The new ITA class [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Knestis

03-25-2004, 09:38 AM

I'll betcha that James Clay can find someone willing to spend the dough necessary to build a really correct Z3. If OPM and others can get $20K+ for a Spec Miata...

Re: the IT2 question, I'm picturing the next wave of moves being from the bottom of A into be, a la the FX16 - leaving the "New A" pretty much where IT2 was designed to be.

I'm not sure how I feel about that, being a liberal and all. I'm reminded of the old plumber's axiom that "[sewage] flows downhill" - that the new order of things came at the expense of the entrants already marginalized in A. They will be getting the stinky end of the stick, certainly for the short term as the promise of adjustments and/or downward moves shakes out.

They may be totally dorked, if leadership/policy/enthusiasm changes and they don't get follow-through or if their tubs rust away while they're waiting.

K

dickita15

03-25-2004, 10:04 AM

as a ita rx7 guy i know i just got pushed down the food chain. At least they left the mr2 that i can try to beat up on (joke jake). but I am optimistic that this is the first wave and i have a chance to come back. now should i lobby to move to b and start saving for new wheels or should i start lobbying for a new alternate carb and start saving for that.
dick

Banzai240

03-25-2004, 10:16 AM

Originally posted by dickita15:
Now should i lobby to move to b and start saving for new wheels or should i start lobbying for a new alternate carb and start saving for that.
dick

You are already allowed to run one of the "approved listed alternate carbs"... Sure you don't want to try a nice 32/36 DGB??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Seriously... we have a long way to go. Believe me when I say that ITB and ITC are well represented, and their interests are at the forefront of many of these discussions amongst the ITAC members. That is likely why you didn't see the MR2 moved, even though it makes a lot of sense on paper.

Give us some time to work on these issues, because no one wants to make a gross mistake...

------------------
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 March 25, 2004).]

Jake

03-25-2004, 10:57 AM

The only thing I can think of worse than being stuck in the new ITA is going to ITB and pissing ITB off because they think my car is an overdog and/or they think I lobbied (Kirk's fear) to get it done. If the RX7 and MR2 are to find a better fit, it has to be done very carefully. My gut feel is that another 100lbs and 6" wheels will make them both fit into B. But in reality, that should be up to ITB drivers.

RFloyd

03-25-2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by Jake

If the RX7 and MR2 are to find a better fit, it has to be done very carefully. My gut feel is that another 100lbs and 6\" wheels will make them both fit into B. But in reality, that should be up to ITB drivers.

Just curious, why should it be up to ITB drivers? Me thinks it should be up to everyone -except- ITB drivers and drivers of those ITA cars affected by any move. Otherwise, there are some -really- impartial folks making the decision. I'll bet if it had been left up to a crowd of ITA CRX drivers to make the go/no go decision on the things that just showed up in the FastTrack, well, there wouldn't be anything about IT in the FastTrack!

I don't figure if the RX-7 and 240Z guys had all the say the E36 Bimmer would have ever landed in ITS, correctly spec'ed or not.

I really do agree though, Jake, that a hundred pounds or so and narrower rubber would make the RX7 and MR2 great ITB cars but not overdogs. Maybe 150 or so lbs and the 1g CRX Si / 3g Civic Si, as well. As long as there is a system for later adjustment, why not?

------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

RFloyd

03-25-2004, 02:34 PM

He he, time to change the signature! Sold that "should be in ITB" 1g Integra! Didn't figure it actually had a chance of ever getting moved! LOL!

Actually I sold it for business reasons, but the new owner must be really optimistic right now. At 2550 or so pounds and in ITB that car actually may have a chance at a podium!

Funny enough, I'm looking to get back int IT in a couple years, and I was considering IT7. Now if the RX7 -does- ever get moved to ITB..... whoa Nelly.

------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

Rabbit07

03-25-2004, 03:26 PM

On the discussion of moving the rx-7's to B I do not aggree. I currently run an ITB Mustang and I run 225/50 14s and have a very hard time even coming close to the mid pack 7's running on 225 50 13s. Rim width will not effect the tire size at all. I also don't believe that 100lbs is enough of a balist for a car like this to compete in ITB

gran racing

03-25-2004, 04:17 PM

"The only thing I can think of worse than being stuck in the new ITA is going to ITB and pissing ITB off because they think my car is an overdog and/or they think I lobbied (Kirk's fear) to get it done. If the RX7 and MR2 are to find a better fit, it has to be done very carefully. My gut feel is that another 100lbs and 6" wheels will make them both fit into B. But in reality, that should be up to ITB drivers."

Jake, you're kidding right? Or still upset that the MR2 isn't going to ITB as it stands right now. Leave it up to ITB drivers? Ummm, yeah, o.k. Or leave it up the ITA drivers? I was really surprised to hear this.

I agreee, I don't want to piss off ITB drivers either but if the car truely should be there and they are still mad I would wonder why. Because they honestly don't think the car should be there or are threatened by the driver or the car? And I am not just talking about my car here.

I have not seen one car that is being reclassified that I don't agree with. Maybe a few that I think should have been reclassified and didn't.

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

dickita15

03-25-2004, 05:48 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240:
You are already allowed to run one of the "approved listed alternate carbs"... Sure you don't want to try a nice 32/36 DGB??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

sure can I run 4 of them

Jake

03-25-2004, 05:49 PM

RF- You are correct, it, of course has to do with the people that are being moved too.

I guess what I'm saying is this: If ITB drivers don't have a problem with a car dropping from A to B, I don't see where there is a problem at all with such a move. If ITB drivers are screaming bloody murder - then we need to rethink. In other words, if the only people who could possibly be negatively affected by a change are ok with it, then there is no downside to the change.

A good example is Greg's Nissan. I have NEVER found ANY ITA driver that had a problem with him moving from ITS to ITA. That fact alone, should have been a major reason to reclass.

dickita15

03-25-2004, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by Rabbit07:
On the discussion of moving the rx-7's to B I do not aggree. I currently run an ITB Mustang and I run 225/50 14s and have a very hard time even coming close to the mid pack 7's running on 225 50 13s. Rim width will not effect the tire size at all. I also don't believe that 100lbs is enough of a balist for a car like this to compete in ITB

i am suprised on the tires. i run 225/45/13 on 7" wheels and the tire guys hate me. i would assume with 6" wheels i would have to go to 205's.
also times for it7 vs itb seem pretty close from what i have seen.
dick

RFloyd

03-25-2004, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by rabbit07

On the discussion of moving the rx-7's to B I do not aggree. I currently run an ITB Mustang and I run 225/50 14s and have a very hard time even coming close to the mid pack 7's running on 225 50 13s. Rim width will not effect the tire size at all. I also don't believe that 100lbs is enough of a balist for a car like this to compete in ITB

True, wheel width won't make as much difference. And I don't think 100 lbs is enough either. When I wanted to get my 1g Integra reclassed I supposed that about 150-175 lbs would be more like it, and would be easily acheivable through replacing many of the various components that I had removed (spare tire, jack, etc) as well as running the max ballast. Of course, I had a huge accusump and a cage some birds couldn't find their way out of, but about 2530 or 2555 was doable.

------------------
Richard Floyd
'86 Acura Integra LS #90
SCCA ITA / NASA ECHC H5

[This message has been edited by RFloyd (edited March 25, 2004).]

Rabbit07

03-25-2004, 06:01 PM

I run mostly at Waterford, but there the fast 7's run about 1 sec faster than the fast B's and we only have 1.5 miles.

I don't know the reason, but on some days I run close, but rarely with em. They seem to have lots more power, yet similar handling

Rabbit07

03-25-2004, 06:02 PM

RSTPerformance

03-25-2004, 09:05 PM

I think that moving cars from A to B will make ITB a much more compeditive class. It already is one of the best, so I think that more cars will only make it better... Bring it on!!!

I approve of moves such as the RX-7 now that anyone has an opertunity to have their car re-classified (or comp adjusted) on the basis of performace potential and not popularity

Raymond "an ITB driver" Blethen
RST Performance Racing

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited March 25, 2004).]

lateapex911

03-25-2004, 09:13 PM

First, I doubt that any organization will allow a group with an agenda to decide their future! Thankfully!
Look, the ITB guys have no right to get POed if new cars come into the class that are competitive, any more than existing ITA guys have a right to be POed if new cars come into the class that push them even further down the food chain!

There is no doubt that this is a deathblow to nearly all the mid packers in ITA. They will become backmarkers. The problem with putting them in B isn't the B guys at the front, it's the B guys at the back, who will, if this all shakes out the way it should, end up in C. The biggest issue with this strategy is that the few, the lonely, and the slow C cars are the guys to pay the price. They can't go down any further. Fortunately, there aren't many of them left! Perhaps weight breaks for the few that are in popular, but uncompetitive cars are in order.

Rabbit 07- Tell us what your ITB Mustang has for power.

Heres the poop on the 7. 2380 lbs. Maybe a good one that is really well sorted (it aint easy!) will have 123 hp at the wheels. SOME guys who are engineers or just gurus may be putting out 10 more. So, lets say 128 hp to be generous. Legally you won't see many 7s with that kind of power. That's a P/W ratio of 19.

I'm assuming you have a non Mustang II 'stang with a 2.3L engine. I'd guess that puts down about 150 to the wheels. What are your numbers, and what are well developed examples doing?

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

ddewhurst

03-26-2004, 12:08 AM

Jake, Ray & other 1st gen RX-7 folks, what will it take for the 1st gen RX-7 ITA to run with the front cars in ITA ?

Less weight ?

Alum flywheel ?

Smaller diameter clutch/pressure plate ?

Other items.....

Can it keep up without street porting ?

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

moto62

03-26-2004, 02:58 AM

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Jake, Ray & other 1st gen RX-7 folks, what will it take for the 1st gen RX-7 ITA to run with the front cars in ITA ?

Less weight ?
There really isn't much left on these cars to take off legally. The driver, on the other hand...

Alum flywheel ?
This will help a little as far as helping these torqueless cars get off the turns a little better but won't do much in terms of bettering the lap times or trying to hang with Hondas.

 Smaller diameter clutch/pressure plate ?
Same as above.

Other items.....?
Can't think of any right now.

Can it keep up without street porting ?
Hellll No. Driven both 7's and girlie man Hondas. I'm almost two secs faster in the Acura (without any engine or tranny work, as in bone stock)than I was in the (developed 7)at any track.

Here's my take on the whole bit. The only thing left to do to these cars is to allow street porting. The cars suspensions have been developed almost to the point where they're becoming overdeveloped, because that's the only thing on these cars that we were allowed to do anything to, so, we can get these cars to handle pretty well. These cars lack torque and straightaway speed and the only cure will be to allow street porting. Before y'all start shakin in yo boots, street porting will not give the RX-7 new life, it won't be a honda killer by any means but it will give it enough juice to put up a fair fight or at least get it into the top 10 (if only 9 hondas show up) http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif. Maybe some of the Canadian bretherens up north can give us some idea of how a street ported 7 does against the top dogs as I believe that or, I'm pretty sure that street porting is allowed in Canada.
Ray

Knestis

03-26-2004, 08:05 AM

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Jake, Ray & other 1st gen RX-7 folks, what will it take for the 1st gen RX-7 ITA to run with the front cars in ITA...?

Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

Let's please not let the PCA Revolution go to our heads here. The INSTANT we start making rules allowances for specific cars - beyond tweaking the weights - it's Katie bar the door. I've been nice and polite during the PCA process, willing to wait it out but on this point? No, no, no, no, no. No.

That said, the rotaries suffer from exactly that practice in that they aren't allowed to port at all, while slug cars can. The real question that ought to be explored - again? - is how would the Mazdas benefit from the same exact rule that other cars currently enjoy? It could be asked about both the A and S versions...

K

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited March 26, 2004).]

Bill Miller

03-26-2004, 08:22 AM

Kirk,

I agree w/ you, but there in lies the problem. Porting on a rotary isn't really the same thing as port matching on a piston engine.

Look, the ITB guys have no right to get POed if new cars come into the class that are competitive, any more than existing ITA guys have a right to be POed if new cars come into the class that push them even further down the food chain! 

Jake,

The 1st gen. RX7 folks already got pissed enough to go form their own classes. And, not sure why people wouldn't have a right to be pissed???

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

dickita15

03-26-2004, 08:56 AM

Originally posted by Knestis:
Danger, Will Robinson! Danger!

The real question that ought to be explored - again? - is how would the Mazdas benefit from [i]the same exact rule that other cars currently enjoy?[?] It could be asked about both the A and S versions...

K

AMEN. the last thing IT needs is prod style different prep level for different brands. the only change i can embrace is allowing the rotary some of the changes that other cars are allowed. IMHO porting the block is not a good idea as it has too large an effect. there may be some small gains fron 1" of porting on the intake manifold for matching. someone needs to do some dyno work and find out but my guess is it would not be enough. the only other thing i can think of is to add another alternate carb maybe a holley 400 or 450 for IT. if anyone can think of any other rotary only restrictions that might make a difference if lifted i would like to hear them.
dick patullo
ita rx7

Banzai240

03-26-2004, 08:59 AM

Whoa... SlOW DOWN GUYS... Street Porting?!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif

As a former Rotary guy, and someone who keeps up with the Production class... I can tell you right now that I will stand against allowing this in IT. A good E-Production engine, which is allowed a street-port, makes well over 200hp. This would be insane to allow anything remotely like this in IT, not to mention COMPLETELY against IT philosophy.

I might consider looking at port matching, which some of you are mistakenly referring to as the "porting" allowed by "slug" engines... As the owner of a modern Nissan, I can tell you right now that I'd likely cause more harm than do good by even attempting to do this on the Nissan, because these newer cars are matched pretty darn well from the factory. AND, we are only talking about an inch on either side... Hardly the kind of thing that is going to drastically improve airflow...

If this were allowed on the Rotary, I could see a benefit perhaps, however I recall the ports being pretty well matched to start with. I know that on the sideplate, there really isn't much distance between the mating surface and the intake port, so someone would likely be able to make some improvements...

The general philosophy is to adjust cars with weight. BUT, there is a special "dis-allowance" being made against the rotaries concerning the gasket matching, so it might be worth exploring as well... I can tell you, however, that no one on the ITAC is willing to go down some of the roads mentioned above... We are NOT about to start messing with the general philosophy of IT by allowing these customized adjustments. That would be the road to the end of this fine class. We'll work to make things "better", but there is still no guarantee that you'll be "competitive"...

That being said, I believe there is a good solution for this car, as well as some others, so give us a little time to work it all out...

------------------
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 March 26, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 26, 2004).]

Geo

03-26-2004, 09:36 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240:
The general philosophy is to adjust cars with weight. BUT, there is a special "dis-allowance" being made against the rotaries concerning the gasket matching, so it might be worth exploring as well... I can tell you, however, that no one on the ITAC is willing to go down some of the roads mentioned above... We are NOT about to start messing with the general philosophy of IT by allowing these customized adjustments. That would be the road to the end of this fine class. We'll work to make things "better", but there is still no guarantee that you'll be "competitive"...

That being said, I believe there is a good solution for this car, as well as some others, so give us a little time to work it all out...

I agree with Darin. Let's not confuse port or gasket matching with porting. Big difference. I assume it's a difference where the rotary is concerned just like any other car. And Darin is right also IMHO about the fact that there already is a prep level difference between the rotory and other cars due to this point.

Lastly, I think from a big picture stand point most people would agree that it would be good for IT for the RX-7s to be reasonably competitive again.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Jake

03-26-2004, 09:43 AM

Amen! Ray - VERY interesting data on the RX7/Honder stuff. For those who don't know, Ray ran one of the fastest (if not the fastest) RX7's in the country up until he got his Honda. They fact that his highly developed RX7 can't hold a candle to his new car without engine mods speaks volumes.

On another sad note, a student of mine at an HPDE had a stock '90 Miata with Azenis tires. When I drove his car at LRP, I was almost able to tie my best times there with my ITA MR2.

gran racing

03-26-2004, 10:52 AM

"I'm assuming you have a non Mustang II 'stang with a 2.3L engine. I'd guess that puts down about 150 to the wheels. What are your numbers, and what are well developed examples doing?"

150 HP at the wheels? WOW! What is the min. weight for that car. Is that really true? 150 at the wheels? I know it has bad handling characteristics, but that number seems very, very high. (Not at all complaining about its classification!)

Ray - your attitude is appreciated. I personally like having many cars in the class and good clean competition. Besides, isn't that why we are racing?

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

924Guy

03-26-2004, 12:54 PM

Ah, so, the "trickle-down" theory of Sports Car Racing? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

It's the only logical solution, IMO. A year before, that statement would be the jumping-off point for all kindsa nasty comments about the SCCA and Comp Board. Hopefully now that time is behind us...

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

Rabbit07

03-26-2004, 01:07 PM

I have yet to dyno, but 120 at the wheels would be a stretch in IT trim.

As far a handling, they are not that great, but I am working on that.

I believe that the 7's just have too much power for B

The Mustang is 2640 min weight, GOOD LUCK getting it there.

Greg Amy

03-26-2004, 02:15 PM

...going to create some new overdogs out of the box

I disagree.

Being an owner of one of the cars recommended for movement into ITA from ITS (a Nissan NX2000) I believe the current ITA winners will continue to be so. And, I say that with direct experience.

IMNSHO, the car to beat in the future is the Acura Integra, with the CRX closely in pursuit. I've raced against both in my Nissan, and I've yet to beat Anthony Serra (Acura) or Tom Blaney (CRX) in a straight-up fight at Lime Rock Park. And, it's not just short tracks: Anthony and the winning CRX both ran significantly faster lap times than me at the 2003 ARRC.

There are several reasons that this will be the case. First, the cars are lighter, significantly so with the CRX; my car's current legal weight is 2490, with 2515 as the proposed ITA weight. Second, the power level of the Acura is on par with my Nissan: 135 whp is the accepted norm for a well-built Acura, mine is currently exactly 135 whp. Finally, and more importantly, the Acura and Honda enjoy a significant suspension design advantage; I have McPherson struts all the way around while the Acura has much better independent multi-link suspension. The Acura will be able to lower the car much more and control the suspension geometry better without teeth-jarring spring rates.

And, let's not forget the aftermarket support for Acuras. We've had to fabricate virtually everything for this NX, including suspension components (aftermarket only has crappy street stuff). There is only a single source for off-the-shelf ECUs for my car, and that source is not nearly optimal (it's street stuff). There is only crappy street aftermarket exhaust headers for the Nissan. Very few people build engines, no one even make a windage oil pan. The list goes on and on.

Obviously, I cannot speak for any of the other proposed ITA cars, as I've no experience with them, but looking over the list the only one that catches my attention is the BMW Z3 (a current SSB car). I'm going to go out on a limb, though, and suggest it will be classified very heavy.

So, to summarize, I don't see at this point how the sky is falling, and I don't think Tom, Anthony, Ray, and all the others have anything to worry about...

Greg

[This message has been edited by grega (edited March 26, 2004).]

Knestis

03-26-2004, 02:45 PM

Originally posted by Geo:
I agree with Darin. Let's not confuse port or gasket matching with porting. Big difference...

Notice my careful choice of words - the same exact rule that other cars currently enjoy

K

cherokee

03-26-2004, 03:01 PM

I said this before....why move the cars around in classes. IMHO if you move cars down because they have no chance of winning if a Honda or whatever shows up is a bad idea. Guess what that old Capri in the barn has no chance of winning too, my MR2 has no chance Daytona's, Chargers,Vegas have no chance we going to move all of those to B also. If you move one car for this reason you are going to have to do it for a bunch of them. And I don't care what it looks like on paper, the Edsel looked great on paper, and the E36 looked ok on paper, you don't know until you get one out there, then it is too late.

It is just evolution of the class, newer cars come in and the older ones move lower and lower until no one runs one in IT anymore....unless you have a love for that car, then you still have a cheaper "not prod" place to go and play.

When I get home tonight I am going to hug my 32yr old car and tell her that I love her and she will have fun being a race car. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Jake

03-26-2004, 03:24 PM

Originally posted by cherokee:
...that old Capri in the barn has no chance of winning too, my MR2 has no chance Daytona's, Chargers,Vegas have no chance we going to move all of those to B also. If you move one car for this reason you are going to have to do it for a bunch of them.

At least you got that right. And if those cars make sense as B cars, and someone puts in a request, they should move.

cherokee

03-26-2004, 03:29 PM

Then I have no problem with it then...the rules need to apply to all not just one make/model.

So if the 7 was ok for B in 199x then why was it not put in there in the first place...when most of the other B cars where classified? And you expect me to think that skinner wheels and a little lbs. are going to make a difference on any of these cars.

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited March 26, 2004).]

Banzai240

03-26-2004, 04:12 PM

Originally posted by cherokee:
... and the E36 looked ok on paper, you don't know until you get one out there, then it is too late.

Actually, NO, the E36 does NOT look good on paper... Based on what is already in the class, my paper shows it about 100-150lbs too light. This is based both on speculative, as well as "real" output numbers...

AND, what we are trying to do is make it NOT "too late"... If we can get a mechanism in place to correct for errors in judgement, miscalculations, or just plain missing the mark, then these things don't have to be as final as they are today...

You are right, however, about the evolution of the classes... There comes a point where you will have no choice but to stop protecting the older technology at the expense of newer cars... However, I still believe that there are ways to integrate the two...

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

cherokee

03-26-2004, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Actually, NO, the E36 does NOT look good on paper... Based on what is already in the class, my paper shows it about 100-150lbs too light. This is based both on speculative, as well as "real" output numbers...

Then if the E36 did not look good on paper how in the _ did it get classified with the specs it did....the same way the Z4 got it's in SS?
You here have said that the Z3 looks too heavy, are we trying not to have another E36 type mistake.

I agree with you 100% on "mechanism in place to correct for errors in judgement, miscalculations, or just plain missing the mark", But moving cars to another class that are no longer at the top of their game is not doing that. If you can't make them any lighter and no one wants car specific CA's the only other option is to let them slowly fade away.

"However, I still believe that there are ways to integrate the two..."

I am not so sure without car specific CA's. or re-making all the IT classes. The 7 has given just about all it can give, you are going to have give it a bone if you want to have it run up top again...in ITA that is.

Quickshoe

03-26-2004, 06:55 PM

Originally posted by Knestis:
Notice my careful choice of words - the same exact rule that other cars currently enjoyK

How about .040" over http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ?

As much as I enjoyed the Rx7 and would like to see it run up front I think allowing street porting would be a huge mistake. A street ported 1st gen would be too fast for A. I don't know about "well over 200HP", maybe an '89 13B, and then we aren't talking about at the wheels.

If we want all the rules the same for everyone do you want to allow the piston motors to have any crankshaft pulley allowed?

If you really want street porting allowed in rotaries are you going to allow the piston engines to have any valve size, cam lift and duration? I didn't think so...

Jake

03-26-2004, 07:17 PM

1. Nobody needs to get their panties in a bunch over the Z3. The spec weight is 2675lbs, and only the 1.9L 138hp Four cylinder is listed.

2. As most people have stated, giving a performance enhancement to a certain car opens a can of worms that most of us don't want to open. Moving a car down a class and adding weight is much more palatable. For the sake of argument, how much weight would you have to stack on an RX7 as to not upset the delicate balance of ITB?

Banzai240

03-26-2004, 07:22 PM

Originally posted by cherokee:
Then if the E36 did not look good on paper how in the _ did it get classified with the specs it did....the same way the Z4 got it's in SS?

I have no idea how the ITS E36 got classified... (I'm assuming that's what we are talking about here...) It was before my time. I have, however, analysed it right along with the rest and in the same frame of mind, and it comes out as being about 100-150lbs too light for ITS... By contrast, the 240Z and the 2nd Gen RX-7 are really close, and, guess what... the real world shows the same thing...

You here have said that the Z3 looks too heavy, are we trying not to have another E36 type mistake.

Some assumptions were made with the Z3 concerning it's output potential and it's stated factory HP... Also, some experts were consulted. Additionally, a little weight was added because of the excellent transmission ratios (1:1 5th!!), excellent brakes, well balanced handling, factory 16" wheels size, etc.... It's classified about 145lbs more than the 240SX, and about 195lbs more than the Acura... Does that seem unreasonable??? Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Further, the experts we've consulted agree with the weight, and also suggested that the car would likely have difficulty making that weight, as it's a pretty heavy car to start with...

All in all, I think you'll find that it was very fairly classified.

I am not so sure without car specific CA's. or re-making all the IT classes.

Without actually guaranteeing you, I just about promise you that there is NO ONE on the CRB or the ITAC that has any desire to allow "car specific CA's". I can guarantee you that I will fight tooth and nail against any effort to allow this, as I believe it would completely mess up an otherwise stable and workable set of rules...

The 7 has given just about all it can give, you are going to have give it a bone if you want to have it run up top again...in ITA that is.

If there is something that can be done within the scope of our rules that can get any number of IT cars more properely classified, it will be considered. If not, I would rather fall back on the "no guarantee" clause than follow the route of allowing "car specific CA'"... I'd rather have you pissed at me for that than mess up our class with such a direction...

As for the 12A Street-port being able to make over 200hp... If you don't think that is possible, you aren't talking to the right people for your engine builds, because I can promise you that it is VERY possible. The EP RX-7 is only allowed a "Street-Port", and I can assure you that Tony Rivera, Jesse Prather, and others are getting that kind of power out of them. Granted, that's with a 48IDA and 38mm chokes, the Nikki is no slouch and a Yaw preparred one isn't going to lose THAT much to the IDA...

------------------
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 March 26, 2004).]

122 Vega

03-26-2004, 08:57 PM

Some assumptions were made with the Z3 concerning it's output potential and it's stated factory HP... Also, some experts were consulted. Additionally, a little weight was added because of the excellent transmission ratios (1:1 5th!!), excellent brakes, well balanced handling, factory 16" wheels size, etc.... It's classified about 145lbs more than the 240SX, and about 195lbs more than the Acura... Does that seem unreasonable??? Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Further, the experts we've consulted agree with the weight, and also suggested that the car would likely have difficulty making that weight, as it's a pretty heavy car to start with...

All in all, I think you'll find that it was very fairly classified.

This is why I am sure I should give up on my Cosworth Vega ITA project altogether. With a weight of 2680 and a factory rating of 110 hp, I would never, ever be able to finish a race without being lapped again and again. Now the Neons are 138 hp and 2450 too? Even in race trim I could only pull maybe 134 hp out of the CV 2.0 at 7500rpm. Plus I am stuck between no alt carbs and 30 year old f/i.

I wonder why the Mazda Protege is only classed to '98? shouldn't the 2000 be legal for next year (2005) and the 2001 in 2006?

Britt

------------------
12 weeks till graduation!

Vintage IMSA Cosworth Vega

Jake

03-26-2004, 09:36 PM

Vegaman,

Perhaps you should write to the CB and request the Vega be reclassed to ITB. You make a strong argument. As for the last gen Protege - that would, of course, need someone to ask for it to be classified. Clearly it shouldn't be in the same spec line as the other generation.

122 Vega

03-26-2004, 10:02 PM

Oh, I didn't know that you had to make a request for it to be classed. I know that there is a section in the GCR that explains it, but I thought most SS cars were automatically classed after the four year period. Pays to read I guess.

thanks,

Britt

------------------
10 weeks till graduation!

Vintage IMSA Cosworth Vega #0515

ITA Cosworth Vega #0109 in progress

chuck baader

03-26-2004, 10:42 PM

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

titanium

03-26-2004, 11:06 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240:
As for the 12A Street-port being able to make over 200hp... If you don't think that is possible, you aren't talking to the right people for your engine builds, because I can promise you that it is VERY possible. The EP RX-7 is only allowed a "Street-Port", and I can assure you that Tony Rivera, Jesse Prather, and others are getting that kind of power out of them. Granted, that's with a 48IDA and 38mm chokes, the Nikki is no slouch and a Yaw preparred one isn't going to lose THAT much to the IDA...

OK.
I'll take the 200 HP and move us to ITS!!!
That would be a ride!!!

Oh, and as long as I'm dreaming, How about a 110 db sound limit!!!!
That would be great!!! Blow by those bimmers and let 'em know it!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
*******************************************
Rodney Williamson
#93 IT7
www.titaniummotorsports.com (http://www.titaniummotorsports.com)

Geo

03-27-2004, 12:04 AM

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
If we want all the rules the same for everyone do you want to allow the piston motors to have any crankshaft pulley allowed?

Actually, we're going to require the piston engined cars to remove their camshafts.

What do you think, Wankelboys? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

moto62

03-27-2004, 04:16 AM

Wow! A lot has happened today. Yikes! 200hp out of a 12A with a Nikki carb? Aint gonna happen, and if it did, I'd skip right over prod and go to GT. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif. Ok! Street porting the 7 probably won't happen and there really arn't any other enhancements that can be done except maybe a real alternate carb (the current alt carbs cannot produce as much hp as a Nikki so why bother), port matching like the pissed on cars are allowed to do (no great gains in hp there. Maybe 1 or 2), open ECU....oh wait... the 7 doesn't have one http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif so the 7 is pretty much stuck where it is. (1st after the last honda). I don't agree with moving it to B because it will become the class killer even with narrowerer wheels and 200lbs added and just for conversation sake, if the 7 was moved to B, my girlie man Acura would be put into the classifieds tomorrow for sale or trade for about three RX-7's.
I am curious about the Canadian ITA street ported 7's as far as how well they fare against the rest of the field, Honda's in particular. Can anyone enlighten us on this?

Dave and Jake, thank you for your kind words http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Now back on to the real topic. The new ITA. As an Acura driver...bring 'em on baby they're going down yo. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif As a 7's driver..Ok.That's it. Who do I talk to about IT7?
Ray

Greg Amy

03-27-2004, 09:34 AM

Originally posted by moto62:
...bring 'em on baby they're going down yo...

Hey, remember that killer pass you pulled on me at the OMP Challenge? Just try that shizzat, again.

Feelin' lucky, punk?

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Jake

03-27-2004, 10:02 AM

'05 is going to be fun in ITA with the new non-Honda blood. Best part is I get to see all the action when the leaders lap me!

ITSRX7

03-27-2004, 10:34 AM

Originally posted by grega:
Hey, remember that killer pass you pulled on me at the OMP Challenge? Just try that shizzat, again.

Feelin' lucky, punk?

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

God, I can't wait to watch ITA this year. Greg, you have to come up to NHIS for a Double or two...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

gran racing

03-27-2004, 10:41 AM

Make that next year...although ITA is always a great class to watch.

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

Eagle7

03-27-2004, 11:19 AM

Originally posted by Jake:
'05 is going to be fun in ITA with the new non-Honda blood. Best part is I get to see all the action when the leaders lap me!
Me too http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif
But I'm working on it.

------------------
Marty Doane
ITS RX7 #13
CenDiv WMR

lateapex911

03-29-2004, 12:01 AM

First, Cherokee, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I DO think that, in light of past classing mistakes, and the ongoing technical advances, that certain reclassing of cars is needed. Sending legions of active cars out to pasture with "tough luck, bub", is NOT what a member driven organization should be about. Remember, the class was MUCH different before certain cars were added, and the ECU rule was legalized. If the competitor can provide proper documentation that a particular model has enough development, and has been driven by good drivers in the right environment, then the CRB owes the competitor the consideration of either PCAs, or reclassification. Personally, I don't care if the car has a huge following or not, as long as there is proof that the homework has been done, and the car is NOT in the game where it is currently classed.
And yes, I do think you should beleive that thinner wheels and more weight will make a difference! Send me private email and I can show you my data regarding setup. They are pretty fussy about a good setup, and without it, they go slower.

David D-

What will it take to get a 7 to run at the front??? A combination of factors.

First, I am opposed to street porting of the intake and exhaust openings, for the same reason that they are disallowed in the first place, and the smae reason the ECU rule should have never been legalized. Too open ended. Too much potential. When cams are legal for piston engines, then we can look at it.

So...whats left? I submit that:

A weight break will help. Too bad these cars can't loose much more, but if you give me a weight break I will have 50 pounds or more off the car tomorrow. 2280 is a good goal.

We are allowed, as are other cars, to run an alternative carb. I suggest that carb choice be revisited, and in light of the after the classification fact of the ECU rule, this would be only fair. Precedent already exists for alternative carbs. Just change the carbs allowed.

Secondly, any port matching allowed on a piston engine should be allowed on a rotary. The gains are minimal, and the compliance check is easy.

Third, I submit that the interface of the rotor and the port be looked at, and that the rotor be allowed to be chamfered in this location. (Sort of equivivlent to a piston engines valve seat being triple angled). This will result in a small gain of power, (no torque though!) but I like this idea for its controllability. There is only so much that can be done here without damaging the rotor. Therefore, any gains are automatically capped. Builders claim this mod is worth 5 or so Hp.

I feel the above list is all grounded in allowances already given other car models in the ITCS, and are therefore logical and just. Unfortunately, I doubt that they alone will be enough.

The addition of weight to the front runners as well would be needed.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited March 28, 2004).]

ddewhurst

03-29-2004, 09:36 AM

Thanks Jake....... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Quickshoe

03-29-2004, 05:12 PM

Jake,

I think you have some good ideas. Ones that will help the Rx7's but not make huge gains--like a street port would.

The additional alternate carb deal concerns me. I think it might hurt more than help. The Rx7 already has an advantage over most other carbed cars in that its' stock carb is capable of flowing more than the alternate carbs. The current alternate carbs are not an upgrade. If a 48IDA (for example) is added to the list, how much will some of the other cars benefit from the change? Or are you suggesting an alternate carb for the rx7 only?

Chamfering the rotor housing/rotor interface (as I am interpreting it) is not quite like a valve job. I know you said sort of--but I disagree.

The port shape, size and location control the "cam timing"--when the "valve" opens, closes and therefore duration. It also is "valve size"--how wide open it is. "Cam Profile"--how fast it opens and closes. Doesn't changing the shape of the rotor effect one or more of the above? How does a valve job do the same?

And lastly, I have got to disagree with the weight break you suggest--its not enough to run with the Hondas. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

------------------
Daryl DeArman
I Love RX7's...they taste like chicken :P

03-30-2004, 01:31 AM

My my my we have been busy havnt we, it'll take me 2 days to soak all this up and comment.

lateapex911

03-30-2004, 03:11 AM

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
Jake,

I think you have some good ideas. Ones that will help the Rx7's but not make huge gains--like a street port would.

The additional alternate carb deal concerns me.... If a 48IDA (for example) is added to the list, how much will some of the other cars benefit from the change? Or are you suggesting an alternate carb for the rx7 only?

Off the top of my head, I wouldn't object to an additional carb being added to the list as is. That is, for use on all single carbed cars. Thinking about the current state, the cars at the front are all injected. (CRX, Integra, 240SX, Neon (!), NX 2000(!), 240SX, SER (!), and the Miata. As a result, all cars below that level are given help, I like that. They need it.

Chamfering the rotor housing/rotor interface (as I am interpreting it) is not quite like a valve job. I know you said sort of--but I disagree.

The port shape, size and location control the "cam timing"--when the "valve" opens, closes and therefore duration. It also is "valve size"--how wide open it is. "Cam Profile"--how fast it opens and closes. Doesn't changing the shape of the rotor effect one or more of the above? How does a valve job do the same?

I can see that it is debatable! I was suggesting that the rotor ONLY be touched. Nothing at all on the housing. This aspect will be the restriction to HP gains. The parallel I drew is, perhaps more philosophical than physical. A good three angle valve job helps a piston engine breath better. It's a gain all piston engine builders can try to utilize for power gains. But those gains are limited, you can only do so much.

And lastly, I have got to disagree with the weight break you suggest--its not enough to run with the Hondas. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

I agree! But the way I see it, we're kind of screwed there. I can't see how we can get the car much lower legally. If we propose changing the rules to allow more component removal, we open up a rats nest. That just won't, and really, shouldn't happen. (Well, maybe I wouldn't mind losing the passenger door glass!) So, if we are limited in weight loss, whats left? That's where my other suggestions come from.

Bottom line? As it stands, ITA has gotten a whole lot uglier for the 7.

So, right now, I see four options:

Improve its potential in A, either by changing it, it's competiton, or both,...

Or, move to B. Lets hope that move doesn't result in a mid pack B car due to paranoia! Then 4 years later maybe its's got a fighting chance after a PCA adjustment. I don't relish the idea of buying rolling stock, testing and developing a new set up, just to run slower and in the same position in a new class!

Or, selling and getting a ______. (fill in the blank)

Or, waiting and seeing.....

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

CaptainWho

03-30-2004, 10:30 AM

Or push for IT7 to be available in all divisions. SEDiv has had it for quite a while, and I understand that some other divisions allow it also.

------------------
Doug "Lefty" Franklin
NutDriver Racing
www.nutdriver.org (http://www.nutdriver.org)

ddewhurst

03-30-2004, 02:41 PM

To my knowledge the Southeast, Midwest & CenDiv have the IT7 class.

x-ring

04-01-2004, 10:16 AM

RMDiv does too.

------------------
Ty Till
#16 ITS
Rocky Mountain Division

cherokee

04-01-2004, 04:51 PM

I agree with a-lot of what has been said here, but my thinking is along with some others that if an older "A" car moves down to "B" it will take more then just skinny wheels and a few extra pounds to make it fit.

Jake you are 100% correct in that the 7 has a snow balls chance if a good Honda shows up along with just about 75% of other "A" cars far too much has changed, but bringing an "A" car down is not going to work with the adjustments being talked about. I realy think that the day is comming that we are going to have to let the older cars go no matter how painful, or re-write/re-wright the IT classes. Maybe if the LP rules where a little more (I guess I will say) friendly that would be a good place for the older IT cars to go.

eMKay

04-04-2004, 11:50 PM

So where do you all think this leaves my car? 1995 Eclipse RS, 140hp stock, 2700lbs. This is the car with the DOCH Neon head so it breathes really well, has good upper RPM punch, and good aftermarket support, can I make it competative? I'm not really looking to be a front runner, since this will be my first real racecar (I autocross my Protege5 regularly, class champion this year). I don't want to be lapped by Acura's either.

Should I just concentrate on suspension, ECU, engine bolt ons, and squeeze as much tire on there as possible?

eMKay

04-04-2004, 11:51 PM

Sorry, double post

[This message has been edited by eMKay (edited April 04, 2004).]

Knestis

04-05-2004, 08:22 AM

The Eclipse comes to the fight without a major mechanical disadvantage on paper but also without a lot of knowledge base and - as far as I know - parts support. It sounds like an interesting project that can grow with you.

Kirk

dyoungre

04-06-2004, 02:13 PM

[quote]Originally posted by cherokee:

Jake you are 100% correct in that the 7 has a snow balls chance if a good Honda shows up along with just about 75% of other "A" cars far too much has changed, but bringing an "A" car down is not going to work with the adjustments being talked about. I realy think that the day is comming that we are going to have to let the older cars go no matter how painful, or re-write/re-wright the IT classes. ]

The comments here suggest that there is no overlap in ITA/ITB lap times. Is this the case in many regions?

I don't understand the argument about 'letting older cars go' if supply/representation still shows that the durable RX7 is ideal for the philosophy of the class - an inexpensive way to experience racing. If the RX7 was not viable (lack of parts, expense, etc) then why would IT7 classes exist at all? What does age of the vehicle have anything to do with maintaining a chance to compete (especially when the vehicle WAS competitive).

It would be one thing if we were trying to get support for a vehicle that was never competitive. But if you look backwards in time, the RX7 was 'the car' in ITA, many were built, and then new cars were classified which had an obvious competitive advantage. 'Out with the old, in with the new' works if the cars are becoming expensive due to scarcity, and therefore no longer meet the intent of the class. That is not the case with the 1st gen RX7.

------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61

Joe Craven

04-06-2004, 03:03 PM

It sounds like slowing down the ITA CRX would improve the competitiveness of 75% of the other cars. Let's see what SCCA does next year with this class. I'm planning to run it in my V6 Capri which would be in that 75%.

Joe Craven
37 ITB Capri
37 ITB VW GTI
37 ITA Capri V6

ITSRX7

04-06-2004, 03:18 PM

It's not as simple as slowing down the CRX. ITA has 3 1/2 cars that are on top and equally capable of winning.

240SX, CRX, Integra and soon to be the Miata.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Jake

04-06-2004, 03:22 PM

Yes but...

It's not just the CRX. There are at least a half-dozen cars that can run with the CRX. In fact, in most regions (or at least in NER), if you remove the slower 75% of ITA, you still have a competive ITA with large fields.

I still think the solution is to drop the slow 75% of ITA into ITB, potentially w/more weight. Drop the slower ITB cars to ITC, and drop slower ITC to bring back ITD.

oanglade

04-06-2004, 03:35 PM

It's not going to get any easier for the RX-7 and the like next year if the Neon and other ITS cars are moved to ITA.

I think that they can be "made to fit" into ITB, but I know that there will always be people that complain.

(Andy, can't wait to see your ITA Miata... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif )

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

Banzai240

04-06-2004, 05:01 PM

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
240SX, CRX, Integra and soon to be the Miata.

... and the Neon, the Sentra SE-R, and whatever else we've recommended moving in the last two months! 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

lateapex911

04-07-2004, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by CaptainWho:
Or push for IT7 to be available in all divisions. SEDiv has had it for quite a while, and I understand that some other divisions allow it also.

I am philosophically against the IT7 concept, but, here in the real world, I support it.

I'm hoping that the guys at the big table make it so that it's not needed, and it goes away. Enough "spec" classes already exist.

If the 7 is left to rot in A as is, then I'm afraid I'll become a big supporter.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 07, 2004).]

cherokee

04-07-2004, 12:43 PM

Originally posted by Jake:

I still think the solution is to drop the slow 75% of ITA into ITB, potentially w/more weight. Drop the slower ITB cars to ITC, and drop slower ITC to bring back ITD.

This is what I have been saying...all you have to add is "slow X% of the ITS cars to ITA" (there are problems there too....right)
Sounds like we are re-writing the IT class structure.

And I am not for putting any old cars out to pasture...the oldest 7 is 11yrs newer then my car. What I want is a place to run that car, might not be up front but I can run it. I think it would be VERY bad to take that away from anyone.

Jake

04-07-2004, 01:45 PM

Originally posted by cherokee:
This is what I have been saying...all you have to add is "slow X% of the ITS cars to ITA" (there are problems there too....right)

This was the first step. Read this month's fastrack again. I think they did a great job at choosing the mis-classed ITS cars to drop into A.

CaptainWho

04-07-2004, 01:54 PM

I am philosophically against the IT7 concept, but, here in the real world, I support it.

I'm hoping that the guys at the big table make it so that it's not needed, and it goes away. Enough "spec" classes already exist.

If the 7 is left to rot in A as is, then I'm afraid I'll become a big supporter.

Then we are thinking alike on this topic. I don't really like the idea of another spec class, especially one that isn't really "spec", like IT7. OTOH, the Gen1 RX-7 is fairly popular in SEDiv, and it is rotting in ITA. It is nice to have a place to run where we're not "guaranteed" to be at the back of the pack, though.

------------------
Doug "Lefty" Franklin
NutDriver Racing
www.nutdriver.org (http://www.nutdriver.org)

[This message has been edited by CaptainWho (edited April 07, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by CaptainWho (edited April 07, 2004).]

Knestis

04-07-2004, 01:56 PM

The more I think about this, the more I believe that the comp board has in fact approved my request to create IT2 - albeit without the formulaic weight leveling: I'm just going to have to wait 20 years for the bottom 2/3rds of the grid to rust away or the drivers to lose interest.

I'm still tending toward positive on the changes that are afoot - seriously - but it's a shame that our system makes real strategic thinking impossible.

K

Geo

04-07-2004, 02:32 PM

Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm still tending toward positive on the changes that are afoot - seriously - but it's a shame that our system makes real strategic thinking impossible.

It's not impossible. It's just a bit more difficult and slow because of the way the category has developed over the last 20+ years.

It would not be pragmatic, nor even advisable to turn IT upside down by introducing totally formulaic classifications. The risk of screwing up what is actually a good thing (despite certain gripes) is very very high. Like porting a head, it would be much easier to get it wrong than to improve it.

That said, I think there is strategic thinking going on (concurrently with dealing with smaller issues - individual member requests). This is not IMSA, NASCAR, the IRL, or F1, where effectively, one person just wills something to happen. Developing a solid strategy does take time - especially in a volunteer organization with postions that rotate.

The other things that separates SCCA Club Racing from the organizations mentioned above is that it's not a business. It's a club. A club by and for its members. As such, we cannot just blow off a bunch of members (such as those at the bottom end of ITC). They deserve as much representation as those who are at the top of ITS or the bottom of ITS if you prefer. Creating a strategy that includes them within a 4 class structure is not so easy.

There is currently no Grand Strategy in IT, but it's being discussed. That's as much as I should really say. But be assured, it's on the minds of those who are responsible for the future of IT.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Jake

04-07-2004, 04:28 PM

Kirk, exactly (the first part). ITA is serving the cars that IT2 meant to serve. At least one problem solved.

I am very happy with the changes that are occuring. As for the RX7 - I also don't like the Spec thing. It's a big bandaid in my opinion. I would love to see it dropped to B with a handicap. However, note this from May fasttrack:

"3. Reclassify the 1987 Toyota MR2.
(Fisher) Considering the performance
potential of the car, it is correctly classified
now."

I would argue that the RX7 is more competitive than the MR2 - so this doesn't bode well for them. The only thing the RX7 has going for them is more power in numbers. Maybe collectively they can make a better stink than I could. Most have already abandoned their ITA MR2's so nobody really cares anymore.

Banzai240

04-07-2004, 06:19 PM

First, as a disclaimer, let me say that I was and still am completely in favor of reclassifying the MR2 to ITB at a weight of around 2450lbs... It should have moved with the FX-16 in my opinion...

That being said, I find it somewhat interesting that everyone keeps screaming about how uncompetitive the RX-7 is in ITA, yet one of those on the ITAC that has been opposed to moving this car to ITB RACES A 1st Gen RX-7 in ITA... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

I've seen many of the RX-7s out here, and I am CERTAIN that there is a LOT more development that can be done to them... If you guys are complaining about being slow, yet you are running factory rebuild or otherwise budget motors... if you are running bolt-on headers and exhaust... if you are running the same Tokico shocks that everyone else is running... the same Ground Control suspension system... etc... Well... Perhaps it's time for some to get back to the drawing board and see what you can do, rather than relying on what the GC guys or your paddock buddy says will work...

RX-7s were always considered a good fit for ITA because you could compete with a wrecking yard motor and bolt-on suspensions... This, in my opinion, does not a fully developed car make...

I'm not meaning any offense to those out there who are truely building fully done machines, but if one of the ITAC races one and is happy with the car in the class... what does he know that you don't?

So, honest question here... What are you guys considering "developed", "complete", or whatever else you want to name having a well-prepared racecar?

(Oh, and by the way... before you really go off on me, let me also disclose, that I lean toward the opinion that the car would make a great ITB car at a higher weight... around 2450 or so... or maybe closer to the spec-7 weight... What is the Spec 7 weight for these???)

------------------
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 07, 2004).]

Joe Craven

04-07-2004, 06:43 PM

RX7s have been competitive in the SF region in ITA. For example, The top 7 spots at the recent 4/3-4 regional at Infinion race were all RX7s. In addition, the top 7 RX7s were all faster than the current ITB track record with the 2 fastest RX7s besting the ITB record by 3.5 seconds/lap.

Either our ITA RX7s are fast or our ITB cars are slow. I hope it isn't the latter, I'm racing in the B class!

Bill Miller

04-08-2004, 07:33 AM

Originally posted by Jake:
This was the first step. Read this month's fastrack again. I think they did a great job at choosing the mis-classed ITS cars to drop into A.

Jake,

Does that mean that you think the 2.0 16v VWs should have to up against the 2.8 VR6 VWs (at their new, lower weight) in ITS? I requested that these cars be moved from ITS to ITA, and was told that they'd be 'too fast'. IIRC, stock HP on these cars is 134-135. Seems to fall right in line w/ the new IT2, I mean ITA, cars.

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

Bill Miller

04-08-2004, 07:44 AM

Part of the problem w/ determining if the ITA RX7s are fast or not, is looking at how they finish in tracks around the country. That being said, I'm still of the opinion that they're not the 'car to have' in ITA, but that's another story.

Here's where I'm going w/ this. I'll steal something from the Prod pages to use as an example. Most of you are familiar w/ the Caterham 7s (no relation to the RX7! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif ). Normally, these are front-running EP cars. However, last year when I was at Road America for the June Sprints, these cars were 5-7 seconds off the EP pace. So, how is a car a podium finish at one track and 5-7 seconds off the pace at another? Simple answer is, it's the track. Some cars do better at certain types of tracks than others. Road America is a hp/long legs type track. The Caterhams are light, nimble cars that don't have tons of hp (stock 1.8 Ford Ztec) or particularly long legs. So, they just ran out of steam at RA. That's one of the reasons why I think Prod comp. adj. that are based on Runoffs' results aren't equtible. But that's a different discussion.

Kirk,

Gotta agree re: IT2. I had made my previous post before I read your latest. Sure does seem like ITA is evolving into IT2

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

dickita15

04-08-2004, 08:25 AM

sure most of the rx7's running now are of moderate prep. but that does not mean there are not cars out there that are well developed. i am a 10th place car and yes if i spent more i could be a 6th place car. there are cars out there that have a lot more spent and they still are giving up 25 horses to the crx/acura/nisson. take a look at jim susko's car and tell me with a staight face that no one is pushing the envelope in development.
racing a rx7 is as cost effective as anything i know of but that alone is not a very good reason to ban it to a uncompetitve status.
dick

dickita15

04-08-2004, 08:29 AM

Originally posted by Joe Craven:
[B]RX7s have been competitive in the SF region in ITA. Either our ITA RX7s are fast or our ITB cars are slow./B]

joe i am amazed by this. are there well developed crx's and integras out there.
has anyone seen this kind of anomaly around the country.
dick

ITSRX7

04-08-2004, 09:37 AM

Bill,

The 2.0L GTI is a car that is still under consideration. To be honest, we wanted to 'walk' toward the BoD with these proposals, not 'run' at them and have them flinch. The Neon's made much more sense to test the waters with than the VW.

As for looking like IT2, yes and no. I still wonder why the class concept excluded 2 seaters and RWD. Luckily for all of us, ITA does not.

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 08, 2004).]

Asok #25

04-08-2004, 12:51 PM

When I first came to the SCCA the 1st generation RX-7 was an ITS car. Now it is in ITA and run in IT7 here in the Southeast. Now the politics of the SCCA or maybe just this web site want to move the car to ITB. That is a joke. The RX-7 is still a great ITA car at most tracks.

http://www.ncrscca.com/Pdf/2004%20Results/...ies/MM04_G2.pdf (http://www.ncrscca.com/Pdf/2004%20Results/March%20Memories/MM04_G2.pdf)
at VIR (2004)

http://www.cfrscca.org/results/SEB_FEB/GRO...20RACE%203.html (http://www.cfrscca.org/results/SEB_FEB/GROUP%203%20RACE%203.html)
at sebring club (2003)

http://www.cfrscca.org/results/SEB_NOV/GRO...RRC%20RACE.html (http://www.cfrscca.org/results/SEB_NOV/GROUP%204%20SARRC%20RACE.html)
at sebring long (2003)

http://www.cfrscca.org/results/DAY_AUG/GRO...20RACE%204.html (http://www.cfrscca.org/results/DAY_AUG/GROUP%204%20-%20RACE%204.html)

http://www.cfrscca.org/results/DAY_AUG/GRO...20RACE%209.html (http://www.cfrscca.org/results/DAY_AUG/GROUP%204%20-%20RACE%209.html)

at Daytona (2003)

http://www.buccaneerregion.org/club/result...ts/042603-6.txt (http://www.buccaneerregion.org/club/results/042603-6.txt)

http://www.buccaneerregion.org/club/result...ts/042703-6.txt (http://www.buccaneerregion.org/club/results/042703-6.txt)

at Savannah(2003)

http://www.ccrsolo2.org/old/roadrace/event.../r052620021.htm (http://www.ccrsolo2.org/old/roadrace/event/archive/2002/r052620021.htm)
at Kershaw (2002)

Just so I don’t get 100 posts showing where the RX-7 did poorly. I am going to point the big one out myself: The ARRC last year. But, I didn’t see any Corvairs running the race.

Silkworm

04-08-2004, 01:27 PM

Joe,

Well, when those ITA RX-7s show up at Norcal NASA events, they kick my ass in PS1 (aka ITS), so they are most definitely FAST http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

PaulC

Joe Craven

04-08-2004, 02:15 PM

Dick, there are occasionally well prepped and driven Honda ITA cars that run right up there battling for top positions with the horde of ITA RX7s. The field at Infineon last weekend had 20 ITA entries and the results can be viewed at
http://www.sfrscca.org/Results/20040404/gr5.htm

The fastest ITA RX7 cars were within 3 seconds of the ITS record which was also set that weekend. There was the 2nd place ITS BMW which ran about 2 seconds faster than the top RX7s. In regards to the prep level, the cars imo are not even fully developed and my Capri will have better preparation than these RX7s have when I bring it out next year. In addition, they aren't exceptionally fast in the straights although they do pull my ITB Capri slightly down the straights. I expect to out power them with my V6 although their suspensions and brakes are superior to the older Capri.

ITSRX7

04-08-2004, 02:27 PM

Pretty wide range of data there. One event IT7 was quicker than ITA's fast lap by .3 and then it goes all the way up to ITA crushing IT7 by 4 seconds.

When comparing cars and classes, you have to make sure you are looking at apples and apples. I suggest that if you want more accurate data, look at the following two points:

- The AARC results - best of the best
- Track records for both classes at all the tracks. I am willing to be that you see a similar % diference between the classes in track records that you did at this years and last years AARC results.

And did you miss the data point above that showed a 'full-prep' ITA RX-7 driver say that he jumped into a stock-engined Integra and went 2 seconds quicker? Now THAT is interesting.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

ITSRX7

04-08-2004, 02:46 PM

Let me also ask this to the people who believe the ITA RX-7 is still competitive:

What do you attribute the 3-5 second difference in ITA/IT7 times at the ARRC? Here are the 2001-2003 results. The gap is getting BIGGER. You can't use one race as 100% of your yardstick but this one has to carry more weight.

http://www.arrc-online.com/G4SPLT.pdf

http://www.arrc-online.com/results_2002/ra...2002_group4.pdf (http://www.arrc-online.com/results_2002/raceresults2002_group4.pdf)

http://www.arrc-online.com/results_2001/ra...2001_group4.pdf (http://www.arrc-online.com/results_2001/raceresults2001_group4.pdf)

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Knestis

04-08-2004, 03:59 PM

The last few posts here are evidence of the thinking behind IT2 being defined only for cars of particular layout and general specifications: There will NEVER be consensus regarding what constitutes sufficient evidence of on-track competitiveness (or lack thereof) if classification decisions are based on lap times and finishing positions.

Watching this conversation evolve leaves me a LOT less confident than I was about PCAs, even just two days ago. It echos the typical "is so", "is not" arguments that are the hallmark of Production-style competition adjustments.

The ARRC entry list is NOT a best-of-the-best sample of US-wide IT entrants. There is no way to know whether those frontrunning cars are legal. We are basing our comparisons on "models" when the biggest factor in their finishing position is arguably the driver. We are doing nothing to control for budget.

This is icky and I wish it had been more than two weeks between the positive feelings of the May FasTrack and this discussion.

K

planet6racing

04-08-2004, 04:17 PM

Why is the ARRC considered "the best of the best?" Without and invitation/points system, it is just another regional that gets well traveled too.

I do agree that it truly comes down to the track. My Saturn does great on some tracks but not so good on others. That's racing.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

gran racing

04-08-2004, 04:31 PM

Banzai240

04-08-2004, 04:39 PM

Originally posted by Knestis:
There will NEVER be consensus regarding what constitutes sufficient evidence of on-track competitiveness (or lack thereof) if classification decisions are based on lap times and finishing positions.

Watching this conversation evolve leaves me a LOT less confident than I was about PCAs, even just two days ago.

Kirk,

You waiver more than my wife trying to pick out clothes! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif Just stop it, would ya?? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

Even the best researched hypothesis needs to be proven through experiment... You can't expect racing to be treated like String-Theory... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

No one is basing classifications or reclassifications on "on-track finishing positions", but on-track performance is certainly one of the measuring sticks... It would be foolish to do it any other way. You cannot work off of theory alone, and at some point, there needs to be SOME level of data behind your decisions...

We are looking at the physical characteristics of each car that crosses our desk, and initial weights are being determined from there. Once an initial position is established, some level of experience is involved and we ask ourselves "does this make sense?"... If there is reason to believe that it does, the weight sticks... if not, then we might add or subtract based on speculation, usually directly related to brakes, transmission ratios, suspension design, aero, etc...

Look at it this way... Of the cars suggested for reclassification/classification thus far, show me one that really doesn't make a reasonable amount of logical sense, based both on physical characteristics, as well as what we really know about how it has performed in the past...

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...

I can't promise you that those that follow us will have the same reasonable approach, which is why we are pushing to get some guidelines documented. But for now, I think the changes are a positive move for IT...

As for being like IT2... I've said all along that we didn't need an IT class stuffed in between ITA and ITS... there is sufficient gap in performance now... The cars that have been moved to ITA are being directly compared to the physical characteristics of the 240SX, the CRX, and the Acura Integra that are currently classified there... These cars define the class...

That's how I see it right now, anyhow...

Oh, and PCAs... I guess you'll just have to trust in the process... There MUST be a place in the process to correct for misjudgements, which is what PCAs will allow us to do... You can't possibly expect us to get everything just right on the first try, and I know of very few who would argue that IT has needed a way to correct classification weights after they are initially set... It's a GOOD change for IT, and in all honesty, it won't effect 90% of us over our lifetime, so it's not really worth pouring a lot of energy into worrying about...

OK, a little more that $.02...

Take care,

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

ITSRX7

04-08-2004, 05:21 PM

The ARRC IS the best data point of what is available. The absolute best may not be there 100% of the time but you can agree that it is considered to be the defacto IT National Championship currently. What race would YOU enter if you wanted to run against the best in your IT class? The ARRC - there is no debate.

While it's not concrete, that is the best single data point out there currently. You need many data points to come to a conclusion, however - rest assured we all know that.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Asok #25

04-08-2004, 05:41 PM

Andy

Look at the track records for VIR
www.ncrscca.com (http://www.ncrscca.com)

I am not saying the RX-7 is the best ITA car it's just a good ITA car. There are several modles that are far less competitive, but only a few much more.

ITSRX7

04-08-2004, 05:53 PM

Originally posted by Asok #25:
Andy

Look at the track records for VIR
www.ncrscca.com (http://www.ncrscca.com)

I am not saying the RX-7 is the best ITA car it's just a good ITA car. There are several modles that are far less competitive, but only a few much more.

Looked - can't find the records...more specific link?

I agree, the RX-7 is probably the 5th or 6th best ITA car, right now. Add the Neon, SE-R, 16V GTI 2.0, etc and then where does it end up?

I think it's FIRMLY in the MIDDLE of ITA, not competitive when you compare apples to apples but not a throw away either.

So what do you do with it? I say that in the best interest of the hundreds that are out there, you try and make it fit better. DOn't make it a killer, just try and make it fit. It's not a political move, it's a move (IMHO) that makes IT a better alternative than going to Prod or GT.

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 08, 2004).]

gran racing

04-08-2004, 06:48 PM

Andy,
The ARRC is not the best source of data. Yeah, best single race of data. I'll conceed to that. But the best source of data is all of the other races run during the year. I would certainly imagine that the racers who enter in the ARRC also race during the year at their "home" track.

Lets just say that Joe from CA makes the trip to the ARRC and has very little if no track time there. Yeah, so it is just a bit of a tow, but go with me on this one. You think that he (or she) will do as good as someone equally talented whose home track is road atlanta? Of course not. Yes the ARRC is the championship race. But if it were on the west coast, do you think the winners would be much different? And isn't that why the runoffs are in OH?

I'm just saying that yes, look at the ARRC but really look at the other several hundred races being run much more. All right, I'll stop going off topic. I do also realize that the board looks at much more than just the ARRC...

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

ddewhurst

04-08-2004, 07:05 PM

How about we look to the Pro Spec Miata results from the East coast, from the West coast & from the bell ringer final in central USA at Topeka ? The top guns are the top guns no matter where they go. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Why would it be any different with any other IT race class ?

David

ITSRX7

04-08-2004, 07:17 PM

Dave,

That is what I was trying to say. The best SINGLE point of reference - but not the total package...

David,

PRO Spec Miata....PRO = Money. Money = Best available.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Hotshoe

04-08-2004, 07:17 PM

I do agree that the ARRC MAY not prove who the best of the best in IT really is. Hopefully no one takes this the wrong way...
Obviously for people in the West coast and Mid-west (as well as other areas) it is extremely difficult to make it to Atlanta. So I'm not sure you can honestly say it represents the of the fastest cars in the country. Again, not taking away from the event or drivers who win / do well at the event. So I don't think you can use that as the bible for how well cars may or may not do.

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

Why is the ARRC considered "the best of the best?" Without and invitation/points system, it is just another regional that gets well traveled too.
I do agree that it truly comes down to the track. My Saturn does great on some tracks but not so good on others. That's racing.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

This is a good point to make. How do you contend a fact unless all the champions from each region compete?

Every time I want to make any comparisons I usually look at ECR results. To me that gives a better "True to life" look at how one car does against another.

To me a sprint race (SARRC) does not really give you the opportunity to "Race" I think a longer race 1hr+ gives a better view of a cars ability.

And hopefully I will get the chance to run the ARRC one time. Unfortunately every time I plan on going I am not lucky enough to keep my car from being trashed before the race is run.

And as far as a 1st Gen RX7 being competitive in ITA.....it can hold it's own. I started driving mine when they were in ITS. If they make the mistake of putting it in ITB they better add 200# because I'm already 100# over to start with. And my practice rims are 6" and they make very little difference in lap times.

04-08-2004, 08:05 PM

Dave Gran wrote "Obviously for people in the West coast and Mid-west (as well as other areas) it is extremely difficult to make it to Atlanta. So I'm not sure you can honestly say it represents the of the fastest cars in the country"

Actually its a pretty good representation, the fastest ITA on the west coast finished 4th at the ARRC in a CRX, Im 3-4 seconds a lap behind him on a normal day in my rx7.

Bill Miller

04-08-2004, 09:05 PM

Andy,

I've essentially operationalized the term "IT2" as the label for the class that is defined by the upper end of ITA and the lower end of ITS. My bad for assuming that anyone else had done that.

The cars that have been moved to ITA are being directly compared to the physical characteristics of the 240SX, the CRX, and the Acura Integra that are currently classified there... These cars define the class...

Darin, see my earlier comment re: IT 2. And, nice of you to let the Mazda/VW/BMW/Toyota/etc. folks know where they stand.

Also, why do we even need PCA's when the CB will adjust weights of cars now?

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

ITSRX7

04-08-2004, 09:27 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

I've essentially operationalized the term "IT2" as the label for the class that is defined by the upper end of ITA and the lower end of ITS. My bad for assuming that anyone else had done that.

Darin, see my earlier comment re: IT 2. And, nice of you to let the Mazda/VW/BMW/Toyota/etc. folks know where they stand.

Also, why do we even need PCA's when the CB will adjust weights of cars now?

Bill, you are really a negative guy. Is everything OK?

I now understand the IT2 reference. It was probably me that was making wrong assumptions.

What Darin means, to be so specific that NOBODY could misinterpret, is that the CRX, 240SX and Integra are the upper level, the benchmarks if you will. Anything that would exceed this performance envelope would not be a real consideration for ITA.

Write your letter to the CRB on the VW's weight if you want. We gave you the info as we know it. Errors and ommissions. Say it out-loud 10 times.

Shooting the messenger isn't becoming of you.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Banzai240

04-08-2004, 09:29 PM

Originally posted by Hotshoe:
If they make the mistake of putting it in ITB they better add 200# because I'm already 100# over to start with.

See there... this is the kind of crap that drives me up the wall... On one side, we have someone saying they can't make weight... and on MY side, I have friends who raced ITA RX-7s that had to fill the spare with sand and leave in the passenger seats to not be BELOW minimum weight...

WHICH is it, guys?? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

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

Jake

04-08-2004, 10:11 PM

Wow, a lot happened in a day.

Darin - I'm guessing Hotshoe isn't the slender type.

I think Bill needs to get some.

Asok #25

04-08-2004, 10:16 PM

Andy

http://www.ncrscca.com/Pdf/VIR%20Lap%20rec...007-24-2003.jpg (http://www.ncrscca.com/Pdf/VIR%20Lap%20records%2007-24-2003.jpg) sorry about that

There are something to the effect of 80 cars classified in ITA. Of those 80 cars the RX-7 is in the top half (maybe top 1/4)

If the people on this site want my vote for a car to move down to ITB. ACCORD, 912, 914, and thats it.

Hotshoe

04-08-2004, 10:20 PM

I guess I should have made myself clear. My 1st Gen Rx7 usually finishes in the top three in ITA and almost always in the top five in ITS and I'm 100# over weight. And that to me is no problem.

But if they change my class to ITB it is going to take more than 200# to slow me down from my weight of 2380# when I already weigh 2480#.

Another 100# will not make that big of a difference. I usually add 100# to my car for the start of an ECR and turn laps within .3 of my qualifying lap.

So for your information, I for one am not complaining about making weight, I couldn't care less. But if they made the change I know a lot of other people would be.

FYI : Rick Thompson 6'3" 225#
#99 IT7 Mazda RX7

[This message has been edited by Hotshoe (edited April 08, 2004).]

Banzai240

04-08-2004, 11:17 PM

Originally posted by Jake:
Darin - I'm guessing Hotshoe isn't the slender type.

Hotshoe stats:
Rick Thompson 6'3" 225#
#99 IT7 Mazda RX7

Careful Jake... Hotshoe and I are about the same size! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Rick,
Thanks for the candor... It's good to hear from someone who is actually FINE with the RX-7 where it is for a change...

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

Hotshoe

04-08-2004, 11:47 PM

Darin:

Thanks....I'm very happy with the placement of my RX7. Problem is a few are not, It must be the cars fault?

It has taken me seven seasons to get my car as competitive as it is. And it is not all car..............

lateapex911

04-09-2004, 04:34 AM

Where to start on this....

OK, the ARRCS. Dave (Gran) I see your point, but consider this. Anthony Serra went to the ARRCs this year, never been before. Test day Thursday (sorry Anthony...) he was, shall we say, unhappy. Made a few changes, and by the end of the race, he had set the fastest race lap, nearly broken the record held by the untouchable (pro driver) Bob Stretch. Lets hope he has lerned that track, cuz if he's got more, we're all in trouble.

Also, while there are no guarantees, the impound at the ARRCs is ALOT tighter than probably anywhere else. (I'm not saying that all the cars were 100% legal, but it is MUCH more likely)

Daryls point is very well taken. I was about the same amount off the pace percentagewise at the ARRCS as I was against Anthony at LRP and NHIS. Which is, unfortunately, quite a bit.

yes, of course certain cars do better on certain tracks. I can almost keep up with underprepared cars on some tracks better than others.

Weight. I can get under weight by about 50 pounds legally. 100? well, sure, if I leave the exhaust off! Most RX-s should be able to do so as well.

Rick, I am impressed. It appears you have a better handle on the physics than most. Care to divulge your dyno numbers?
This brings up an interesting point. Physics.
Lets look at some numbers.

CRX: 2140 pounds. 125-8 plus KNOWN Hp. Drivability, semi tricky, according to worst case reports. Suspension: good. Power availability: good.

RX-7: 2380 pounds. 120-125 Hp. Suspension: Big ole live rear axle, struts. Power delivery: a wind up toy. Divability: semi tricky to tricky, again depending on whos reporting.

How can a car running on the same tires with the same wheel size possibly keep up with a car with a better suspension, that is reportedly easier to drive, and weighs 240 pounds LESS? (thats about 10%!) It shouldn't and it can't.

Results? Can't comment on the west coast anomolies as we have no idea of the prep levels and legality of some of the players. I do know this. At the ARRCs, the IT7 fast lap was set by the RX-7 guru, Jim Susko. The GM chassis and handling engineer who has nearly redesigned his cars suspension, and sells the parts though his company, G-Force Engineering. And he has done a ton of dyno work with the engine, utilizing some pretty imaginative concepts. He can drive too, obviously. Was he competitive with ITA? Um... not hardly, and he says that mirrors his normal results. In discussions with him, he has commented over and over that the car is way out of its element going against well prepped CRXs, Integra and 240sxs.

Now add the newbies from ITS and the car is, at best, the 8th ranked car in the class.

Trust me, a legal RX-7 will be hard pressed to win or even contend for a win should any well prepped and driven examples of the top 8 show.

Around here, that means that as it stands now, as soon as the new blood starts running, a top 15 will be an awesome finish.

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

Bill Miller

04-09-2004, 07:35 AM

Andy,

Call it whatever you want. If "Errors and Ommissions" works for you, use it. My contention is, if they want to use that as a crutch, they need to tell people how the weights are determined in the first place.

Let's take a walk down memory lane. About 2.5 (maybe more) years ago, there was a request in FasTrack to have the weight determination process for IT published. The response was that it had been sent to the ITAC for investigation. Now, fast-foward to the present. You, Darin, and George have stated that the ITAC doesn't set the weights (and never has) for IT cars, the CB does. So, why was the initial request for the process even sent to the ITAC 'for investigation', if the ITAC didn't set the weights?

As far as you speaking for Darin, a large part of the problem is Darin's use of vocabulary and language. Time and time again, he says one thing, and means something else. I'm sorry, but when you say that the top dogs in a class 'define' that class, you've pretty much said that the cars that don't meet the top dog's level of performance are essentially field-fillers.

Jake (not Gulik),

Could you be anymore of an asshole if you tried?

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

dickita15

04-09-2004, 08:10 AM

jeez bill, will you just chill out a little.

yes setting weights in the past was smoke and mirrors. a method for correcting this is in the offing due to hard work from the current players. nothing is gained by holding a grudge. reparation are not going to happen.
dick patullo

Banzai240

04-09-2004, 08:46 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
As far as you speaking for Darin, a large part of the problem is Darin's use of vocabulary and language.

http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif ... Uh, Bill... Oh... Nevermind....

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I'm sorry, but when you say that the top dogs in a class 'define' that class, you've pretty much said that the cars that don't meet the top dog's level of performance are essentially field-fillers.

Your words... not mine... Suffice it to say that we are interested in the limits... specifically, in the cases considered, the upper limit... a class is defined by it's bounds. If one is interested in NOT creating a new "overdog", then the upper bound is likely a good place to consider... And if one is interested in classifying cars that have a shot at competing, then again, one might want to consider the upper limit...

There isn't much we can do right now about the cars that make up the middle of the pack... and without PCAs, we can't do much about the upper limit.

------------------
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 09, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 09, 2004).]

Jake

04-09-2004, 08:47 AM

Jake (the other one),

How close did Ray get to the top spot when his seven was in full effect?

ITSRX7

04-09-2004, 09:44 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

Call it whatever you want. If "Errors and Ommissions" works for you, use it. My contention is, if they want to use that as a crutch, they need to tell people how the weights are determined in the first place.

You say this like it's not a legitimate thing. I will leave it at that.

Let's take a walk down memory lane. About 2.5 (maybe more) years ago, there was a request in FasTrack to have the weight determination process for IT published. The response was that it had been sent to the ITAC for investigation. Now, fast-foward to the present. You, Darin, and George have stated that the ITAC doesn't set the weights (and never has) for IT cars, the CB does. So, why was the initial request for the process even sent to the ITAC 'for investigation', if the ITAC didn't set the weights?

We have stated this before. The original request to develop this was never added to our agenda. Bottom line is simple - and whether you like it or not, this is it - most of us feel that it is NOT in the best interest of the membership to publish any type of formula. The answer that was given in Fast Track in response to a similar request is sufficient. The process is too subjective and will open up pandoras box. THIS too has been debated and stated in another thread. If this doesn't work for you, vote in a new wave of Directors and appoint a new CRB and new ITAC memebers. We are doing what we feel is right and if the membership thinks we suck, then you have every right to replace us.

{Darin-bashing deleated}

I'm sorry, but when you say that the top dogs in a class 'define' that class, you've pretty much said that the cars that don't meet the top dog's level of performance are essentially field-fillers.

You want me to sugar coat it for you? If you need that, let me know. IT has no guarantee of competivness, so it is logical to assume that SOME cars may not be the class of the class? You want a Prod-syle attempt at full-blown CA's? Doubt it - but when you say something like this, you sure seem irked at the big picture. You don't think that when that ITS TR8 was being built that the owner KNEW it was going to be an underdog? People know these things, Bill.

The recent recommendations for moves have taken (using your words) the ITA 'field fillers' and given them a fighting chance. These were the most glaring issues out there. There are more and we will work on them proactively and reactively. Some will complain - most (we hope) will agree it's best for everyone - and that is the ultimate goal.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

ddewhurst

04-09-2004, 10:07 AM

***PRO Spec Miata....PRO = Money. Money = Best available.***

Andy, not to labor an issue but if the top three from the East coast & the top three from the West coast were given say two/three test days in an IT car of some class to set the car to their likes the results would be the same. They are DRIVERS. Coello at 23, Herr at 22 are young men at the top of their game. I think the West coast guys are somewhat older.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

ITSRX7

04-09-2004, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
***PRO Spec Miata....PRO = Money. Money = Best available.***

Andy, not to labor an issue but if the top three from the East coast & the top three from the West coast were given say two/three test days in an IT car of some class to set the car to their likes the results would be the same. They are DRIVERS. Coello at 23, Herr at 22 are young men at the top of their game. I think the West coast guys are somewhat older.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

I'm not sure what your point is. I agree with what you are saying but the original comment you made had to do with 'how do the Pro SM races get the top drivers to the events? And the answer is prize money.

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 09, 2004).]

cherokee

04-09-2004, 10:28 AM

Originally posted by ITSRX7:

So what do you do with it? I say that in the best interest of the hundreds that are out there, you try and make it fit better. DOn't make it a killer, just try and make it fit. It's not a political move, it's a move (IMHO) that makes IT a better alternative than going to Prod or GT.

AB

<Vent mode on>

You have got to be kidding me....OF CORSE IT IS POLITICAL. The ONLY reason this is being brought up is because of the "hundreds" of cars that are out there. If it was John Doe in his Vega would we be having this discussion....NOPE, you have said so yourself.

And you know what thats fine...it is the way the world works....just admit it to yourself, and don't expect the ITB guys to just roll over if they think it is wrong to put it there. In my view in VERY black and white terms in my mind ITS is screwed up, ITA is screwed up, (open computers caused all of this), so lets screw up ITB too.

<vent mode off>

Yes there is a problem with the older cars in ITA but just slapping a couple pounds and making them run skinny wheels is not going to make them fit inside ITB, on top of I think so yes. Something else will need to be done, or we will hear from the ITB guys griping about the 7 just like ITA guys gripe about the CRX and ITS guys gripe about the BMW. Perhaps when/if PCA's come in to play it will level it self out, but I am from Missouri so you will have to "show me" it will work in practice.

ITSRX7

04-09-2004, 10:39 AM

Originally posted by cherokee:
<Vent mode on>

You have got to be kidding me....OF CORSE IT IS POLITICAL. The ONLY reason this is being brought up is because of the "hundreds" of cars that are out there. If it was John Doe in his Vega would we be having this discussion....NOPE, you have said so yourself.

I knew this was coming - and I happen to think you are wrong. In order for it to be political IMHO, you need a group lobbying for the change - GUESS WHAT? This is a totally proactive consideration on the part of the ITAC. No 'politicing' at all.

*I* think this group of cars should be first in line for consideration if PCA's pass. HOWEVER, there have been enough conflicting opinions on this board to make me think about it even harder. The interesting ones are the people who think that the car is ok where it is - AND who drive them. Hmmm.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

cherokee

04-09-2004, 11:30 AM

I am sorry but it is political, you are catering to the wishes of a specific group if the ask for it or not it does not matter...you are just trying to help those poor masses in the RX-7 http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif They know that they are at the bottom of the chain, have no chance to get to the top without your help, and if we take the advantages that everyone else has worked so hard to get they can be on top again....see where this is going? I don't want to get into a political argument...but its the season http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

I think that it is most likely a dead issue any-ho, With from what I have read members of the ITAC think the car is ok,some need more info and other people here think it is and it is not. I think it is in the same boat as the MR2, so I guess that I think it is broken, the only thing that I object to is moving it to ITB with the adjustments being talked about here, and the reasoning behind the move.

Knestis

04-09-2004, 02:53 PM

Sorry - I'm with AB on this one. If in fact there is no pressure coming from (a) a substantial group, (B) a very vocal but less-than-substantial group, or © individuals with clout, then by my definitions anyway, this doesn't rise to the level of politic-ing.

It's called planning and even if I have detail differences with some of what has been going on [/i]as long as we can NOT go to a member-whining driven system, I'll be satisified.[/i]

K

K

Silkworm

04-09-2004, 03:34 PM

This is why we can never get any changes done. They gave the Neon's a shot to being competitive. If that works, and it looks like the RX-7s are getting shafted in ITA, then you could make a case to move them to ITB. Then something in ITB is going to get shafted, and they're going to want to move to ITC. And then someone's going to bitch in ITC.

But if you don't make these adjustments where cars are obviously misclassed, you end up with a self fulfilling cycle where people gravitate to the hot car in the class, and you have 30 CRXs and 325s in each class.

I like that SCCA is trying something new. I say give it a chance. Just my .02$

PaulC

JeffYoung

04-09-2004, 04:25 PM

Andy, I swear, I thought my TR8 would DOMINATE. Cool rims and stickers and everything and it would be fast.....I'm kidding of course.

Car choice is personal. It is part of the deal. You pick your lot in IT. Rick Thompson and Don Vincini and others at VIR who are fast, REAL fast, at VIR have chosen to run 7s. They developed them, and have learned their strengths and weaknesses, and they go out and win.

I'm sorry guys, I see a lot of this car classification stuff as wasted breath. No one assigns you a car in IT. You pick it. If you have a love affair with an underdog (a la me), you build it, you learn to drive, and you see what you can do. If you can't win, and that is the most important thing to you, move on to a another car.

The thing that impresses me about IT are they guys who take cars that other drivers claim to be uncompetitive and win with them. There's a couple of them in IT7, there's Tom Fowler when he runs that Prelude, there's Tim Butler in an ITS Alfa here, there is a guy who actually wins in a TR8 in the MidWest, etc.

Bill Miller

04-09-2004, 05:06 PM

Well Andy, I don't think it's legitimate. And if you and the powers that be, don't feel that the membership needs to know how specifications/classifications are determined in IT, then get an offical statement to that effect. And, if there's no guarantee of competitiveness in IT, why are PCAs even being discussed?

The 'no guarantee' thing gets trotted out when it's convenient, and gets trampled all over when it's not. Either take it out, or deal with it.

You know what it is Andy, I'm just not an "end justifies the means" kind of guy. I also get very nervous when people tell me they're doing something 'for my own good', but I don't really need to know how they're doing it.

I am curious though, w/ the massive moves that are proposed (and more comming), why is there such a resistence to creating another class in IT? Seems like that would piss off the least amount of people.

Or, just correct the weights and keep calling it Errors and Omissions.

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

RSTPerformance

04-09-2004, 05:20 PM

I am not up to date cause I have not read all these posts cause I really don't care much about reclassifications and will just take what comes... I do want to make a comment though. The people doing the job seem to be working on making things better for all, and they seem to be doing a good job at it so far IMO.

I do think we will always see problems, because it is just impossible to classify 30+ years of cars into 4 categories. Their needs to be more classes, and I think while their might be less cars in each class their would be more cars overall because people would have more ambition to race their "loves" that currently are uncompetitive.

As for people getting upset about reclassifications, You have no right to IF you are starting out after your car has "been deemed uncompetitive." IE: All Neon guys/gals, 1st generation RX-7 Guys/Gals that came in after the Integra and CRX, any ITS driver who came after the BMW, etc. etc. etc. You all knew that the car would not beat those cars; you’re the one who made the choice to buy/build the car. This can be made into a simple analogy... People who move into a house next door to a racetrack, then try to get the sound level decreased because they don't like the noise.

All others who spent time/money developing a winning car then got the shaft as a car was classified with much better potential... I do think you have the right to gripe. However if your car fades over time (much like our ITA Capri) then deal with it and realizes times change cars and classes will get a little faster every year.

Best of luck to all, those that don’t like the changes enjoy your 2004 season, next year things will be a lot different. Those that like the changes do some testing and keep the entry numbers high, so they add more events next year!!!

Raymond Blethen

ddewhurst

04-09-2004, 06:09 PM

***Posted by Andy***

***I'm not sure what your point is. I agree with what you are saying but the original comment you made had to do with 'how do the Pro SM races get the top drivers to the events? And the answer is prize money.***

Andy, please read the posts slower so that you understand what is being stated. I never questioned, "how do the Pro SM races get the top driversto the events." within my original post I was responding to the bitch fest about the best drivers East, West, ARRC & all the other BS about are the ARRC drivers the best. Drivers like Coello, Herr, Payton (32ish), Shawn (27ish) will kick ASS no mater where they race after a couple days practice in a new class IT car at a new track. Can you say talent wins & finishes at the front................

***Posted by Kirk***

***Sorry - I'm with AB on this one. If in fact there is no pressure coming from (a) a substantial group, (B) a very vocal but less-than-substantial group, or © individuals with clout, then by my definitions anyway, this doesn't rise to the level of politic-ing.***

Kirk, what the hell do you call FOUR divisions that have an IT7 class. If that ain't (a)a substantial group, (B) a very vocal but less-than-substantial group, or © individuals with clout, what are the IT7 groups in four DIVISIONS called by your selective definition ?

My defination would be that the IT7 groups beat the politics. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif There are way to many people saying you can't or your going to do this because I said so.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

ITSRX7

04-09-2004, 06:27 PM

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
How about we look to the Pro Spec Miata results from the East coast, from the West coast & from the bell ringer final in central USA at Topeka ? The top guns are the top guns no matter where they go.
Why would it be any different with any other IT race class ?

David
[quote]

This is your original post.

The issue is that people are saying the ARRC isn't the best of the best because the best don't neccessarily go to the ARRC. People don't travel outside their Regions to find stiffer competition.

Let's let it drop, the more I think about it, the more I don't understand your point at all.

AB

[quote]

***Posted by Kirk***

***Sorry - I'm with AB on this one. If in fact there is no pressure coming from (a) a substantial group, (B) a very vocal but less-than-substantial group, or © individuals with clout, then by my definitions anyway, this doesn't rise to the level of politic-ing.***

Kirk, what the hell do you call FOUR divisions that have an IT7 class. If that ain't (a)a substantial group, (B) a very vocal but less-than-substantial group, or © individuals with clout, what are the IT7 groups in four DIVISIONS called by your selective definition ?

My defination would be that the IT7 groups beat the politics. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif There are way to many people saying you can't or your going to do this because I said so.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

The difference is that , although the group exists, they have in no way used their size and/or perceived clout to infuence the ITAC or CRB toward a change in IT. Frankly, they have done just the opposite and created their own class in some (not all) Regions. Every Region will give you a class if you can come up with the numbers - doesn't matter what kind of car it is as long as its safe - and the numbers are SMALL to qualify.

There has been no political manuvering by any group of ITA RX-7's to date. This is an exploration done proactively by the ITAC.

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 09, 2004).]

ITSRX7

04-09-2004, 06:31 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Well Andy, I don't think it's legitimate. And if you and the powers that be, don't feel that the membership needs to know how specifications/classifications are determined in IT, then get an offical statement to that effect. And, if there's no guarantee of competitiveness in IT, why are PCAs even being discussed?

The 'no guarantee' thing gets trotted out when it's convenient, and gets trampled all over when it's not. Either take it out, or deal with it.

You know what it is Andy, I'm just not an "end justifies the means" kind of guy. I also get very nervous when people tell me they're doing something 'for my own good', but I don't really need to know how they're doing it.

I am curious though, w/ the massive moves that are proposed (and more comming), why is there such a resistence to creating another class in IT? Seems like that would piss off the least amount of people.

Or, just correct the weights and keep calling it Errors and Omissions.

I hear you, I understand the basis for your issues, and I think that when you look at the bigger picture we are justified in our position. Let's agree to disagree. I would say there is no need to keep taking shots at us or the CRB. If you want a formal explanation, write the CRB. I have tried to give you one and you refuse to accept it. You don't have to accept but you should at least give us a break on this board. If there is a groundswell that favors your position, open the debate again but I think you are in the minority.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

04-09-2004, 08:44 PM

Originally posted by cherokee:
I am sorry but it is political, you are catering to the wishes of a specific group if the ask for it or not it does not matter...you are just trying to help those poor masses in the RX-7 http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif They know that they are at the bottom of the chain, have no chance to get to the top without your help, and if we take the advantages that everyone else has worked so hard to get they can be on top again....see where this is going? I don't want to get into a political argument...but its the season http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

I think that it is most likely a dead issue any-ho, With from what I have read members of the ITAC think the car is ok,some need more info and other people here think it is and it is not. I think it is in the same boat as the MR2, so I guess that I think it is broken, the only thing that I object to is moving it to ITB with the adjustments being talked about here, and the reasoning behind the move.

"POOR MASSES"???? that right, send us home!!!, and youll be missing half the friggin ITA cars in the country genius. This is the kind of crap logic that made my move to production worth it. gotta go guys, I know I started this but its a bit frustrating and with my physical coming due I have to keep my BP down.

Quickshoe

04-09-2004, 08:55 PM

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
As for people getting upset about reclassifications, You have no right to IF you are starting out after your car has "been deemed uncompetitive." IE: All Neon guys/gals, 1st generation RX-7 Guys/Gals that came in after the Integra and CRX, any ITS driver who came after the BMW, etc. etc. etc. You all knew that the car would not beat those cars; you’re the one who made the choice to buy/build the car. This can be made into a simple analogy... People who move into a house next door to a racetrack, then try to get the sound level decreased because they don't like the noise.

All others who spent time/money developing a winning car then got the shaft as a car was classified with much better potential... I do think you have the right to gripe. However if your car fades over time (much like our ITA Capri) then deal with it and realizes times change cars and classes will get a little faster every year.

Raymond, In the past I've agreed with this. I've been flamed for "do your homework/or don't complain" comments before.

To a small degree I understand the complaints from people who do build the "top dog" and then have a new "top dog" make their car grid fodder. However, their car didn't become grid fodder overnight.

The new shifting around of cars should give people more choices, which is both good and bad.

Good: new choices make it more interesting.

Bad: the homework becomes a little more difficult to ace, however less chance of failure at the same time. Today's passing grade may not be a passing mark next year.
To borrow from your analogy, I build my dream home and then a few years down the road they build an airport nearby. I have to say "airport" because the racetrack wouldn't bother me unless it was a NASCRAP track.

I firmly believe that the ITA rx7 doesn't have a chance against the top dogs in A when they are all equally prepared/driven. However, that is so seldomly the case. So the 7 shines from time to time. I had sevens, I love sevens, however, they have had their day. If you really must have a 7 then race it in IT7 if you have that option. Build it because you love it, but don't build one for "A" and then complain if you don't win.

04-09-2004, 09:50 PM

convert it to EP and be done with the "intent" BS.

Knestis

04-09-2004, 10:11 PM

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Kirk, what the hell do you call FOUR divisions that have an IT7 class.

What Andy said. I make a critical distinction between a group of people planning for the health and growth of the category and a group responding to self-serving requests from members who want their ride to be more competitive.

Of course this assumes that the group is going in a direction that I like. I'm guardedly optimistic about the current situation but the SECOND that PCAs are applied - if they happen - in response to a member request for a lighter weight in a class, we have turned the corner to the dark side.

K

lateapex911

04-09-2004, 10:26 PM

First up, Bill M. C'mon buddy! Roll with it! you're better that this.....

Jake- shoot me your email and we can go into the particulars... too lengthy for here.

by Cherokee: <Vent mode on>

You have got to be kidding me....OF CORSE IT IS POLITICAL. The ONLY reason this is being brought up is because of the "hundreds" of cars that are out there. If it was John Doe in his Vega would we be having this discussion....NOPE, you have said so yourself.

Mr. Cherokee- I will not vent, but I HOPE that you have a misunderstanding of the term "political", because you are way off base here. Using your logic, the 7 would have been moved (it hasn't, remember?) and the Prelude would still be stuck in ITA. Are you suggesting that Dave Gran (and what, the other six ITA Prelude drivers in the country?) have pals on the ITAC? Jeeez...I've been close friends with the grand poobah of the whole club racing deal since the 80s, and my car hasn't been moved! Maybe I need to slip him a G note eh?

The fact that the Prelude has been nominated for a move is nearly EXACTLY the same action that you said would never happen to your Vega friend....

 quote by Cherokee: Something else will need to be done, or we will hear from the ITB guys griping about the 7 just like ITA guys gripe about the CRX and ITS guys gripe about the BMW. 

Lets get somethng straight. Redistribution of the classes is good for ALL the classes! It's no secret folks, that most ITC races are poorly subscribed, and most ITA and S races are quite healthy, numbers-wise. So, moving cars down, the "trickle down" philosophy, makes HUGE sense, and it CAN be done without "Taking advantage of everyones hard work", as you sort of put it. Really, with the dual pronged attack of intra-class movement and PCAs, the only guys who should feel the pain of a legitimitly decreased chance at the front are the current cellar dwellers in C, and honestly there are very few of them. PCAs will help them to some degree, but there will be casualties. BUT... the number of cars that will go from class fillers to having a chance will far outweigh the numbers who are hurt.

 by Quickshoe: I firmly believe that the ITA rx7 doesn't have a chance against the top dogs in A when they are all equally prepared/driven. However, that is so seldomly the case. So the 7 shines from time to time. 

Italics mine. Well, then come on up here and watch us get slaughtered in the NE!!!!! I've tested, I've developed, I've gotten the parts and so on. While I'm no Michael S. or Juan Pablo, I'm often slightly faster of about 7 or so RX-7s in the NE. For one brief shining nanosecond, after a few lucky moves on the start from my 6th place grid spot, I ran as high as second until the Integra spinning in front of me augered into my drivers door. IF I had been able to finish that race in second (1st place driver Anthony Serra was checking out seconds per lap) I would have gotten out of the car and kissed the start finish line!!!

In your good vs bad comparo, I firmly feel that the bad already exists.

To an RX-7 (and a few other ITA cars, but the RX-7 is the best example) driver your airport analogy is very close to home. I chose my car when it had a chance. Then they added the overdog CRX. Uh oh... Then they changed the ECU rule. UH OH!!!! Then the CRX looked like it was a bit too succesful, so they added the Integra, and the 240SX. OH NO!!!!! Now the horse is really out of the barn, so why not add the Neon, the NX-2000, and the SER? Well, at this point, not only did they build tha airport, but recent additions have paved a new runway right over your backyard pool......

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 09, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 09, 2004).]

04-09-2004, 11:42 PM

Cherokee:

Out of curiosity, what do you race and who are you? I've perused your profile several times and you don't list any relevant racing information???!!

------------------
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

Geo

04-10-2004, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
If you want a formal explanation, write the CRB. I have tried to give you one and you refuse to accept it.

Actually, we have given a formal explanation. What we have not done is created a mathematical formula. I don't see a mathematical formula ever being accepted.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Greg Amy

04-10-2004, 09:21 AM

...and the tension builds to that first race of the year...can you smell it? Ah, yes, CAM2 in the morning...

Breathe in, breathe out...

Jake

04-10-2004, 10:18 AM

I have the solution. And no it is not original. We need a new class between ITA and ITB.

IMHO….
ITS is looking much better with the 2.0L cars dropping to A.
ITA CRX’s have a bunch of cars to battle in full fields. (even without the slower 75%)
ITB and ITC seem to be working fairly well.

One way to do it is the method Solo2 has used to deal with faster cars: move ALL ITC to ITD, ALL ITB to ITC, and the slow 75% of ITA to ITB (and now let ITB can use 7” rims). If you look at Solo2, it has been wildly successful with a zillion different classes. IT is very popular, and there is no downfall to having more classes. In fact, it makes race days even easier to schedule because multiple classes can run together.

Anyone care to comment (besides Bill)? :P

Banzai240

04-10-2004, 11:47 AM

Guys... Humour me...

I need a list of ITC cars that people consider to be hopeless in that class...

Basically, anything that's slower than a 510, CRX, or VW...

For that matter, you might as well give me the same thing for ITB...

If you can't come up with a SUBSTANTIAL list from ITC, then any talk about inserting another class is really pointless, because we have 4 classes, two of which are currently undersubscribed in most parts of the country... I don't think there is a need for another class within the existing top and bottom limits of the current structure... If anything, we need another class on the top to fit in some of the newer V6, etc. cars that are out there (350Z, RX-8, S2000, etc...) There CERTAINLY is little need for anything below C...

Give me your lists and lets see what the real scope of the problem is and what we might be able to do to correct it...

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

ddewhurst

04-10-2004, 11:48 AM

Jake,, to much common sense. How could anything work if no one was pi$$ed ?

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Jake

04-10-2004, 01:47 PM

Darin - read my post again. I am not proposing a class for cars slower than ITC. All I'm saying is that we split ITA into 2. I also agree that a class above ITS in the future would be good as well. ITX? ITSS?

FWIW, ITC is the only class in NER that you might consider "undersubscribed", but it routinely attracts more cars than any production, touring, or ss class in our regionals. And furthermore it has excellent and close racing every race (even if there are only 9 or so of them), and makes a great place for people to start racing.

At Limerock, ITA is routinely oversubscribed, and it is getting to the point where our region is actually turning away drivers. With the new cars coming down from ITS, I see this situation getting even worse. Taking NER as an example, splitting ITA into 2 classes could make a pair of 20 car races instead of 40 car field that would require some cars being sent away. Ideal, and it pisses of NOBODY. (except probably Bill for a reason that I haven't thought of yet) http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Jake

04-10-2004, 01:52 PM

Also, in NER ITA is almost always the largest group of cars. SM sometimes will beat it, but ITA is usually a much larger group that ITS, ITB, or ITC. With the ITS->ITA changes, I would guess that the 2005 season may see ITA fields that are approx twice as large as any other IT field. Splitting ITA into 2 would be perfect.

theenico

04-10-2004, 08:00 PM

Darin,

I have an ITB one for ya'

Why is an '83-'88 Scirocco II 8V (2270#) listed 90 pounds heavier than the '83-'84 Rabbit GTI (2180#) when all of their specs are the same?

By the way, the '83-'84 Rabbit GTI could use a little weight off as well.

------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by theenico (edited April 10, 2004).]

ITSRX7

04-10-2004, 09:13 PM

Originally posted by Jake:
Darin - read my post again. I am not proposing a class for cars slower than ITC. All I'm saying is that we split ITA into 2. I also agree that a class above ITS in the future would be good as well. ITX? ITSS?

FWIW, ITC is the only class in NER that you might consider "undersubscribed", but it routinely attracts more cars than any production, touring, or ss class in our regionals. And furthermore it has excellent and close racing every race (even if there are only 9 or so of them), and makes a great place for people to start racing.

At Limerock, ITA is routinely oversubscribed, and it is getting to the point where our region is actually turning away drivers. With the new cars coming down from ITS, I see this situation getting even worse. Taking NER as an example, splitting ITA into 2 classes could make a pair of 20 car races instead of 40 car field that would require some cars being sent away. Ideal, and it pisses of NOBODY. (except probably Bill for a reason that I haven't thought of yet) http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Actually, what you should do is split ITS in two AND ITA in two and merge the top and bottom of each. Then you allow the faster stuff into ITS - more on par with the 325/944S.

NER's actual average per event (NERRC):

ITS: 17.0
ITA: 19.3
ITB: 11.6
ITC: 4.7
SM: 26.4

In NER, where ITA and ITC run together, it's a great pair. Average run group size in 2003:

ITS/ITB: 28.6
ITA/ITC: 24.0

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

ITSRX7

04-10-2004, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by theenico:

Why is an '83-'88 Scirocco II 8V (2270#) listed 90 pounds heavier than the '83-'84 Rabbit GTI (2180#) when all of their specs are the same?

Is it possible that there is an aero difference to compensate for?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Jake

04-10-2004, 10:00 PM

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Actually, what you should do is split ITS in two AND ITA in two and merge the top and bottom of each.

Well, exactly. Several slower ITS cars are already getting split (Kirk's 2-liter cars) and put into the top of ITA. We just need to split off the slow half of ITA to complete the deal.

Knestis

04-10-2004, 10:07 PM

That "ITR" concept - for cars too hot for S - might have some merit. I taught at a HPDE kind of club school today and there were a batch of 350Zs and other fairly high-end weapons. It won't be cheap but...

K

Bill Miller

04-10-2004, 11:19 PM

Actually, what you should do is split ITS in two AND ITA in two and merge the top and bottom of each. Then you allow the faster stuff into ITS - more on par with the 325/944S.

Andy, This is pretty much what I've been saying for the past 18 - 24 months, since the whole IT2 concepted was first broached. Adding another class to catch the cars above ITS would be a proactive move. You just can't fit all the new cars into two classes (as evidenced by the underdogs in ITS that are getting moved out). If the cars were different enough to be in SSB and SSC, how can anyone in their right mind think they'll be similar in ITS?

And George, where was a formal, official explanation given?

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

Geo

04-10-2004, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And George, where was a formal, official explanation given?

Fastrack. I think it was a couple of months ago. The last few months have been a bit of a blur for me, so I don't remember exactly, but I know it was there.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

lateapex911

04-11-2004, 01:37 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And George, where was a formal, official explanation given?

May 04 describes the procedure, which is not exactly earth shattering so I won't waste my time typing it here. Page F74.

Suffice it to say that you, Bill, will not be happy nor satisfied.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited April 11, 2004).]

ITSRX7

04-11-2004, 07:26 AM

Originally posted by Jake:
Well, exactly. Several slower ITS cars are already getting split (Kirk's 2-liter cars) and put into the top of ITA. We just need to split off the slow half of ITA to complete the deal.

Not really what i was saying. You take the bottom of ITS, and the top of ITA and make it one class. That leaves a new 'ITR' using Kirk's term and then the new class is ITS, then ITB becomes ITA, etc. Then you have one more class (performance envelope) to get more cars into that gereral area.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Jake

04-11-2004, 08:12 AM

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Not really what i was saying. You take the bottom of ITS, and the top of ITA and make it one class. That leaves a new 'ITR' using Kirk's term and then the new class is ITS, then ITB becomes ITA, etc. Then you have one more class (performance envelope) to get more cars into that gereral area.

AB

Thanks for clarifying, in that case I don't agree with you. You can’t just take the lower 50 or 75% (cars that can’t compete with the 325) and lump them in with the ITA CRX/240/Miata/Acura. That will screw up those “fast” ITA cars. What you can do is move some ITS cars, case-by-case, (after requests have been made) into “fast” ITA, with additional weight in some cases (as has been done to the praises and appreciation of many) as to not screw up the “fast” ITA balance. You can also split off the slower 75% of ITA cars (RX7 and slower?) into their own class. You can do this, because it doesn’t screw up anybody.

The ITR idea is great and needs to happen since cars just keep getting faster and faster. However, I feel the ITA split addresses an immediate need due to two tiers of ITA cars as well as the potential of oversubscribed ITA races in the future. Those 350Z cars you mention can run today in T2, and won’t be IT eligible for a couple of years. For those who are against even more IT classes, I would predict that ITR would just begin to flourish just as ITC officially dies.

Bill Miller

04-11-2004, 10:57 AM

Jake Gulick,

Do you mean where it says "The SCCA will specify the minimum weight for each car classified, as qualified or raced, with driver." If that's what you were talking aaabout, I'd hardly call that a statement or explanation of 'the process'.

Jake (the other one),

Why would ITC need to 'officially die'? Why would you want to lose theose drivers? Bottom line is that an increased level of granularity in the IT classes is needed to properly serve {b]all[/b] the cars out there. I just don't see PCAs aaddressing this issue adeequately.

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

theenico

04-11-2004, 11:08 AM

AB,

There isn't a straightaway in the country that is long enough to take advantage of the Scirocco's marginally better aero with an IT engine (The cars accelerate indentically up to 105 mph). In GP trim it may be a different story.

------------------
Nico
KCRaceware (816) 257-7305
[email protected]

[This message has been edited by theenico (edited April 11, 2004).]

dominojd

04-11-2004, 12:00 PM

Originally posted by Jake:
Thanks for clarifying, in that case I don't agree with you. You can’t just take the lower 50 or 75% (cars that can’t compete with the 325) and lump them in with the ITA CRX/240/Miata/Acura. That will screw up those “fast” ITA cars.

The ITR idea is great and needs to happen since cars just keep getting faster and faster. Those 350Z cars you mention can run today in T2, and won’t be IT eligible for a couple of years.

I don't think he means move 50 to 75% of cars that can't compete with the 325. My feelings are that the cars that are getting moved to ITA are cars that should have never been in ITS in the first place. Look at it this way the Sentra or NX 2000 was classified in ITS around the same time as the RX 7. What were they thinking back then? As far as messing up the Fast ITA cars we'll use Greg A NX as an example probably one of if not the best prepped ITS bottom feeder around the area he is still more than 1 sec of of the track record at LRP with his best lap ever. How does this screw up fast ITA cars. This pretty much a good fit. Along with the neons,prelude and so forth.

As far as adding a class above ITS it is inevitable. If I can run 108's-109's at LRP with a stock 2002 Nissan SE-R Spec V w/ street tires (FAlken Azenis) and a good set of brake pads (Carbotech Panther +). The 350Z must be pretty damn close to ITS times in stock trim. I think this car would make the BMW's look slow in IT trim.

Just my opinions no flaming please. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

------------------
Crazy Joe
#7 ITS pilot

[This message has been edited by dominojd (edited April 11, 2004).]

Jake

04-11-2004, 01:06 PM

Joe - please read Andy and my posts again. I won't bother everyone with all the quotes this time. I agree with you. The 2.0L type cars that are starting to drop from S to A are the moves that should be made. (Neon, 2000SX, Prelude) etc. Others can follow with requests. (I can think of the 90-95 NA MR2 as an example)

Andy said, this is not what HE meant, and he seems to think that the top half of ITS could serve as the "ITR". I don't buy this because, as you point out, the new cars coming will leave the 325 in the dust.

Bill, I am not proposing to "shut down" ITC. I'm just saying that each year it gets smaller and smaller and may die of natural causes. This is one of the reasons that we need more classes (more granulatrity like you say). In NER (a big freakin region) ITC averaged 4 cars last year. Why should we be scared of adding a new class or two?

So here is one way to impliment:

ITR <--- new spot for for IT cars faster than 325 (a place for T2 cars to go)
ITS <--- maybe add a lb or two to the 325 and loose slower cars to ITA
ITA <--- Fast half of ITA (CRX, Miata, 240, Integra) + silly slow ITS cars (2000NX, Neon, Prelude, and others)
ITB <---- about 75% of the current classified ITA cars (RX7 and slower)
ITC <---- Move ALL ITB cars here
ITD <---- Move ALL ITC cars here

So there you have it, 6 classes where there were only 4. In reality, ITR will be tiny for a while, and ITD will be tiny as ITC is now, and only get smaller.

Bill Miller

04-11-2004, 02:25 PM

Jake,

As I've said, I don't care how you do it, it just needs to be done. I'm more inclined to put it between ITS and ITA, only because that's where teh major issue lies. Also, why make all the ITB and ITC folks buy new vinyl?

What really bothers me is that the powers that be have stated that we won't need another class once PCAs are implemented. The PCA concept hasn't even been proven, and they're throwing out the option of another class. That, and the fact that PCAs are primarily designed for newly classified cars. Except of course, in those 'rare' cases.

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

Bill Miller

04-11-2004, 02:26 PM

/edit/ duplicate post

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited April 11, 2004).]

924Guy

04-11-2004, 04:00 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,

As I've said, I don't care how you do it, it just needs to be done. I'm more inclined to put it between ITS and ITA, only because that's where teh major issue lies. Also, why make all the ITB and ITC folks buy new vinyl?

What really bothers me is that the powers that be have stated that we won't need another class once PCAs are implemented. The PCA concept hasn't even been proven, and they're throwing out the option of another class. That, and the fact that PCAs are primarily designed for newly classified cars. Except of course, in those 'rare' cases.

I have to admit, maybe I didn't read the PCA rule proposal, but I don't recall seeing anything in there which stated that the Club Racing Board "Now and forevermore" swore off adding another IT class. Indeed, if they're talking (as some here are) about adding cars such as the S2000 and 350Z, which I suspect could really put some hurt even on the vaunted 325's, would it not seem that perhaps they are already thinking about it? Or just us?

Having recently submitted a request to drop my own car down a class, I can only say personally that I'd not mind buying new vinyl (or, actually, in my case, repainting) if it means I have a shot at being competitive! I certainly don't think that's such a big deal. If you can't afford fresh vinyl, you can't afford to race!

I also don't quite see how PCA's would preclude a driver of a previously classed car from requesting a re-evaluation of weight any more than a re-evaluation of classification - since those are, at any rate, two sides of the same coin. If, OTOH, you don't trust the powers that be to give your situation adequate consideration, well, then, you may be back to the idea of looking into a different class or sanctioning body to run with... as many have...

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com

lateapex911

04-11-2004, 04:45 PM

Originally posted by ITSRX7:

I think it's FIRMLY in the MIDDLE of ITA, not competitive when you compare apples to apples but not a throw away either.

AB

In the middle of ITA...well, a look at the Mid Ohio records just posted in another thread adds some interesting light to this thought.

The ITA RX-7 (AKA the IT7) is over a second slower than the ITB record, and about 4 seconds off the ITA pace.

I would submit that the track, and the cars that it sees are pretty good examples, and in fact, the results correlate well with the Road Atlanta results.

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

Bill Miller

04-11-2004, 06:11 PM

Vaughn,

Not sure why the smiley didn't take after the vinyl comment. That was a tongue-in-cheek comment about why re-name ITB and ITC.

There was nothing in the PCA proposal about not aadding another class. It was in response to a specific request a few (several?) months back. Someone expressly asked to have another class added, and the response was that there was no need for one if PCAs were implemented.

And, I didn't say "now and forever". I suppose that since they flopped so easily on the 1.7 Scirocco (one month, it's too fast for ITC, two months later, it's recommended for the move in '05), they could change their mind about adding another class in IT.

I'll let Kirk comment on driver-initiated rquests for PCA weight adjustment/reclassification.

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

ITSRX7

04-11-2004, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by Jake:
Thanks for clarifying, in that case I don't agree with you. You can’t just take the lower 50 or 75% (cars that can’t compete with the 325) and lump them in with the ITA CRX/240/Miata/Acura. That will screw up those “fast” ITA cars. What you can do is move some ITS cars, case-by-case, (after requests have been made) into “fast” ITA, with additional weight in some cases (as has been done to the praises and appreciation of many) as to not screw up the “fast” ITA balance. You can also split off the slower 75% of ITA cars (RX7 and slower?) into their own class. You can do this, because it doesn’t screw up anybody.

The ITR idea is great and needs to happen since cars just keep getting faster and faster. However, I feel the ITA split addresses an immediate need due to two tiers of ITA cars as well as the potential of oversubscribed ITA races in the future. Those 350Z cars you mention can run today in T2, and won’t be IT eligible for a couple of years. For those who are against even more IT classes, I would predict that ITR would just begin to flourish just as ITC officially dies.

Jake,

Oviously I didn't mean 50% exactly. You take the cars that make sense out of the bottom of ITS, put them into the new class, take the top cars out of ITA and move them up. You than have a class that looks liuke Kirk's IT2 that allows RWD and 2 seaters.

That will leave (approx) the bottom of ITA as it's own class and an ITS that is fre to add some new and cool stuff when it comes eligible.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Quickshoe

04-11-2004, 11:54 PM

Happy Easter!

Well there you go (re: Mid-Ohio) The 1st gen Rx7 belongs in ITC http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif The fastest 1st gen Rx7 in IT trim that has ever appeared there is over a second slower than the fastest ITB car.

Prime example of why you can't just choose one track (or one race) to compare cars. The type of car that holds the ITS record is not listed, but the record has stood for almost 10 years...safe to assume it wasn't a BMW.

RSTPerformance

04-12-2004, 01:02 AM

[I]"Prime example of why you can't just choose one track (or one race) to compare cars. The type of car that holds the ITS record is not listed, but the record has stood for almost 10 years...safe to assume it wasn't a BMW."[I]

and probably illigal!!!

I think that their is a need for a faster ITS class (ITR?) for faster cars than currently classified as well as the BMW, RX-7, 944, etc. ITS would become the slower portion of ITS cars and those few fast ITA cars (Neon, Acura, CRX, etc.) Then we have a great ITR of the rich blooded, a great more affordable ITS, and a great more affordable ITA class that once was. Leave the currently perfect ITB alone and let the colledge students and other 18-25yr olds who are getting into SCCA run a very affordable ITC car.

The only thing I think that has been forgoten is keeping costs down. we need to remember this is an intro level class. We need to keep it that way.

As far as having another class... why are people so afraid??? what does the/a trophy cost??? I am sure not as much as a new entry... And the class can still be grouped with current cars, so you will still be racing against the same people!!!

Raymond Blethen

PS: BOD- I hope you are considering the future... Maybe you should do a survey and see what cars 16 yr olds interested in racing would race in 5 years? Then target that market? Classify current cars acordingly???

dickita15

04-12-2004, 07:09 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Also, why make all the ITB and ITC folks buy new vinyl?

What really bothers me is that the powers that be have stated that we won't need another class once PCAs are implemented.
[/B]

ok to be demacratic and spread the suffering out equally the new class structure should be IT1-IT5. new vinyl for all.

Bill there does seem to be an effort to see if pca's will solve the problems without another class and while i don't think it will work, I think we may need to live with pca's for a couple of years to be sure.

I applaud the move to improve IT racing but we must remember that IT is still the most popular division in scca so we must be carefull not to ruin it in the effort to improve it.

dick

dickita15

04-12-2004, 07:20 AM

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
[I]"Prime example of why you can't just choose one track (or one race) to compare cars. The type of car that holds the ITS record is not listed, but the record has stood for almost 10 years...safe to assume it wasn't a BMW."[I]

that record would have been set by Nick Craw in his 240z during the time he was the scca president and touring in a "beat the boss tour" would someone with a fast ITS car please go to ohio and erase one more trapping of the nick craw years.
dick patullo

gran racing

04-12-2004, 10:13 AM

I like the idea of adding two additional classes like Jake said. By doing this, you are creating a place for everyone to play.

It creates a class for almost everyone and their budget. If a person wants to spend a ton of money and race a newer car, then ITR and ITS would be great.

But if a person that can't or doesn't want to spend as much money (not that a person can't spend a ton in any class) they could race in one of the slower classes.

We do need to make sure that we don't inflate the cost of startig to race much more than it already is. We need to ensure that there is a place for the older cars (ones that can often be bought much cheaper) to race. IT club racing should be a place where many people can become involved in racing at a "reasonable" cost.

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

nlevine

04-12-2004, 10:22 AM

I kind of figured this would be the season of IT rules "swirl". Glad I'm sitting out this season as a car owner.

I sold my now-becoming-a-REAL-underdog-unless-it-gets-moved-to-ITB 1st generation CRX Si in January. I'll be renting a few rides this season to try out some new cars/classes and let the rules dust settle. With all the new cars in the class now, I may just be returning to ITA next season - it's just too fun a class in NER to sit out!

-noam
Formerly the #18 ITA Honda CRX Si - soon to be the #18 ITA ???

Bill Miller

04-12-2004, 12:03 PM

Here's a thought, why not put out the new class idea for member input?

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

cherokee

04-12-2004, 12:30 PM

WOW...spend the weekend under a car and look at everything that happend.
Let me clearify a few things on the way I think.

By Political I mean that this (RX-7 deal) is only under consideration because there are so many of them.

I am all for change I think it is needed, but to slap a few pounds and skinny wheels on the 7 and think it will not run away from 90% of the ITB cars out there...I think it will happen.

How do you explain that some RX7's do very well, this happens all over the country, and at different "type" tracks. I think that there are very different levels of prep on these cars, some are done to the 9's others are not, more so on this car because of the number of them out there.

I realy think that the IT classes need a re-shuffle. having cars from 196x running with cars from 200x is very very hard, and the day is coming that we are just going to have to let go of the old cars. (this said by a guy building a "new" 1972 race car). That said you pick the car for several reasons. My heart picked my car, if it does well GREAT if not, just let me run I'll still have fun, thats what it is all about.

Someone asked so here is my info:
Greg Mathews
1985 ITA MR2
1972 ITB Opel GT (almost there)

ITSRX7

04-12-2004, 12:47 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Here's a thought, why not put out the new class idea for member input?

That is a great idea, except that in order for it to go out, it needs to be a full concept with defined classes and direction. Right now, the ITAC is not at that at that point. We are hoping PCA's will go through and then work a host of 'smart' reclassing's with that tool and then see where we are.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

RSTPerformance

04-12-2004, 12:50 PM

WARNING THIS IS A HIJACK!!!

Cherokee- Jim McMahn was very successful with an Opel GT in the Northeast, you may want to contact him... not sure his number :/

Raymond

cherokee

04-12-2004, 01:01 PM

Raymond, thanks for the info. The Opel group of guys are a pretty tight group. I have talked to a couple of Manta, prod, and GT guys running now and in the past. I think it will be a fun car.

Bill Miller

04-12-2004, 01:02 PM

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
That is a great idea, except that in order for it to go out, it needs to be a full concept with defined classes and direction. Right now, the ITAC is not at that at that point. We are hoping PCA's will go through and then work a host of 'smart' reclassing's with that tool and then see where we are.

AB

Why's that Andy? IIRC, when comp. adj. in IT first went out, it was pretty much just that, do people favor comp. adj. in IT. Wasn't it only because of the wide variety of responses that the PCA concept even came into being?

Would seem to make more sense in getting a general feel for the interest before fleshing out a full-blown proposal.

/edit/

Maybe I missed something Andy, but why would these 'smart' reclassings be contingent on PCAs going through? They way the rules are today, you can reclass cars and change the weight at that time (not sure why the CB doesn't understand this).

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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited April 12, 2004).]

ITSRX7

04-12-2004, 01:35 PM

When PCA's came out for comment, it came out as a concept, not just, "Hey, should we have comp adjustments in IT?"

I meant to say that the reclasses and the PCA's will be used independently, then see if that is enough to give people good racing.

Keep in mind, PCA's would be used on a VERY limited basis.

*I* think that an additional class is needed to get us where I think we should be - but we need to walk before we can run.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bill Miller

04-12-2004, 02:30 PM

Andy,

I didn't say anything about when PCAs went out for comment. I haven't dug through all the old FasTracks to find it, but IIRC, the initial discussion about Comp. Adj. was something to the effect of the BoD directing the CB to determine what the membership thought about Comp. Adj. in IT.

I believe, the lack of clarification about what was meant by Comp. Adj. (Prod style? just weight? ????), led to some of the confusion around what they were really asking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this what prompted the whole PCA concept?

Anyway, the point was, why not get a general feel for the overall thoughts of adding a new class? Collect people's feedback, and if there's an interst, use that feedback to help craft a plan.

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

ITSRX7

04-12-2004, 03:09 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Anyway, the point was, why not get a general feel for the overall thoughts of adding a new class? Collect people's feedback, and if there's an interst, use that feedback to help craft a plan.

Because all it would do is raise more questions. You would get responses similar to that of the PCA question.

"I don't want comp adjustments in IT". Well guess what? PCA's are so far from traditional CA's that we don't know if that is a yes or no for a specific idea. It seems like a no, but in our experience with this exact issue, people like PCA's but would hate prod-style CA's.

If you just ask if you think adding an IT class is a good idea, many questions pop up. The best way to do it is to explain the plan and then have people make couter-proposals, agree or disagree.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bill Miller

04-12-2004, 03:35 PM

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
PCA's are so far from traditional CA's that we don't know if that is a yes or no for a specific idea. It seems like a no, but in our experience with this exact issue, people like PCA's but would hate prod-style CA's.

How do you figure Andy? You're talking reclassification, weight, and chokes/restrictors. I can't remember the last time I saw a comp. adj. to a Prod car that was something other than one of those three.

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

ITSRX7

04-12-2004, 03:41 PM

Bill,

The PCA proposal that hit Fast Track in it's original form, had nothing to do with anything other than reclassing and weights.

I can't remember the last time I saw a comp. adj. to a Prod car that was something other than one of those three.

I don't know what you have seen lately but here are the Prod rules: "Requests for alteration, modification, and/or substitution of any {emphasis mine} specification or component shall be submitted to the club for approval. The approval process will include but not be limited to, an analysis of cost, availibility, perfomance impact, rule enforcability and competitor input".

Does that sound to you like our intent on PCA's? If it does, you need to review the documentation.

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 12, 2004).]

Bill Miller

04-12-2004, 04:13 PM

Andy,

IIRC, the PCA proposal was first published in the 9/03 issue of FasTrack. That proposal talks about reclassification, weight adjustment, and intake restrictors. If it was in an earlier FasTrack, I must have missed it.

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

ITSRX7

04-12-2004, 04:32 PM

That particular wording IIRC, was 'in extreme and/or rare cases'...that was also a piece that was added by the CRB, not the ITAC.

Regardless, PCA are not INTENDED to be Prod-style CA's. You have to take my word for it.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

RSTPerformance

04-12-2004, 04:55 PM

Andy, Bill

I thought I posted a lot... what do you kids do all day??? Work??? or play on Improved Touring... wait don't answer that http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

LOL this is good stuff http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif I like a good debate!!!

Raymond "watching, trying to decide if I should stay here or go work on my car" Blethen

PS: That/this was a joke to keep you two smiling http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

ddewhurst

04-12-2004, 05:19 PM

Raymond, they both work 3rd shift. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

& we wonder why employers get testy about people using the internet during work hours.

Retired http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

ITSRX7

04-12-2004, 05:56 PM

Be your own Manager and work from home.

I'll never go back........

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Hotshoe

04-12-2004, 07:18 PM

I for one hope they make at least one more class in IT. I see some good Iron in T2 that will need a place to go. So why not ITR like I have seen suggested. I see some people building some nice newer stuff (hmmmm) that will not fit in ITS after it is ten years old but sure would look good on the track in Improved Touring.

Like one man said...."What is the cost of another trophy?"

Rick Thompson
IT? .... LOL

Bill Miller

04-12-2004, 08:26 PM

Stuck at home today w/ brochitis and a sinus infection!!

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

Jake

04-12-2004, 09:04 PM

I'm sick too. I was looking to start another fight with Bill for something to do, but we seem to agree on the need for new classes.

madrabbit15

04-12-2004, 09:50 PM

Some will not like what I am gonna say but I wanna say it.......

making another class is a horrible idea. Look what it has done to solo II. 25 or more classes at any regional event with maybe more than one other person in your class if your lucky. Only a few classes have a decent field.

If you want to have a competitive car in the class read the rules, see whats fast, do some research and build or buy that car. If you get 4-5 competitive years out of one car your doing good. Racing is expensive. I hate it, Wish is wasnt, if it wasnt I would be racing more, but you cant build or buy a car and expect the rules to move to you, nor can you run one car and expect that car to be "the car to have" the whole time you have it. There are always gonna be some cars faster than others, thats just how it is. The majority of the time I have raced, I have never had "the car to have" maybe one day I will.

Do some cars need to be moved? Yes. Are some cars moved that should not have been? Yes. I think when we do move cars they need to be moved on a one by one basis very very carefully. Or instead of pissing a few off, youll piss of many. There is no way to make everyone happy.

This is all just my opinion, but what do I know I havent raced in almost a year.

Derek

RSTPerformance

04-13-2004, 12:22 AM

Derek-

I like what you say IF this was national racing, but it isn't it is REGIONAL ENTRY LEVEL racing... This is the class people get into to see whats its all about. Yes it does happen to be the "best" (IMO) racing in SCCA besids the speed cars, but isn't it an intro to that as well???

I Still can't stand the idea that racing HAS to be soo expensive as people on these forums make it... It doesn't and or shouldn't if you have talent and ambition to do some of your own work. If moving ITA cars to ITB means that the cost to finish in the top 3 is higher than $5,000-$7,000 then it is a HUGE mistake. I will take that with me as far as I ever go.

PLEASE REMEMBER THIS IS AN INTRO CLASS AND NEEDS TO STAY AFORDABLE. If more classes need to be added to keep that what is the problem, instead of having the same 4-8 people win all the time (one or two contenders in each class) we will have 5-10. Seems to me like more racing???

Raymond

04-13-2004, 12:58 AM

Originally posted by cherokee:
WOW...spend the weekend under a car and look at everything that happend.
Let me clearify a few things on the way I think.

By Political I mean that this (RX-7 deal) is only under consideration because there are so many of them.

I am all for change I think it is needed, but to slap a few pounds and skinny wheels on the 7 and think it will not run away from 90% of the ITB cars out there...I think it will happen.

How do you explain that some RX7's do very well, this happens all over the country, and at different "type" tracks. I think that there are very different levels of prep on these cars, some are done to the 9's others are not, more so on this car because of the number of them out there.

I realy think that the IT classes need a re-shuffle. having cars from 196x running with cars from 200x is very very hard, and the day is coming that we are just going to have to let go of the old cars. (this said by a guy building a "new" 1972 race car). That said you pick the car for several reasons. My heart picked my car, if it does well GREAT if not, just let me run I'll still have fun, thats what it is all about.

Someone asked so here is my info:
Greg Mathews
1985 ITA MR2
1972 ITB Opel GT (almost there)

Thanks for clarifying that Greg, although I agree some cars will in the near future go away there are too many sevens that make up a huge proportion of our clubs economy, so I feel is goes deeper than just one marque being displaced. I agree on a reshuffle and agree 7's would be maybe too dominant for ITB. when SCCA reshuffled last time they saw fit to name their new classes GT1 thru 5, why they didnt name their production classes the same would be a guess but it was probly to save vinyl. SS1=IT1, SS2=IT2, and so on would make since to most of us, after all, the IT class is supposed to(Neon)give SS cars somewhere to go.

Derek, dont feel bad, I have a s--tload of racecars and I have missed a year out of the last two due to blown motors, all my fault im sure, I have 12 extra parts in my left foot all made of stainless, but I'd swear my right is mostly made of lead......

------------------
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

04-13-2004, 01:16 AM

I think this may be a forum record, 194 posts, good debate.

planet6racing

04-13-2004, 09:33 AM

Count me in with Derek on this one. More classes isn't going to change anything except the number of trophies handed out at the end of the day. If that is your primary concern, take your tire money and buy some trophies!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Affordable racing? Isn't that an oxymoron? No matter what is done, someone will always spend more than others to get to the front. Even in spec classes, this is the case. The only place I have seen a class that was close to "affordable" was the claimer Basic International Car class at the local dirt track. You knew how much your car was worth ($500, iirc) and, if you spent more than that, you knew someone could claim it.

I'm going to wait and see what the ITAC and the CRB do about the whole PCA thing. I agree that some cars need to be moved in the classes, but this isn't going to change who they are running with on the track.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

gran racing

04-13-2004, 09:33 AM

Derek,
I hear what you're saying with adding more classes and essentially wattering down things. BUT this is a bit different. Going back to what Jake outlined, we would still have a seperate class for ITC cars. Lets face it, there are not a ton of ITC cars running right now nor are there many cars out there with 80hp to move there without changing the class' structure and adjusting the type of car that is in the class. And adding ITR would be accepting the newer / faster cars.

I really agree with Raymond about the racing budget. Yeah sure, a person can't expect to buy/build a car and expect that it will always be the car to have. But they should be able to have a car and also have a place to race. There is no way IT CLUB racing should require that people go out and buy new race cars every few years. Pro racing? Yeah sure. But not entry level club racing. Take a look at the cars out there and are doing well. Cars from the late '80s. Pretty amazing when you think about it. Also pretty great!

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

Greg Amy

04-13-2004, 10:26 AM

...it is REGIONAL ENTRY LEVEL racing...NEEDS TO STAY AFORDABLE...

A pet peeve of mine, Raymond; please indulge me.

There is NO such thing as "entry level" racing, nor "affordable" racing, especially in SCCA. The level you choose to enter into racing is based TOTALLY on how much money you want to spend. There is nothing in the rules that keeps me from buying a brandy-new Toyota Atlantic car, hiring Chip Ganassi to crew it, and showing up at my first driver's school in a $1500 driver's suit. Nothing. Alternatively, there's nothing to keep me from going to a couple of Skippy schools, an SCCA school, three regionals, and then showing up at a World Challenge event with a brandy-new Turner E46. It's all a matter of money, and how much you want to (or can) open your wallet.

Then there's the idea that Regional-only classes are intended to be "entry level". This is silly. Regardless of what SCCA might say, this is patently untrue. The reason that IT, SM, CF, Club sports racer, and all the other classes are not National classes has nothing to do with their intended or stated purpose. They are Regioanl only simply because the SCCA only has so many classes they can accept into the National program for inclusion into the National Championship event. At some point, about in the early-80s, everyone started complaining about the number of classes causing event scheduling problems, so SCCA decided to limit the number of National classes. Other popular classes sprouted up regionally and were ignored by Greenwich/Englewood/Topeka.

Then came IT. It was so popular so fast (e.g., Spec Miata) that National could not ignore it. Everyone was clamouring for a consistent set of rules nationally (e.g., Spec Miata) but SCCA did not want to add yet another National class to the roster. So, they created national standard rules and put in the "regional only" clause in the category specs. It's that simple, no more, no less.

Finally, if you look upon IT as an "entry level" class simply because it's Regional-only then you're really missing the boat. That kind of attitude infers that there's a lesser amount of money spent and a lesser amount of talent participating. If you think that then you have not been paying attention. IT, and to a greater extent Spec Miata, have been and will continue to be some of the most competitive racing out there, and I sincerely doubt there's any way to spend more money that some of these teams do. Rest assured that if either or both were taken to a National level, it's highly doubtful the competition would/could be any more fierce.

Enjoy, and don't forget that while you may feel you're the red-headed stepchild of SCCA, it doesn't get any better than this in Club Racing...

GregA

Jake

04-13-2004, 10:37 AM

Originally posted by madrabbit15:
making another class is a horrible idea. Look what it has done to solo II. 25 or more classes at any regional event with maybe more than one other person in your class if your lucky. Only a few classes have a decent field.

Are you joking? Solo2 is by far the SCCA's most successful division! Solo2 is growing by leaps and bounds and is reaching all new records of participation. I hardly think of Solo2 as a failure!

Hey, thinking of Solo2, maybe we should have a Street tire class? I can finally run those $50 Falken Azenis tires!

Geo

04-13-2004, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by grega:
That kind of attitude infers that there's a lesser amount of money spent and a lesser amount of talent participating. If you think that then you have not been paying attention. IT, and to a greater extent Spec Miata, have been and will continue to be some of the most competitive racing out there, and I sincerely doubt there's any way to spend more money that some of these teams do. Rest assured that if either or both were taken to a National level, it's highly doubtful the competition would/could be any more fierce.

Oh, I don't know Greg. With a national championship on the line at The Runoffs, I'm sure there would be more money spent. I don't know that there would be a change in the level of talent, but I could very easily envision more money spent. Shoot, I've seen people spent $200 to win $100 at a money race in karting. I've also seen them drive pretty crazy to get it. I've seen the same at a double points race. It's amazing what people will do.

You may be right Greg, but I can certainly envision a different scenario.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

oanglade

04-13-2004, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Geo:
Oh, I don't know Greg. With a national championship on the line at The Runoffs, I'm sure there would be more money spent. I don't know that there would be a change in the level of talent, but I could very easily envision more money spent.

Having been to the Runoffs (as crew) and to the ARRC, my observation is that a lot of people will spend whatever they have or can get their hands on to win either.
Not everyone, but a lot of people will.
Paddock machine work and motor rebuilds, thousands of dollars in dyno time and ECU development, etc.

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

Greg Amy

04-13-2004, 11:43 AM

I'm sorry to continue to sound like an elitist, George, but I really, really, really wish you'd come up here for a free vacation and attend a race or two. You've got to see some of these $40K RX-7s, $50K BMWs, and top-prep Acuras, Hondas, and Nissans to fully understand what it's like to race SCCA outside of Texas.

And please don't take offense: don't forget that I was born in Dallas, went to school (woop!) and lived there for half my adult life, and I've raced at all of those same tracks for nearly a decade (well, except for that new-fangled one near H. Ross's airport). I've been there, I've seen and done that, and even *I* didn't believe it when they were telling me the same thing 10 years ago. It took a few trips to the Runoffs to even begin to understand. Now I believe...

Trust me, George, there's no way to spend more money up here in the Northeast to build some of these cars...travel, maybe, but prep? Uh-uh.

[This message has been edited by grega (edited April 13, 2004).]

cherokee

04-13-2004, 01:17 PM

I think what is ment by affordable racing is that the IT car can ease its way into racing where most other classes can't. You can pop the safety stuff in slap on some tires and go racing, then as funds allow you can modify you car from there. You can still even use your IT car as a every day driver if you should choose to. You most likely will not run at the top but that will not happen till your skills get you there anyway.

I think that now there is a need for another class, lots of new cars that will not fit anywere. We all run together anyway and if you can deal with an ITE Viper or Cobra R Mustang blowing by you some cars faster then the current ITS cars should be no problem.

RSTPerformance

04-13-2004, 01:54 PM

Greaga-

I don't disagree with what you said about the, entry level, cost issues, or talent issues.

I wrote a big long responce including my story again from us at the ARRC with the $1,000 budget and used tires but I am just going to say SCCA needs to keep a class where it is possible to race and just have fun without spending thousands of dollars and getting compleatly blown away as your car gets outclassed every couple years.

It already is almoast impossible for someone to race in SCCA with a income less than $50,000 a year. Forget it if you have a family, you had better make $100,000 a year to race and support the family (hopefully you then have a husband or wife kicking in a lot to help and who is suportive and willing to make that the families life).

Why is circle track so successful??? because it is cost effective.

SCCA has a huge untapped market and their are a lot of drivers I know in that market who could be just as fast and just as fun as any of the champions here if they could only afford it. Why make it harder by making all the classes faster and more expensive?

Raymond Blethen

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited April 13, 2004).]

gran racing

04-13-2004, 02:02 PM

Greg,
I think you're looking too closely about IT being MORE affordable and A way to enter into racing. On the spectrum of all road racing, where is IT "Club" racing? It all depends on a person's perspective, right? And it is what people make of it. What defines entry level? Not pro? And IT does provide people a wide spectrum amounts they "have" to spend.

If a person wants to race and not spend a significant amount of money (again, perspective here) you can do it in IT. For argument's sake, we'll say $5,000. And you can get a decent already prepared car for $3,000. No, you shouldn't choose an ITS car. And will you win at that budget? No, but you can do o.k. and have a great time especially if you are a good driver. Take a stock CRX si and put safety gear in, do the exhaust and get race tires. I know that a good driver could go out and do decent and have lots of fun.

There are also many other "entry level" race classes. Show room stock? That could be considered entry level to some. FV? There are lots. I wouldn't be insulted by the notion that IT can be a great entry into racing.

Just because IT provides a way for a person to enter into racing doesn't mean that it also can't be a place for a person to grow for a life time. I have no plans on leaving IT for many years to come. For me, I consider IT to be a place that provided me a way into racing, and a place I can continue to become a better driver and drive a better prepared car. There are people at all different levels and budgets in IT.

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

Greg Amy

04-13-2004, 02:03 PM

...the IT car can ease its way into racing where most other classes can't...

I disagree. I raced in Showroom Stock while I was still in college, using it as my daily driver car. I had a 5-year loan, my monthly payments were affordable, and I drove to the track. How many "affordable" IT racers can claim to be doing that now?

Have a truck and trailer? You're stylin' now! Since you're committed to buying a separate race car, the sky's the limit. Why not buy a 1980's Formula Ford and "ease" into racing? A good old Formula Vee? What about an old GT-1 Mustang? There's plenty of old Prod cars out there for the taking. If you're not looking to start at the top you've got a lot of opportunities.

Best part? All of these classes are NATIONAL, you *can* afford to pop in the safety stuff and ease into racing. You won't be competitive, but neither will you be in IT, so what's the difference? Chances are, you might even qualify for the Runoffs! It's all in the attitude.

So, just because it's a Regional-only class don't mean it's "less expensive." It's all a matter of what you want to do...

88YB1

04-13-2004, 02:03 PM

Thr reason SOLO II nationals are losing attendance is because they have not addressed the new calsses thet are growng like wildfire at the local level. The majority of the SOLO II gowth is the local "run what you brung" new classes that match what the younger drivers are currently driving. Most of these kids are not driving anything that will fit in the traditional SOLO classes thet run at Topeka.

Just my 2 cents worth

Chuck

dickita15

04-13-2004, 02:30 PM

Originally posted by grega:
I disagree. I raced in Showroom Stock while I was still in college, using it as my daily driver car. I had a 5-year loan, my monthly payments were affordable, and I drove to the track.

yes greg but look at what you were putting at risk. if i ball up my IT car i can get another shell for $200 and replace a few bent race parts and be back in a couple of months.

in a field of 35 cars there is plenty of room for drivers with your attitude and well as raymond's. you are right greg that to run at the front of S or A you can not cut corners but for me where a good day is top 10 it is a totally different perspective. look at jake's mr2 budget. top half of the field and as frugal as they come. there is room for both attitudes in IT racing and rule writing should consider both types of racers when discussing the future.

dick

oanglade

04-13-2004, 03:06 PM

I think this comes down to how you define "affordable racing" or "affordable racing class". To some people it means how cheap can you win and to others it means how cheap can you race. Some people don't have fun unless they win, some people have enough fun battling for next-to-last place.

"Price of admission" to race in IT is pretty cheap. The price to win is probably as high as many national classes.

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

Banzai240

04-13-2004, 03:15 PM

Guys,
I think many are missing the point here... I think IT should be more about affordable "competition"... Does that mean it's going to be cheap to win? Heck NO... It's not cheap to win in ANY form of racing.

However, if we (the CRB and ITAC) do our jobs correctly, the average level of competition should be improved. You are STILL going to have to make an effort to actually WIN, but my goal would be to do our best to create a situation where there would be a finer line between the haves and the have-nots... Or, in other words, try to find a way to make the extra expenditures pay off in the LEAST amount, thereby discouraging, or making it unneccesary to spend the money in the first place...

The details of how to do this are where the idea gets a little sticky...

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

RSTPerformance

04-13-2004, 03:40 PM

I agree with what has happened so far in IT, and I only disagree with the idea that older cars and cheeper cars/classes need to deal with the changes in time. As the economy has made a place for "faster" cars to be available I think a need exists or will exist for another class, not an elimination of a class (es) that already exists (ITB/ITC). I think that more affordable slower cars should continue to be classed into ITC and ITB so that people can get into IT and move as they see need into another car/class.

Yes winning (most of the time) takes a lot of money OR a lot of dedication on your part (to learn to build a car) and the dedication of other people/companies to help. We are fortunate enough to be of the part with less money and a lot of our own knowledge and a lot of helpful people/companies supporting us.

Raymond "expresed my concern now I am gone http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif" Blethen

Banzai240

04-13-2004, 03:53 PM

You guys have made some interesting conversation here, but I am curious as to why no one has taken me up on my previous request for a list of those cars in ITC that are "bottom feeders"...???

If we are going to deal with REAL problems, we need to know the scope of them. The subject of older/slower cars getting put out to pasture keeps coming up as a reason to implement another class in IT, but I have to wonder if there is really a problem requiring this solution to begin with...

If ITC is fairly competitive, and some ITB cars get moved there that have NEVER been competitive in ITB, at a weight that will make them on par with current ITC cars, then no one needs to be displaced...

So, again, WHAT is the extent of the ACTUAL "problem"? Give me a list of cars that you believe are currently ITC bottom feeders.

Let's stop operating off of hypotheticals and start looking at real data...

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

RSTPerformance

04-13-2004, 04:36 PM

Darin-

I didn't want to post anymore but I will clarify my view...

"The subject of older/slower cars getting put out to pasture keeps coming up as a reason to implement another class in IT" - Not my view Darrin, we need to look at the future but continue to hold on to our current “good” classes. There is no feasible way to classify all these cars into 4 classes. SCCA does not have a consistent volunteer base that could handle all of the constant changes and PCA’s that would be required to make it a 4-class system.

I don't see a problem moving the cars around such as the cars have been moved this year or cars that never were competitive (not necessarily my view about the ones for next year, I am undecided about those). I do see an issue moving the ITS and ITA cars around to make ITS a group of faster cars ITA a group of faster cars and ITB a group of faster cars (that came from ITA).

The majority of ITA and ITS cars are NOT competitive (IE: 2 or 3 "cars to have" in each class). If ITS took on the killer ITA cars and the Killer ITS cars got bumped to a higher class (ITR?) then we would have a much better balanced 5 class structure. The NEW cars that are in need of a place to be classed could get classed in (ITR?), ITS, and ITA.

I doubt this idea will ever happen as you would need to add a lot of weight to some of the current ITS cars to make the Integra and CRX competitive but hey that is my view of what might work.

I had made a list of what cars were competitive in each class, the ratio of cars that were competitive vs. number of entrants (and different cars entered) really showed that ITS and ITA are a real problem and need to be completely re-vamped. I think it also showed me that in the past most cars were classed into ITA or ITS and someone A) didn’t look to the future, or B) did a poor job at it, but maybe (IMO) that was because 2 classes is not enough for the current market needs.

I hope the future holds a better outcome for all of IT. I think it is a shame when only 2 or possibly 3 cars can win in a class, weather it is IT, PROD, GT, WC, ALMS, or F1. No matter how many people race “that car” it just makes for poor racing IMO.

Raymond

Bill Miller

04-13-2004, 06:34 PM

You are STILL going to have to make an effort to actually WIN, but my goal would be to do our best to create a situation where there would be a finer line between the haves and the have-nots... Or, in other words, try to find a way to make the extra expenditures pay off in the LEAST amount, thereby discouraging, or making it unneccesary to spend the money in the first place...

Darin,

Where did this come from? How did we get from talking about the need to increase the granularity level of the classes (or not) to money? I'm really curious as to what things you think would make it unnecessary to spend the money in the first place.

You want to do things that will help control costs, get rid of that open ECU rule. It's been demonstrated time and again, the only way to lessen the amount of money someone will spend is to have spec parts or claiming rules. And even those don't always work. The stories of parts-bin blueprinted motors in SS are as old as the category itself.

**Interesting side note: SS rules say you're not allowed to parts-bin blueprint (p-b B), yet there's no way to enforce the rule. Wasn't that the reason we were given for the ECU rule, because you couldn't enforce it? Things that make you go hmmmm

You can't stop people that have the money, from spending it, period.

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

gran racing

04-13-2004, 07:50 PM

You might not be able to stop the people that have money from spending it, but you can reduce its benefit. (No idea how that would actually be done fairly)

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

Asok #25

04-13-2004, 09:18 PM

Raymond

I enjoy your posts most of the time maybe because I enjoyed watching you or your brother at the ARRC last year. Great racing.

But... Your flat out wrong. More than 3 cars can and *DO* win in ITS and ITA.

ITS - e36, 944S*, 240Z, Achieva, RX-7, Integra GSR, pick a VW VR-6*, e30, 300Z, 190E 16V, Prelude si, 98' Prelude* there is already one of these looking good in texas and the car just got classified.

ITA- 240sx, Miata, Saturn, Integra, CRX si, 325e, RX-7, Escort Gt or the new face of ITA: Neon-X-two*, Prelude*, NX2000*, Sentra SER*, Civic V-tec*, or Z3*

* = a car I have never seen run but looks... wow. The rest I have seen win over the others.

What is wrong with IT. Don’t try to fix something that’s not broke. The majority of IT cars have never been built so who is to say with absolute certainty that they can’t win. I can't.

Scooter

04-13-2004, 10:51 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240:
The details of how to do this are where the idea gets a little sticky...

It seems to me that adding another class above ITS makes sense, and I would love to see a 350Z in full-race trim at my track, and not running a NASA race. I think the other classes are close now and can easily be managed by mild re-arranging.

Also, I think having more and slower classes have the natural effect of making some of the racing more affordable. And this is why: there will always be people in each class who will build a car to its max. However, more of these people gravitate toward the faster classes. Not that I have any hard evidence of this, but from what I see at the track, there are more bad-ass ITS and ITA cars than there are in ITB or ITC. Entry-level cars that are sort-of competitive locally are out there. For cheap. They're just 510s and Rabbits that run in ITC. Slower, older cars are the discount bin of racing.

Yes, we need to have a place for all the guys with their new Hondas to move to, but also for the guy who just wants to buy a cheap car and race, you should always be able to do that in IT if the classes are kept similar to how they are now.

Right now, if I was starting from scratch, no gear or license or anything, I could go racing in my own car for $5000. If the SCCA really wanted to get more people into racing, they'd start a financing program for race cars. If people could make payments on a car, they'd line up to do it.

I think I'm off topic now. dangit.
jpd

lateapex911

04-14-2004, 05:14 AM

Not off topic at all! Thats what made this thread so great...it is all over the place!!!! Will it hit 300?

Seems to me it's important to distinguish between affordable racing, and affordable winning .

The cost of winning will always be more than than just racing and will not be "affordable (vis a vis racing) in any class of racing, short of a claiming class.

Look at Spec Miata. The cost of running is one thing, the cost at the front is another. But the thing that seems to make SM so popular is the fact that the "haves" and the "have nots" are very close in performance. The expenditures are big while the results are diminishing.

The joy of IT is the fact that you CAN pick up, lets say, a CRX, pretty cheap, and start racing with only the safety gear, adding to the package as you learn. THAT is what makes a good "entry" level classs, one that encourages you to join up, and grow at your own pace. The CRX buyer might not win today, but once he gets his program rolling he can be at the front.

The downsides are just two. One, no chance, as it stands, that you will ever see the Runoffs from behind the drivers seat. And two, you better develop quickly lest the Gods of classing add a new bigdog to the class, and the slide down the results charts begins.

We'll talk about the first in another thread sometime, but I think the second one should cease to be an option in the new IT world.

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

gran racing

04-14-2004, 09:26 AM

"And two, you better develop quickly lest the Gods of classing add a new bigdog to the class, and the slide down the results charts begins."

So does this mean that you've rethought things and the RX7 should stay in ITA? Just had to ask. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

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

dpc

04-14-2004, 09:38 AM

Lets not forget that the RX-7(12A) started in ITS, now you want it in ITB. But that is called evolution. I still rember my RX-7 what a great car. dave

Greg Amy

04-14-2004, 10:21 AM

I remember driving my ITA Rabbit GTi and my buddy's ITS '79 RX-7...

"Evolution is an ongoing process..." - Anonymous wag

dickita15

04-14-2004, 10:25 AM

Originally posted by dpc:
Lets not forget that the RX-7(12A) started in ITS, now you want it in ITB. But that is called evolution. I still rember my RX-7 what a great car. dave

yes dave but you sold it because it was not competitive.
dick

dickita15

04-14-2004, 10:29 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240:
You guys have made some interesting conversation here, but I am curious as to why no one has taken me up on my previous request for a list of those cars in ITC that are "bottom feeders"...???

darin just a suggestion but lets ask the question another way.
ITC is undersubscribed in many parts of the country. Are there cars now in ITB that could be safely moved to ITC in order to make ITC a stronger class.
dicl patullo

JoelG

04-14-2004, 10:53 AM

Originally posted by Asok #25:

ITS - e36, 944S*, 240Z, Achieva, RX-7, Integra GSR, pick a VW VR-6*, e30, 300Z, 190E 16V, Prelude si, 98' Prelude*

I have to disagree with this. Every MARRS ITS race for the last 3 years has been won by an e36.

Joel

cherokee

04-14-2004, 11:10 AM

Originally posted by grega:
I disagree. I raced in Showroom Stock while I was still in college, using it as my daily driver car. I had a 5-year loan, my monthly payments were affordable, and I drove to the track. How many "affordable" IT racers can claim to be doing that now?

But the difference between SS and IT is the age of the cars. I bought my first MR2 for 2500. And it is nicer then the day to day drivers in that price range. I did not have to do anything to the car..it was turn key, even came with 4 sets of tires I did not have to buy tires the first year.

This is the big difference between a 10+ yr old car and a new SS car.

Banzai240

04-14-2004, 11:12 AM

Originally posted by dickita15:
Are there cars now in ITB that could be safely moved to ITC in order to make ITC a stronger class.
dicl patullo

Dick,

We think there are... I don't have the list in front of me right now, but watch for the upcoming Fastrack for some of those that are being considered...

You guys would be able to answer this as much as I can... Give me a list. The 1.7L VWs are already being suggested, as is the 1.7L Porsche 914. Throw out some more suggestions if you have them...

I'm still not convinced that there is any significance to the concern that any ITC cars would be "displaced" were we to move some of the slower ITB cars to ITC... Thus far, not one car of any popularity has been mentioned...

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

RSTPerformance

04-14-2004, 11:44 AM

Asok #25-

My above statement was based on my feedback here... Thank you for your feedback, and I don’t disagree to say that the cars in your list don’t have potential.

I know mostly about ITB cars, and I think my list was very complete and accurate.

I don’t know a ton about the different cars in ITS other than what I have seen in the Northeast and at the ARRC and the only cars that I have seen run up front are the BMW and RX-7 (I think a 944 also could have a decent chance and I have seen a few very fast Datson Z’s in the past) Other cars in ITS seem to be relatively well prepared and driven, but are not even close to the front.

I know a little about ITA cars- I think that “back in the day” a Corvair (sp?), RX-3, and Capri used to be the cars to have in ITA, then the MR2 or RX-7, but now none of them stand a chance in ITA, and if built properly could blow everyone away in ITB. I don’t think the Miata, RX-7, or Escort Gt have a fighting chance. I have seen those well built and I think that those should be the top dogs in ITA and the other cars that are faster should be moved. I have no opinion of the new face of ITS opps I mean ITA!!! I think that the future additions to ITA will only make the necessity to move half the ITA field to ITB, and I am very afraid that will ruin the ITB feild of relatively inexpensive cars. By the time all the PCA’s are done over 4 or 5 years ITB will have turned into what ITA and ITS has become (a much to expensive class, with dominant cars).

I don’t know much about ITC but it seems that ITC is in relatively decent shape, but might be able to use some of the underdog ITB cars. I think that a slow ITC car is underdeveloped. That really is a great class for people who are still in school to join in. I loved the U Mass team that Sam set up here in the Northeast. It was a great feeder for people into SCCA.

Here is a link to the feedback from before:

http://forum.improvedtouring.com/it/Forum1...TML/001243.html (http://forum.improvedtouring.com/it/Forum10/HTML/001243.html)

I still think that when you look at results and the numbers of DIFFERENT CARS actually winning or being within a second or 2 seconds of winning or qualifying pole in ITB and ITC you will notice a much larger variety. I DO think that cars could be shuffled from class to class (some ITB cars to ITC and some ITA cars to ITB. However I do think that the spread of cars from the top dogs in ITS to the underdogs in ITA you could realistically add another class and have MORE great races for champions.

As far as cars not developed and people thinking that they have no chance, 3 years ago my Audi would probably have had your * next to it if it had even been on your list at all for ITB. I built my car even though everyone said it had no chance. When I started building it I didn't even know how to look at a car and see if it had potential, I just liked the car and decided to build it, so I am sure their are plenty of "underdogs" that could compete.

Sooo… I really think that another class needs to be built not even between ITA and ITS but possibly above ITS. I think that ITA and ITS has cars that could move up and cars that could move down. I just don't like the whole "trickle down evolution idea. It doesn't have to be that way. I know of a 1980 ITB car that has NEVER been built in ITB yet and would make a great winning car (It is basically an Audi Coupe, but not). Anyway I respect your thoughts, and wouldn’t have any problems IF SCCA decided to leave IT how it is now.

SCCA, For the fun of it!!! (Is that stil our slogan?)

Raymond Blethen

RSTPerformance

04-14-2004, 11:50 AM

Originally posted by grega:
I disagree. I raced in Showroom Stock while I was still in college, using it as my daily driver car. I had a 5-year loan, my monthly payments were affordable, and I drove to the track. How many "affordable" IT racers can claim to be doing that now?

Grega- What would have happened if you totaled your $15,000 car now??? or then??? Could you afford two car payments to get back on the track within 5 years?

Raymond

oanglade

04-14-2004, 01:09 PM

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:

I know a little about ITA cars- I think that “back in the day” a Corvair (sp?), RX-3, and Capri used to be the cars to have in ITA, then the MR2 or RX-7, but now none of them stand a chance in ITA, and if built properly could blow everyone away in ITB. I don’t think the Miata, RX-7, or Escort Gt have a fighting chance. I have seen those well built and I think that those should be the top dogs in ITA and the other cars that are faster should be moved. I have no opinion of the new face of ITS opps I mean ITA!!! I think that the future additions to ITA will only make the necessity to move half the ITA field to ITB, and I am very afraid that will ruin the ITB feild of relatively inexpensive cars. By the time all the PCA’s are done over 4 or 5 years ITB will have turned into what ITA and ITS has become (a much to expensive class, with dominant cars).
Raymond Blethen

I don't think the Escort or the RX-7 have a chance in ITA, but I do think that the Miata can be as good as the CRX.

I also think that ITA cars are about as inexpensive as ITB cars, for the most part. I don't understand the concern about moving some slow ITA cars to ITB ruining "the ITB field of relatively inexpensive cars".

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

Asok #25

04-14-2004, 01:23 PM

Joel
This took me 3 minouts to find this MARRS race. Less than 3 year old.

http://www.ncrscca.com/Pdf/2002%20Race%20r...4%20revised.pdf (http://www.ncrscca.com/Pdf/2002%20Race%20results/May%2012%202002/May%2012%20group%204%20revised.pdf)

Raymond
Your very well spoken and you make a good argument. But I feel The majority of IT cars can be competitive. The outliers that do exist are on the bottom end of the classes. E30 318is in ITS. 912E in ITA. The SCCA has done a great job in classifying cars.

IMO! A 5th IT class is a mistake. Where is the line? The Corvair. Does it go with the fast ITA cars or the slow? 140hp stock hmm sounds fast… 4 wheel drum… sounds slow. How about the biggest motor in IT the 4.2 liter AMC Spirit? Sounds fast to me… but 90hp stock sounds darn right slow. What cars are dropped from ITS? 944, 1st gen RX-7, TR-8 the only V-8 classified and biggest motor in ITS at 3.5 liters. To add a 5th class is only going to make the whole thing that much more political.

I say keep it the way it is and thank the boys in Topeka for doing as good a job as they do.

p.s. I have seen a few Fire Arrows run. 2.6 liters in ITB looks good to me. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

p.s.s. Here is a race where a 190E won out of a 37 ITS car field.

http://www.cfrscca.org/results/DAY_MAY/ECRsaturday.htm

gran racing

04-14-2004, 02:36 PM

You can't possibly keep things as they are forever. Unfortunate, maybe. There has to be a point where things slowly change, hopefully for the better. And of course you need to be careful!

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

Greg Amy

04-14-2004, 03:37 PM

What would have happened if you totaled your $15,000 car now??? or then??? 

Well, obviously, I was smart enough to not have put myself in that situation if I could not have afforded to get out of it...let's just say that 'back then' there were a lot of dogs running out into the middle of the roads, putting cars into ditches just outside of major racetracks...

Today I would not put my only car onto the race track. At worst I'd have an old diesel Rabbit at the ready to go to work "just in case".

But today's a totally different scenario. I raced Showroom Stock for four years without a truck and trailer (well, not counting the little one I towed behind with tires and tools). Remember all the publicity I got at the 2002 OMP Challenge when I drove the NX2000 to LRP being chased by my brother-in-law's Dodge Caravan? It was an oddity, and it got attention.

Today there's not a soul in the paddock that drove their car to the racetrack. I find it really irritating to hear people scream "poverty" while showing up with trucks, trailers, tools, spares, extra wheels and tires, canopies, grills, real chairs, real tents, real sleeping bags, hell all the comforts of home.

Guess it's all in the attitude, and what you really want to do. If you REALLY want it, you'll find a way. If you don't, then you'll bitch about not getting it.

GA

[This message has been edited by grega (edited April 14, 2004).]

Jake

04-14-2004, 04:05 PM

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)

RSTPerformance

04-14-2004, 04:06 PM

Grega-

"Today there's not a soul in the paddock that drove their car to the racetrack. I find it really hard to accept the "povery" defense when people are showing up with trucks, trailers, tools, spares, extra wheels and tires, canopies, grills, real chairs, real tents, real sleeping bags, hell all the comforts of home."

Exactly...

Asok #25-

I agree with you that SCCA IT is fine right now, I don't have a problem with it. I originally posted only cause IF SCCA is planning for the FUTURE I think we will need 3 classes in the uper portion of the spectrum. I would like to see a class that has cars such as the "Killer ITS BMW"

jumt my opinion, and I do thank all the people who have made IT what it is, no matter what class their is their will always be problems... I think all in all the IT classes are the best group of classes in the US

Raymond

gran racing

04-14-2004, 04:21 PM

I didn't realize people were screaming poverty?? Just "affordable" racing. There is a big difference. IT should be a place where racing can be done on a reasonable budget. Why is that so bad to want and expect? If the cheapest way to get into racing was to spend $15K on a race car, I'd still be sitting in the bleachers watching. And again as I previously posted, I'm not saying that someone on a low budget should expect to win. Just expect to have a place to race and have some fun.

And as Jake, I too drove my car to various tracks up until last year. Kinda got tiring having kids want to race me at every light...Then I pulled the race car on a inexpensive tow dolly with a 4 cylinder Jeep Wrangler (which did a really great job surprisingly - of course not recommending it to anyone). "I" then finally decided (wife nagging about the used car parking lot) to sell the cars we had and get a pick-up to tow the race car with. I know, I was in shock too.

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

Greg Amy

04-14-2004, 04:30 PM

Therein lies the rub, Dave:

- Define "affordable"
- Define "reasonable"
- Define "cheap" and "inexpensive"
- Hell, define "fun"!

Ask 25 people, and you'll get...?

I still contend that there are very few classes in the SCCA that someone cannot "at least get into" with a minimal of money. That counts National, Regional, formula, sports racer, tin-tops, whatever else. Once you've committed to buying a truck and trailer you've opened an entire racing world at your disposal.

What we're debating here is not getting in, it's being competitive. And that's a whole 'nother issue...

planet6racing

04-14-2004, 05:56 PM

Affordable racing, or affordable in-class, near-the-front competition?

You can race in IT for under $5000. It is possible. You won't be near the front, but you'll probably have someone back there to race with. You can race in FF for under $10K. Again, you won't be near the front, but you'll probably have someone to race with. You can race in SM for about $7000. You won't be near the front, but you'll probably have someone to race with.

There are very few classes that aren't "affordable" (T1, GT, SRF, FM, and FC all come to mind). It really comes down to where you want to finish.

IT gives you a place to "race" your car provided you do the minimal safety improvements. That's all it was ever intended to do. It is still at that point and I can't say that I want to see it change.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

Bill Miller

04-14-2004, 07:48 PM

Asok,

That's a bit misleading. The VIR race is actually a joint SARRC/MARRS event. If you look at the third place (overall) car, it has MTS listed for the class, and 1st as class position. That's Ed York's E36 BMW, and he did indeed win the MARRS race at VIR. He finished behind a 240Z and an RX7 (both SARRC cars), but he was listed as the winner of the MARRS ITS race.

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

Banzai240

04-14-2004, 09:17 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
He finished behind a 240Z and an RX7 (both SARRC cars), but he was listed as the winner of the MARRS ITS race.

Thank you Bill... Excellent observation...

It's facts like this that clearly show why you CANNOT just use race results to measure things... You have to look at all the factors involved...

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

04-15-2004, 10:35 AM

Im lost, what does class intent or affordability have to do with bringing the cars a little closer together performance wise? thats what most asked the CRB for and thats what they are doing. I had a freind tell me the other day he spent $19,000 on a single EP engine, dosnt garrantee he will win, just insures how he'll feel if it goes up in smoke. 40k to 50k IT cars, oops, sorry about the donut, didnt seem to hurt my 10k P.O.S.

Asok #25

04-15-2004, 03:50 PM

So just cause he was the 3rd fastest ITS car he wins all the respect. Do what?

I look at those results and see a MARRS car losing to a SARRC car. yes. But also an e36 losing to a 240Z on a level playing field in a MARRS race!!! Just because the 240Z does not get MARRS points does not mean it did not win the race.

Are both ITS cars???? YES! The MARRS boys just lost on that day to a fast car.

Ed York is simple one of the best drivers in the nation if I remember right he still won races when he didn't drive an e36. I think yall might want to campain for an Ed York 200lb reward instead of going on a witch hunt.

Quickshoe

04-15-2004, 04:52 PM

Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
Im lost, what does class intent or affordability have to do with bringing the cars a little closer together performance wise? thats what most asked the CRB for and thats what they are doing.

Since this thread has been all over the place we might as well take it down this path too!

I believe that many people may confuse a cars' ultimate potential within the rules and a cars' potential within a given budget.

Bill Miller

04-15-2004, 06:29 PM

Asok,

If Ed York's E36 was the only one dominating, I don't think anyone would be looking for an adjustment to all the E36 cars. Point of fact is that there are several of them around the country that are regularly atop the ITS podium.

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

GKR_17

04-15-2004, 06:54 PM

Originally posted by JoelG:
I have to disagree with this. Every MARRS ITS race for the last 3 years has been won by an e36.
Joel

The MARRS results show that Sam Asinugo won the 10th race last season; I may be wrong but last time I saw him he was in an E30 BMW.

Like Asok said, the reason the E36 is dominant in that series is Ed York. To say that the other cars that did actually beat him didn't count because they weren't in the points for that series adds tons of credibility to the argument...

GKR_17

04-15-2004, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Asok,

If Ed York's E36 was the only one dominating, I don't think anyone would be looking for an adjustment to all the E36 cars. Point of fact is that there are several of them around the country that are regularly atop the ITS podium.

I can think of several Rx-7's and 240Z's in the same situation. Some even seem to beat York.

04-15-2004, 11:20 PM

Sam sold his E-30 since he couldn't catch York's E-36 and is now spending a lot on an E-36. He has won two races, only because York DNF'd.

As far as any 240 or RX-7 catching an E-36 at Summit Point, forget it. The two or three top E-36's regularly post laps that are at least 2 seconds a lap faster than ANY other car, be it a 240, RX-7 or Integra.

A top E-36 in ITS trim such as York's or Sam's is only 1 second slower than the normal EP regional winners. I've seen on the Production boards where the Production racers say that the E-36 has too much potential for EP, and isn't ITS where most, if not the majority of EP cars have come from?

Pull the lights, gut the interior, put on some fiberglass body panels and the E-36 with IT engine specs could run in EP and win. Do some other minor work and the car could be competitive in Regional GT-2.

When the E-30's were first classed in ITS, I was driving an overweight, underpowered "budget" 280Z. I was only 4 seconds off the winning E-30's (Alan Freed in an E-30 rumored to have been prepped by PTG)times. Within one season, the top 240's, RX-7's, and 944's closed the gap and all were competitive.
Now, the mid pack cars that are running times faster than what was the track record in the mid to late 90's are now 8-10 seconds off the leaders times. They routinely get lapped not once, but twice in a 15 lap race, which, at the end of the season if they do all the MARRS series, ends up being one whole race they paid to compete in, yet, didn't get to finish.

Bill Miller

04-16-2004, 12:33 AM

GKR,

I don't think anyone said they "didn't count" (I know I didn't). All I did was point out that Ed won that MARRS race. I wasn't the one that decided to have to seperate groups of the same cars, racing at the same time, each running for their own positions/points. If you have issues w/ that, take it up w/ the race organizers.

Funny how you guys are saying that the only reason the car dominates is because of the driver. How about all the other E36 cars that seem to do well around the country? What about James, or Kip, or ????? Ed's a great driver w/ a very well developed and prepared car.

And, a car doesn't have to win every race to be dominant. Even Michael Schumaker doesn't win every race.

You guys are just trying to protect your investments (naturally so).

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