They will also tell you that I have been known to spin... sad but true!
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 29, 2004).]
Jake, your a true sportsman. That being said, while I have spun on dirt tracks, paved ovals, too many times during races, I have never spun during a road course race, I get that over with in friday practice and during warm up and qualifying, I spun 4 times during a 30 minute friday practice once, my personal best, while feeling out every corners limits (buttonwillow 5-03) with my new hoosiers and yes, I was flagged in. If you dont do this you will never know how fast you can go.
Oh and as Ron carroll can attest, do not try this in corners that have (A) a wall in close at the exit be it inside or outside or (B) in turn six at laguna, he watched me go on a "Brown shorts ride" there in practice last year.
RSTPerformance
04-29-2004, 09:31 AM
one time in bandcamp... opps I mean...
useless story to add posts and get a giggle:
My brother and I shared (borrowed) my fathers old ITA MR2 for 2 COM (time trial club) events at Tremblant our first year on track (1996). At the second event we couldn't make it in time for the "school day" and COM frowned upon us driving since we had only had 1 track event prior to that. Our argument being that in the first event e(earlier that year) we were 1st and 3rd in ST3 (popular class) so we already proved ourselves... COM said fine, you can run the event without doing another school. I spun the car once in each of my first 2 sessions, and when my brother went to go on-track they stoped him and said, nope this car has spun twice it is done for the day. My brother explained that it was me who had spun, not him, so they said... OK go ahead then. 6 or 7 laps later stephen flipped the car at 110mph!!!
my point... I guess I don't have any other than the rules clubs have are (somehow) in the best interest of its members. While I am not of the vintage type or BMW club type who would not enjoy being limited to testing the limits of my ability, I do see a need for those organizations to meet other racers interests.
Raymond
you guys took your fathers car out and flipped it, now that really does qualify as a bandcamp story. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif off to work
Chris Wire
04-29-2004, 03:53 PM
Originally posted by chuck baader:
You guys are killing me http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif I am building an ITA BMW e30....128hp/2750#. Maybe I can lobby the board to drop the weight to about 2500 http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif Chuck
Or you can simply call the Dean boys down in SEDiv. They have found the secret to making the E30 ITA look like an ITS car. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif The father sat on the front row of the ITS/ITA group at the Sebring long course event in Nov. 2002, and actually led the beginning of the race, ultimately turning a lap within .3 of the fastest ITS lap and 4 secs faster than the next quickest ITA car. Needless to say, he was slower the next day! Go figure.
------------------
Chris Wire
Team Wire Racing
ITS Mazda RX7 #35
[email protected]
therooster
04-29-2004, 05:51 PM
"I spun the car once in each of my first 2 sessions, and when my brother went to go on-track they stoped him and said, nope this car has spun twice it is done for the day. My brother explained that it was me who had spun, not him, so they said... OK go ahead then. 6 or 7 laps later stephen flipped the car at 110mph!!!" Raymond
Was this the same weekend you backed that car into the guardrail or was that the prior event? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif I was there for both and may have been the one to stop the car before letting you go out. If only I had stopped you guys then.... PS I have driven that car at Summit Point since then.
Chris Aylward
edit grammer
[This message has been edited by therooster (edited April 29, 2004).]
lateapex911
04-29-2004, 06:30 PM
And the Blethen legend grows.....
must be trying to out Sheppard the Sheppards...
But back to topic...
So, the "New" A class...
Cars with a known shot: The CRX, 240SX, Integra....
Cars with an theoretical shot: The Miata, the Saturn, tne Neon, the NX-2000, the GTI/golf, and the SE-R.
The rest: IT Lite...
What am I missing? How would you categorize them? What's gonna be hot in 2005 if things were to go down as the recent published changes list.
(And to be clear, let's not say a Fiero can win, with the asterisk "if the other cars aren't prepped", or any of that silliness. Assume fully prepped, legal {and just because you saw a 2002 out drag a E36 once doesn't mean it should be able to} examples....)
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
gsbaker
04-29-2004, 06:46 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
...They will also tell you that I have been known to spin... sad but true!
No Jake, say it isn't so! I've never seen you spin--although I once did see you parked with a broomstick handle... Ah, never mind.
Gregg
Hotshoe
04-29-2004, 06:57 PM
Quickshoe:
I like your last post:
It is tons more difficult to pressure someone into making a mistake, or racing them through a corner or series of them cleanly, to complete a pass than it is to nudge someone out of the way.
I had my car destroyed by someone that does not understand the concept of that statement.
I have made mistakes that have cost other drivers some sheet metal and have always made a point to apologize to them for doing so. But I have never done anything that I consider intentional. I have been the recipient of a few hits that I know were not accidental and it sure takes the fun out of CLUB racing.
I would consider it a hollow victory if a person was to win a race by punting someone.
I'll get down from my soap box now ....I just wanted to add to the posts .....400 is coming up soon.... What about the original topic? Oh, yeah, I knew: ITA has CLASS...LOL
So Jake, shall we start ITA - Lite? First race next weekend at LRP? Is there anything stopping our region from doing this? Heck SM has SSM - I don't see what's stopping us.
lateapex911
04-29-2004, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
So Jake, shall we start ITA - Lite? First race next weekend at LRP? Is there anything stopping our region from doing this? Heck SM has SSM - I don't see what's stopping us.
The Jakes are in agreement!
I think "Lite" stickers on the car will make a nice counterpoint...sort of like how I ran "IT2" stickers in Atlanta at the ARRCs to support the IT2 initiative. No, my car wasn't eligible, but it brought light to the inequities in classing....I better call the graphic guys in the AM!
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Bill Miller
04-30-2004, 07:17 AM
Jake,
I agree w/ you, although I'm not so sure about the Golf/GTI (unless of course, they're moving the 2.0 16v from ITS to ITA). '05 is going to be interesting, for sure!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
emwavey
05-03-2004, 05:25 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
The Jakes are in agreement!
I think "Lite" stickers on the car will make a nice counterpoint...sort of like how I ran "IT2" stickers in Atlanta at the ARRCs to support the IT2 initiative. No, my car wasn't eligible, but it brought light to the inequities in classing....I better call the graphic guys in the AM!
hmmm, I'm not sure why this issue has been ducked so much, but wouldn't weight penalties eventually even out the field? It's certainly cheap for the front runners in ITA to stick some extra ballast, and I certainly wouldn't mind doing so ... especially if I was at the top 5 every race.
This would also work with that whole "ITA - Lite" thing... although IMO it would look pretty silly to have a CRX with a graphic that reads "ITA - Heavy". :P... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
lateapex911
05-03-2004, 06:01 PM
Originally posted by emwavey:
.... but wouldn't weight penalties eventually even out the field? It's certainly cheap for the front runners in ITA to stick some extra ballast, and I certainly wouldn't mind doing so ... especially if I was at the top 5 every race.....
Wow....YOU, my friend need to put that in writing ans send it off to the boys at the top! That'd be the ITAC, and the CRB. Addresses at SCCA.com
As for why it's been ducked ....well, I imagine that the CRX guys don't want 200 lbs of weight if the Integra guys aren't getting it and the 240SX guys aren't getting it and so on down the line.
Also, with Neons and NX2000s and Sentra SERs coming into ITA that would be adding a lot of weight to a lot of cars, and I guess the powers that be are wary of the backlash, jsut to keep a few guys in the lower class of ITA quiet! So we go round looking for other solutions, but it IS an enigma!
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
7racing
05-04-2004, 10:35 AM
First, I like the changes and the look of the new cars in ITA. I think it will be a great race if 6 or 7 different make/models are represented in a fight for the lead in ITA. Will be as good as a WC Touring race.
Second, how much weight would need to be added to an Integra/240/CRX to slow it down 2 seconds a lap on a 1.5 mile track? I'm not sure that much lead would be a good idea. I would like to see the slower ITA cars sped up somehow, along with a slowdown of the "heavies".
Maybe the Fatty Acura name is correct.....
Jeremy
ITSRX7
05-04-2004, 10:41 AM
All top A cars getting the "Boombalatti" treatment... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
One thing to consider is that when you add weight, the goal can't be to just slow the cars down "x" per lap. You have to look at the whole race. More weight equals more wear on tires, more use of brakes, etc. It would take it's toll over the course of the ENTIRE race as opposed to bringing the qualifying times perfectly in line.
It can never be perfect but it could certainly get better!
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)
Turfer
05-04-2004, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
well, I imagine that the CRX guys don't want 200 lbs of weight...
Plus creating a situation where all the post 6/1/94 .095 wall cages would be illegal.
Rick
lateapex911
05-04-2004, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Turfer:
Plus creating a situation where all the post 6/1/94 .095 wall cages would be illegal.
Rick
So, 60lbs ain't gonna do much of anything, now is it?
Except, the weight listed for building a cage is NOT the same weight we race to. They are using an assumed 180 pounds for driver etc...
So.....the CRX weight, as raced, is currently 2140. Subtract 180 to get the actual vehcle weight: 1960. Adding 200 pounds would result in a weight of 2160, which is well below the .095 tubing wall thickness limit of 2200lbs.
So, while it aint gonna happen, it's not because of that....
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited May 04, 2004).]
7racing
05-05-2004, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
One thing to consider is that when you add weight, the goal can't be to just slow the cars down "x" per lap. You have to look at the whole race. More weight equals more wear on tires, more use of brakes, etc. It would take it's toll over the course of the ENTIRE race as opposed to bringing the qualifying times perfectly in line.
Good point, however, the tire equation would only really affect the heaviest cars. The CRX would still have an advantage there, as it would still be a lighter car. Also, with the new Hoosier and Kumho tires, it doesn't seem that they fall off as much during the race. The extra weight might not make a difference. Brakes are a possibility, but I don't think tire life is part of the argument.
Jeremy
CRX brakes are better than the competition as well, drop that factor.
JoelG
05-11-2004, 10:33 AM
The results for MARRS I are up. ITS and ITA are running together this year. Here's the finishing order by class. The first column is the number of cars in the class, then the class. The first 4 finishers were ITS, next 2 ITA, next 1 ITS, next 6 ITA and so on.
4 S
2 A
1 S
6 A
1 S
9 A
1 S
8 A
2 S
2 A
Anyone care to comment?
[This message has been edited by JoelG (edited May 11, 2004).]
Banzai240
05-11-2004, 11:09 AM
Originally posted by JoelG:
The first 4 finishers were ITS, next 2 ITA, next 1 ITS, next 6 ITA and so on.
...
Anyone care to comment?
It would be more useful if you'd list the cars as well...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Knestis
05-11-2004, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by JoelG:
...Anyone care to comment?
Sure.
If we went strictly by finishing positions (or lap times over some race distance) you could include all kinds of different cars in one class. Call it "Formula 2:15-2:20 at VIR" or "Spec 2 Minutes at Pacific Raceways," or whatever. I'm not going to go through finish data at work but I'll bet you could find formula, production, and GT cars that all fit into that same mix...
Cars should be classified based on their physical attributes and let the times fall where they will.
K
emwavey
05-11-2004, 12:45 PM
OK here's another idea... (ducking slightly)...
add weight ONLY to the top finishing cars in each race... similar to how the Speed Channel touring/GT series runs.
It's a cheap alternative to allowing the slower folks a chance to be competitive. This isn't my idea, just something I've seen done in other racing series(s)(es).
I can see this being both a benefit and a complete waste, however I do think this idea will have the added affect of keeping costs down. This IS in line with what IT is supposed to be about, yes?
Reward weight... Trophies made of lead that have to be bolted into the car. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
blast away! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
------------------
-dave
8)
http://www.nerdsracing.com
[This message has been edited by emwavey (edited May 11, 2004).]
OTLimit
05-11-2004, 01:25 PM
Originally posted by emwavey:
OK here's another idea... (ducking slightly)...
Dave,
Duck a little lower. If this ever happens, we will not race IT again. What's the point? This isn't horse racing. We spend a lot of time and effort on our IT car. Most of our $$ expended goes for consumables and entry fees. While our budget is probably larger than most teams, we spend a lot of time on the track.
We discussed this in the last year or so on this list. How do you make this work. Do you, for example, give Chris 20 lbs every time he wins a race? What happens when he goes out of division where the competition is different? Do you take off all of that weight and start over? It would be a mess.
As far as I am concerned, this is not an option.
------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers
Banzai240
05-11-2004, 01:49 PM
Originally posted by OTLimit:
As far as I am concerned, this is not an option.
I'm with you Lesley...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
erlrich
05-11-2004, 01:51 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
It would be more useful if you'd list the cars as well...
Not sure where Joel was going with the post, but if it helps -
Top 5 ITS cars were: BMW, 240Z, 240Z, 240Z, 280Z. Margin of victory 28 seconds. Worth noting that another BMW was leading when it went out on lap 8.
Top 5 in ITA were: CRX, CRX, 240SX, CRX, 240SX. Margin of victory .2 seconds. Top 3 cars' best laps were within .5 seconds.
Only 9 ITS cars. And of those, only 1 RX7. Interesting.
------------------
Earl R
Aspiring 240SX pilot
Originally posted by JoelG:
The results for MARRS I are up. ITS and ITA are running together this year. Here's the finishing order by class. The first column is the number of cars in the class, then the class. The first 4 finishers were ITS, next 2 ITA, next 1 ITS, next 6 ITA and so on.
4 S
2 A
1 S
6 A
1 S
9 A
1 S
8 A
2 S
2 A
Anyone care to comment?
[This message has been edited by JoelG (edited May 11, 2004).]
Looks like a wide range of cars and prep levels. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I'm with you Lesley...
Ditto.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Dave - actually it is a GREAT idea, but not quite right for IT. I could see it used as an additional class in a particular region if it was started that way.
Knestis
05-11-2004, 02:32 PM
Reward weight has a LOT of arguments against it in this situation, including...
** Presumes that the same core of people race each other all the time
** Compromises overachievment for the sake of the show
** Doesn't accommodate switching series (regions, divisions, whatever)
Etc. I can't see it being viable but it works great for high-visibility pro series.
K
emwavey
05-11-2004, 03:03 PM
Hey guys...
Thanks for not taking my head off... should have ducked a little lower.
I'm really green to all this stuff, but I've read a lot, and have heard quite a bit from different people in the SCCA about road racing in general. I'm interested in seeing IT and other forms of racing continue to exist and be attractive to not only folks in it now, but also see newbies continue to keep this sport alive.
After reading everything here it just seemed like the only thing not mentioned... weight is cheap to add, but difficult to subtract.
So from what I can gather adding and having the weight change a car is, or can be extremely costly? Am I getting that right?... meaning it can throw corner weights off, set up off, brakes and tires and gas all get consumed more quickly...
-dave, the newbie-dude
Banzai240
05-11-2004, 03:14 PM
Originally posted by erlrich:
Not sure where Joel was going with the post, but if it helps -
Top 5 ITS cars were: BMW, 240Z, 240Z, 240Z, 280Z. Margin of victory 28 seconds. Worth noting that another BMW was leading when it went out on lap 8.
Top 5 in ITA were: CRX, CRX, 240SX, CRX, 240SX. Margin of victory .2 seconds. Top 3 cars' best laps were within .5 seconds.
Only 9 ITS cars. And of those, only 1 RX7. Interesting.
So, combining all this info, we get:
1. ITS - BMW
2. ITS - 240Z
3. ITS - 240Z
4. ITS - 240Z
5. ITA - CRX
6. ITA - CRX
7. ITS - 280Z
8. ITA - 240SX
9. ITA - CRX
10. ITA - 240SX
If I were to infer anything from this, it's that the 240Z is still a great ITS car... The BMW is still an overdog in the class... and that basing our reclassification efforts on the specifications of the CRX, the 240SX and the Acura is the right thing to do...
....that's IF I were to infer anything from this... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
FWIW, we just ran a regional at LRP. Just take a look at the subcribed numbers:
ITS:20
ITA:29
ITB:18
ITC:4
Plus, there was an ITA car that could have won ITS, and an ITC car that would have taken the pole in ITB.
We really need to continue dropping cars down the ranks!
gsbaker
05-11-2004, 04:45 PM
Oops.
[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited May 11, 2004).]
cherokee
05-11-2004, 04:57 PM
I don't think that a couple of guys in a couple cars should have anything to do with what class the car should be in. One good driver that spent lots of time with the car can win overall in an ITB car...I see it all the time (darn fast yellow car), that does not mean that car should be in ITS it just means that guy is very good, and knows his car.
gsbaker
05-11-2004, 04:59 PM
Originally posted by emwavey:
Hey guys...
Thanks for not taking my head off... should have ducked a little lower.
I'm really green to all this stuff...
-dave, the newbie-dude
Dave,
You are in the middle of a classic racing debate: Should the winner be determined by the resources (effort, talent, time, $) a competitor is willing to put forth to win, or should "adjustments" be made so everyone has a (theoretically) equal shot at victory?
Different strokes for different folks.
------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com
kgobey
05-11-2004, 05:17 PM
pah! 3 years off this list and you guys are still sharing the same 4ft graphix bong you were sharing in 2001!
hehe
RSTPerformance
05-11-2004, 05:25 PM
400!!!!
Raymond
Gregg
05-11-2004, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
If I were to infer anything from this, it's that the 240Z is still a great ITS car... The BMW is still an overdog in the class... and that basing our reclassification efforts on the specifications of the CRX, the 240SX and the Acura is the right thing to do...
....that's IF I were to infer anything from this... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
You can also infer that a leading ITS Integra didn't run and that a 2nd gen RX-7 that qualified in the top five spun off on the 1st lap :-)
Oh, and that winning CRX is 100+ lbs overweight already (I should know--I need a diet).
----
Gregg Ginsberg
http://www.ginsberg.org
'89 CRX Si -- #72 ITA / H4
2003 WDCR-SCCA Rookie of the Year
[This message has been edited by Gregg (edited May 11, 2004).]
Quickshoe
05-11-2004, 07:12 PM
What I can tell, with or without the list is that well driven, well prepared, ITA cars will beat many ITS cars.
It also tells me that any ITS racer in that series without a BMW has their work cut out for them. One can argue "well the next x number of finishers weren't BMW's". 24 second margin...That BMW was in a different area code.
Last thing I want to do is factor the driver into any equation when deciding what class a vehicle should be in, or at what weight. The driver should never enter that equation.
Other forms of motorsports (motorcross and karting come to mind) keep people with a certain level of accomplishment from participating in entry level classes. Perhaps drivers with 3 or more points championships should be excluded from participating in ITB/C? (ducking)
lateapex911
05-11-2004, 08:25 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
...One good driver that spent lots of time with the car can win overall in an ITB car...I see it all the time (darn fast yellow car), that does not mean that car should be in ITS it just means that guy is very good, and knows his car.
Not exactly.... it means he is good, yes, but it also means the ITS guys are not even close to getting the job done.
If there is an ITB car that is beating, on the track, in a race, well driven, well prepared ITS cars like an E-36, or an RX-7, or a Z car, then something is very fishy.
Physics is physics, folks.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
lateapex911
05-11-2004, 08:32 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
It also tells me that any ITS racer in that series without a BMW has their work cut out for them. One can argue "well the next x number of finishers weren't BMW's". 24 second margin...That BMW was in a different area code.
Well, maybe, but, how did he gain that 24 seconds? Were the guys behind him racing with each other? If so, that can cost 1 or 2 seconds a lap. Or maybe the second place car got there on a good start, held up the pack, then spun? Or...
See, without complete knowledge, the data point is less meaningful.
Now take this ONE data point, and add it to dozens more, and you may see a pattern. Into that fold some engineering data, and you might be able to draw a conclusion.
I mean I, yes, even I, pass, and even LAP ITS cars from time to time! And here in the 30 car plus fields in the NE ITA class, I struggle for a top ten finish.
Going slow is easy...
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Originally posted by Jake:
FWIW, we just ran a regional at LRP. Just take a look at the subcribed numbers:
ITS:20
ITA:29
ITB:18
ITC:4
Now I'm quoting myself. Has it come to this? Point being that the faster classes are oversubscribed, while the lower ones are dwindling. Very few are building new ITC cars, lots of people are building ITS and ITA cars. Do other regions see this same trend? The SCCA won't let us get another class until we use the ones we have.
Quickshoe
05-11-2004, 09:32 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Well, maybe, but, how did he gain that 24 seconds? Were the guys behind him racing with each other? If so, that can cost 1 or 2 seconds a lap. Or maybe the second place car got there on a good start, held up the pack, then spun? Or...
See, without complete knowledge, the data point is less meaningful.
I understand your point about not being there and knowing all the particulars. But, traffic doesn't cost you 1-2 seconds a lap for 12-24 laps in a row. Maybe a lap or two. If there is that much muscling for position while the leader is checking out, they (2-5th place for example) need to sit down with each other and say "to each his own for the first lap or two. If we are just getting in each others' way and letting the leader check out, we need to get in line , whatever it is after lap 2 and help each other catch the leader, then all bets are off."
Back on topic, whatever it was http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif
gran racing
05-11-2004, 09:54 PM
Where to start...
The numbers that were provided are just that; numbers. You can't possibly just look at them and know the full story. Can you think of any pro sports that don't use scouting and review tapes of their competitors? Why do you think that is? It sure would be easier and much cheaper to just look at numbers but doesn't make sense.
As it relates to racing - who showed up to the event? Did some of the faster people not show or have problems? There are many things that it doesn't show. (Pick on Ray's car time) In our recent race weekend, a certain ITB Audi had a difficult day. Just looking at the lap times, what would an outsider assume? But the real story is that the car had some issues to be sorted out and is a very strong car.
Weights / other comp. adjustments - yeah, I've often thought about it too. Works in world challenge, BUT you also need to look at the two forms of racing closer. IT is strictly for the racers, workers and other members. Heck, it might be nice if IT promoted itself and could get money from spectators but it isn't the situation currently. At my local track, they make the money from ticket sales not SCCA. World Challenge is definately concerned with marketing its product. Of course they care about the racing aspect, but it still is (like other forms of racing) trying to reach a target audience and sell.
I would be all for any ways to reduce the costs of racing and rewards for simply spending more money on a car. But I would hate to penalize a people for being good drivers and taking time to study and learn ways to improve upon their driving skills. Should people that spend time and study racing be penalized for their efforts?
Jake - An ITB car beating a well driven, well prepared ITS car (both cars classed competitively)...if all these items were equal, then I would definately agree that something is wrong. Often times though the car may be well prepared but is it being driven to its potential? Or otherwise, it is driven very well but is under developed. Sometimes it can be difficult to determine which is the case.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
lateapex911
05-11-2004, 11:46 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Now I'm quoting myself. Has it come to this? Point being that the faster classes are oversubscribed, while the lower ones are dwindling. Very few are building new ITC cars, lots of people are building ITS and ITA cars. Do other regions see this same trend? The SCCA won't let us get another class until we use the ones we have.
OK, lets REALLY confuse things... I'll quote you! Jake quotes Jake....
Your numbers are actually not quite right...my results sheets show that the ITA/ITC group was 35 cars strong. 3 were ITC.
If the no shows had raced, we would have had 37 ITA, and 5 ITC cars.
Off the top of my head, I can think of 4 or 5 ITA guys and 1 ITC guy who are "regulars" but weren't at this event.
With the no shows and them it could have been a full field just with ITA!
Next year? In with the NEONs, the SE-Rs and the NX2000. Out with the Prelude, FX-16.
Net net is about the same, maybe a car more.
So, your point is more than well taken, some form of redistribution should be strongly considered before talk of a new class is broached.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
cherokee
05-12-2004, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Not exactly.... it means he is good, yes, but it also means the ITS guys are not even close to getting the job done.
If there is an ITB car that is beating, on the track, in a race, well driven, well prepared ITS cars like an E-36, or an RX-7, or a Z car, then something is very fishy.
Physics is physics, folks.
I can only comment on the car that I have seen doing this. There is nothing fishy about the car it is just very well prepped and the driver is just that good. I have seen a ITS car walk away from it on the straights then get passed back when it gets twisty...after a lap or two the ITS car can't pass on the straight again and the other car is gone. And no the other drivers don't suck this guy is just that good. I have stories of where he got in someone elses car and was over 2sec a lap faster then the guy that just got out, and the guy that just got out was no slow poke. I have also seen other people in his ITB car and "I" could pass them. Put the guy that usually drives the car and I feel good if he only laps me twice.
What I was trying to point out is that this guy put time and money into his car developed his skill and now is the guy. To use his performance on the track as a guide to to what should be done with the cars is wrong, to exclude him from running in a class he enjoys just cause he is good is wrong.
And why does his car have to be fishy? I don't know this guy personally but I know that what you are suggesting would be repulsive to him and his support.
cherokee
05-12-2004, 09:29 AM
If people feel that a car is in the incorrect class one should look at the entire country see how the car is doing across the board, over a couple of years. You will see all the cars with all possible prep levels and driver skills. You should be-able to figure out what the average finishing position of the car is. If over a couple of years you see is start to slide down then it is being passed by newer cars. If you see the number of cars raced go down the people are moving on to different things.
But I still don't think that anything should be done about it, it is just the evolution of the class. Or maybe there should be an IT-Dinosaur class that all the older cars are lumped into...Kinda like vintage but with a IT/Prod set of rules, take the best of both worlds and put them together.
It is sad to say but I think that ITC will start to see its numbers dwindle then it will happen to ITB, lets face it folks some of these cars are getting old, and not too many new cars are likely to be classed in ITB or ITC.
ITSRX7
05-12-2004, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by cherokee:
And why does his car have to be fishy? I don't know this guy personally but I know that what you are suggesting would be repulsive to him and his support.
It's simple - either the car is way illegal or the ITS cars you see out there are very 'UNDER' - underprepped or underdriven.
I tend to think it's the latter - you are probably overestimating the talent or prep level of the ITS cars in question. Looking at the ARRC results as a small data point, you have to get to 21st ITS position to find someone who qualified slower than the ITB pole - and we don't even know if that car had issues.
No disrespect to the driver you mention - it's just not apples and apples.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)
ITSRX7
05-12-2004, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by cherokee:
Or maybe there should be an IT-Dinosaur class that all the older cars are lumped into...Kinda like vintage but with a IT/Prod set of rules, take the best of both worlds and put them together.
What is sad is that I think we have this now. ITB and ITC are effectivly vintage classes. No new cars can be classed there because even the most mundane cars produced now would exceed the performance parameters of ITB and ITC.
The only thing to do to refresh these classes is to trickle everything down. With 3-5 ITC cars running in the second largest Region in the country, ITC is in trouble.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)
cherokee
05-12-2004, 10:18 AM
If B&C could be combined and mods made to both groups to bring the close in performance (this should/would have to include NON-typical IT adjustments).
We might have to think of different brakes,carbs,intakes,cams for some of these cars to get them in line, but these are older cars and it is fairly known what will happen if you let someone swap out drums for disc brakes, or give them a different carb...just some ideas.
We need to think of it as an IT-vintage not as a "real" IT class, kinda like we think of ITE now, just a little more structured.
Then you would have an extra class to shuffle the existing A&S cars into, so you would have ITC with just the old cars and B,A,S for newer cars that don't fit or are too fast for any class now.
The key is to give the people that still love these old cars a place to go with out having to spend too much to get to the new level of prep to be able to win.
I for one don't care if there is an ITB or ITC on the side of my car just as long as I have somewhere to go, in the IT structure.
There are only a few old cars that would not fit very well and I don't have a good plan for them...the TR8 off the top of my head.
JeffYoung
05-12-2004, 10:25 AM
If the 24 second victory you are talking about is Chet Wittel's wins at VIR this weekend, it wasn't traffic. Ed York was running close times to him, but broke, but that is another fast, fast BMW.
Two of the best prepped, well-driven RX7s in the region finished 2 & 3, running 3 seconds a lap slower.
A 2:12 at VIR in an S car is an AMAZING lap. Really hard to put it into words.
JoelG
05-12-2004, 11:04 AM
Originally posted by Gregg:
You can also infer that a leading ITS Integra didn't run and that a 2nd gen RX-7 that qualified in the top five spun off on the 1st lap :-)
Gregg, I wasn't there. I really don't know what to make of it, other than the fact IF I had been there, I most likely would have ended up 'racing' with a bunch of ITA guys http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif
From the rest of the results (I left the DNFs out of my list), 2 e36s fell out for some reason, and another one didn't make the start because his car isn't finished yet.
The good finish by the 240Zs is odd: I don't recall seeing anything like that happen since I've been watching the MARRS IT races. I'm wouldn't be surprised if there was a time when it was common for the all the top ITS places to be 240Zs, but that hasn't happened in the sinc I've been around (last 2-3 years).
joel
Originally posted by cherokee:
If B&C could be combined and mods made to both groups to bring the close in performance (this should/would have to include NON-typical IT adjustments).
We might have to think of different brakes,carbs,intakes,cams for some of these cars to get them in line, but these are older cars and it is fairly known what will happen if you let someone swap out drums for disc brakes, or give them a different carb...just some ideas.
Very very BAD ideas.
Never going to happen as long as the current ITAC and CRB and BoD are around. If you want to change all those things, go to Production.
Cars are going to have to trickle down. Darin asked how many cars were at the bottom of ITC and would be in trouble and nobody, and I mean nobody responded. I don't think it's that big a problem.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
cherokee
05-12-2004, 01:53 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Very very BAD ideas.
Never going to happen as long as the current ITAC and CRB and BoD are around. If you want to change all those things, go to Production.
Cars are going to have to trickle down. Darin asked how many cars were at the bottom of ITC and would be in trouble and nobody, and I mean nobody responded. I don't think it's that big a problem.
I do see your point and agree to a point, But when talk about moving the 7 to ITB quite a few people had issues with it.
Someone up the list said something to the effect that 5 ITC cars in the second largest area is a sign of trouble...perhaps ITC is beginning to fade away, I am not saying anything to make anyone mad just drawing conculisions by what is said here.
What I suggest is that someone can take their ITC car do something semi-cheap and semi-easy and race and have a chance, with quite a few cars to race with. If you want those same people to go to Prod we are talking about new cages for some, fire systems, fuel cells and the list goes on and on just to get the car on the track with a XP on the side of it, and after that you have not a chance in he!! to even come close to winning unless you join the engine of the month club, and learn how to design your own susp. The mods I suggest every 15yr old car crazy kid knows how to do, and would be little different then the ITE "rules" set. (I had a Viper and a Cobra R blow by my ITA MR2 followed by a turbo AWD 911), the only problem I have with that is my race is 5 laps shorter the it realy should be but that is a different topic all together.
I was told long ago that IT was a place for SS cars to go when they get too old. There are very different sets of rules for SS and IT. Think of the IT-vintage idea of a place for IT cars to go when they get too old. An IT level of prep but you can use some different parts. If your 30+ yr old car can't get a cam or piston anymore then you would be ok to use aftermarket parts, do normal "hot rod" kind of things. But not have to design your own susp parts and stuff like that. It would do away with Datusn cam problems and things like that.
You are right though it would never happen, too bad I think it might just work.
Try to think of it as a different class but not a different class kinda like ITE...if that makes any sense http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited May 12, 2004).]
Team Rocket
05-12-2004, 06:04 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Very very BAD ideas.
Never going to happen as long as the current ITAC and CRB and BoD are around. If you want to change all those things, go to Production.
Cars are going to have to trickle down. Darin asked how many cars were at the bottom of ITC and would be in trouble and nobody, and I mean nobody responded. I don't think it's that big a problem.
There are some Regional Clubs that allow modifications to move up a class and it works great! (EMRA for example). If there is a year where one of the lower classes is under-subscribed (or all of the competition you want to race against is in a higher class), then you add something like a cam and move up.
However, I would agree getting that to work on a National level would be pretty tough.
Jim
Bill Miller
05-12-2004, 06:37 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Very very BAD ideas.
Never going to happen as long as the current ITAC and CRB and BoD are around. If you want to change all those things, go to Production.
Cars are going to have to trickle down. Darin asked how many cars were at the bottom of ITC and would be in trouble and nobody, and I mean nobody responded. I don't think it's that big a problem.
Nothing like having an open mind, now is there George!
BTW, 12 ITC cars (and 19 ITB cars) at MARRS I at Summit Point.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
lateapex911
05-12-2004, 07:47 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
If B&C could be combined and mods made to both groups to bring the close in performance (this should/would have to include NON-typical IT adjustments).
We might have to think of different brakes,carbs,intakes,cams for some of these cars to get them in line, but these are older cars and it is fairly known what will happen if you let someone swap out drums for disc brakes, or give them a different carb...just some ideas.
We need to think of it as an IT-vintage not as a "real" IT class, .....
{Sound of screeching brakes...then a crash}
This is, essentially another "category" altoghether, such as Prod, or GT. IMHO, no. Stop. Enough already! Here are the problems with that idea.
1- Creating a new category for a few old cars is a heck of a lot of work.
2- You are talking about classing all sorts of cars in here, you mention the TR8, as well as presumed ITC cars. How will you ever equilize performance?
3- Now we are looking at things like revised brakes sytems, carbs, etc? Sounds too much like prod to me!
4- But the biggest issue, as I see it, is the loss of an IT class! We curently have 4, albeit one under utilized. We need at least 4 to create fairness and parity. Doing all the work just to lose one is like shooting yourself in the foot.
Regarding the comment about people having a problem with the proposed move of the first gen ITA RX-7 to ITB, well,....DUH!...OF COURSE people objected! Who wants another car thats competitive coming into their class in substantial numbers? Not many.
I sure am pretty unhappy to see cars like the Neon, the NX-2000, and the SE-r being moved into my class as well, and in such a way that they will walk away from half the field. The half that includes me, by the way.
BUT, it's the right thing to do! They weren't ever going to be able to be competitive where they were, so something had to be done, and this was the most reasonable solution. It is my hope of course, that the guys in charge follow thru, and pull us all from under the bus that they tossed us under....
There are several possible solutions, and some are already underway, like the move of the Prelude to ITB. To be fair to the guys in B who are in the "second teir", they will need relief as well, and so on down the line.
If done properly, such a "trickle down" plan will benefit the most, and hurt the least.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited May 12, 2004).]
cherokee
05-12-2004, 11:22 PM
I am just batting around an idea. Maybe we should think of it as not loosing a class but gaining one, if you combine B&C classes into one you would net one open class for the re-shuffle. Perhaps we should only talk about the existing B&C cars. We would then have 3 classes for existing A&S cars. It is just an idea, the people that would be getting the short end of the stick would be the current ITC drivers, Would they object to a murge of the two classes? The existing C cars would need some help to bring them up to speed with the current B cars. Aren't the Prod guys going through this same kinda thing? The times and car design is changing...the classes need to make some big changes to keep up with the times. Thats why they call it growing pains.
I wanted to add one more thing:
About the Neon and the other cars moving to ITA, there is one big difference between them and the 7 move, those cars are pretty new to the IT system. Moving the 7 to a class that has existed pretty much with out change since day one is a nother thing. I would bet that 90% of the current ITB cars where there when the 7 was put in a faster class....why would that be....becuase the 7 is a faster car then 90% of the ITB cars, at a time in the past it (the 7) fit in a faster class, that time in the past still exists in ITB/C. Unless you are ready to re-write all the classes this is a bad move. I am real sorry that the 7 is not the car to have anymore, but the MR2 is not eather, nor would the Capri be. ITA is trying to change with the times, why would or should I be happy if all I hear is how ITA/S is messed up becuase the X car is too fast, everything is messed up because the ECU's got opened up bla bla bla. Very little of this effects ITB/C because the classes/cars are so darn old, frozen in time. The fix to this problem is not to turn ITB into a dumping ground for the cars getting run over in the other classes because of the introduction of new blood to the class.
What I was suggesting above would help the older cars stay out on the track without some of the looney IT rules and give the upper classes one more class to move cars around to with 3 upper classes above the B/C combined class perhaps the 7 could find a home where it has a chance, sure it is a big change sure it is a lot of work, but anything else will be a band-aid.
Again I am just tossing out ideas and how I see how things are now...I don't mean to PO anybody.
[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited May 12, 2004).]
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Nothing like having an open mind, now is there George!
Oh go crawl in your hole Bill. You wouldn't know about an open mind if it hit you over the head.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Knestis
05-13-2004, 08:22 AM
The few model-specific, non-IT allowances that already exist (rear discs for the Achieva, big front rotors and calipers for 240SX) are too many. Any changes to allowed modifications MUST be applied to the entire category or we will REALLY be on a slippery slope.
I generally think that if the orphan ITS cars question had been addressed proactively when the first 2-liter was headed for S, we wouldn't be in this pickle. The bulge there is creating pinches elsewhere and trickle-down is a bandaid attempt to fix a lack of longterm planning. But that's water under the bridge at this point.
We are kind of stuck with the situation and have to make the best of it but on-track comparisons of lap time and/or finishing positions will NEVER become a sound, defensible basis for making reclassification decisions in IT - unless someone is willing to do a nationwide statistical examination of the data.
There ARE newer model cars appropriate for but not listed in ITC - Mitsubishi, Toyota, Suzuki, Hyundai, Kia, etc. - and I believe that there are beginning racers out there who would build one, if they didn't also have to know the ins and outs of getting a car through the classification system to make it happen.
K
Banzai240
05-13-2004, 08:44 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
The few model-specific, non-IT allowances that already exist (rear discs for the Achieva, big front rotors and calipers for 240SX) are too many.
What are you talking about??? The ITA 240SX is allowed it's standard rotors and the ITS 240SXs are also allowed their standard ABS rotors... If you are looking at the "295mm" for the front of the 95-98 models listed in the GCR... that was a typo or otherwise mistake that was corrected in a Fastrack about 2-months ago...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Originally posted by Knestis:
There ARE newer model cars appropriate for but not listed in ITC - Mitsubishi, Toyota, Suzuki, Hyundai, Kia, etc. - and I believe that there are beginning racers out there who would build one, if they didn't also have to know the ins and outs of getting a car through the classification system to make it happen.
I don't think anyone would. It's just as cheap to build a faster car. IMHO ITC is going to just die out if we don't do something. I'm not talking about shifting all of ITB down, just some cars that have no chance.
The only reason I could see someone building an ITC car now is if they already had the car. But how many of these cars (potential ITC) are in the hands of racers or potential racers now? Damned few I'd suggest. And the nature of the racer being what it is, I'd guess if they really wanted to go racing they'd be more inclined to sell that car and buy something faster to go racing with.
Then there is the fact we keep telling people it's cheaper to buy a finished car. How many people would actually spend the money to build a car for ITC today? I just don't see it happening, at least in any numbers to be more than a statistical anomaly.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
gran racing
05-13-2004, 11:38 AM
Sure, just go out an buy another car. For many of us that simply is not an option. You are asking ITC people to scrap their cars - who would buy them from them? I do think that the classing needs to be looked at on a continual basis. Also with the cars that are being moved, they are good matches with the existing class structure.
Look at the cars moving into ITA. They may be competitive, but are not replacing the fast and proven cars. Same with ITB. Oh, one other ITB car in addition to the lude is the Golf III.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
Originally posted by gran racing:
Sure, just go out an buy another car. For many of us that simply is not an option. You are asking ITC people to scrap their cars - who would buy them from them?
Actually, if you reread what I wrote, I didn't say anything about people currently racing in ITC selling their cars. I said that I don't see folks building new ITC cars.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Banzai240
05-13-2004, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
You are asking ITC people to scrap their cars - who would buy them from them?
Guys... ONCE again I ask you... Give please list the "underdogs" in ITC... I keep hearing of all these ITC cars being pushed out of the class if other cars are moved there, but no one seems to be able to give us a list of just which cars those would be...
Any car that the ITAC would consider for a move to ITC would be compared against the current ITC crop of cars (510, VW, Honda...) and if it would be uncompatible with those, it wouldn't be moved there...
I've yet to see a real case of a car that would be displaced in ITC were some of the slower cars (that have been traditionally uncompetitive in ITB...) to be moved to ITC...
Please give me a convincing argument as to just how a 1.7L VW, or a older Porsche 1.7L would displace anyone in ITC? There are quite a few ITB cars that would really be better fits in ITC... and I doubt that any currently raced ITC car would be displaced, or any further behind the curve than they are right now...
How about we stop talking about hypotheticals and start looking at what really exists... the picture becomes a little different and not nearly so gloom & doom...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
cherokee
05-13-2004, 01:16 PM
Building a race car is very expensive, I bought my nice turn key MR2 for under 4K and have about 10K in my Opel(don't tell my wife), and it ain't on the track yet. I know it would have been cheaper to build a newer car and a faster car but that is not what I wanted to race. Those old cars generally need LOTS of work, just to get them running and safe, let alone make it a race car.
I think that people will still build ITC cars if that is what they want to build, but these cars are getting old and only someone with a love for the car will spend the time and money on getting one on track, for the reasons listed above. There is just not a large pool of them already built to choose from. I think when people want to race a car other things come into the mix other the just how fast it is, at least for me it was, otherwise we would all be driving BMW's and CRX's. There is a guy on this board that has a pretty new TR8, I am building a new Opel GT why...I love the car, it looks cool, it sounds cool,it is cool http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif I would bet that the TR8 driver went with that car for reasons other then how fast it is.
There are not too many ITC cars around here and I do not drive one or plan on driving one at the moment and have not spent time checking them out so I do not feel qualified to comment on the current crop of ITC cars.
timelapseracing
05-13-2004, 02:03 PM
I started following this thread some 400 posts ago - and with the following perspective:
- Getting back into racing after several years off. I've been flagging and watching cars and classes.
- Feb. 2003 I decide to build an ITA 240sx - I liked the potential, rwd, f-inj, etc. The car was starting to show good results in class. FYI the posted weight on the car is absurd there is no way to get the last 100lbs or so out.
- Now I go to get my permit, repass my schools and look - I find that SCCA (us) has reclassed a ton of cars to ITA. Would I have built a different car?
Fortunately, probably not - I chose not to build a Honda even though it is regarded by many as the car to beat.
As far as I am concerned I'm looking at these cars moved down from ITS solely as 'new' ITA cars and dealing with it. The pointy end of ITA probably got a little more full. As to whether these cars should have been in ITS or ITA in the first place - I really don't know or care. There will always be new cars that may make your car relatively less competitve.
Where will the Focus go...? What about any of the other new cars? You either guess and start building a new car now or deal with getting the most out of your choice. The last car I raced was a 1.7L VW Rabbit - would I have prefered to be in ITC at the time - YES. But ignorance and economy made me build a slow ITB car (Nobody would buy it when I tried to sell it). I didn't do that this time.
The biggest problem I see with reclassifying a car is the potential/practice of accommodating someone who made a bad choice and complains loudly about it. There will always be someone willing to buy your dated - once competitive (fill in the blank car) if the price is right.
Thankfully not unhappy with my 240sx choice,
Jason.
gran racing
05-13-2004, 02:27 PM
"The only reason I could see someone building an ITC car now is if they already had the car. But how many of these cars (potential ITC) are in the hands of racers or potential racers now? Damned few I'd suggest. And the nature of the racer being what it is, I'd guess if they really wanted to go racing they'd be more inclined to sell that car and buy something faster to go racing with."
- Guess I read it too quickly...read it as had existing built ITC cars.
Reclassification - so if a car would make a good match in another class don't move it just because? That is silly! And some cars were recently classified (the '87 prelude was just classified last year).
Look, I don't care how old or new a car is. If it fits well into an existing class, why shouldn't it be put into that class?
Darin, as for the ITC class question - as long as cars are compared to currently classified ITC cars I don't see an issue with moving current ITB cars into the class. Again, as long as it is compared to what is already out there. Heck, it would be good for the ITB and the ITC racers.
From what others have suggested in previous posts, cars could be placed in lower classes that would essentially raise what is deemed the specs to compare what should be in that class.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
cherokee
05-13-2004, 03:09 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
From what others have suggested in previous posts, cars could be placed in lower classes that would essentially raise what is deemed the specs to compare what should be in that class.
This is exactly what is happening in the A&S classes now. Cars are placed in these classes that are raising the bar for the class. And people are upset enough about it that they want cars that have been in the class for years moved, why should we do this to the "lower classes"?
lateapex911
05-13-2004, 07:35 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
Originally posted by gran racing:
From what others have suggested in previous posts, cars could be placed in lower classes that would essentially raise what is deemed the specs to compare what should be in that class.
This is exactly what is happening in the A&S classes now. Cars are placed in these classes that are raising the bar for the class. And people are upset enough about it that they want cars that have been in the class for years moved, why should we do this to the \"lower classes\"?
I disagree with your facts. While the ITA bar WAS raised a while ago by the inclusion of several overdogs and a rule change, it is, at this point, stable. Please provide proof that the cars entering ITA (and you cannot mean ITS, because what has been added there that could possibly raise the bar??) are 'raising the bar'.
Here are a few data points to the contrary.
At last years ARRC, a well prepped NX-2000 ran in ITS. His time was a 1:45.136 If he was in ITA, he would have been beaten by a flock of cars, all running as low as 1:43.9 I would call that a potentially competitive situation, but it sure aint raising the bar!
As evidence of the bar being raised in the past, look at the IT-7 times, (people call the RX-7 the 'once dominant' car for ITA, but that is untrue, it was popular, but alwyas beatable) compared to the ITA times. The 7s were about 4 seconds a lap off the pace.
Now, while the bar in ITA isn't being raised, the picture has become bleak for a mid/back packer who is being drowned with the sheer number of cars that he doesn't stand a chance against.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
eh_tony!!!
05-13-2004, 10:08 PM
Unfortunately, I don't really have a dog in the hunt anymore since I sold the family Fiat, but I'll chime is with a few opinions.
W.R.T. moving the RX-7/IT-7 to ITB.
Having run against these cars a few times (before they put the SM clowns in our group) I can say that a well prepped IT-7 car is not a bad match for B. A really well prepped 7 with a good driver is a bit of an overdog. IMHO, if you dropped the 7 back to 6" rims (as would be required in B) and added say, 150 lbs, you'd have a car whose spread of prep/driver levels would finish all over tha map.
Want to drop back the power and not add weight to the car?? I might be convinced that the 7 could be slowed down by requiring the stock exhaust manifold rather than a header. Hey, it even cuts costs too!!
RST's point is well made a few pages back when he commented about the proper Stochiometric mix in B. Looking at the ARRC and Enduro run boards show
Volvo, Omni, Golf, BMW, Fiat, Rabbit GTI, Audi Coupe. All of these either finished ran, or qualified in the top 5.
Also, the mix of cars have distinct advantages. The Volvo is hard to touch at VIR, but the golf and rabbits are pretty good at a place like Kershaw. I'd think the Omni would be too as it is equally as torquey. Take these cars to a track like Roebling and I think the Fiat and BMW are looking pretty good. (don't know about the BMW as I've not owned one). The Fiat had excellent balance and wear properties. Roebling is known to kill tires and that would have made it a good late race ride.
Save maybe the BMW, all these can be built for less than 10K fresh, not too bad in my book.
So add them in, but don't kill one of the most diverse classes in SCCA.
Bill Miller
05-14-2004, 07:33 AM
Tony,
While I agree w/ most of what you say, I'm not convinced that you could build a top example of those cars for $10k. Maybe, but that's w/ a lot of sweat-equity. We do it all the time, only include the cost of the hard parts and work that we have to farm out. You really have to place a value on your time, as not everyone has the time/tools/skills to build a front-running car themselves.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
OTLimit
05-14-2004, 08:32 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Not exactly.... it means he is good, yes, but it also means the ITS guys are not even close to getting the job done.
If there is an ITB car that is beating, on the track, in a race, well driven, well prepared ITS cars like an E-36, or an RX-7, or a Z car, then something is very fishy.
Physics is physics, folks.
It also boils down to how you define 'well-driven' and 'well-prepared' because a B car should not be able to run with them, all other things considered. What you see at the track every weekend is not necessarily the facts of the case, because you are only seeing a limited cross-section of the IT community as a whole, and it may seriously affect your perspective. The day that a B car can beat drivers Whittel in an S car or Stretch in his A car is when we need to start making accusations.
------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers
cherokee
05-14-2004, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
I disagree with your facts. While the ITA bar WAS raised a while ago by the inclusion of several overdogs and a rule change, it is, at this point, stable. Please provide proof that the cars entering ITA (and you cannot mean ITS, because what has been added there that could possibly raise the bar??) are 'raising the bar'.
I try real hard not to get too wordy and as a result I don't think I explain my self very well...so here we go http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
Lets say that in ITA, we toss in some new cars...the neon and others that where added not too long ago. Now all things being equal, If the average lap for all the cars is going to be slower the the average lap for the new cars, even one new car running is going to bring the groups average up and further away from the old ITA group average and farther away the specific cars average that are already there 7's MR2's and so on. Now as quanity of the newer cars come into the class the average will go up even more. I think that the cars like the Neon will be faster then the 7 or the MR2, as more and more of those cars get built the other cars will move further back and further back.
Now I know that keeping everything (cars) equal is (and I will say it's impossible) there are just too many different cars from too many different years. How are you going to get a 83 RX7 to run with a CRX, it is about as apples and oranges as you can get, but getting the apples and oranges as close to the same basket as the rules makers do shows that they do try to make it all work. There are just soooo many varaibles to take in. Like Lesley was saying, you could put me in an F1 car and I would feel good if Chris only beat me by one a lap http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif. Skill levels of drivers are all over the board, car prep is all over the board. That is what makes it so hard. Because it is the "entry level" class of club racing.
[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited May 14, 2004).]
jake7140
05-14-2004, 12:51 PM
Cynical viewpoint #1:
Like anything else in life, realize where you are (with your car), and if you don't like it, change it (get another car, one that everyone says is an overdog) then you can be on the podium. This is about racing disparate cars against each other. Everyone seems to know which cars are the fastest, if you want to win, there's your answer.
Some equalization is ok, but if you want everything to be equal, go to SRF or something similar.
I enjoy just getting out there. Yes, I chase track records, dice it up with someone around me or just concentrate on becoming a better driver. Older cars will generally be slower, you can't equalize everything. Remember the spirit of the class, "guy takes his street car, slaps on numbers and a cage and goes racing". No money, no t.v., just fun. It's fun to win, but it's more fun to outdrive a 'faster' car, make the right choice at the right time, or learn from the faster ones. Constant improvement.
My rx is collector plate registered. Perhaps we just need an 'old cars' class.
No porting needed/wanted
------------------
Steve
[email protected]
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/jake7140" TARGET=_blank>My racing page
</A><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/elrss" TARGET=_blank>Elkhart Lake Racing_&_Sipping Society
</A>
Knestis
05-14-2004, 02:01 PM
You have a valid point, Steve but one that is valid only if applied from the traditional club racing paradigm of "it's all about me and whether my car is competitive or not."
When I was actively lobbying for IT2, I got a lot of criticism from people saying exactly the same thing - I should quit being an "agitator" and just pick a car that is competitive.
My point was that SOMEONE ought to be keeping an eye on the strategic picture. This takes the position that pure supply-demand, market-forces kind of thinking isn't ultimately good for the club, of course - that some "managed economy" practices might be beneficial...
Look at it this way: If initial car classification is driven only by member request, AND if most people behave rationally and select cars that are likely to be competitive, the mean performance of a class simply cannot help but increase.
Generally speaking, people are more likely to ask that cars with high potential be listed than those with low potential. Racers are then more likely to select high-potential cars than others, particularly racers with the most resources available to allocate. While there will always be cases that run counter to these rules, the trend line is established by the masses, kind of like birds eating moths that stand out against their backgrounds at rates disproportionate to those suffered by moths that blend in. More of those camoflaged bugs will successfully reproduce.
If someone guesses wrong with an initial classification (aguably the case with the CRX Si in A) and a car has a substantial advantage - or is percieved to have one - that process only accelerates. The response among members is to ask for other high-potential cars to be classified and the response by the CRB is to back-fill the class by listing them, rather than addressing the original error if that's even possible.
Where do we end up?
The IT2 proposal asked for proactive strategy to address the problem of the ITS orphans. It wasn't within the "me first" paradigm so it went nowhere: It would have required more strategic planning than the system is set up to handle.
The net result is what we have now been whacking away about for weeks now: The top of A becomes IT2 and the rest of A potentially suffers - to the degree that people suggest new classes as reactive solutions.
Hmmm.
K
jake7140
05-14-2004, 04:41 PM
K,
I see your position, and I agree that some forward-thinking strategies need to be furthered. We don't want the whole thing to whither and die because "it's just a bunch of old farts runnin around in their old junk". I unfortunately have not read up on your IT2 proposal, so must plead ignorance, but again, I agree that some process needs to be established to move things forward in an orderly fashion as technology progresses.
I am no doubt an out-lier in this group, I race 2-3 times a year, and have nowhere near the knowledge or time/$ to invest compared with most posters here. I fell into a car and off I went. I was just breezin thru this thread and just got the feeling, as I have from a lot of the IT classification discussions, that it does center around "my car is unfairly classed, make it equal to the fastest ones" thought process, which as you and I seem to agree, eventually leads to a never-ending morass (pun intended!) of band-aid fixes.
I'm thankful for the opportunity to play, help when I can and try to get others involved as well. A lot of GOOD things ARE happening, thanks to people "agitating" in a constructive way. Change is always painful, and we are just imperfect people trying hard.
------------------
Steve
[email protected]
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/jake7140" TARGET=_blank>My racing page
</A><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/elrss" TARGET=_blank>Elkhart Lake Racing_&_Sipping Society
</A>
Bill Miller
05-14-2004, 05:52 PM
Now as quanity of the newer cars come into the class the average will go up even more. I think that the cars like the Neon will be faster then the 7 or the MR2, as more and more of those cars get built the other cars will move further back and further back.
You pretty much hit the nail on the head. Darin has stated that the cars targeted for ITA are being measured against the performance of the top cars (CRX, 240, Acura, etc.). It's not necessarily going lower the fast lap times, but it will certainly shift the mean closer to the low end.
Kirk's right, the top of ITA is rapidly becomming IT2 (forget the original concepts of what the class would be)
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
First, two comments
1. Please let’s stop worrying about the imaginary people in ITC running imaginary VW Beetles and the imaginary people who are building IT Hyundai’s and wish to be competitive. Just not happening guys! (Darin HAS made his point)
2. Please stop inferring that the people in ITA and ITB are pissed off by the recent reclassings. EVERYONE I've talked to who actually races in ITA and ITB – both overdogs and underdogs are very happy with the reclasses. I’m talking total approval. It’s good for all the classes. And no, I don’t count opinions grumpy people who don’t race in IT. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
I hate to say it - but this is getting boring. This has been spelled out so many times before, and the answer is so clear.
Let’s move on and start a running list of ITS cars that should go to ITA, ITA cars that should go to ITB, and ITB cars that should go to ITC. Let’s use our collective judgment (and theories) and figure out what would work. (maybe time for a new thread?)
cherokee
05-14-2004, 11:17 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Let’s move on and start a running list of ITS cars that should go to ITA, ITA cars that should go to ITB, and ITB cars that should go to ITC. Let’s use our collective judgment (and theories) and figure out what would work. (maybe time for a new thread?)
But remember that we are not going to move only old Capri poking around at the back of the ITA field, we are only going to move RX7's becuase there are so many of them.....remember this. I still think that the best two options are to re-write all of the classes or to combine B&C, I have a feeling that if a re-write happend it would look like this. Correct me if I am wrong but is not Prod talking about doing something like this with their "lower classes", for the same reasons...poor car turn out "wasted class". There are not too many cars that can be put in C that where made in the last 10yrs....So combine the two classes give the C cars a bone and the A&S guys will have 3 classes to play in.
And I am sorry but what ever you put in B is going to do the same thing that Bill talked about
"cars targeted for ITA are being measured against the performance of the top cars (CRX, 240, Acura, etc.)." How many A cars would be a mid pack car in B? And why move so I could be a mid pack car in another class, thats what I am in a faster class right? So if I am a mid pack car in a faster class I should be a top car in the slower class. So you move the slower A cars to B and you have the same thing happening in B, then you move the slow B cars to C and then where do those slow C cars go...oh I forgot there arn't any, so lets move all the B cars to C.
I doubt anything will happen other then one car here and one car there...more band-aids, besides it gives us something to gripe about while we are waiting on parts to show up via UPS http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
Originally posted by Knestis:
My point was that SOMEONE ought to be keeping an eye on the strategic picture.
That SOMEONE is the ITAC. You may not agree with everything we do, and not every move is a strategic one, but that doesn't mean we are not looking at longer term strategy.
Furthermore, why don't you volunter to be one of those "someones?"
Originally posted by Knestis:
The IT2 proposal asked for proactive strategy to address the problem of the ITS orphans. It wasn't within the "me first" paradigm so it went nowhere
NO! We've had this discussions many times in the past, both before and after I joined the ITAC. The reason it went nowhere is because it did not fit within the structure of IT. It would have required a hacking up of IT as it existed at the time (and today to a lesser extent) and its own set of rules. THAT is why it went nowhere. Don't keep saying it's for God knows whatever reasons. It's just not true.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Cher - first, your old car class just doesn't make sense. I for one DON'T give a rats arse if a Opel GT and a 16V Prelude duke it out in ITB. Or if a 240ZX an a 13B RX7 duke it out in ITS. Old and new can get along if we do this right.
As for combining B+C, almost, but there are some top B cars that are on par with bottom A cars (remember your Capri) so why not let them duke it out together.
Your point about only cars with a following getting reclassed is a good one, that is why I'm proposing that WE create a comprehensive proposal and submit it collectively for the CB to review. The CB will not move cars without requests. And since so few Capri's are running, nobody is requsting a move. But guess what - you don't need to drive a Capri to ask for a move.
So in the interests of being fair, let's create a comprehensive proposal and see first if it makes sense to us, and then submit it for the CB and ITAC to mull over.
C'mon guys, 914's? AE86? Capri? Fiero? Mustang?
Originally posted by Geo:
Furthermore, why don't you volunter to be one of those "someones?"
BTW, this was a serious comment, not a flip one.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Bill Miller
05-15-2004, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
NO! We've had this discussions many times in the past, both before and after I joined the ITAC. The reason it went nowhere is because it did not fit within the structure of IT. It would have required a hacking up of IT as it existed at the time (and today to a lesser extent) and its own set of rules. THAT is why it went nowhere. Don't keep saying it's for God knows whatever reasons. It's just not true.
George,
Just get over yourself. The request was made to add a new class. No IT2 'rules' or anything, just add another class between ITS and ITA. It was shot down, period. The reasoning was that PCA's would 'fix' things, and there was no need for another class. Please quit making things up!!!
I would really like someone to explain to me how the whole selective reclassification thing is better/easier than adding another class. With a new class, you don't have to worry if Car X is 'too fast' for Class Y. You don't have to get into things like moving one version of a car, but not the other (e.g. A3 Jetta vs. Golf, FX16 vs. MR2 and AE86 Corolla.
I don't think there's anyone out there (well, maybe George and Darin http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif ) that don't believe there are orphan ITS cars and overdog ITA cars. It seems simple, as the performance level of the overdog ITA cars has already been established, as it's being used to measure the orphan ITS cars against. There's the performance envelope for the new class.
I really don't understand what the resistence to a new class is, unless of course, the addition of a new class is somehow perceived as an admission of past fault. How is the addition of a new class anything but a win-win situation? The orphaned ITS cars are now competitive, the orphaned ITA cars are now competitive, and the ITA overdogs now have more cars to race with.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
lateapex911
05-15-2004, 01:33 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Cher - first, your old car class just doesn't make sense. I for one DON'T give a rats arse if a Opel GT and a 16V Prelude duke it out in ITB. Or if a 240ZX an a 13B RX7 duke it out in ITS. Old and new can get along if we do this right.
So in the interests of being fair, let's create a comprehensive proposal and see first if it makes sense to us, and then submit it for the CB and ITAC to mull over.
C'mon guys, 914's? AE86? Capri? Fiero? Mustang?
Bingo! Not only is there no reason old and new can't play together, I think seeing old and new duking it out makes for a great show! There is little in the way to keep this from happening. Physics is physics...
The reasons old cars are in trouble are two fold: One is the mistaken assumptions made by the classing commitees to potential performance improvements, and the resultant mis-setting of either weights or classes. Secondly, post classsification rules changes that benefit newer technology cars have reshuffled the deck as well.
I'll use the CRX as an example, as it has been mentioned as the straw that started the ITA paradigm shift. What if it was classified at a heaver weight? And what if they never opened up ECU rules? What would ITA look like? Well, following classifications would not have been made that were attempts to level the field at the new higher performance level, and we would see greater parity.
New vs. old is a red herring here folks, proper analysis during the classification process, or the ability to fix mistakes later is the secret to success.
On to the next point and, the next page...
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited May 15, 2004).]
lateapex911
05-15-2004, 01:50 PM
Excellent points made regading a larger picture request made to the CRB and ITAC that would adress the move of models to new classes.
But I see two issues....
One, any car moved should not be an overdog in the new class, and two, is it appropriate to move cars that are not known quantities? Cars that are run in such low numbers that it is impossible to ascertain their level of prep, driver quality and legality? I do not think it is.
A major hindrince in determining this information it the lack of comprehensive results. In the poking around I've done, I wind up being frustrated by the lack of results available, and more imortantly, by the quality of the results I can find. Often the car isn't listed! Or if it is, its by manufacturer only!
If we are going to present a comprehensive list of cars to be reclassed, adjusted or whatever, we need datasets to do our homework
The autocross guys have been keeping track of this for a looooong time.
I would like someone with a good understanding of the inner workings of the information flow within the club to speak as to the reasons this is an issue. I had heard rumours that submission of regional results was boing to start, but I am not sure if it is true.
If it is, the results should list very specific car information...make, model, sub model, and year....OR the clasification page and line, so there is no doubt as to the car in question. And qualification time and place should be implemented as a column or tow as well.
What will it take to get this implemented. I know that all the info is there, and that with the one click technolog we possess it should be a slam dunk.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited May 15, 2004).]
lateapex911
05-15-2004, 01:57 PM
sorry, mis post- hit "quote" instead of "edit" grrrrr...
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited May 15, 2004).]
lateapex911
05-15-2004, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I really don't understand what the resistence to a new class is, unless of course, the addition of a new class is somehow perceived as an admission of past fault.
No matter what Bill, you always seem to harp, center, and positively cling to the desire to jump up and down in an attempt to discredit the happenings in the past. What is the pleasure you derive from doing this?
Look, if they didn't want to bring attention to past errors, would PCAs ever have made it to even the discussion stage, much less the proposal on the books that is the single greatest change the IT category has EVER seen???? Huh? Would it? NO! Of course not! Lets move on......sheeeesh!
Why sould, or shouldn't there be a new IT class? Well, in my opinion, I don't think we have, as a group, shown proper utilization of what we have, and personally, I think we, as a group, can show the guys in GT and Prod how it can be done. One look at the joke that GT and Prod has become is enough reason for me to be hapy working with what we have.
IF after we do some re-orging, and get the inter clsss distribution more appropriate, and we have determined that within the rule structure that we have too much performance difference to equitably spread over four classes, then I would entertain another class, but at this point we haven't come close to proving that, either on paper or on the track.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
gran racing
05-15-2004, 04:35 PM
I really don't get what the year of the car has to do with anything. The idea that new and older cars can't run together and be competitive with each other is complete nonsense.
If there was a 1995 car with a min. weight of 2,450 lbs, 130 HP; another 1985 car with 2,450 lbs, 130 HP. Also, both cars have very similar performance potential, ect. So both cars shouldn't be in the same class? Oh, and yeah the newer car should be in the lower class. Why would looking at the car and its potential and classification have anything to do with the age of the car.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,
Just get over yourself.
You first. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
The request was made to add a new class. No IT2 'rules' or anything, just add another class between ITS and ITA. It was shot down, period. The reasoning was that PCA's would 'fix' things, and there was no need for another class. Please quit making things up!!!
Talk about making things up! IT2 does indeed require a different rule set and it was not simply for a class between ITS and ITA.
You don't actually know anything behind any of the decisions that were made so all you are left with is making things up.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Why sould, or shouldn't there be a new IT class? Well, in my opinion, I don't think we have, as a group, shown proper utilization of what we have, and personally, I think we, as a group, can show the guys in GT and Prod how it can be done.
Wow Jake, those are some of the wisest words I've seen on this site.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
People - lets stop fighting and start making a proposal.
Bill - if you read my posts about 14,000 posts ago, I totally agreed with the idea of another class. However, the more I thought about it, the back half of ITA in their own group would still not be as fast as the top ITB cars. That's why I don't see a reason not to let them run together as ITB. Furthermore, I have yet to meet anyone from lower classes who are unhappy with getting new competitive blood - everyone I've heard from seems happy with it. (we aren't running nationally, and we aren't running for money guys!)
Jake - good point about cars that are unknowns. However, I still think we should do a conservative propsal that is inclusive. I think many are getting tired about seeing the 88 Platypus GT getting reclasses while the 89 Platypus GT (that is almost identical) doesn't.
<--- Kirk hat on.
There are many reasons why we shouldn't look at results to suggest reclassing. Let's try to distinguish vehicles that are directly comparable to vehicles in lower classes. i.e. The Scirocco is in B by the Rabbit is in C even though they are the same weight and engine etc. Or if there is a vehicle from another make that has very similar specs in the class below.
[This message has been edited by Jake (edited May 15, 2004).]
Originally posted by Jake:
Jake - good point about cars that are unknowns. However, I still think we should do a conservative propsal that is inclusive.
May I suggest that the best time for such a proposal would be after the August BoD meeting when we find out if the pending rule changes actually become a done deal.
That said, some discussion on the topic is always a good thing.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Bill Miller
05-15-2004, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
Talk about making things up! IT2 does indeed require a different rule set and it was not simply for a class between ITS and ITA.
You don't actually know anything behind any of the decisions that were made so all you are left with is making things up.
George,
There was another request, made by someone else, to add a new class. It had nothing to do w/ IT2, and was shot down w/ the reason that PCAs would eliminate the need for a new class. I didn't make that up, it was printed in FasTrack!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
cherokee
05-16-2004, 11:55 AM
When it all comes down to the end as long as I have a place to run I will be happy, just don't take that away, I don't plan on going to the ARRC or anything, I am just going to hand around my area and have fun with my car my family, and the racers in this area, If I am on the track and my car does not get broken then I am having fun. As someone said we do this for the fun of it. If I want more out of racing I will move to Prod life seems more ?serious? there, with the possible fame, and loss of the rest of my fortune http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif. But now I am happy in IT, no matter what happens, as long as they don't take away cars that are already classed.
It is just fun to be part of these debates...what else am I going to do when I have to work on a Sunday http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,
There was another request, made by someone else, to add a new class. It had nothing to do w/ IT2, and was shot down w/ the reason that PCAs would eliminate the need for a new class. I didn't make that up, it was printed in FasTrack!
Got it. We were talking about IT2 and you were talking about something else.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
captdanh
05-16-2004, 12:08 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Banzai240:
[b] Kirk,
The only car to this point that I feel hasn't received fair treatment of those we've considered is the MR-2. It's not sufficient for ITA and belongs in ITB in my opinion, and according to the process described above...
Hello all. I am new to this forum.
I was racing an H production MG Midget for the last couple of years. But due to budget constraints, I am looking for a more affordable car to race.
So I began looking at IT. I like the Toyota MR2 and was considering building one.
Then the wind is taken out of my sails!
I come to this forum to learn about the car, and discover that I will be a backmarker in ITA.
But,many people agree it could be competetive in ITB and should be moved, but the powers that be say it stays in ITA.
So I ask. Will I be wasting my time building one with the hope that it will be reclassed? Or should I move on to another car?
[This message has been edited by captdanh (edited May 16, 2004).]
Bill Miller
05-16-2004, 04:22 PM
Ok George, see if you can follow this. Yes, I agree that Kirk's original IT2 proposal was just too different than 'regular' IT, to stand a chance. I also agree that that's why it was shot down. Now, explain why it got shot down when it didn't have any of the original IT2 'baggage'.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
JeffYoung
05-16-2004, 06:48 PM
Captain Danh, like most of the other sweeping "this is the way it is" pronouncements on this forum, the statement that the MR2 is always a backmarker is not correct.
First, you don't see many of them which leads me to believe two things. The ones that are out there are not fully developed and second, the drivers probably aren't fuly developed either. No knock on the MR2 drivers out there, I'm just saying I doubt someone has been driving and improving the car for the last 15 years like they have the 1st Gen RX7.
I just ran against a MARRS MR2 that ran 2:26s at VIR, which which while not a front runner is competitive in ITA (would have finished top 5 in a normal ITA race). Also, that's about 6 seconds faster than the regular ITA MR2 that shows up. So again, car level prep and driver ability is key and blanket evaluations of cars just don't work.
Another case in point. The IT7 track record at VIR -- a HORSEPOWER TRACK -- is faster than the ITA CRX record. Why? Driver and car are top notch. Not only that, but the fastest IT7s (there is a group of 3-4 of them) run in front of most A cars most of the time. Why? Good drivers, well prepared cars.
Capt - No the MR2 is not going to be competitive in ITA unless you cheat a lot or you run where there isn't any good competition. It WOULD be a good ITB car, but that may not happen.
That said - that's not a reason not to build one. I built my MR2 fully knowing that it was outclassed in ITA and never expecting a move to ITB. It is a VERY affordable and fun car to run. Not only is it incredibly reliable, but it is easy on brakes and tires like almost no other car. I bought 4 RA1's in 2002 and am STILL running on them after well over a dozen races. In an admittedly underdeveolped car, I am usually smack midpack in ITA in the second largest region in the USA. If you want specifics check out my site www.racerjake.com (http://www.racerjake.com)
lateapex911
05-16-2004, 07:38 PM
Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Another case in point. The IT7 track record at VIR -- a HORSEPOWER TRACK -- is faster than the ITA CRX record. Why? Driver and car are top notch. Not only that, but the fastest IT7s (there is a group of 3-4 of them) run in front of most A cars most of the time. Why? Good drivers, well prepared cars.
Well, Jeff, thats true, but it is only half the story. The ITA half is an important part of the equation.
Another data point: Check out some of the better and well known drivers like Jim Susko of G-Force Engineering. A good driver, and it's debatable if there is a better prepped 7 in the nation. At the ARRCs, he ran against some well known ITA guys like Fowler, and my fellow regional competitor Anthony Serra, who set fast race lap. Susko was about 4 seconds off the pace. (sorry Jim!)
Now I will agree that the post race scrutineering is not an absolute guarantee of legality, but the tear downs DO mean more than the casual glance at the average regional.
Good drivers will beat so-so drivers, no doubt. But good drivers will get beaten by equal drivers in better cars.
The MR-2? No offense Jake, but we both know that your car could go faster with more testing,time and $. Will you run down Anthony Serra and turn the required 1:01.7 at Lime Rock???? Um ....no. No way in this reality. I bet you could squeak a bit more, maybe a second or two, but the difference of the front guys at 1:01.8 and the ITA "lite" guys is night and day.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
ITSRX7
05-16-2004, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Now, explain why it got shot down when it didn't have any of the original IT2 'baggage'.
I, for one, would like to try and work within the current framework within the context of PCA's before we add a class.
Simple.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)
Knestis
05-16-2004, 08:25 PM
To be fair to Geo, my point about the "me first" paradigm was really about the part of MY IT2 proposal that he argues against - the part where cars are listed because they have similar qualities, rather than because someone asked. He's been consistent in his objection and I understand where he's coming from. IT2 - as a new class - just seemed like a chance to experiment with a new kind of thinking...
Bill is however right about grega's not-encumbered-by-a-formula proposal being shot down, so the round is tied. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
I appreciate your vote of confidence, volunteer-wise, Geo. Since this strand has been about everything else, it would be interesting to see how many people would support me in some kind of official advisory position. I suspect not many but won't lose any sleep about it.
K
No offense taken at all Jake. I know there's more in my car. I've never run Hoosiers, I have NO engine mods, I don't even run a header. I agree with you entirely.
I'm suprised Susko was still 4s off the pace. I've read his book, he really knows his shite. I would highly doubt that anyone could make a faster 7 than him.
I still can't get over the misconception that nobody has really developed an MR2 or a RX7 yet. These are vehicles that have run in very high numbers in IT for a long time. Zillions of each were built. It's completely illogical to think that these haven't been deveolped while somehow the relatively newly classed cars have.
captdanh
05-16-2004, 08:29 PM
Thanks for the MR2 info. I'm in the S.E. division, and there are some fast ITA cars down here.
I fully understand that a fast car has to be developed,(including the driver!). And no one should expect to be a front runner right out of the box.
Different cars may have advantages over others at certain tracks.
All I want, (and I think most drivers will agree) is to know that if you bust your hump and REALLY develop your car, you have a chance to be competetive with the rest.
That said, I'm still going to give the MR2 a serious look. I just like them.
Speed Raycer
05-16-2004, 08:49 PM
On the MR2... wait til you guys get a load of Norm's (ITA-MR2) MR2 when it's done. From what I've heard he's decided to make the MR2 the car to beat. He was already running towards the front of A. It'll be neat to see when he's done. It'll definitely set the MR2 bar a little higher.
------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it
http://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/7sig.jpghttp://www.izzyscustomcages.com/images/IzysLgoSm.jpg (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)
Izzy's Custom Cages (http://www.izzyscustomcages.com)
Bill Miller
05-16-2004, 08:52 PM
Andy,
Why not use both tools? New class now, and PCAs to fine-tune everything. Again, a win-win.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
ITSRX7
05-16-2004, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,
Why not use both tools? New class now, and PCAs to fine-tune everything. Again, a win-win.
I hear ya - but I don't know that another class is needed if PCA's can be successful. There very well may be the need for both but should we walk before we run?
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)
[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited May 16, 2004).]
Banzai240
05-17-2004, 12:12 AM
Wouldn't it pretty much work like this:
Add a new class... Existing cars in ITA and ITS get redistributed amongst the new class and ITS/ITA... No net change in ITB/ITC... ITC dies a slow death due to lack of interest or cars for the class... IT ends up with 4-classes...
Adding a new class would certainly be a short-term solution, but would do nothing to increase participation in ITC, and would ultimately lead to a 4-class IT structure... just like we have today.
Doesn't sound like the best way to approach things to me... Doesn't make any more sense than it makes to do the same for Production when HP is so lightly contested...
I vote to keep working within the framework we have and see what we can do with that. If all were to work out in my perfect IT world... we'd have 4 competitive classes again, and then perhaps a 5th ABOVE ITS for the new... REALLY fast cars... (RX-8, 340Z, S2000, etc...)
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
dickita15
05-17-2004, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I vote to keep working within the framework we have and see what we can do with that. If all were to work out in my perfect IT world... we'd have 4 competitive classes again, and then perhaps a 5th ABOVE ITS for the new... REALLY fast cars... (RX-8, 340Z, S2000, etc...)
then we need to find cars that can be moved down to ITC. that really seems like the first step, define itc and its and we will have a better idea what the distribution should be in the middle. is the itac working on a list to move to itc.
dick
Bill Miller
05-17-2004, 07:45 AM
Andy,
My take would be that if you're going to make changes, make them all at once and get them over with. Maybe I don't understand why you want to use an adjustment tool (PCAs) to make the kinds of wholesale changes that are apparently needed. As I said, it seems like you guys have already defined the performance envelope for the class between ITS and ITA.
Darin,
Who says ITC is going to 'die'? I haven't seen the results from the SARRC/MARRS double at VIR, but there were 12 ITC cars at the first race at Summit Point this season. I believe that was a better turnout than ITB had at Pocono this weekend. Also, I'm curious as to how you think moving cars from ITB to ITC will help the situation that you perceive. Is it going to bring a bunch of new cars out, or is it going to just siphon off existing ITB drivers?
And just what in the world does HP have to do w/ ITC, or any of the other IT classes?
Also, IIRC, we still haven't heard what's going to happen w/ the ballast rule if PCAs are introduced.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Knestis
05-17-2004, 08:13 AM
Apropos of nothing (I love to say that), I think that the window of opportunity has closed on another IT class.
I've obviously done a lousy job over the years explaining the rationale - based on all of the ways my intentions have been mis-quoted. SET ASIDE the weight-setting formula part of the issue (which, BTW was submitted as an explicitly severable clause of my proposal) and the "proactive" aspect was planning for a new pplace to put all of the cars now going into A, specifically so there wouldn't be any impact on the existing classes.
But that was then and this is now: Another class lower than the existing index of ITS will only complicate things. "We could move all of the cars that have just been proposed for A, OUT of A and..." Nah. There's no gap anywhere else large enough for another class to make sense.
The course has been set and for the near term, we should follow it. I'm glad that Jake and others are confident that it won't be a problem but (typically) I am less sure.
The idea of another class above the existing S index WILL make sense down the road at some point however...
K
Banzai240
05-17-2004, 09:04 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
[B]Apropos of nothing (I love to say that), I think that the window of opportunity has closed on another IT class.
That's NOT what I said, and it's COMPLETELY NOT TRUE! I said "I vote to keep working within the framework we have and see what we can do with that"...
It was MY OWN personal opinion on the matter... There are those on the CRB who have suggested to the ITAC that we may be considering adding another class as one possible solution to some of the perceived problems in IT and car classing. I am certainly not closed to the idea, not that my one voice makes that big a difference anyhow.
There is no need to go driving the dagger through your heart yet guys... All of this is just works in progress, and NOTHING has actually changed in IT as of yet anyhow, so all of this could be for NOT come August... The final say on ALL of the adjustments so far rests in the hands of the BoD...
That being said... The cars being proposed for ITA from ITS fit RIGHT IN with the existing top 3-5 cars in ITA right now, so the only "impact on the class" is that now you have a couple more cars to choose from...
The classes that would TRUELY be impacted from all of this is ITB and ITC... It can be agrued that the introduction of the 240SX, CRX, and Acura to ITA, many years ago, created a situation in ITA were some cars were truely relegated to backmarker status... These cars are too fast for ITB, but clearly not up to par with ITA... so I can actually see a class between ITA and ITB... RX-7s, MR-2s, etc... would likely fit nicely there...
Or, we could just add a class in-between every class... then EVERYONE could have a trophy on any given weekend! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif
To Bill,
I feel there are very few new cars that will actually fit into ITC... There are, however, cars currently in ITB that haven't got a prayer in that class, and would fit much better against the 510s, Civics, VWs, etc., of ITC... And the parallel with Production was one of similiar situations... 4-class structures where the lowest class is too restrictive to allow any newer cars to fit due to potential... and a withering on the vine due to lack of action to do anything about it... I know you guys think HP is making a resurgence, but from the results I've seen for the last two years, it still looks like this phenomenon in strictly in specific regions and is NOT being reflected across the nation... People just aren't turning out for HP, and while 12-ITC cars at a major event is good... this hardly appears to be the norm at any given Regional...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
I think Darin is correct here. The window is not permanently closed. But, there are courses of action in motion and they will have to either be seen through or be rejected before another course of action would be open for consideration.
That said, given the state of ITC currently, with some judicious changes, there may only be a need the current 4 classes.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Knestis
05-17-2004, 12:25 PM
I didn't say that's what you said, Darin - I said what I think, and think that I've said before. I think.
K
Banzai240
05-17-2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I didn't say that's what you said, Darin - I said what I think, and think that I've said before. I think.
K
As I was riding my bike to work this morning... I realized this... and I wished that I had said what I thought you said when I was thinking I knew what you said and to whom you had said thought you said it...
General message still applies... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Bill Miller
05-17-2004, 06:15 PM
That being said... The cars being proposed for ITA from ITS fit RIGHT IN with the existing top 3-5 cars in ITA right now, so the only "impact on the class" is that now you have a couple more cars to choose from...
Not true Darin. Please read the previous comments on what happens to the mean lap times. It just means that the mid-pack cars will get pushed even further back. Slightly more 'impact' than just having a few more cars to choose from.
These cars are too fast for ITB, but clearly not up to par with ITA... so I can actually see a class between ITA and ITB... RX-7s, MR-2s, etc... would likely fit nicely there...
Thanks for that one Darin, it really made me chuckle! As I've said all along, I don't really care where the new class goes. We just need a greater level of granularity. And, if you recall the title of this thread, aren't we really talking about the same thing? What you're hung up on, is a matter of symantics. Do you break off the new ITA cars, and the old ITA overdogs, and call that IT2, and leave the current ITA mid-packers/back markers alone. Or, do you break out the current ITA mid-packers/backmarkers and call them ITA- (or ITB+), and leave the new ITA alone? Isn't the net result the same?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
gran racing
05-17-2004, 07:55 PM
The MR2 the ITA car to have? Now that's funny! Sorry, but not going to happen at least in regions that have fast Integras, CRXs, 240SXs, ect. In some regions could it be a fairly competitive car if fully built with an excellent driver. But, bring it to the ARRC and see just how well it compares to other cars.
Personally, I have a love hate relationship with the darn MR2. I do think it is a good car overall - well balanced, rear wheel drive, and easy on tires and brakes (this is why I hate it!). Not that I have a problem with buying new tires every other race and watching Jake use the same freakn' tires for the past 3 years. Ah, a little better now.
If you decide to build the MR2 (assuming it stays in ITA) just realize what you are building. A nice car, but it will not be a front runner in many regions.
The MR2 in ITB at 2,500 would make sense if PCAs go through.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
Banzai240
05-18-2004, 01:27 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Please read the previous comments on what happens to the mean lap times.
I don't know too many people who race for "mean lap times."... If you want to run at the front of the pack... you will now have several more cars to choose from.
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Thanks for that one Darin, it really made me chuckle! As I've said all along, I don't really care where the new class goes. We just need a greater level of granularity.
No, it's NOT semantics... it's philosophies... You think we need more "granularity", and I believe we need to better utilize the four slots we have. Those are two completely different concepts.
I contend that you can make cars competitive in two ways... You can make them light and fast, or heavier and slower... For IT, the latter makes more sense. It's more expensive on wear, but it's much cheaper on many aspects of preparation, as the emphasis isn't on getting every last ounce of weight out of the car to meet some rediculous minimum weight.
Further, because of the nature of modern technology, IT has undergone a "speedup" of sorts, so this needs to be distributed amongst the classes as well. I just don't believe, and the numbers bear witness, that there is enough utilization of ITC to show that it's going to be highly disrupted by adding some additional cars. And, if they are added correctly, they will be competitive, but NOT be overdogs... The same can be said for ITB, and the same is being attempted in ITA...
We'll just have to disagree, because this is the way I see it... If you want to convince me otherwise, then start putting a list of bottom-feeder ITC cars that would be "disrupted" were some more cars to be moved into the class and present it here for discussion. I've asked twice before, and no one seems to want to quantify the "problem"...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Bill Miller
05-18-2004, 07:24 AM
I don't know too many people who race for "mean lap times."... If you want to run at the front of the pack... you will now have several more cars to choose from.
So it's just a case of the CRX, etc. all over again. You're now pushing the cars that aren't on the A-list (no pun intended) even further down the results sheet. I can't believe that you don't get this concept. Maybe you just don't want to. Or, is your solution just to move all of the B-list (again, no pun...) cars to ITB?
You're the one that said you could see a class between ITA and ITB, that's what I was chuckling at. But you knew that, you just needed to find some way to disagree w/ it.
As far as moving cars to ITC, I asked the question before, do you think it will bring more cars to the track, or just make existing drivers buy new vinyl?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Knestis
05-18-2004, 09:08 AM
This last exchange reminds me that, unless there is agreement on the PURPOSE of classification changes, there will never be agreement on the implementation. Is the intent of moving outclassed A cars into B to...
A. Increase category participation overall by giving existing owners of poopy A cars a shot at a trophy?
B. Make reparations to people who bought Toyota Corolla GTS's (et al.) back in the 1908's, thinking they would continue to be competitive?
C. Increase the size of ITB, relative to ITA to balance class participation or group sizes?
D. Encourage people to build fewer IT7/Spec7 cars?
E. Give new racers more options that have a shot at being cometitive in SOME class, to accommodate brand loyalty or other factors?
F. Make racing cheaper? (Hah!)
G. To allow trickle-down economic effects to save ITC from dying?
Hmm?
Dick's point about defining C to finish bracketing the entire cateogory is a good one.
Darin's never going to get his list of C cars under threat because (a) there are only a few die-hards out there still willing to deal with something that's too slow to compete in C, (B) racing Darwinism has already discouraged the building of new, bad C cars, © rust is an ally in making this process happen, and (d) the list already exists in the GCR - take the entire ITC field of options and subtract the four or five that appear on the podiums around the country.
K
I choose A, C, E, F, and G.
Don't laugh at F - some of the misclassed cars are incredibly cheap to build/buy/fix and run. Of course if they are correctly classed they might not be as cheap to buy.
Banzai240
05-18-2004, 04:26 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I can't believe that you don't get this concept. Maybe you just don't want to. Or, is your solution just to move all of the B-list (again, no pun...) cars to ITB?
You aren't paying attention if you think I "don't get this concept"... A more appropriate remark might be aimed at being concerned over the amount of weight I put in this happening... If a car is already a backmarker, then do you really think they are concerned with placing 7th instead of 5th or 6th??? I would think that they would rather have a better shot at really competing, and NOT adding cars to the class is NOT going to make that happen...
Again, the best we can do is try to match the physical properties of the cars to the best of our abilities and let you guys take it from there. That is what we are trying to do... It's tough sometimes because there are still a lot of PERCEPTIONS of performance for this car or that, but in the end, this is what we are aiming for. If it makes sense to move the "B-list" to ITB, then I'd support doing that. But defining the B-list might be a little hard to do... We keep hearing how this or that isn't competitive on one-hand, then hear how it's going to be the "car-to-have" on the other... Since you guys seem to like to hide the true figures, we are left to try to decipher what we think we know and work from that.
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
But you knew that, you just needed to find some way to disagree w/ it.
Bill... I have better things to do with my time than bicker with you, so you can count on the fact that I'm not out looking for a way to disagree with you or your concepts... We fundamentally differ in our opinions, and I'm just stating mine... You opinion is just one of many that we/I hear, and I give it no more weight than I give anyone elses...
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
As far as moving cars to ITC, I asked the question before, do you think it will bring more cars to the track, or just make existing drivers buy new vinyl?
I think ITC is not a class that has the potential for a lot of NEWER car growth... I do, however, think that there are a few cars out there that would be raced there, as opposed to NOT being raced in ITB where they are un-competitively classified...
------------------
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 May 18, 2004).]
Originally posted by Knestis:
(d) the list already exists in the GCR - take the entire ITC field of options and subtract the four or five that appear on the podiums around the country.
This just in.....
The devil orders heavy duty parkas from L.L. Bean.
Kirk! Are you suggesting we use results for classifications and decision making? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
I'm just messing with you Kirk. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Knestis
05-18-2004, 05:37 PM
Har-dee-har-har...
Yes indeedy-doo. It WOULD be appropriate to look at results in this case,since the question I was exploring is, "What are people spending money on making competitive?" - not what chassis have the potential to be so.
Jake's point about cost is one that I confess I hadn't really looked at from the perspective that he explains. That is kind of interesting.
K
gran racing
05-18-2004, 05:53 PM
Item F (keeping things less expensive) is why I get so pissy about not giving the same benefits to older cars as newer cars.
I was able to get a free '87 prelude - good engine, many other great parts too! I highly doubt this would happen with a newer (late 90s) car.
Older cars are great! Especially if a person is going to build one from scratch, it can be done so for much cheaper then a newer car.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
lateapex911
05-18-2004, 08:10 PM
Too many points to do the whole quote thing, so...
Kirk. All good points, except the one about the 1908 Coralla GTS. Way ahead of it's time, that car was....
I think all but B are worthy goals/benefits for a trickle down approach.
Geo...very funny...good thing I wasn't eating at the time I read that....
Dave...you? 'pissy'? C'mon...you can't hold a dim candle to Miller! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif Sorry Bill, you have had your moments!
Seriously though, IT is poised on the verge of its largest philosophical change ever, and we are looking at the chance to make it the best "run" category in the club. Honestly, we need to think of the future at the same time we protect the values that make IT a great place to race.
Stategic goals:
- Protect the competiveness of older cars wherever possible, to help keep racing as financially reasonable as possible, and to respect those that are active investors as well. Saying "tough S&(t" to large groups of active drivers is nuts.
Seek parity to the greatest extent possible. Yes it DOES matter to a mid packer that used to be able to crack the top 10, or the top 5 that he is now relegated to the top 15 or 10, even though he is going faster! I have ahard time swallowing that "racing" isn't competitive, and that competitive people wouldn't want to win.
Hold the final "new class" trump card in our strategic pocket until it is really needed, and then consider using it above ITS, to encourage new growth. Using it now risks making us look like Prod or GT guys...
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited May 18, 2004).]
Quickshoe
05-18-2004, 08:44 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
since the question I was exploring is, "What are people spending money on making competitive?" - not what chassis have the potential to be so.
No fair Kirk. You are not supposed to change the question to suit your answer http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif.
Knestis
05-19-2004, 09:12 AM
Few people realize that the 1908 Corolla was the only car to pose any serious competition to the victorious Isotta-Fraschini Tipo Uno at that year's Targa Florio.
Sadly, the Toyota was sidelined by an unfortunate temporal miscalculation: Tires of a size appropriate for the groundbreaking little car weren't manufactured until almost seven decades after the event was over.
K
Originally posted by Knestis:
Sadly, the Toyota was sidelined by an unfortunate temporal miscalculation: Tires of a size appropriate for the groundbreaking little car weren't manufactured until almost seven decades after the event was over.
I hate it when that happens.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Diane
05-22-2004, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by Jake:
Greg, Diane and I kept up the drive-to-the track tradition up until last year.
Jake
ITA MR2 (with CT plates, registered and insured)
I still do if Tim brings his car. It's only if mine is the only one going (and the van is going) that it gets trailer'd, which is what we did at the enduro last year. I was also crazy enough on a 100+ degree July 4th with Tim 2 states away, to toss the tires in the back of the car and drive to Lime Rock and run. Figured I could hitch a ride home and come back with van and trailer in the next two days if I needed to. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
WRT SS cars, as much as I wanted to race my then new 88 EGT when I bought it, I didn't for the very reason mentioned - the cost of paying the loan off on a balled up car & replacing the car. I did have another car to drive (older RWD), but this was the new one with payments and expensive insurance and taxes, no van, no trailer, no support. No W2W. So I did Solo II and some time trials. "Less" risky.
Yeah, I know I'm late to the thread.
Diane
#21 ITB Escort, also registered and insured and sometimes driven to work
lateapex911
05-22-2004, 06:38 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Few people realize that the 1908 Corolla was the only car to pose any serious competition to the victorious Isotta-Fraschini Tipo Uno at that year's Targa Florio.
Sadly, the Toyota was sidelined by an unfortunate temporal miscalculation: Tires of a size appropriate for the groundbreaking little car weren't manufactured until almost seven decades after the event was over.
K
I understand the Italians were considering a last minute rules change that would heve resulting it the banning of the Toyota until the unfortunate tire issue came to light. A good thing to as it would have strained Japanese-Italian relations.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
497
[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited May 23, 2004).]
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.5 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions Inc. All rights reserved.