PDA

View Full Version : Beetle in ITC



Pages : [1] 2

grjones1
07-23-2004, 11:07 PM
They have got to be kidding! declaring a 2.0 liter, 10:1 compression, 4-wheeled disc braked, aerodynamic, and tri-linked rear suspensioned Beetle an ITC car. What happened to classing new cars in S to observe their potential?
Volkswagen has once again exercised its influence upon SCCA decisions. It's bad enough they get an extra 100 cc's for their Sciroccos and cams that never saw a production Rabbit.
There goes the neighborhood. Anyone want to buy a well developed Fiesta for Driver's school, I have officially become outdated?

G. Robert Jones
And I can't wait to see the results of my 1800-lb. Ford being tagged by a 2800-lb. VW. It should be launch time. Thank you Board, you've once again made a monumentally stupid decision.


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 23, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 23, 2004).]

Catch22
07-24-2004, 12:12 AM
Stupid?
Look inward before you look outward.

First, as far a racing with a "2800lb VW" I suppose you never do enduros where you run with 2800lb ITS BMWs. Or maybe you never share the track with any 2800lb ITB Volvos. Well lucky you then because I do it at every single race I enter.

Second, if you're scared of a 2700+ pound car with 115 horsepower... I hate it for you. Personally I don't see this upsetting the apple cart at all. Even if this thing does outrun me top end I'll certainly outbrake the shit out of it at the end of the straight. I only have a... gee whiz... 600lb weight advantage.

I know a good orthopedic surgeon that can help you fix that knee you just completely jerked out of its socket.

Scott, who stands in front of his ITC Civic and says the comp board can class all the 115hp 2700lb cars it wants to in ITC. Bring it on!!!

Banzai240
07-24-2004, 01:16 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Volkswagen has once again exercised its influence upon SCCA decisions.

I can personally vouch for the fact that VW likely has NO IDEA this car was even classified in IT! Give me break dude! This car getting classified in ITC is the direct recomendation from the ITAC, so if you have any beef, you'd better start aiming at the source.

There are a hell of a lot of VERY intelligent people on the CRB and the ACs, and there is a lot of LOGIC and real numbers behind the decision to put this car in ITC. It has the same wt/pwr ratio (if you believe that this motor will generate 144hp in IT trim http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif ) as the Rabbits, the 510s, and likely less than the Civics... And all those brakes and tires are certainly countered by the fact that it weighs at least 600lbs more than it's competitors.

The red herring of heavier cars in your "class" has been explained previously, but you might want to start thinking in terms of RUN GROUPS, rather than class... Besides, there are never more than 4 or 5 ITC cars (out here, that would be a total shock...) in a race anyhow, and how often do they really run together?

As for classing the cars in "S and observing their potential"... Whose idea was that? Who would build some of these cars (Neons come to mind) unless they were classed in the RIGHT class in the first place?



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

ITSRX7
07-24-2004, 08:36 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Volkswagen has once again exercised its influence upon SCCA decisions. ?

G. Robert Jones


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

This is the kind of attitude that gets to me everytime.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

gran racing
07-24-2004, 09:05 AM
I think this addition is a great thing for ITC. As mentioned by the ITC numbers it is on the edge of extinsion. This just might be the thing that helps get more participation in the class.

As far as getting beat by the car, how does the ford do compared to the Civic? I'm assuming you're talking about the Fiesta? If so, a guy up in the NER races one and it does very well.

What run group does ITC run with in you're area? If it is B, then you'd still be racing with it anyways. If it is A, there are some fairly heavy cars there as well.

Do car manufacturers care at all about IT? I highly doubt it - but would be curious to know. I haven't seen any factory backed IT cars like WC. There isn't much to gain for VW or any other manu. to get involved in IT.

You might enjoy racing with the Beetle more then you think. Guess you'll just have to wait and see.

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

Bill Miller
07-24-2004, 09:10 AM
Volkswagen has once again exercised its influence upon SCCA decisions. It's bad enough they get an extra 100 cc's for their Sciroccos and cams that never saw a production Rabbit.


Wow, where did you get this one from??? I'd love to know where you got the information that VWoA has any interest, much less influence in Club Racing. IIRC, VW hasn't promoted thier cars in US racing in almost 20 years (Golf Cup days). I don't recall seeing one ad that mentioned the Corrado winning the SSA National Championship back in the early/mid 90's (I think it was '95 or '96, I'm sure Bill S. can clarify when it was.)

What exactly do you mean by?
It's bad enough they get an extra 100 cc's for their Sciroccos...


If you're talking about the movement of the 1.7 cars from ITB to ITC, I'm pretty confident that VWoA could care less about cars they haven't made in over 20 years. Especially in SCCA Club Racing. AFAIK, that was a member-initiated request for a move (I wrote the orignal letter that was shot down.)

As far as the G-grind cam goes (I can only assume that's what you're referring to), it's my understanding that all the paperwork and documentation were in order to get that allowed. If it's the only part they (VW) offer for the car, what's the problem? (Disclaimer: That being said, if the same is true of the Datsun cam, it should be allowed as well.)

As far as the weight issue goes, people make valid points about run groups, enduros, etc. My contention is, those cars are not typically racing amongst themselves. The weight difference may be a non-issue, but I think it sets a bad precedence by classing cars that appear, on paper, to be beyond the performance envelope of a given class, in that class at a significantly higher weight. It will be interesting to see where the Golf IV 2.0 falls, when it is classified. With the NB landing in ITC, I don't see how they could put the Golf anywhere but ITC. Same chassis, same motor/drivetrain, same suspenion/brakes, different bodywork.

I see the potential for some of the same complaints that were voiced against the limited-prep Production cars. You have cars that will have better acceleration/top speed, but poorer braking/cornering capability. They'll outrun them (the 'traditional' cars) on the straights, only to hold them up in the corners. Granted this is an inherint (sp?) characteristic of racing in non-spec classes. Some cars do better at different points on the track/types of tracks, than do others.

Darin,

Have you had a chance to run those numbers I asked you for? Also, are you able to share the formula that was used on the NB w/ us?

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

Mark LaBarre
07-24-2004, 09:31 AM
Spec Bug. Mark my words, in a few years this will be a class. Part of the rules would be the vase and flower have to remain in the car, and the paint jobs alll have to be based on ladybugs. Now that would be fun to see.

Greg Amy
07-24-2004, 09:51 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Who would build some of these cars...unless they were classed in the RIGHT class in the first place?</font>

Ouch, that hurt.

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

Bill Miller
07-24-2004, 11:11 AM
Besides, there are never more than 4 or 5 ITC cars (out here, that would be a total shock...) in a race anyhow, and how often do they really run together?


There you go again Darin, over-generalizing. I just looked at the results of the last MARRS race at Summit Point, and there were 12 ITC cars listed, 10 finishers, and 2 DNS. Same numbers for the race before that, only 1 DNS though. There were also 12 cars at the first MARRS race, w/ all of them starting and finishing.

ITC has been a healthy, and competitive class in the MARRS series for the past several years, and I can't see that changing in the near future. Not sure why it isn't as well subscribed in other parts of the country. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

/edit/ Side Note: Mr. Jones was on the podium in ITC, in all of the above mentioned races.

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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited July 24, 2004).]

grjones1
07-24-2004, 11:26 AM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

This is the kind of attitude that gets to me everytime.

AB



The answers are as follows:
1) When I race against a much heavier car, like a Volvo, he/she's's in a higher class and we are less likely to dice for position (and he is less likely to be in the heat of battle during which time he is less likely to pop my rear end.)
2)Wait until you attempt to brake with those four wheeled, oversized and vented front brakes (2800 lbs or not, the Beetle will outbreak any pre-nineties car on the road.
3) Wait until you try to power with your 1500-1600 cc against 2.0 liters of IT "breathed upon" horsepower. (How many horsepower and how much torgue do you think balanced and blueprinted, recurved induction 2.0 liters with 10.5:1 compression will make compared to your 1.5/6?
4) And wait until you try to corner with the new state of the art suspension.
You guys really don't see what you are up against.
5) And as far as VW not caring about IT, why did they go to the trouble of creating a G-grind and getting it through the rules when no other OM has bothered to participate in an updated parts program?

Excuse me but when one make begins to gather favors: G-grind, 1.7s, then 2.0s, I begin to smell a rat and this rat is disguised as an insect.

I welcome new blood in IT as much as the next guy, but there are plenty of 1.6, front disced/rear drummed and inexpensive suspensioned post 80's models running around to introduce to C. We don't need to bring in a class beater to further VW sales.

G. Robert Jones

Knestis
07-24-2004, 11:32 AM
VW couldn't give less of a rip about club racing. A LOT of people - myself included - have been trying to change this since the mid-'80s, to no avail.

K

grjones1
07-24-2004, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

If it's the only part they (VW) offer for the car, what's the problem? (Disclaimer: That being said, if the same is true of the Datsun cam, it should be allowed as well.)

Bill,
Try buying any part for a Fiesta at a Ford dealer. Evrything is NLAed. Does that mean I can use any aftermarket part? I can't even get people to allow a head that is identical to the stock head, because it doesn't have the right numbers on it.
G

[/B]

Catch22
07-24-2004, 11:44 AM
The SEDIV typically sees around 5 to 7 ITC cars per weekend. Not bad, but it could certainly be better.

And really, drop the weight thing. It'll be no more dangerous than the current situation given that I already race closely with ITB Volvos nearly every weekend and have ITS BMWs passing me at a 20mph closing speed. I'm wayyyyy more worried about getting collected by a 2800lb, 220hp BMW that is lapping me than I am about getting tangled up with a 2800lb, 115hp Beetle. Seriously guys, think before you type.

And the Golf???
Go ahead and class it in ITC at 2700lbs. I have no problems with it. Hell, take about half the cars currently in ITB and add 250lbs to them and put them in ITC. Again, no complaints from me.

I'm very happy that Mr. Jones is not on the comp board. I assume attitudes like his are what got IT so goobered up in the first place. "When in doubt, panic and put it in ITS." Excellent. Thats just excellent.

Scott, who also finished on the podium at his last ITC race with 10 cars in class (not that this means anything, but since it was mentioned above I thought I'd throw that in there <shrug> ).

ITSRX7
07-24-2004, 11:51 AM
It seems that teh majority thinks this is a good idea. I certainly do.

- ITC is poorly subscribed accross the country. To Bill, if you can get 10 cars in a MARRS race, how does that compare to the other IT classes in a MARS race, percentage-wise? In the Northeast, 25 + in both ITS and ITA, 20 + in ITB and 5-8 in ITC. New blood may revitalize this class.

- We could have put the NB in ITB - at a weight we felt it really could never have acheived. Then we would have had people clammoring that it just got stuck in there as fodder. I swear that if I gave some people on the board $1M in a suitcase, you would complain the suitcase was too heavy.

Let's see how it works out, and adjust if we need to.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Catch22
07-24-2004, 11:57 AM
1) When I race against a much heavier car, like a Volvo, he/she's's in a higher class and we are less likely to dice for position (and he is less likely to be in the heat of battle during which time he is less likely to pop my rear end.)
2)Wait until you attempt to brake with those four wheeled, oversized and vented front brakes (2800 lbs or not, the Beetle will outbreak any pre-nineties car on the road.
3) Wait until you try to power with your 1500-1600 cc against 2.0 liters of IT "breathed upon" horsepower. (How many horsepower and how much torgue do you think balanced and blueprinted, recurved induction 2.0 liters with 10.5:1 compression will make compared to your 1.5/6?
4) And wait until you try to corner with the new state of the art suspension.
You guys really don't see what you are up against.


Nice try, but...

1. At VIR 2 months ago I spent the entire race swapping positions with a Volvo. He was battling for 4th in ITB and I was fighting for 1st in ITC. As a result, we were not giving each other anything more than if we were in the same class. This happens all the time, everywhere, everyweekend, somewhere.
2. My '91 Civic has been in ITC for several years. It has vented front brakes, the exact same units that are on the ITA cars. My brakes are very good, but because I outweigh them by close to 200lbs I can't really brake very much deeper than the earlier Civics with tiny, solid front rotors. Weight kills, just ask Bill Auberlin.
3. That VW will have to make about 145 HP at the crank to have the same P/W ratio as the typical current frontrunning ITC car (about 23 to 25). It'd need even more than that to get what the 20 year old Scirroccos are already getting. If you truly believe that someone can legally get more than 30hp with IT prep on that car then you have an argument here. IF you believe that.
4. Again, my Civic, which you've been classed against for quite a while already, has a 4 wheel independent double wishbone suspension. I believe I can corner with that VW.

Sorry, thems the facts.

grjones1
07-24-2004, 12:15 PM
That VW will have to make about 145 HP at the crank to have the same P/W ratio as the typical current frontrunning ITC car (about 23 to 25).
Darin,
I too have diced with Volvos and BMW 2002s recently, and thank goodness those guys didn't throw their weight around. I'll concede the "weight" point, but again with a computer chip, that I beleive is now legal in IT, 10.5:1, and VW's penchant for building "replacement" parts, and headers, do you really not conceive of 145 HP for the Beetle? And did you happen to look at the gearing on that 5-speed? It's a close ratio racing box compared to my 4-spd with overdrive fourth. And C is a long way from S! Why not B, where the 2.0s now reside and see what it can do? Then move it. Why put a car with 400 cc's more than has ever been in the class? I too am glad I'm not on the Board, I prefer people who can think beyond their first impulse: "Let's throw in the Beetle in C and stir up new interest! (And of course outclass every car in the class." Brilliant!
Keep this post, 2 years from now ITC will indeed be "Spec Beetle."
G

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 24, 2004).]

grjones1
07-24-2004, 12:22 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Knestis:
[B]VW couldn't give less of a rip about club racing. A LOT of people - myself included - have been trying to change this since the mid-'80s, to no avail.

K,
Beleive me, VW is interested when they are assured a VW win. Observe the Rabbit/Bilstein Cup, Formula V, etc. It's only when there's a chance of their getting their rears kicked they don't want to get involved.
Am I prejudiced, yes.
G

Bill Miller
07-24-2004, 12:50 PM
Robert,

I'll concede that you're prejudiced, but it's clouded your objectivity. VW didn't 'create' the G-grind cam for club racing in the US. It was a European spec part that game in the European GTI's. Also, VW didn't initiate getting the G-grind cam allowed in IT, that was member driven.

The Rabbit/Bilstein Cup is almost 20 years old, at its youngest. VWoA hasn't taken any interest in racing since then. As I said, they didn't play up the fact that the Corrado was a National Championship car, or that VW cars would good race cars. They haven't played that in almost 20 years. And FV? Please. While I'm not an aircooled guy, I would guess that most of the FV stuff is supplied through the aftermarket.

And back to the 1.7's being moved to ITC. Do you really think those cars belonged in ITB? Do you really think a 1.7 Rabbit @ 2000# is a match of an A2 GTI @ 2280#, must less a Volvo 142E?

I'm not so sure that the NB belongs in ITC, but to say that VWoA is pulling strings or calling in favors to get it there, makes the black helicopter crowd look sane.

Andy,

Since Darin doesn't seem to be around, can you run those numbers for me?

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

grjones1
07-24-2004, 01:14 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Robert,

I'll concede that you're prejudiced, but it's clouded your objectivity. VW didn't 'create' the G-grind cam for club racing in the US. It was a European spec part that game in the European GTI's. Also, VW didn't initiate getting the G-grind cam allowed in IT, that was member driven.

And back to the 1.7's being moved to ITC. Do you really think those cars belonged in ITB? Do you really think a 1.7 Rabbit @ 2000# is a match of an A2 GTI @ 2280#, must less a Volvo 142E?

I'm not so sure that the NB belongs in ITC, but to say that VWoA is pulling strings or calling in favors to get it there, makes the black helicopter crowd look sane.


___________________________________________
OK Bill, VW is an innocent bystander, just allowing the little people to play. (And VW had stopped selling the Corrado by the time it was a champion. Why promote a car you dont't sell any more?
But then, if the G-grind was in a European car and never sent here in a car, how are we allowing it in IT? Except for the fact that the VW boys can't run down to their dealer and buy an original cam? I and many others are in the same boat (Fiats, Escorts, Toyotas, etc.) So why does VW get preferential treatment? If I put the XR2 (Euopean Fiesta) cam in my car I'd be protested in a minute.
And most of your points are made for underdogs that should not have been classed or at least raced to begin with. Whatever happened to the old "We don't guarantee the competivness of a particular car." If someone makes the wrong choice to begin with, do we now penalize the class below him to make him competitive? I guess we do and now we go beyond that and put in the biggest motor we can find among the smallest motors remaining on the racetrack. It just doesn't make sense. New cars yes: Hyundais, Kias, Suzukis, Geos, and many others with 1600 motors. But not 2.0 VW's - they are not C cars! Thanks for allowing me to vent, but as you know I've been chasing better cars for a long time and now another apparently unsurmountable model has been thrown at us. Guess I'll have to find a way to out drive them.
G


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 24, 2004).]

Banzai240
07-24-2004, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Since Darin doesn't seem to be around, can you run those numbers for me?



Sorry guys... I've been sick in bed for a couple of days now, and haven't had steady access to the keyboard...

Bill, to answer your question, the numbers come out about the same. If the Golf makes 115hp stock, then, assuming a 25% increase in power, it should be in ITB at 2450 or so... Since it's there at 2350lbs, I'd have to say that it should be a great car in ITB... That being said, we'll have to see how Chris Albin and others do with them before we'll know for sure... It's within a 100lbs or so of where it should be. Since I don't have all the numbers for the rest of the class, it's hard to say for sure how it will measure against the Volvos, etc... Maybe you VW guys can tell us...



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

ITSRX7
07-24-2004, 02:12 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Why not B, where the 2.0s now reside and see what it can do? Then move it. Why put a car with 400 cc's more than has ever been in the class? I too am glad I'm not on the Board, I prefer people who can think beyond their first impulse: "Let's throw in the Beetle in C and stir up new interest! (And of course outclass every car in the class." Brilliant!
Keep this post, 2 years from now ITC will indeed be "Spec Beetle."
G


We explained why the car didn't make it into B. Weight. Don't think this version of this chassis can make it to 2150ish (without driver) Like I said before, if it was in B, we would get crusified for that.

First impulse? Hogwash. First impulse was ITB. Then when we figured on a minimum weight, it was to low...see above. Much thought and debate were put into the decision and overall, we have come up with the following: A fresh face in ITC that SHOULDN'T dominate. And if it does, we SHOULD have the means to fix the mistake.

IF IT DOES, I have the feeling it won't be because the car ACTUALLY dominates but because a bunch of racers are looking for an option in ITC that they can actually get parts for - and they outnumber the dwindeling few left in their impossible-to-find 510's and early CRX's.

How about jusk asking about the rationale behind the decision instead of this kind of thing? Be happy to tell ya.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

grjones1
07-24-2004, 02:25 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

This is the kind of attitude that gets to me everytime.

AB


I've got to go on on this one. Please inform me where member input was allowed for the decision to put the Beetle in C?
It took you guys a year to decide that exterior coating should be allowed, yet you somehow come up overnigt with a class addition that may impact every member in the class without member input that I know about. I'm sorry guys but if putting the 2.0 Beetle in C can be equated to putting a $M in a suitcase, I am justified in answering these questions.

And when the all-knowing Board members decided it was ok for VW drivers to use a European-only part, why was it not foreseen that drivers of other makes might want the same consideration?
Feel free to lambast. I can take it. Can you?
G.Robert Jones

lateapex911
07-24-2004, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:

..... And VW had stopped selling the Corrado by the time it was a champion. Why promote a car you dont't sell any more?
Dude, you can't have it both ways! First you say VW cares and is involved because they are supplying trick parts for 20 year old cars, then you say they don't care to promote their wins cause the cars are 20 years old! Logic?? None here!


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> Whatever happened to the \"There is no guarantee of the competivness of a particular car.\" (clause) ??</font>

Again, where is the logic?? I imagine THAT very arguement could be tossed right back at you and your car! Where have you been for the e past few years, my friend?? You don't think it hasn't happened (presuming for a second that the Bug is indeed an overdog, which we don't know) in every other class for years??? What about the E36 in S? Or the CRX in A?? (A car with better suspension, the same or more power, and they class it 240 pounds lighter then the then "dominant" car)

Methinks you doth protest too much.

Most of your arguements are really irrelevant anyway. Invoking VWs sphere of influence has nothing to do with determining if the ITAC has classed this car correctly. The bottom line here is wether they missed the mark by a wide margin. I can't see how that agruement could be made to any effectiveness.

Wait and see, but don't lose sleep over it. All your worries should be so minor.


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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited July 24, 2004).]

ITSRX7
07-24-2004, 02:46 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

This is the kind of attitude that gets to me everytime.

AB


I've got to go on on this one. Please inform me where member input was allowed for the decision to put the Beetle in C?
It took you guys a year to decide that exterior coating should be allowed, yet you somehow come up overnigt with a class addition that may impact every member in the class without member input that I know about. I'm sorry guys but if putting the 2.0 Beetle in C can be equated to putting a $M in a suitcase, I am justified in answering these questions.

And when the all-knowing Board members decided it was ok for VW drivers to use a European-only part, why was it not foreseen that drivers of other makes might want the same consideration?
Feel free to lambast. I can take it. Can you?
G.Robert Jones


Getting - pulled - in... HELP....

1. My comment on the 'attitude' was made in reference to your rediculous assertion that VWoA had some influence on this recommendation. HA!

2. The CRB doesn't need to put new classifications out for member comment. If they are on the fence about something and would like to test the waters, yes. What was the last new classifciation that you sent your input to the CRB? Yup.

3. Exterior coatings - "You guys" is the CRB, not the members on this BB, the ITAC. Let's understand who you are throwing your darts at, OK? We can take criticism but not the Black Helicopter stuff you trop out. Come on.

Finally, re-read some of my posts. I have explained in detail how we came up with teh classification. You have the right to think we are nuts, but we think otherwise. Let's just keep the tone to a respectful level. Your assertions are way off base.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

grjones1
07-24-2004, 02:48 PM
A fresh face in ITC that SHOULDN'T dominate. And if it does, we SHOULD have the means to fix the mistake.
an option in ITC that they can actually get parts for - and they outnumber the dwindeling few left in their impossible-to-find 510's and early CRX's.

AB
__________________________________________

Come on AB. There are plenty of 1600cc cars out there people can get parts for and would provide fresh faces that don't offer mechanical advantages beyond anything that presently exists in ITC.

Again I ask did you not look at the gear ratios, computer chipping that motor, and all else the new tech provides. If light weight was the only thing that makes a fast car, my Fiesta would win every sedan race in the country.
The ITB 2.0 Volvos must weigh 2750; they are aerodynamic bricks, and they blow the doors off C cars. Does this not tell you something?
G

grjones1
07-24-2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:

Originally posted by grjones1:

sell any more?
Dude, you can't have it both ways! First you say VW cares and is involved because they are supplying trick parts for 20 year old cars, then you say they don't care to promote their wins cause the cars are 20 years old! Logic?? None here!
__________________________________________
I was answering Bill's question on why VW had not promoted the Corrado win. Different issue. VW still sells Rabbits/Golfs and Beetles. Logically they would want to promote those cars.
??

Again, where is the logic?? I imagine THAT very arguement could be tossed right back at you and your car! Methinks you doth protest to much.
________________________________________
Because the Boards have outdated cars in the past, doesn't make the practice acceptable. No matter how many times they do it.

No such thing as too much protest when obvious mistakes are made.
G

Knestis
07-24-2004, 03:06 PM
The G-grind cam is not the issue here but I think it was a technical error made by parties at least not atagonistic to the VW cause. Problem is, it can't get undone in the current world.

I buy the logic of the Bug not being able to meet the minimum that would be required for it to be in B.

Regarding the MkIII in B? It's going to suck. I'm positive. Pure crap...

K

JeffYoung
07-24-2004, 03:08 PM
STOP! Let the car race in C for a year and see what happens. The Board made its decision, there are reasons for it, and let's see how it pans out. Everything else right now is wasted breath (and keystrokes); let's talk about someting else for chrissakes.

Jeff

grjones1
07-24-2004, 03:16 PM
HA!

2. The CRB doesn't need to put new classifications out for member comment. Yup.

3. Come on.
_________________________________________
Does the CRB not ask for recommendations from the ITAC?
And when you've been around as long as I you realize that if it smells like a duck (or a "black helicopter") it probably is a duck.
And if you demand respect, I suggest you exhibit it.
G. Jones

grjones1
07-24-2004, 03:22 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Knestis:
[B]The G-grind cam is not the issue here but I think it was a technical error made by parties at least not atagonistic to the VW cause. Problem is, it can't get undone in the current world.
________________________________________
K,
The G-grind is an example of favoritism for the VW people, and as such is part of the issue.
Yes it can. Let me use the XR2 cam and FF head.
G.

lateapex911
07-24-2004, 03:44 PM
Maybe I'm just a really visual person, but the quoting graphics make reading the board so much easier...so, Mr. Jones, perhaps you could add a few keystrokes to your quoted responses.

When you want to interject a comment in a quote, end the quote section with a "/quote" and "/b" in brackets ( [....] ), then to restart the quote, use "quote" and "B" in same brackets to reset the quote and bold parameters.

If you want to see how its done, just choose another entry with the proper formatting, hit "Edit" and check out the UBB codes. They will be presented as you will need to enter them.

Thanks.

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

Banzai240
07-24-2004, 03:46 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Regarding the MkIII in B? It's going to suck. I'm positive. Pure crap...

K

Kirk... Please explain? With 115hp stock, and a decent suspension, why would this car NOT be a competitive B car... especially when it's 100lbs lighter, theoretically speaking, than it should be??? Curious as to the reasons here...

As for the rest of this... (not addressed to Kirk here... just in general... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif ) Give me a break... There are several of us here who are cautiously optimistic, and ONE guy who is livid... Until some real reasons come out as to why this is an overall bad move, it's really not worth arguing about... The guy is entitled to his opinion. I happen to think he's wrong and seriously misinformed...

This is how this worked... A letter was written to the CRB requesting classification for the NB... The letter goes to the ITAC, we make the recommendation for class and weight, and the CRB (one of whom was in on the con-call where the recomendation was discussed/decided on) either accepts, rejects, or modifies the recomendation. In this case, they approved it as recomended. It does, therefore, lie on the heads of the ITAC. If you have an real complaints, you'd better aim them at us. But don't get pissed off when we actually give you the real answers as to the details of this classification. I would think it would be rather a matter of culture shock to get any details at all concerning such things, and here we are giving you the WHOLE FRIGGIN' story... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

For once, we are in a time when we can actually back our decision with numbers... I'd say that's some serious progress...


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

lateapex911
07-24-2004, 04:01 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I would think it would be rather a matter of culture shock to get any details at all concerning such things, and here we are giving you the WHOLE FRIGGIN' story... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

For once, we are in a time when we can actually back our decision with numbers... I'd say that's some serious progress...




Yes, I don't think I have mentioned that point in awhile now.

I am very impressed with the current "regime", if you will, in their approach and accountability.

Think back two years ago. Unless you "knew someone", and could make a phone call, your letter would result in a "not recommended at this time", (or something equally oblique)and that would be that. No reason, no nuttin'

Now, not only are the answers more forthcoming (in general), but those who care to do the most basic of research into their hobby (a google search) will find this BBS, where the members of the ITAC respond, explain, and use this board as both a sounding board and a conduit to the general membership at large.

In general, the SCCA as a whole, and the ITAC in particular have made huge inroads in two way communications and to some degree, accountability.

Big progress, and I for one, am very appreciative.



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

gran racing
07-24-2004, 04:06 PM
K,
Silly question...is the MkIII the same at the Golf III?

If so, why do you think it will be bad?

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

Bill Miller
07-24-2004, 04:38 PM
VW still sells Rabbits/Golfs and Beetles. Logically they would want to promote those cars.


Robert, the last Rabbit sold in this country was 20 yeaars ago. If anything, the Corrado was probably a mere germ of an idea then. And while they had quit selling Corrados, they certainly were still selling the VR6 motor! And, if your theory was correct, why didn't the Rabbit GTI's get the G-grind cam? Why did the request to move the Rabbit GTI from ITB to ITC get shot down?

You want to run the X2 cam and FF head, do the legwork and get the supporting docs from Ford.

IF VWoA were really looking to use racing as a means of promoting sales of the NB, tell me why thy pulled the support of the Pro NB Cup after two years? This was a Pro series that got national TV coverage. Certainly more marketing exposure than a Regional Club Race. You're reaching for things that aren't there, and just making up stuff to support your position. Believe me, Kirk's comments about getting no support from VWoA for Club Racing are all too true. Mazda, Toyota, and Nissan get more 'factory' support, even at the Club level, than VW does. In fact, any marque that offers any support to Club Racing in this country, gets more support than someone that races a VW. AFAIK, neither Drew Hagstead or Stephane Trahan got any factory support for their VW WC efforts.

All that being said, I'm done w/ you on this one. I'll debate on the technical merits of putting the NB in ITC (I still don't think it should be there, and I'm not convinced that it couldn't make 2450# w/ driver. Note: Darin, did you guys check to see what the spec wt. on the NB Cup cars was?), but you're talking out your ass when you say that VWoA has done anything to influence what parts are allowed, and what classes VWs will run in.

Darin,

Sorry to hear that you've been sick, hope you're feeling better. Have you had a chance to 'run the numbers' on the Rabbit GTI for ITB and ITC? Oh, and I think Kirk's yankin your chain a bit! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

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

Bill Miller
07-24-2004, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
K,
Silly question...is the MkIII the same at the Golf III?

If so, why do you think it will be bad?



Dave,

Yes, the Mk III and the Golf III are the same. They're also referred to as the A3 (chassis designation). And, see my commet to Darin regarding Kirk's thoughts.



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

grjones1
07-24-2004, 04:49 PM
Darin,
This guy is "livid" because every change I've seen related to ITC in the past 6 months appears to favor VW. I won't bore you with reiteration. I ask for the same considerations for my Fiesta and I am ignored. I've managed to overcome some mechanical disadvantages and I manage to beat the CRX's and the 510's and the Scirrocos/Rabbits on occassion and now you introduce a 2.0. What next? 3000 lbs with 6 cylinders?

I suggest that if you took a little more time to "research" and compare the Beetle, you will see its potential far outstreches anything else in C. Weight is not the only thing to consider and apparently it has been the only consideration. Sophisticated suspensions, aerodynamics, big tires, big brakes and big motors overcome weight. Your argument is 115 HP, but that will change drastically with the new high tech mods available and made legal for IT with such rules as allowing changes to computers. Hell most of the old C cars don't even have computers to put a chip in and VVT is of course part of another planet.
I cherish new competition, but if you must launch wholesale facechanges at least give me some rule changes that may allow old warriors to keep pace with the new cars. Something you appear adverse to doing.

You don't mind introducing newer bigger motors to the class, but you have a huge adversity to changing some rules that allow everyone to be competitive. Is it the work involved? I can see that. And I can see that some cars just like some people must some day retire from the sport, but I ask that it not be done in one fell swoop. Put in some thought and more work and allow us to go out fighting. And beleive me, I'll give any car in C a battle before it rules the class.

G. Jones

grjones1
07-24-2004, 05:05 PM
Bill,
Perhaps the rulesmakers were concerned that the ITB GTI has bigger wheels, 1800 ccs, better ratios and suspension, etc. Things the ITAC/CRB appear to be ignoring in the case of the Beetle.
I'm fully aware of when Rabbits changed to Golfs. I raced an SSB/C '83 GTI (Rabbit)and owned an '85 Golf GTI, I still use the terms synonomously because as I'm sure you know Rabbits have always been know as Golfs in Germany. I was victimized by rules changes then when I raced the GTI in SSB, sold it and they changed it to SSC. See sometimes you just can't win.

And Quicksilver attempted to have the FF head accepted for the Fiesta and if Sandy can't get it done, I'm sure my efforts would fall on deaf ears.
There's always more to griping than meets the eye.
G. Jones

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 24, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 24, 2004).]

Bill Miller
07-24-2004, 05:33 PM
Actually Robert, the suspensions are the same. You should know that if you raced an A1 chassis car. And, the wheel difference becomes a non-issue if everyone is allowed to run 15's. IMHO, 180# and a better cam make up for the displacement difference and the vented from rotors.

Personally, I'm curious as to just how many of the 1.7 VW's will show up next year. Most people 'in the know' consider the 1.6 to be the better motor anyway. Not to mention that the youngest of these cars is 20+ years old. Don't know how many are currently racing around the country, but I'd guess that you can probably count them on 1 hand. Not to mention that I don't know how many 1.7 motors are out there. Most of the VW crowd give/throw them away.

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

grjones1
07-24-2004, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Actually Robert, the suspensions are the same. You should know that if you raced an A1 chassis car. IMHO, 180# and a better cam make up for the displacement difference and the vented from rotors.


____________________________________________
The stock GTI had sway bars and I believe stiffer springs and don't forget the close ratio box (again something you all have chosen to ignore) the standard Rabbit did not have and the wheels were wider and yes I know suspensions are free and C wheels have to be the same but in the earlier days of IT all things were considered.

And I've heard the longer stroke of the 1.7 holds the revs down, but what about torque? Somehow I believe the 1.7 with the G-grind (I assume they will be allowed to use the omnipurpose cam)will be made to work quite well. You still don't believe 100 cc's can overcome 185 lbs? I do.
The jury is still out.

And agin I ask how can a 2750-lb 142 2.0 Volvo be so fast if weight can be depended upon to slow displacement? Sorry to be so hardheaded but you choose to ignore facts when they are in front of you.
G.


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 24, 2004).]

Geo
07-24-2004, 06:19 PM
Wow. So much being flung around here.

1) If you're concerned about the weight difference we can certainly add 1,000# to the Fiesta. Done.

2) Anyone who think the NB suspension is state of the art must have been cryogenically frozen since the mid 60s or so.

3) Somebody please provide evidence that the G grind VW cam is legal. This has been covered before. Per the rules I don't see any way it can be conceived of as legal. It is not listed on the spec line of any VW cars. Supposedly there was a ruling made back when dinosaurs ruled the earth, but it was not followed up on with an entry into the ITCS. Plain and simple. Somebody saying it's legal doesn't make it so, even if it's a supposedly "well known fact."

4) I didn't get my check from VWoA. Andy, Darin, did you guys?

5) The NV must use a large daisy as a number panel. <j/k>

6) The check from VWoA must be on the black helicopter.



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

Knestis
07-24-2004, 06:24 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Kirk... why would this car NOT be a competitive B car... especially when it's 100lbs lighter, theoretically speaking, than it should be??? Curious as to the reasons here...

Sorry - my bad.

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

K

ITSRX7
07-24-2004, 06:31 PM
I decided not to type another explanation defending our recomendation. GRJ doesn't have any facts on our decision and seems to refuse to read when we have posted.

Bottom line, we think it will work, he doesn't. Time will tell and we how to have a method to correct the mistake if it turns out to be one.

I am out. This is rediculous.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bob Burns
07-24-2004, 07:07 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
2) Anyone who think the NB suspension is state of the art must have been cryogenically frozen since the mid 60s or so.
VW has been using basically the same suspension system on the A-chassis since its introduction in the mid-70s. The geometry and the tuning has gotten better over time, but the basic concept is the same.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">3) Somebody please provide evidence that the G grind VW cam is legal.</font>
When I owned my ITC Rabbit, I carried the evidence with me with the car's logbook. The guy who built the car got a copy of the VW parts microfiche that showed the G cam as the replacement for the stock cam in a '79 Rabbit. If you walked into a VW dealer in the early 80s and asked for a replacement cam for a '79 Rabbit, you got a G cam. The ITCS clearly states that factory superceded parts are permitted. The ITCS also states that these superceded parts are to be listed on spec line. So, it would seem that the G cam only meets the GCr halfway.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">4) I didn't get my check from VWoA. Andy, Darin, did you guys?</font>
I know some of you VW guys have been around a long time. I've been involved in racing VWs since 1980 and have never seen one of these VWoA checks. About the only acknowledgement of SCCA Club Racing by VWoA that I can remember in the last 25 years was a photo of Tom Van Camp's 1986 SSC-winning Golf GTI in a VW ad that appeared in SportsCar in April 1987 (which I happen to have right here next to the keyboard).

Favoritism towards VW? I can't speak for today, but I never saw it in the 10 years that I was on the ITAC or the Competition Board.

Bob...

OTLimit
07-24-2004, 07:41 PM
A few years ago Chris supplied some pictures for a VW ad in several magazines. Cool picture of Chris right next to a Volvo at Road Atlanta. To this day we have no idea why they decided to run those ads, because renumeration for the ad was minimal. To the extent that it was a, "Gee, isn't that cool." Nothing more.

VW gets so much favoritism from SCCA, and cares sooo much about racing in this country that we can't even get anyone from VWofA to respond to requests for information, let alone the type of activity that Nissan and Mazda provide for racers.

One person is getting in a tizzy about this, without even seeing a Beetle on the track. George has already covered the VW cam issue, so can we just move on?



------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

Bill Miller
07-24-2004, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
I decided not to type another explanation defending our recomendation. GRJ doesn't have any facts on our decision and seems to refuse to read when we have posted.

Bottom line, we think it will work, he doesn't. Time will tell and we how to have a method to correct the mistake if it turns out to be one.

I am out. This is rediculous.

AB



Andy,


I'd be interested in discussing this w/ you. I know that you and Darin have stated that you didn't think the NB could make the 2450# wt that would be required for ITB. I'm curious as to what you guys based this on. With the previous trend to take a conservative approach to car classification, couple w/ the fact that there's already a VW platform w/ the same engine/drivetrain that just got moved down to ITB, I would have thought you would have gone the other way. Put the car in ITB to start with, and see how it did for the first year. If it really couldn't get close to the spec weight, then move it.

I'm sure you guys had MVMA sheets to go from that showed what individual components contributed to the curb weight. Also, I'm curious as to just how much ballast/stuff that will have to be left in/on, that you guys see for it to make weight in ITC.


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

Catch22
07-24-2004, 08:00 PM
Isn't the "state of the art" suspension on the Beetle struts in the front and a beam in the rear?

And I'll bet the brakes are only slightly bigger than the brakes on my '91 Civic, and trying to stop 2700lbs.

The gearing... OK. Its got good gearing.
But its still lugging around 2700lbs.

The motor... OK, its got a 2 liter motor.
But its still lugging around 2700lbs.

The Volvo... OK, they are in ITB where they belong. They are also RWD and balance all that weight out better than a FWD Beetle will. I've also heard that the frontrunning cars are getting around 140hp AT THE WHEELS (this was noted in an article about Sam Moore's car a few years ago in GRM IIRC.).
So for a Beetle to match the HP of the Volvo, it'd need a legal improvement of about 45 to 50 horsepower.
Uhhhh... Yeah. OK.

As soon as I see an ITC Beetle bump drafting Sam Moore at VIR you can rest assured I'm whipping out the checkbook and a pen. It ain't gonna happen.
And if it does?
Well, hopefully we'll soon have a verified way to move it to ITB. I'm trusting the direction of the new board until they give me a reason not to. You might try to do the same.

You seem to have fallen into that old human habit of arguing using only the details that back up YOUR point of view, while conveniently forgetting the others. Do you even know the brake size of a Beetle or are you just assuming they are "big" because its a newer car?

racer14itc
07-24-2004, 08:18 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
[quote]Originally posted by Knestis:
[B]The G-grind cam is not the issue here but I think it was a technical error made by parties at least not atagonistic to the VW cause. Problem is, it can't get undone in the current world.
________________________________________
K,
The G-grind is an example of favoritism for the VW people, and as such is part of the issue.
Yes it can. Let me use the XR2 cam and FF head.
G.

Hey G.,

I know this doesn't address the topic at hand, but why don't you convert your Fiesta to FP? That way you could run the FF head, any cam you want. You could still run MARRS races, nationals, and even the Runoffs. Since it's getting next to impossible to find usable OEM parts for the Fiesta (like cylinder heads and cams) it might be a good option to keep your car on the racetrack. I'm sure Bill Davidson and/or Joe Z. would help you out!

FWIW, I'm still not sure we'll see many New Beetles in ITC. Will people be willing to do that much work to develop a Beetle in ITC when they can build a Spec Miata for less and go faster? For the price of building up a competitive ITC Beetle I could build a rockin' limited prep 1.8 Scirocco for GP (which would be as fast as most ITS cars) and probably run in the top 10 (or better) at the Runoffs.

MC


------------------
Mark Coffin
#14 GP BSI Racing/Airborn Coatings/The Shop VW
Scirocco
Zephyr Race Coaching and Consulting
http://pages.prodigy.net/Scirocco14gp

[This message has been edited by racer14itc (edited July 24, 2004).]

Quickshoe
07-24-2004, 08:43 PM
edit--post deleted as I really didn't have anything constructive to add. I know---it's never stopped me before.

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited July 24, 2004).]

Quickshoe
07-24-2004, 09:31 PM
A coefficient of drag of .38 is hardly what I would call aerodynamic.

Bill Miller
07-24-2004, 09:46 PM
Mark raises an excellent point about cost. Figure a donor car is going to be somewhere around $8k - $10k. Figure that much again to build it. $16k - $20k for an ITC car? I doubt it!

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

ITSRX7
07-24-2004, 09:50 PM
Bill,

andybettencourt at hotmail .com

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Geo
07-24-2004, 10:29 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Mark raises an excellent point about cost. Figure a donor car is going to be somewhere around $8k - $10k. Figure that much again to build it. $16k - $20k for an ITC car? I doubt it!



LOL!

Yeah, think of the resale value!!

Guys, this is just a tempest in a teapot. Let it go. Let's see what happens. God, we have enough issues with cars already dominating or being rendered field fillers. I'm not going to lose sleep over an argument on paper. Somebody use that paper to like a bird cage or train a puppy, OK?


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

Bill Miller
07-24-2004, 10:35 PM
email sent Andy.

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

Bill Miller
07-24-2004, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
LOL!

Yeah, think of the resale value!!

Guys, this is just a tempest in a teapot. Let it go. Let's see what happens. God, we have enough issues with cars already dominating or being rendered field fillers. I'm not going to lose sleep over an argument on paper. Somebody use that paper to like a bird cage or train a puppy, OK?




George,

I was just making a comment on what I thought it would cost to build one of these cars. Sure, you'll be able to get some cheap ones that are flood cars or theft recovery. I just looked at Edmunds, and I guess I was a bit high. Private-party retail for a '98 NB is $6124. Still, seems like a big chunk of change for the start of an ITC car. You can probably buy 75% of the ITC cars out there for that much.



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

grjones1
07-24-2004, 11:08 PM
[quote]Originally posted by ITSRX7:
[B]I decided not to type another explanation defending our recomendation. GRJ doesn't have any facts on our decision and seems to refuse to read when we have posted.

AB,
I read your explanations and they still don't relate why a 25-year old 2.0 Volvo must remain in ITB and a 5-year old 2.0 VW (same weight and similarly sized brakes) gets to go to ITC. Please explain?
GRJ

grjones1
07-24-2004, 11:15 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Geo:
1) If you're concerned about the weight difference we can certainly add 1,000# to the Fiesta. Done.

6) The check from VWoA must be on the black helicopter.
__________________________________________
Ah Geo welcome to the fray. You are so witty. Now if you only knew anything about cars.
G

grjones1
07-24-2004, 11:19 PM
Mark,
I ran Production. Too expensive and labor intensive, especially at my age. But thanks for the thought. And until they began allowing V-8's in ITC (which apperas not to be too far away) I'll keep the Fiesta competitive.
G

grjones1
07-24-2004, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
A coefficient of drag of .38 is hardly what I would call aerodynamic.
_________________________
And the CD for anything else in IT?
G

Geo
07-24-2004, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

I was just making a comment on what I thought it would cost to build one of these cars. Sure, you'll be able to get some cheap ones that are flood cars or theft recovery. I just looked at Edmunds, and I guess I was a bit high. Private-party retail for a '98 NB is $6124. Still, seems like a big chunk of change for the start of an ITC car. You can probably buy 75% of the ITC cars out there for that much.


I know it doesn't happen a lot, but I was heartily agreeing with you Bill. You could build a $20-30k ITC race car that you might be able to sell for 1/3-1/4 of that. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

If you're lucky.


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

Geo
07-24-2004, 11:30 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Ah Geo welcome to the fray. You are so witty. Now if you only knew anything about cars.

Nope. Not a thing. I spose you could skool me.


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

grjones1
07-24-2004, 11:41 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Catch22:
[And I'll bet the brakes are only slightly bigger than the brakes on my '91 Civic, and trying to stop 2700lbs.
____________________________________

Your Civic has 240 mm Ft (disc) and 180 Rr (drums); the Beetle has 280 Ft and 232 Rr. 4-wheel disc.
GRJ
____________________________________________The Volvo... are getting around 140hp AT THE WHEELS (this was noted in an article about Sam Moore's car a few years ago in GRM IIRC.).
So for a Beetle to match the HP of the Volvo, it'd need a legal improvement of about 45 to 50 horsepower.
________________________________________
I'm not to sure of your physics and math here Catch22, 140-115= 25 where I come from. (a Front driver does not loose as much HP as rear wheelers at the wheels: transposed engines with parallel shafts and all that stuff. And as a front driver I kind of lean towards the balance of FWD except in the big sweepers. It appears I may not be the one twisting some facts.
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 25, 2004).]

grjones1
07-24-2004, 11:50 PM
[quote]Originally posted by Geo:
[B] Nope. Not a thing. I spose you could skool me.
___________
Not me George, I don't pretend to know anything. I just ask questions that no one seems to be able to answer so they say I'm ignoring the facts they haven't given me like how they justify one make with similar specs to another make and putting one in C and one in B all of a sudden. And then they make up funny remarks about black helicopters and we all get screwed and wonder why. And my feelings are really hurt.
G

Greg Amy
07-25-2004, 12:03 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">You could build a $20-30k ITC <S?> race car that you might be able to sell for 1/3-1/4 of that.</font>

Ouch, that hurt, Part Deaux...


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


P.S. I'm *really* enjoying this thread...

Al Seim
07-25-2004, 12:08 AM
In line with Mark's comment, and adressing G. Robert's concerns re Prod, another good idea would be a limited prep Fiesta in HP.

Should be lots less work than a good old fashioned full prep Prod car, and could be quite competitive.

Al Seim

grjones1
07-25-2004, 12:40 AM
[quote]Originally posted by Al Seim:
[B]In line with Mark's comment, and adressing G. Robert's concerns re Prod, another good idea would be a limited prep Fiesta in HP.
____________________________________________Hi Al. Did you get that cage built? And no I'm staying in IT at least as long as the Fiesta can run against 2.0 VW's competitively. We are still winning a few races when we get lucky.
G. Robert

Banzai240
07-25-2004, 02:41 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:

AB,
I read your explanations and they still don't relate why a 25-year old 2.0 Volvo must remain in ITB and a 5-year old 2.0 VW (same weight and similarly sized brakes) gets to go to ITC. Please explain?
GRJ


That's pretty simple actually... It's because the 25-year old Volvo still KICKS BUTT in ITB... What is so hard to understand about that?

If all you are looking at are ccs/CID, then I know of a few MR-2s (1.6L, etc., etc. ) that would LOVE to come run with the rest of the 1.4-1.7L cars in ITC...

Also, as someone mentioned before, though you've obviously chosen to ignore it, if you open a quote tag, you have to CLOSE the quote tag to make it effective...

In other words, your [quote] won't work without a [/ QUOTE] (space added between the "/" and the "Q" to get it to print here rather than actually functioning as a Quote tag...)

All I am reading here is a bunch of non-sensical anger that suddenly ITC might have become a little more hotly contested... I seem to recall somewhere along the line WANTING to race against other cars...


------------------
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 July 25, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 25, 2004).]

lateapex911
07-25-2004, 02:45 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
[quote]
I'm not to sure of your physics and math here Catch22, 140-115= 25 where I come from. (a Front driver does not loose as much HP as rear wheelers at the wheels: ....GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 25, 2004).]

Ok, so, Mr Jones, you have me a little confused. You're saying that 140-115 =25...as in what...25 percent?????

Here's the math as I see it.

Lets start with the knowns.....

Stock hp of the NB:115hp, SAE net.
IT trim hp of the Volvo: 140 at the wheels

Lets do a little conversion to be comparing apples to apples. 15% or so is the commonly accepted amount used for conversion of wheel Hp to crank hp. So, 140 at the wheels, plus 15% is 140 plus 21, or 160 or so.

So far we have: NB before mods, 115 SAE net at the crank, Volvo after mods, 160 crank.

Allowing for 25% improvement for IT trim to the NB, add 28 or so for a total of 144hp at the crank. (A generous number I bet)

Now, subtract for driveline loss. You say the front drivers don't lose so much, fine. 144hp minus 13% is about 144-19=125.

So, we get:
NB- 144 (IT trim) crank hp
Volvo- 160 (IT trim) crank hp

OR,

NB- 125 wheel hp
Volvo- 140 wheel hp

Any way you look at it, the Volvo is significantly stronger.

(Disclaimer: Engineers will actually do the math with a calculator and will produce numbers with decimal places and all that fancy stuff that are within an Hp or two of my numbers, but I think the point is that the outputs aren't close.)

As the weights are obstensibly the same, it is hard to see how the NB could be considered a threat to a Volvo.

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

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

Bill Miller
07-25-2004, 07:50 AM
Jake,

Don't confuse him w/ facts.


Darin,

Have you had a chance to run those numbers for the Rabbit GTI?

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

Catch22
07-25-2004, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Here's the math as I see it.




Thanks for saving me that trouble. I hate Math.

Catch22
07-25-2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Your Civic has 240 mm Ft (disc) and 180 Rr (drums); the Beetle has 280 Ft and 232 Rr. 4-wheel disc.


OK. Since you so graciously provided those numbers I'll do some math for you. It'll give me a headache, but I do it anyway because I'm such a great guy.

Lets call the Civic weight 2170 as thats typically where I roll across the scales. We'll call the Beetle a nice round 2750.

A 240mm disc on a 2170lb car is stopping about 9lbs of car per mm of brake disc. A 280mm disc on a 2750lb car is stopping (whoopsy daisy) about 10lbs per mm of brake disc.
Uh oh... Gee. Thats a surprise.

I know that this is completely unscientific as it doesn't take into account the actual friction contact surface area of the rotor or the size of the pads. I was just trying to point out to our friend here that he keeps throwing out half-assed arguments without working them all the way through. Sure, the Beetle has 280mm brake rotors... At 2700+lbs I should hope so.
But I got $20 right now that I'll be able to outbrake the crap out of any NB that shows up.

Scott, who several years ago used to wonder what kind of goobered up thought processes could have the IT classes so screwed up.
Now I know.
Now matter how old you get, you just keep learning every day.

JeffYoung
07-25-2004, 02:29 PM
Until someone shows up with a fully prepped, fully developed ITC Beetle and whoops ass, this is all academic ... and I think the chances of that happening anytime soon are slim to none.

People said the 944s being classed in ITS this year meant the end of the BMW dominance...uh...no....

grjones1
07-25-2004, 03:57 PM
Alright Gentlemen I'll attempt to refute your arguments as "objectively" as you have presented them. And if I have ignored your user manual, it's because I find it as confusing as your justification of the 2.0 NB in ITC.

Catch22:
You describe my arguments as "half-assed", at the same time as your front brake figures [in which you fail to report whether or not your Civic has vented (as does the NB)or solid rotors] conveniently disregard the rear brake comparison between the Civic and the NB: the Civic has 180 mm rear drums as opposed to the 232 mm rear discs of the NB (which I beleive will skew the advantage to the NB.)Your Civic won't brake with my Fiesta let alone a fourwheeled disc NB. You are dreaming.

As far as "goobered up thought processes" screwing up the classes - you have to blame that on the same people who are making the rules now. I've had no part in it.

Darin:
Because "the 25-year old Volvo kicks but in B" is exactly why I am concerned about the NB in C - they (the Volvo and the NB) are more comparable cars than any car in C is comparable to the NB. And I don't believe a twin-cam, mid engined 1600 (MR-2) can be compared to any 1600 in ITC (what a stretch that was!) You accuse me of considering only displacement when all you are looking at is weight. Look at the whole package. And yes as I said I welcome new cars but not cars so obviously potentially superior they could dominate the class.

And Jake (the unkindest cut of all):
If you are going to compare "apples to apples" start with the stock HP of the Volvo. Why begin with it in "IT trim at the wheels"? It's because you want to ignore the potential of the VW 2.0:
If you can get 160 HP out of a 25-year old 2.0 Volvo, imagine what just a computer chip will do for the NB! And you guess 144 HP as maximum for the VW as generous. Then you award 2% difference in driveline loss from front drive to rear drive -that's conservative. All you have to do is remember what the original 898-1275 Minis did to rear wheel drive 1600s to realize how much more efficient front drive drive lines are (a great deal more than 2%.) An again you fail to consider aerodynamics. At .38, the NB is not exactly sleek, but it's a great deal more slippery than the Volvo.
And the real flaw in your whole premise is that you are failing to compare the Beetle to what is in C. Even if your deducions are close (and I don't believe they are) the real rub here is the potential superiority of the NB to what presently runs in C. Even if the NB is not competitive in B, you are treatening the close competition in C, with disregard for the "racing potential" of a car that does not even need to be classed. As I said before there are numerous new cars out there that are much closer to the older cars in C. That way you bring in fresh cars and don't threaten the existing competiveness of guys who have been developing their cars for years. Why is this not important to you?
My knee-jerk reaction to the reclassification of the NB, because for the life of me I cannot see the logic of the change, I jumped to the perhaps overreactive conclusion that people were bowing to VW influence, member driven or otherwise. For that I will guardedly retract my charges.

And Bill,
Because you are so close to home, I'm sorry you find my complaints so confusing- sometimes the hurried nature of answering this stuff gets in the way of clear communication. I hope my driving never becomes as muddled at times.
G. Robert Jones

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 25, 2004).]

gran racing
07-25-2004, 05:51 PM
You've mentioned the computer chip issue before. Just curious, just how much do you really think this magical computer chip will effect performance? And for cars that don't have the magic computers, there are no ways of modifing the various areas that this computer does? Just curious, what areas can be modified via the computer that can't by other means? Timing, fuel flow, rev. limiter...

I've spoken with a bunch of people about the ECU and potential gains. Not really so sure that it will produce nearly the amount of performance increase that you're alluding to. Honestly, I'd love to hear (with proven results) otherwise. Then again maybe it really doesn't matter much since my ECU isn't chipable.

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

grjones1
07-25-2004, 07:11 PM
gran racing:
I refer to the potential of what a chip can do for the newer cars together with other allowed modifications. In this case of course the NB. You really make my point for me - the fact that the older cars do not have a computer to play with and cars such as the NB have not only standard IT tweaks but also the chips in addition. Again if they can get 160 crank horsepower out of a 2.0 Volvo without a chip, what do you imagine they can do with a VW 2.0 with a chip? I know that some of the new Hondas and Minis aftermarket people are advertising 15-25% horsepower gains with some chips. I haven't seen any figures for the VWs.
My guess is and (I pretend little familiarity with the new electonics) the chips control properties of the electronic fuel injection and of course if you have VVT, the chips affect that setting. Something you can't always do mechanically (or legally mechanically). I would guess if you can vary ignition timing together with mixture control, you can produce numbers on the power curve you can't contol with old technology. But this is of course strictly intuitive.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 25, 2004).]

ITSRX7
07-25-2004, 07:28 PM
Dave,

I think it varies for each engine. Both by overall design and then by individual case. The NB's weight figure takes into account the fact that it has a new technology ECU and most others in the clas do not.

2760. Let that sink in - it's a lot of weight - Right at curb for this car.

On another note, your ECU may not be 'chippable' but you might be able to gut the factory ECU case and install a MOTEC or the like under the current rules.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Jake
07-25-2004, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
If all you are looking at are ccs/CID, then I know of a few MR-2s (1.6L, etc., etc. ) that would LOVE to come run with the rest of the 1.4-1.7L cars in ITC...


The MR2 is moving to ITC?!?! Awesome. I should have asked for that instead if the ITB request. I didn't want to get clobbered by those big Volvo's anyway! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

grjones1
07-25-2004, 07:47 PM
AB,
Doesn't that 2760 include driver?
GRJ

Jake,
I've never seen you, but I have a feeling your wit is only exceeded by your good looks.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 25, 2004).]

Catch22
07-25-2004, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Catch22:
You describe my arguments as "half-assed", at the same time as your front brake figures [in which you fail to report whether or not your Civic has vented (as does the NB)or solid rotors] conveniently disregard the rear brake comparison between the Civic and the NB: the Civic has 180 mm rear drums as opposed to the 232 mm rear discs of the NB (which I beleive will skew the advantage to the NB.)Your Civic won't brake with my Fiesta let alone a fourwheeled disc NB. You are dreaming.


I didn't mention the ventedness of my front rotors because they are in fact vented, just like the VW. As for the rear brakes... Who cares. The rear brakes on a FWD car are borderline afterthought. Why do you think so many ITA CRX guys stick with the rear drums when its totally legal to update to the rear discs from the '91 Si??? I'll tell you why, its because the discs are heavier and have proven long ago to give absolutely no advantage at all. Also, guess how often I changed the rear pads on my old (rear disc) Integra race car... About once every year and a half. Guess how often I changed the front pads... About every other weekend (every weekend at heavy braking tracks). Guess how often I change the rear shoes on my Civic??? Well, I don't know because I've been driving the car for almost 2 years and haven't changed them yet.

Need more info??? How about this...
I used to drive a '94 Integra GSR in NASA's Honda Challenge series. That car weighed 2600lbs and had 262mm front rotors and rear discs. The brakes were wayyyyyy undersized for that car. I used to run 2 sets of ducts to the fronts and STILL had issues. The same issues I suspect the fat assed VW will have (do the rotor size vs weight comparison I did above for the GSR vs. the VW. The results aren't really surprising).

As for your Fiesta outbraking me... Well OK then... Which side of your own argument are you on?
Now you're saying that your solid 221mm rotored and rear drummed Fiesta will brake as well (if not better) than my vented 240mm rotored and slightly larger rear drummed Civic??? This IS what you just said... Right?
Well... Why do you think that? Is it maybe because your Fiesta is... uhhhh... 400lbs LIGHTER than my car???
Maybe???

Scott, who loves a good argument but for now will settle for this one.

Knestis
07-25-2004, 07:55 PM
Food for thought...

Total aero drag "horsepower" (it's a negative number, relative to that made by the engine) is a function of Cd and frontal area - at least where the factors of the car are concerned.

A little poking around indicates that the Fiesta has a Cd of .40-.41 but a small frontal area - 1.74m^2 (meters squared). The net effect on the total drag of these factors is therefore right around 0.70.

(The other factors - air density and velocity - will be assumed to be constants for comparison.)

The VW Golf has a frontal area in excess of 1.91m^2 and I'd expect the Beetle to be similar. At a Cd of .38, the net effect is .72 so, if the Beetle has a little less frontal area, it's pretty damned close - perhaps in the Fiesta's favor.

The rear brake issue is probably a non-issue. I've been running the SSC Golf this year in excess of 2700 pounds and the rear pads - the STOCK rear pads - aren't even showing notable wear. How much are they contributing to stopping the car? I'll grant that the ABS and lack of true controlled brake balance are probably contributing factors that would fall out if fully prepared cars were compared.

I've been around and around re: the chip issue. They aren't magic. They simply control the same variables that a carb'd car can control with jet and proper ignition timing changes - albeit in real time. The VW should gain LESS hp in the stock-to-IT change than does the Volvo, simply because it is closer to its potential from the factory.

Mr. Jones makes a point with which I wholeheartedly agree: There are a LOT of potentially appropriate ITC cars that are not classified. Unfortunately, there is no process to take the long view on listings. The CRB only gets to say "yes" or "no" to member requests. I would tend to think that new racers might be inclined to build a Hyundai or some other cheap option if they were listed but it's unrealistic to ask that same person to apply for approval before they start racing.

K

grjones1
07-25-2004, 08:10 PM
Scott,
My Fiesta will outbreak your Civic first of all because it sounds like your front to rear bias is off, and yes my car is lighter than yours. Does it moot my point? No If you can't break with a Fiesta, You can't brake with a Rabbit, and if you can't brake with a Rabbit, guess what, you won't brake with the NB. Engineers have a way of building cars to perform (go and stop) with their planned curb weight, especially VW engineers.
And guess why you don't wear your rear brakes, beyond the bias problem? Because your front wheel drive car has a front weight bias and because the rear end is so light, the rear brakes don't get as hot. And because they don't get as hot, they don't wear as much. Not because they are not being used or shouldn't be used.
And because the NB has large front and rear discs and a great deal more swept area, it will stop that 2700 lbs. just fine. Wait and see.
[/B][/QUOTE]

grjones1
07-25-2004, 08:28 PM
[Knestis:
I appreciate and respect your remarks. I'm surprised to hear my Fiesta is so aerodynamically efficient. I 'll remember that as you pass me on the back straight at VIR. I would argue against the frontal area of the Golf being the same as the NB (my eye tells me the NB is smaller, but that's left for further research.

I've spoken to the brake issue.

But "real time" is the operative term - with a chip the computer varies the timing and mixture "in real time" for maximum performance. Unless you carry a mechanic under the hood to vary those settings as you need them, a computerless car is at a disadvantage.

"The VW should gain LESS hp in the stock-to-IT change than does the Volvo, simply because it is closer to its potential from the factory." I've heard that before and guess what: you make a fast car go faster than you make a slow car go faster.

And thanks K, you've been one of two who have supported any of my argument. At least I know you have some guts.

G



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 25, 2004).]

16v
07-25-2004, 08:33 PM
Spec Beetle? very intersting

http://www.speedarena.com/gallery/albums//Misc.%20Motorsports/VW%20Cup%20UK/2001/Round%204%20Snetterton/10.jpg

------------------
Doug :)
NER.org (http://ner.org)
the16v.com (http://the16v.com)
briansgarage.com (http://www.briansgarage.com)

ITSRX7
07-25-2004, 08:37 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:

Mr. Jones makes a point with which I wholeheartedly agree: There are a LOT of potentially appropriate ITC cars that are not classified. Unfortunately, there is no process to take the long view on listings. The CRB only gets to say "yes" or "no" to member requests. I would tend to think that new racers might be inclined to build a Hyundai or some other cheap option if they were listed but it's unrealistic to ask that same person to apply for approval before they start racing.

K

Is it not also unrealistic to ask the CRB to start proactively classing every car on the market BEFORE someone writes in and expresses even the slightest bit of interest in building one?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

grjones1
07-25-2004, 08:52 PM
It appears to me at times that what is unrealistc is to ask the CRB to do anything other than what they want to do - right, wrong, or indifferent.
GRJ

ITSRX7
07-25-2004, 09:01 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
And thanks K, you've been one of two who have supported any of my argument. At least I know you have some guts.

G

This got me thinking. Did I miss something Kirk wrote? Here are his replies:


VW couldn't give less of a rip about club racing. A LOT of people - myself included - have been trying to change this since the mid-'80s, to no avail.
K

Nope, not that one.


The G-grind cam is not the issue here but I think it was a technical error made by parties at least not atagonistic to the VW cause. Problem is, it can't get undone in the current world.
I buy the logic of the Bug not being able to meet the minimum that would be required for it to be in B.

Regarding the MkIII in B? It's going to suck. I'm positive. Pure crap...

Not that one either!


Food for thought...
Total aero drag "horsepower" (it's a negative number, relative to that made by the engine) is a function of Cd and frontal area - at least where the factors of the car are concerned.

A little poking around indicates that the Fiesta has a Cd of .40-.41 but a small frontal area - 1.74m^2 (meters squared). The net effect on the total drag of these factors is therefore right around 0.70.

(The other factors - air density and velocity - will be assumed to be constants for comparison.)

The VW Golf has a frontal area in excess of 1.91m^2 and I'd expect the Beetle to be similar. At a Cd of .38, the net effect is .72 so, if the Beetle has a little less frontal area, it's pretty damned close - perhaps in the Fiesta's favor.

The rear brake issue is probably a non-issue. I've been running the SSC Golf this year in excess of 2700 pounds and the rear pads - the STOCK rear pads - aren't even showing notable wear. How much are they contributing to stopping the car? I'll grant that the ABS and lack of true controlled brake balance are probably contributing factors that would fall out if fully prepared cars were compared.

I've been around and around re: the chip issue. They aren't magic. They simply control the same variables that a carb'd car can control with jet and proper ignition timing changes - albeit in real time. The VW should gain LESS hp in the stock-to-IT change than does the Volvo, simply because it is closer to its potential from the factory.

Mr. Jones makes a point with which I wholeheartedly agree: There are a LOT of potentially appropriate ITC cars that are not classified. Unfortunately, there is no process to take the long view on listings. The CRB only gets to say "yes" or "no" to member requests. I would tend to think that new racers might be inclined to build a Hyundai or some other cheap option if they were listed but it's unrealistic to ask that same person to apply for approval before they start racing.

Not frontal area, not brakes, not chips... So, let me get this straight, you thank Kirk for supporting your argument....the only thing I can find has NOTHING to do with the classification of the NB in ITC...

Ahhh forget it, I am just picking on you now. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/tongue.gif

Listen, we think it is a good idea. We have thought of everything you say we haven't. I can see how you, as an ITC competitor would be freaked about this - ON THE SURFACE. Further investigation we hoped would calm your concerns, it didn't. Let's agree to disagree on this one. I know we both hope we are right. Assuming PCA's go through, we will correct our error if it is one. It could be, but we don't think so.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Bill Miller
07-25-2004, 09:22 PM
Robert,

I know I said I was out on this one, but your logic is backwards on the rear brakes. They get hot when they get used, that's how brakes work, they convert mechanical energy to heat. They're not getting hot because they're not getting used. My old ITB Rabbit GTI had 3 seasons on the Autozone organic rear shoes, and they were good for at least another season when I sold the car. Talk to the guys that run A2 VWs in ITB (w/ rear discs). Most (all?) of them dial out as much rear bias as they can because they get too much wheel lockup.

And, as far as mfg's designing their cars brake systems to work at the curb weight of the car, that's true, but they don't design them to work like that under racing conditions. If that were the case, we wouldn't need to use pads from Hawk/Carbotech/PF/etc. Nice try, but flawed logic.

And, don't take this as me supporting the NB in ITC, because I don't.

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

Bill Miller
07-25-2004, 09:28 PM
Hey Kirk, do you think you can get that 350#+ out of the car when you convert it from SSC to ITB?

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

Jake
07-25-2004, 09:35 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Jake,
I've never seen you, but I have a feeling your wit is only exceeded by your good looks.
GRJ


Wow, nasty. Not even a smiley?

Jake
07-25-2004, 09:38 PM
Eh - I forgive ya, and even throw you a bone. Just for another few data points, here are a few ITA and ITB cars that have a worse (stock) power to (spec) weight ratio than the new ITC Bug.

ITB Nissan Sentra / B12 -1989 2165 90
ITB Fiat Spider 1.8 (74-78) 2230 92.5
ITB Dodge Charger / 24 (81-85) 2320 96
ITB Plymouth Horizon 2.2 (80-90) 2320 96
ITB Dodge Omni 2.2 (80-90) 2320 96
ITA Honda Civic DX (sedan & HB)(88-91) 2225 92
ITB Porsche 914-4 1.7 (70-73) 2080 80
ITB Opel 1900 Sedan (71-75) 2180 90
ITB Volkswagen Rabbit GTI (83-84) 2180 90
ITB Nissan / Datsun 200-SX / S10 (L20) (77-79) 2350 97
ITB Toyota Celica I 2.0L (71-73) 2350 97
ITA Mercury Capri II V-6(76-77) 2670 110
ITB Volvo 240 2.3 (83-85) 2780 114
ITB Ford Pinto 2.3 (74-80) 2490 102
ITA Buick Skyhawk V-6 (75-80) 2810 115
ITA Chevrolet Monza V-6 (78-80) 2810 115
ITA Porsche 914-4 2.0L (73-76) 2230 95
ITB Audi 4000 & 4000S -1986 2500 102
ITB Suzuki Swift GA (89-94) 1735 70
ITB Fiat Brava 2 (79-81) 2530 102
ITB Nissan / Datsun 200-SX / S12 (CA20) (84-86) 2530 102
ITB Audi Coupe (81-84) 2490 100
ITB Toyota Celica III GTS (83-85) 2630 105
ITB Mazda 323 1.6 (86-88) 2060 82
ITA Ford Mustang V-6(1979) 3000 119
ITB Volkswagen Scirocco II 8V (83-88) 2270 90
ITB Nissan / Datsun 610 -1973 2450 97
ITB Nissan / Datsun 610 (74-76) 2450 97
ITA Toyota Celica Supra (79-81) 2930 116
ITA Mazda Cosmo (76-78) 2780 110
ITB Nissan / Datsun 200-SX / S10 (Z20) (80-81) 2530 100
ITB Toyota Celica ST -1986 2480 97
ITB Toyota Celica II 2.2 (78-80) 2430 (CP)2490 (HB) 95
ITB Mercury Bobcat 2.3 (74-80) 2520 98
ITB Mazda MX-6 (88-91) 2830 110
ITB Plymouth TC3 / Turismo 2.2 (81-85) 2320 90
ITB Pontiac Fiero 2.5 -1988 2550 98
ITA Dodge Daytona -1986 2620 100
ITB Volvo 242 / 244 2.1 (76-81) 2780 105
ITB Nissan / Datsun 200-SX / S11 (Z22) (82-83) 2705 102
ITB Mazda 323 1.6 -1989 2190 82
ITB Dodge Shadow (89-91) 2680 100
ITB Triumph TR-7 2 (76-81) 2440 (CP)2420 (Conv.) 90
ITB Volkswagen Rabbit 1.7 (81-84) 2050 71
ITB Volkswagen Jetta 1.7 (82-84) 2080 71
ITB Dodge Daytona 2.2 (84-89) 2630 96
ITB Pontiac Fiero 2.5 (84-87) 2550 92
ITB Ford Mustang II 2.3 (74-78) 2830 102
ITB Volkswagen Scirocco I 1.7 -1981 2110 71
ITB Volkswagen Scirocco II 1.7 (82-84) 2110 71
ITB Volvo 242 / 244 2 -1975 2780 98
ITB Porsche 914-4 1.8 (74-75) 2080 76
ITA Porsche 912-E -1976 2480 86
ITB Toyota Celica I 2.2 (74-77) 2510 86
ITB Ford Mustang 2.3 (79-93) 2640 89
ITB Opel Manta 1.9 (71-75) 2230 75
ITB Honda Accord 1.7L (79-83) 2270 75
ITB Plymouth Horizon 1.7 (78-79) 2280 75
ITB Toyota Corolla 1.8 (80-82) 2310 75
ITB Plymouth Horizon TC3 1.7 (79-80) 2320 70
ITA Isuzu Impulse (83-87) 2855 90
ITB Honda CRX HF 1.5L (88-91) 2030 62
ITB Toyota Corolla SR-5 -1987 2330 70


[This message has been edited by Jake (edited July 25, 2004).]

ITSRX7
07-25-2004, 09:56 PM
...and I count 7 that have a better than or equal to, stock HP to spec weight...

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

And one ITC car with better numbers than the all-mighty ITA CRX...

Numbers don't tell the whole story.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Knestis
07-25-2004, 10:06 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Hey Kirk, do you think you can get that 350#+ out of the car when you convert it from SSC to ITB?


If the question is, "Can it be done?" the answer is, "I think so." If the question is whether I will do it, not likely in the next couple years.

In its current multi-purpose iteration, I won't get too hog-wild about weight, using OE wheels, leaving in the passenger glass and door cards, etc. I am building a lighter seat mount and replacing the steel side brackets with aluminum ones - I think. The sunroof probably WILL come out before the enduro - a new decision - but the car will still be fat.

It would take serious attention to detail - a really light exhaust and header, light wheels, mirrors, optional wiring harness elements (and there's a bunch of them), and 30 pounds less driver - to make it. Even at that, it's going to be tough.

On the classification issue, I'd like to see the ITAC maybe do some brainstorming and come up with a proactive list of appropriate cars that would expand the useful options available to racers. I think that C is where the greatest need is.

Also, is it still standard practice to weed out cars that haven't been entered recently? When was the last time the data were reviewed to see how many of those ITB Fiat Bravas or Mazda 323s are still being entered?

K

lateapex911
07-25-2004, 10:08 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
And if I have ignored your user manual, it's because I find it as confusing as ....


Sigh..........I was sure you'd be abe to get your keyboard around it.....



And Jake (the unkindest cut of all):


Huh? OK, if you say so...



If you are going to compare "apples to apples" start with the stock HP of the Volvo. Why begin with it in "IT trim at the wheels"?

Because I wanted to use numbers that were mentioned right here in this thread, lest I open myself up to a discussion on the proper "stock" number. Besides, the bottom line is the actual known power at the wheels...



It's because you want to ignore the potential of the VW 2.0:


Uh, no, I wasn't as devious as that... sorry.



If you can get 160 HP out of a 25-year old 2.0 Volvo, imagine what just a computer chip will do for the NB!


Lets look at both sides of this statement. First, you place a ton of faith in a magic chip. Maybe it adds a little, maybe a little more. But it's just one part of a package. Think about the world when the Volvo was made. Volvo wasn't exactly thought of as a maker of high strung sports cars...I bet the engine was far from optimized when it left the factory. It probably had an exhaust manifold that looked like it came off a John Deere lawn mower!! It is no surprise that it puts some good power down. On the other hand, I bet that the NB is WAY more optimized, just because the world demands great fuel economy, proper emissions, and so on. Across the board, performance (such as specific output) has improved in lock step over the years.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> And you guess 144 HP as maximum for the VW as generous. Then you award 2% difference in driveline loss from front drive to rear drive -that's conservative. ....... ([it's] a great deal more than 2%.) </font>

Ok, fine.... what say you figure it out. Show the math for the percentage YOU think is appropriate.



An again you fail to consider aerodynamics. At .38, the NB is not exactly sleek, but it's a great deal more slippery than the Volvo.

"An again"??? AND again I didn't mention it because its such a minor factor....at many tracks the time spent in the range where aerodynamics become a factor isn't a majority, and I bet the overall drag numbers aren't that far apart.



And the real flaw in your whole premise is that you are failing to compare the Beetle to what is in C.

Hey, I didn't bring the Volvo up in the first place! I was just trying to add some real live numbers to take the discussion out of hyperbole, and ground it a bit. If you like I can go back and quote the statements that caused me to make my comments, but this post is out of control as it is!



As I said before there are numerous new cars out there that are much closer to the older cars in C. That way you bring in fresh cars and don't threaten the existing competiveness of guys who have been developing their cars for years.


Your're spot on here, but I guess nobody cares about those cars or they would be classified.



Why is this not important to you?


Now THIS is Hilarious!!!!!!!!
Where have you been????? I drive an 1st Gen RX-7 !!!! It's the freaken POSTER CHILD for marginilized cars that have been totally outclassed by newer entries in it's class! Anyone on this board can tell you that I, of all people, fight every day to protect the existing cars and that the word "parity" is the most typed word on my keyboard!!!



.... I jumped to the perhaps overreactive conclusion that people were bowing to VW influence, member driven or otherwise. For that I will guardedly retract my charges....

Fair 'nuff...

Phew.....


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

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

Catch22
07-25-2004, 11:10 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
And thanks K, you've been one of two who have supported any of my argument. At least I know you have some guts.

G


So anyone who doesn't agree with you is gutless???

<ahem>
Fuck You

Apologies to everyone other than Mr. Jones. Feel free to delete this post but please wait until after Mr. Jones has seen it. Thanks in advance.

Scott, who was having fun, but is now done with this silly shit.

Quickshoe
07-25-2004, 11:49 PM
Kirk,

I also found the same numbers for the Fiesta (Cd and Frontal area) but couldn't find any info on the frontal area of the NB...

Does anyone have a frontal area figure for the NB? I feel that overall they are probably pretty equal...who knows how lowering, front air dam and the windows down and window nets will affect both cars. The front windows on that NB are pretty big...

Jones,

I am not trying to pick an argument with you, I don't wish to go down that hand signals road again...perhaps leaving the aerodynamic clause out can only help your argument.

As for the brakes, can you lock up the wheels on your fiesta? If so, your brakes are capable of generating enough force to exceed the grip of the tires. So no worries, all ITC cars are being held to the same amount of rubber, therefore same levels of traction available for slowing. Given the same driver skill they can't stop in a shorter distance.

One argument that hasn't been made (that I remember reading) is the heavy cars are really going to be working those 6" wide rubber patches in the corners too.

I wouldn't be too concerned about the NB...if it is that obvious to you that it is the new class killer, buy one and do it. I am sure you could fetch a fair price for the fiesta, which still appears to be competitive in many eyes. It would really suck to sell the Fiesta, dump some money in a NB and then get trounced by your old car, then later your NB gets moved to B or carries even more weight because too many people are afraid of all that displacement.

grjones1
07-26-2004, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Catch22:
So anyone who doesn't agree with you is gutless???


I'm surprised you let that one through Bill. But no Scott, what I said doesn't suggest "that anyone who doesn't agree with me is gutless", all it says is K has enough guts to tell a mob when they might be making a mistake. And by the way Scott, You'll have to find someone else I'm not that way. In the meantime, Up Yours.

grjones1
07-26-2004, 12:47 AM
"but your logic is backwards on the rear brakes."
Bill,
I'm beginning to think that I stay in the top 5 of MARRS by pure luck, because I apparently don't know anything about how cars work. I know damn good and well heat is a factor in braking and what I said was the rears don't heat as muuch as the fronts so they don't wear. But as far as not using them at all, that's BS and you know it. Ideally you want the rears working right up to the lock-up point if you can find it. But as far as rears not even in the equation- again that's BS. And we use racing pads to work in the factory systems at temperatures not usually met on the street, not because the factory systems are not up to stopping the cars.
Damn guys I'm beginning to see the problem : you can't read.
K did support the idea that the G-grind was an administrative error and he did suggest that the NB in C might be wrong and that does support "some of my argument."
I'm dense on occasion but you guys are beginning to be downright impenetrable.
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 26, 2004).]

grjones1
07-26-2004, 01:29 AM
Jake,
What bothers me about all your answers is that you ask me to come up with figures that I would have expected you to know before you made a recommendation to classify the NB. If the ITAC or CRB is not considering CD, actual vs potential horsepower, braking capability, etc.,etc., before they place a car, they really aren't doing their jobs.
GRJ

lateapex911
07-26-2004, 02:05 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Jake,
What bothers me about all your answers is that you ask me to come up with figures that I would have expected you to know before you made a recommendation to classify the NB. If the ITAC or CRB is not considering CD, actual vs potential horsepower, braking capability, etc.,etc., before they place a car, they really aren't doing their jobs.
GRJ


Mr. Jones...you are speaking as though I am a member of the ITAC. Last I knew, I wasn't.

The only number I suggessted you supply in my responses was a figure for driveline loss in a modern Volkswagen.

I haven't entered into any braking discussion, and I stated why I didn't think aero should play a strong role in classing.


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

Banzai240
07-26-2004, 02:38 AM
Bill,

I did run the numbers and posted them above (concerning the GTI...) You might have just missed the post in all this "interesting" discussion...

As I posted above, if the GTI indeed makes the same stock HP, then in ITB I'd expect it to weight in around 2450lbs... Actually, I'll revise that now because we typically take out about 50lbs for FWD configurations, so let's say 2400lbs... That's again making the assumption of a 25% increase over stock HP with IT prep... or around 143.75 hp... Looks like a good fit in ITB to me...

OH, and to reference something I glazed over several posts back from Mr. Jones... You accuse me of ONLY considering weight??? GIVE ME A BREAK! This car, more so than many others, was given a complete once-over... That's the only way it didn't end up in ITB...

Were only talking about a 1-2 second time gap between a fast ITB car and a fast ITC car at most tracks... I'm pretty confident that the car could be made to "fit" in either class... That's a lot different that saying it's realistic for it to be able to "meet" the specifications required to make it "fit" in the higher class... The car is in ITC at 2700-something pounds, and it has the same wt/pwr ratio as the 510, Hondas, and early VWs... It's going to fit fine.

One more thing about making them heavy and moving them down... It's a little cheaper to build-em, because you don't have to go to all the work of trying to get EVERY last component down to a minimum weight, you don't have to buy the most expensive (lightest) racing wheels, and you don't have to worry about sacrificing safety for performance...

Look for more of the same type of classifications in the future, as needed to make those classifications justifiable and sensible...

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

Bill Miller
07-26-2004, 06:38 AM
Darin,

I also asked you to 'run the numbers' for the Rabbit GTI, in both ITB and ITC. Guess you missed that in this interesting discussion.

Jones,

Yep, that's what I said, the rear brakes don't do anything. In fact, you could probably remove them. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif Guess I should have spelled out that the point I was making is that they play such a small part in the overall breaking, that there's no significant advantage to having rear discs. Not surprised that you didn't get that.

As far as Kirk's comment about the G-grind being and 'administrative error', if I may be so bold, I believe what he was referring to was that it was an error that it was never included on the spec line of the car, not that it was allowed. But again, I'm not surprised that you didn't get that either.

Kirk,

Please feel free to correct me if I'm wrong in my interpretation of your comments.

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

Banzai240
07-26-2004, 07:21 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

I also asked you to 'run the numbers' for the Rabbit GTI, in both ITB and ITC. Guess you missed that in this interesting discussion.


Ahhh... Yes, I did miss that part...

In ITC it would come in around 2700lbs...



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

Knestis
07-26-2004, 08:57 AM
Actually, my point on the G-grind cam - ramble, wander, diverge - is that I think it was an error that it was allowed in the first place. I won't profess to know for sure WHY or HOW that error was made but its allowance seems to me to be at odds with some fundamental assumptions about the IT category.

My sense - again, not having seen the actual paper on which the decision was based - is that someone got a favorable call on the G-grind cam in a way that is unlikely to be duplicated consitently for other cars/manufacturers.

I've never seen the documentation but if it is in fact an official "supercede" part, then it doesn't need to be on the spec line. It's covered by the broader clause in the ITCS and any other part for any other car that is so designated in any fashion by the manufacturer should in fact be allowed as well, whether there has been an official sign-off by the club or not. Either that or NONE of them should be allowed. I'd frankly be more comfortable with the latter...

The Olds front hub/bearing exception is another example of an oddity that seems to follow this pattern. I don't frankly care what the rationale might be for allowing alternate parts for individual models - scarcity, safety, or whatever. I just don't think it's wise to allow them.

If we ARE going to do so, then the CRB should not "aye" or "nay" each individual decision through spec line changes. It should issue an official statement of what standards will be applied (much like the legislative branch of our government), let drivers document their decisions, and allow the protest/appeal process - the judicial - establish case law precedents.

K

ITSRX7
07-26-2004, 09:23 AM
This is a big mistake but...I am going to disagree with Kirk's symmantics...

The REPLACEMENT parts are the ones that do not need to be approved and mentioned on the spec line. The SUPERCEDED parts are the ones that do need to be specifically listed.

By definition, a superceded part can be listed IN ADDITION to the stock part, like the carbs on the Z-cars. Basically, superceded parts obsolete their originals because of better design and must be specifically approved. A REPLACEMENT part is used when the original is not available.

That is how I read - to the letter of the rules. KNowing Kirk is WAY better at this than I, please correct me...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Banzai240
07-26-2004, 10:40 AM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
That is how I read - to the letter of the rules. KNowing Kirk is WAY better at this than I, please correct me...

AB



Awe... Kirk isn't all THAT great at this... ( http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif JUST KIDDING!!)

I agree completely with Andy on this one... Read those two sentances VERY carefully... the second SPECIFICALLY states that "Documentation of the superseding parts or assemblies..." etc., etc... It says nothing about having to list "replacement parts"...

OK... the snowball has once again been started down the hill... I have a feeling this is going to be a LONG thread!



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

Greg Amy
07-26-2004, 10:47 AM
Having worked in the automotive industry as a parts manager for many years (not currently, thank goodness), I want to make sure that everyone is aware of some basic industry definitions:

"Replacement Parts" are any parts you buy to replace what was delivered on your car from the factory. That includes oil filters, gaskets, ANYTHING that is used to REPLACE a part.

"Superceded Parts" are any parts that have a part number that is different than the prior part number, including what was originally delivered on the car. This does not necessarily mean that the part is functionally or technically different, it simply means that the factory changed the number for some reason (e.g., source, material, thickness, heat treating, etc)

Part numbers are SUPERCEDED on a CONSTANT basis. I'd wager you will not be able to go to your dealership and find ONE part that is the original part number delivered on the car from the factory. Not one.

To rely on a part number supercession to indicate a functional difference is fool's gold. Part numbers are changed for the silliest of reasons some times. If you require that all superceded part numbers are to be specifically listed within the ITCS vehicle line, you will have one of two situations:

- Cars that cannot get parts because the numbers have been superceded and are no longer available; or
- An ITCS that is volumes long with literally THOUSANDS of superceded parts listed for each vehicle. Does the ITAC and CRB have time to review all of these...?

The solution is to revert back to the current parts books (manuals, microfiche, computer listings, etc) from each vehicle manufacturer. If VW (or Volvo, or Ford, or whoever) lists part number 123.456.789.B as a factory-authorized replacement part for that car, then that's the legal part, plain and simple. To try and play the game any other way will result in your chasing your tail into a dizzy, spinning mess of doggy doo.

(Edit: after submitting and reading Darin's post, I'm not going to get into a drawn-out pissing match over this. What I wrote above is the facts, ma'am, and no amount of ITCS rules is going to change it. You can try and tilt this windmill all you want, but if you *insist* on all superceded parts must be specifically listed, then we should get together and let his former parts manager protest your car and see how far that goes.

If you continue to insist that all "superceded parts" must be listed on your vehicle line, then I insist you're a cheatin' SOB... - Greg)

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

grjones1
07-26-2004, 11:03 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
The only number I suggessted you supply in my responses was a figure for driveline loss in a modern Volkswagen.


AND FRONTAL AREA AND POTENTIAL CHIP HP INCREASES!

And don't anyone admit to being wrong about K's agreement with "some" of my argument.

And Bill if you are not using the rear brakes on your race car, let's match race sometimes for pink slips.

And don't any monitor jiump in here and yell about "stealing a thread."

And Jake I'm sorry I accused you of being on the ITAC.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 26, 2004).]

Al Seim
07-26-2004, 11:06 AM
GRJ:

Scirocco went in shop for cage work just yesterday. Just adding better mounting pads for front and main hoop - cage started off in 1980s as a SS cage with small bolt-in mounting pads. Will now be welded in and tied to rocker boxes (legally of course!).

Hope to see you at MARRS in Sept or VIR in Oct.

As a token gesture to keeping on topic, I think the big unknown re the NB is the HP from the large-but-low-output VW 2.0 engine once IT-built. Kind of surprising to see it in C rather than B, but I do think the ITAC and CRB guys are acting in good faith.

Banzai240
07-26-2004, 11:28 AM
Originally posted by grega:
If you continue to insist that all "superceded parts" must be listed on your vehicle line, then I insist you're a cheatin' SOB... - Greg)

Greg,

RELAX... take a DEEP breath... It's OK... We'll get through this thing... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

I'm not "insisting" anything, I'm just quoting the rules...

However, I do believe there is a BIG difference between a "replacement" or "supersede" piece that is NOT discernibly different than the part it's replacing, and one that has a different design/specs altogether...

No one is going to protest you over a different part number door hinge... Cam or Carbs... that might be a different story.

When push comes to shove, and if someone wants to be chicken $%!^ enough to protest such things, they'd win, however, based on the written rule...

NOW, this will all be pretty much a moot point if the BoD approves the new wording in the ITCS that the ITAC recomended, which basically says that you may use any replacement parts provided that they match the factory specifications... (this is paraphrased... you can read the exact wording in one of the last couple of Fastracks that were released... I think it was the July or August version...)

------------------
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 July 26, 2004).]

grjones1
07-26-2004, 11:36 AM
Good to hear from you Al, and good luck with Production. I'll look for you this Fall.
G

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 26, 2004).]

grjones1
07-26-2004, 12:24 PM
NOW, this will all be pretty much a moot point if the BoD approves the new wording in the ITCS that the ITAC recomended, which basically says that you may use any replacement parts provided that they match the factory specifications... ([/B][/QUOTE]

Now this makes sense. Thank you.
GRJ

Greg Amy
07-26-2004, 12:33 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...just quoting the rules...</font>

And I was jus' bein' sarcastic. Guess that's what smilies are for...

The problem with trying to codify something like, "...use any replacement parts provided that they match the factory specifications..." is that you'll have a hard time proving both the negative and the positive, for multiple reasons. First, 'what' were the original specs? On a camshaft, for example, on whose authority do you accept the duration, lift, and timing values? The OEM workshop manual? What about if the specs of that part are not in the WSM? You can't buy one of the original parts to compare it against if they're no longer available. You're caught in a Catch-22.

Second, define "factory specifications"? Isn't "the factory" (i.e., the original equipment manufacturer) the one that is specifying the replacement camshaft, thus it *is*, de facto, the factory-specified replacement camshaft? At what point, and on what authority, do we override the factory specifications? Another Catch-22.

And, since the onus is on the competitor to prove that an installed part is legal, how will I know that the part specified by the factory, and handed to me over the dealership parts counter as a factory-specified replacement part, deviates substantially from the one that was delivered on my car?

What if no one had noticed that the camshaft handed to the Rabbit owner, and ordered and purchased in good faith by the competitor, was different? Would we be having this debate? It's obvious that the competitor had no intention of cheating, so how can we label it as such? This reminds me of the old saw, "If a tree falls in the woods and no one's there to hear it, does it make a sound?"

I really don't want to pursue this much further, but rest assured there are significant unintended consequences with trying to "outguess" the factory when it comes to replacement parts in Improved Touring. Further, this is such a small-scale problem as to be irrelavant, especially if PCAs get approved. I recommend the best course of action on this issue is to let this sleeping dog lie and simply rely on the factory to specify 'factory-approved original replacement parts'. Accept the part numbers that the factory specifies as approved replacement parts and this whole issue dies a quick death...

GA

Greg Amy
07-26-2004, 12:39 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...may use any replacement parts provided that they match the factory specifications...</font>

Bad. Really, really bad. Here's an example.

Let's say Fiesta camshafts are no longer available. No, even better: they *are* still available. The only source for "factory specifications" on Fiesta camshafts indicates lift and duration; there's nothing specifying timing of the events. Reading the rules, there's nothing to keep me from fabricating my own camshaft with changes in the events to optimize the power band to where I want it.

Tell me how, under this 'new regulation', this is illegal?

Remember, unintended consequences. Pandora's Box. Can 'o worms. Whatever you want to call it.

Motec, anyone? - GA

Banzai240
07-26-2004, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by grega:
Let's say Fiesta camshafts are no longer available. No, even better: they *are* still available. The only source for "factory specifications" on Fiesta camshafts indicates lift and duration; there's nothing specifying timing of the events. Reading the rules, there's nothing to keep me from fabricating my own camshaft with changes in the events to optimize the power band to where I want it.

Tell me how, under this 'new regulation', this is illegal?

Actually, if you can fit the Motec into your factory box and attach it to factory wiring, it's legal...

This is getting way off topic, so we should move this to another thread... but:

To address your question... the burden of proof is on the competitor. There are ways of measuring the factory timing events, and you could be made to provide a factory example to be tested along with the camshaft under your hood... (Or the PROTESTOR could provide one...) There ARE ways to measure this stuff... and the SCCA tech department has this type of tool at their disposal... There may be a few cars out there where this is an issue, but I'm pretty sure that it's not as many as one might think...

It seems to be a trend around here to think of the odd-ball case and make a big issue of it, but I don't see this as being a widespread problem...

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

grjones1
07-26-2004, 01:27 PM
Originally posted by grega:
Bad. Really, really bad. Here's an example.

Remember, unintended consequences. Pandora's Box. Can 'o worms. Whatever you want to call it.

Motec, anyone? - GA
Just for claification: New stock Fiesta cams are no longer available, nor are any other Fiesta OEM items.

And the supercession rule is not a can of worms?
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 26, 2004).]

Greg Amy
07-26-2004, 01:31 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...I don't see this as being a widespread problem...</font>

I agree, so why make a widespread rule to cover it?


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And the supercession rule is not a can of worms?</font>

Of course it is, which is why it should be dropped.

Whatever, guys, I'm not going to get into a pissing match with you. All I have to say is don't forget:

"I told ya so!"

OTLimit
07-26-2004, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by grega:
Bad. Really, really bad. Here's an example.

Let's say Fiesta camshafts are no longer available. No, even better: they *are* still available. The only source for "factory specifications" on Fiesta camshafts indicates lift and duration; there's nothing specifying timing of the events. Reading the rules, there's nothing to keep me from fabricating my own camshaft with changes in the events to optimize the power band to where I want it.

Tell me how, under this 'new regulation', this is illegal?



This is already going on in SM on a pretty major scale. I wouldn't be surprised if people have been doing it for a long time in IT. And from what we have heard, it is NOT very easy to figure out that the cam has been doctored.


------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

gsbaker
07-26-2004, 05:39 PM
Originally posted by OTLimit:
...And from what we have heard, it is NOT very easy to figure out that the cam has been doctored.

Until you plot the lift on polar graph paper (or use a similar method) and compare it to the original specification, you don't know if the cam meets spec. And then you would have to compare the intake lobes to the exhaust lobes to get absolute relative positioning, which determines overlap.

One can't do this in the pits with a mic.

Gregg

x-ring
07-26-2004, 05:46 PM
...and from what we have heard, it is NOT very easy to figure out that the cam has been doctored.

I understand it's particularly difficult with a Miata cam. The head of tech for the Pro Miata series told me that cam blanks are readily available from Mazda - with the proper part number roll marked on the blank. You can measure lift and duration fairly easily, but timing is much more difficult.



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

Geo
07-26-2004, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by grega:
I agree, so why make a widespread rule to cover it?

It's more complicated than that Greg.

Without the proposed rule, aftermarket replacement rotors, balljoint, tie rods, etc. are no legal.

The problem is, writing a rule brings certain issues and NOT writing a rule brings others.

The problems with cams of course is that they are extremely difficult to police effectively. You cannot even go by factory parts from the dealer because some are NLA. Then there is slop in the tolerances of factory parts.

What to do? I suppose I could get skooled though. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


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

grjones1
07-26-2004, 08:04 PM
I know no one wants to hear this, but if the rulesmakers allow European spec cams (G-grind) for one make anyway what difference does all this make. It just means that maybe everyone else can have an equal opportunity to use a similar cam.
GRJ

Quickshoe
07-26-2004, 08:20 PM
It can be pretty simple if you know the stock profile. All FFords running with VARA had their cams checked...took all of about 30 seconds per lobe. I don't know what the device was called...so in layman's terms here is what we did...

1) You roll up to tech with valve cover loose, all plugs removed and dist cap off.

2) Tech guys mount a fixture on the head and puts a "dial indicator" on the rocker arm tip.

3) Tech guy mounts a special "rotor" on the distributor shaft.

4) You put it in gear, and raise the right wheel off the ground.

5) Tech rotates your airborne wheel (also verifies that you are utilizing an open diff as required by the rules) turning the motor.

6) The "dial indicator" actually has a cable coming out the back side and is a linear potentiometer. The special "rotor" is a rotary potentiometer with a cable coming out the top of it. These two cables are hooked up to a laptop with the cam profile software. As the motor is rotated the 'rotor' tells the computer the degrees of crank rotation at the same time the 'dial indicator' is telling the computer the lift at that exact degree of rotation. The results are plotted on a X-Y graph with each point defining a line that is overlayed over a known good sample of the cam. If you can't stay in the line, you are illegal. Pretty simple.

Seems like it would be simple for the MIATA, I assume you could write the program to interpret the signal from the CAS.

[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited July 26, 2004).]

Bill Miller
07-26-2004, 09:01 PM
Simple way to address the cam question. Call a VW dealer and ask for the part # for a cam for a '79 1.6 Rabbit. Get me the p/n, and I can get you the specs on it.

BTW Robert, I'm surprised you weren't all over the ITS Olds/Pontiac getting the Saturn hubs, when the OEM stuff was still available. I never did get an answer as to why, when, and how that one was allowed.

Kirk,

My apologies for speaking for you.

Darin,


In ITC it would come in around 2700lbs...



You're telling me that a Rabbit GTI, making 25 less hp, stock, than a NB, having rear drum brakes, smaller front brakes, and mechanical FI, is going to come in at only 60# less?? Using the 25% hp increase, in IT trim, the Rabbit GTI doesn't even get the NB's stock hp number. Please, don't insult my, or anyone else's, intelligence like that.

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

grjones1
07-26-2004, 09:15 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Simple way to address the cam question. Call a VW dealer and ask for the part # for a cam for a '79 1.6 Rabbit. Get me the p/n, and I can get you the specs on it.

BTW Robert, I'm surprised you weren't all over the ITS Olds/Pontiac getting the Saturn hubs, when the OEM stuff was still available. I never did get an answer as to why, when, and how that one was allowed.


I don't race against ITS Olds/Pontiacs, Bill. And another point FYI. I just conferred with another ITC racer (Rabbit) who opened a catalog advertising computer chips guaranteeing 15-20 Hp gains for a street stock NB. And that's with a catalytic converter and stock header in place. Another factor he mentioned was that by the time you gut the NB (AC, airbags, radio, etc) you'll be putting 300-400 lbs of ballast in the car to meet the weight. And guess where all that ballast gets to go - in the right center of gravity place. Oh yea, these guys really have it together when they think about "parity."
GRJ

grjones1
07-26-2004, 09:26 PM
and you could be made to provide a factory example to be tested along with the camshaft under your hood...
[/B][/QUOTE]

Darin, no disrespect, but if you advised me to provide a "factory example", I'd point to the camshaft in my car and suggest you deal with it, mainly because I could not provide a new factory example. They don't exist at least from a dealer. And if I can't get one from a dealer I can't be sure it's factory spec'd. This madness can go on and on.
GRJ
GRJ

grjones1
07-26-2004, 09:34 PM
Without the proposed rule, aftermarket replacement rotors, balljoint, tie rods, etc. are no legal.

[/B][/QUOTE]

And gee Geo, who pointed that out to you about six months ago, when I suggested that nowhere in the ITCS does it say that a part must have a number on it, only that it must meet factory specs unless otherwise indicated?
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 26, 2004).]

Banzai240
07-26-2004, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

You're telling me that a Rabbit GTI, making 25 less hp, stock, than a NB, having rear drum brakes, smaller front brakes, and mechanical FI, is going to come in at only 60# less?? Using the 25% hp increase, in IT trim, the Rabbit GTI doesn't even get the NB's stock hp number. Please, don't insult my, or anyone else's, intelligence like that.



Bill,

Calm the F*&^ Down! Give me a break guy... I told you I was sick for several days and that I must have missed your request. I thought you had said that the VW you were referring to made 115hp stock... which explains the ITC numbers I came up with...

Tell me again how much stock hp your GTI makes and I'll be happy to "run the numbers" for you... It would help if you had some REAL HP numbers as well, as VW doesn't seem to be very honest with their advertised HP on these early cars...

Oh, and while you are at it... LIGHTEN UP! PLEASE...



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

therooster
07-27-2004, 12:37 AM
"grjones1...I don't race against ITS Olds/Pontiacs, Bill...GRJ"
So you only care if the rules/exceptions that effect you? If you are going to bitch about special exceptions, please be consistant. The Olds/Pontiac exception is on the Spec line. The VW G grind is not. ( as said before if it is not in the GCR ITCS it is not totally legal)
A ton of ITC cars have "Notes" in the ITCS. Do any of these notes make the cars overdogs? No. Personnaly I think the 92-95 Civic CX HB would make a killer ITC car. Same every thing as the ITA car of the same generation but a little less HP (also less weight required). Why isn't this dominating if the Honda is the ITA car to have? (sarcasism off)
you seem to have a special attachment to the Ford otherwise you would not have picked it. Please understand that your best guess at a winning car will not last for ever. The SCCA ITCS made a decision. Grow up and deal with it. Now take the time and develop your car instead of responding to these posts. If you are attached to your car just race and have fun. If you want to win, understand that you will probably go thru this more than once in your racing career and find a new winning car.

Bill Miller
07-27-2004, 07:14 AM
Darin,

I understand that you've been sick, and as I said, I hope you're feeling better. But I think you're the one that needs to "lighten the &#$(#$)!^##)*##$@^&*(% up". If you look at the first post on this page, I stated it was the Rabbit GTI I was interested in. I had stated the stock hp/torque numbers earlier, not to mention that they're in Jake's spreadsheet.

Now, please provide some evidence to support your claim that VW has been less than honest w/ their published hp on the early cars. You've obviously swallowed some old line of bunk that's gotten twised around over the years. Back when the Rabbit GTI was in SS, its weight was 1850#. It's been speculated that the original curb weight was understated, but I've yet to see any info to support this claim either. I have no idea how the SS weight was established back then, and it doesn't seem that anyone else has either. Talk about your black helicopters!


BTW, stock numbers are 90hp / 100 lb-ft. Let me know if you need more info/numbers.

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

Banzai240
07-27-2004, 08:57 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Now, please provide some evidence to support your claim that VW has been less than honest w/ their published hp on the early cars.

BTW, stock numbers are 90hp / 100 lb-ft. Let me know if you need more info/numbers.



Bill... you should have the answer to this question already... There is NO WAY that the 1.6VW only makes 75hp stock... either that, or IT prep REALLY wakes these things up, because the hp numbers for an IT prepped motor show that it's gaining a LOT more than 25% in the prep process... But let's not waste a bunch of time off topic and get to the point...

If 90hp is the right number for the GTI you are referring too, then I'd say it should be in ITC at roughly 2290lbs... give or take 50lbs. This would only hold true if guys like Chris Albin, or Mark Coffin, or any number of other VW experts didn't provide us with evidence of the true HP for this car in IT prep...



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

grjones1
07-27-2004, 09:57 AM
Originally posted by therooster:
So you only care if the rules/exceptions that effect you? If you are going to bitch about special exceptions, please be consistant. you seem to have a special attachment to the Ford otherwise you would not have picked it. Please understand that your best guess at a winning car will not last for ever. The SCCA ITCS made a decision. Grow up and deal with it. Now take the time and develop your car instead of responding to these posts. If you are attached to your car just race and have fun. If you want to win, understand that you will probably go thru this more than once in your racing career and find a new winning car.[/B]

Rooster,
I didn't realize one had to exhibit total altruism to be allowed to post. Of course I want to see the rules applied evenly But I'm having enough trouble trying to keep things equitable for my 25-year old pushrod 1600 without worrying about ITS.
And gee, Rooster after 30 some years of racing in SCCA and 12 years of working on my Fiesta, I probably know a little about car development and outdating of equipment. And I already win on occasion with my Fiesta, i think I'm "dealing with it" pretty well.
But I can recognize when the rulesmakers have not put enough thought into changes that errantly impact a whole class, whether they want to admit it or not. Putting new cars in C is fine, but not one that has a horsepower potential that so far exceeds anything else in class that the others won't have a chance. That's blatant disregard for people who have maintained the class for years.
GRJ

Banzai240
07-27-2004, 10:11 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
Putting new cars in C is fine, but not one that has a horsepower potential that so far exceeds anything else in class that the others won't have a chance. That's blatant disregard for people who have maintained the class for years.
GRJ

That's a BIG CROCK of BS, Mr. Jones! There is NO ONE on the ITAC that HASN'T taken the whole picture and all our members in to consideration. And since WHEN are YOU the only authority on HP potential for the NB??? Enlighten us please, and tell us what YOU believe the HP potential of this car is... WEll???

The HP potential for this car was estimated just like it has been for any number of other cars and the resulting values were sanity checked to see if what is being done makes sense. It does. This isn't some mysterious black box that has some kind of hidden elements keeping us from having the insight into it's potential... It's a freaking VW motor, which has been explained to be just like all the other VW motors out there...

The car fits in two places... ITC at it's current weight, or ITB at about 2450lbs... It was determined that it would be difficult at best to reach 2450lbs in IT prep, so the classification was made as it is.

The bottom line is that we'd rather have a competitive C car than a garbage B car, because that is going to help put cars on the track. No one has disregarded those who are already here. If you Fiesta is currently competitive with the 510 or Rabbit or Honda, it's going to be competitive with the NB... and, with PCAs in place, we will have the option of adjusting the classfication of the NB should it's performance show that we got it wrong.

You're making a lot of generalization without a lot of substance behind them and frankly, it's unbecoming. There is no one in the SCCA more dedicated to doing the right thing that the current ITAC. However, if your idea of the "right" thing is for us to be classifying cars with no shot at being competitive, then we're just going to have to disagree.



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

Banzai240
07-27-2004, 10:16 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
BTW, stock numbers are 90hp / 100 lb-ft. Let me know if you need more info/numbers.



Oh, I realized that you may have asked me for the ITB numbers as well...

Given the numbers you gave me, the ITB weight for this car would be about 2065lbs, give or take 50lbs...

That could change if someone came forward with some real dyno numbers for an all-out IT prepped engine (which is why I don't believe the stock hp numbers on the 1.6... I KNOW what they really make in IT prep...)



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

apr67
07-27-2004, 10:17 AM
Personally, it is my opinion (and only an opinion) that newer cars in general do not get as large a benefit from IT rules as older cars. Before you haul out a cross and some nails here me out.

Yes, they are computer controlled. But generally the computers seem to do 'all the right stuff' for performace when you are WOT (because they don't do emissions or economy tests at WOT).

Also, newer engines are built lighter, to closer tolerances and with better machine work than engines of old.

Saying that some computer chip advertises a blah blah blah increase in power is not useful. Generally, computer chips add very little (Not that I was for open computers), especially on non-turbo cars. An engine is an air pump. A chip does not change the size of the intake or exhaust. It can tweak the mixture, it can advance the timing. If a car has computer controlled variable valve timing, then it could provide a little more (the VW in question doesnt).

Now why a 2L car with 115hp stock goes to C and some B cars don't get moved down. That is a question for another day.

grjones1
07-27-2004, 11:25 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
That's a BIG CROCK of BS, Mr. Jones!
It's a freaking VW motor, which has been explained to be just like all the other VW motors out there...

Darin,
It's a "freakin" 2.0 VW motor, not 1600 ccs! And I have discussed its advantages. You have simply ignored or summarily dismissed my comments with lame claims yourselves with such nonsense like rear wheel disc brakes won't make a difference on a race car.
And I just pointed out (from information gleaned from a 20-year VW technician) that the car will gain 20 Hp from just a chip, not to mention new tech fuel injection, headers, .5 compression bump, and .40 over pistons, balancing, and blueprinting. I'm beginning to wonder if you realize what a chip does: it varies ignition timing and mixture as conditions require them for maximum performance "in real time", something that can't happen for an old tech motor.
You suggest a 25% HP gain for IT prepped motors, and I'm suggesting 25% + 20 electonic horsepower just to start. That's 144 Hp, just to start. My Fiesta gets about 1 Hp per 24 lbs.(using your 25% increase figures). The NB will very conservatively be getting about 1 Hp per 18 lbs., about 600 more rpm with the overhead cam, and God only knows what the torgue figures and curves are ging to be, and the gear ratios give the NB such an advantage I don't know how to start talking about it.

Another point here, I thought was pretty obvious: You claim you could not get the NB down to the 2300 or so weight it needs to be in B, And that's a Crock! By the time you remove AC, cat converter, radio, airbags, interior panels, seats, instruments, etc. You will have removed 300-400 lbs of street garbage (again according to the VW tech.)You are the ones who have not done your homework! You haven't pu the car where it can be competitive, you've put it where it will blow evrything else away.
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 27, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 27, 2004).]

oanglade
07-27-2004, 12:13 PM
It sounds like you have the word of a VW tech and the ITAC has the word of various VW IT builders...

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

downingracing
07-27-2004, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:

...You have simply ignored or summarily dismissed my comments with lame claims yourselves with such nonsense like rear wheel disc brakes won't make a difference on a race car. And I just pointed out (from information gleaned from a 20-year VW technician) that the car will gain 20 Hp from just a chip...

This thread has been fun to read! The NB classification looks good to me. Should be a good fit in ITC. IMHO

As for the 20HP gain from the chip, please provide some dyno sheets to prove that. Everyone claims that their chip will give you 'X'HP gain, but in reality, it's way less.

And as far as the rear disc/drum claim, some cars do not benefit from running discs over drums. (My Civic is an example - 1994 Civic EX) My rear shoes do almost nothing. (and my brakes are great! I'd take you up on the offer to try and out brake me... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif )


------------------
Matt Downing
www.downingracing.com (http://www.downingracing.com)

[This message has been edited by downingracing (edited July 27, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by downingracing (edited July 27, 2004).]

Greg Amy
07-27-2004, 12:33 PM
Reynolds Wrap is my favorite brand. It doesn't make as much "crinkly" noise when you mold it around the ears...

grjones1
07-27-2004, 12:43 PM
Originally posted by oanglade:
It sounds like you have the word of a VW tech and the ITAC has the word of various VW IT builders...


My VW tech races an ITC Rabbit, successfully.

grjones1
07-27-2004, 12:51 PM
Originally posted by downingracing:
This thread has been fun to read! The NB classification looks good to me. Should be a good fit in ITC. IMHO

As for the 20HP gain from the chip, please provide some dyno sheets to prove that. Everyone claims that their chip will give you 'X'HP gain, but in reality, it's way less.

And as far as the rear disc/drum claim, some cars do not benefit from running discs over drums. (My Civic is an example - 1994 Civic EX) My rear shoes do almost nothing. (and my brakes are great! I'd take you up on the offer to try and out brake me... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif )


Matt,
When the barometric pressure and humidity changes and the guy with the computer and superchip is all of a sudden out running you, because his computer responds to sensors which adjust to those changes in conditions, don't be surprised.

And I'll be at Summit Point, Labor Day. Close off your rear brakes and meet me at T1, Ive always wanted to own a Civic ES.
GRJ

gran racing
07-27-2004, 01:04 PM
I have a very, very hard time believing that a chip with a total stock car will provide a 20 hp gain. For that matter, a car that is fully prepped to IT rules. That’s a bunch of BS. Ummm yeah, the people who market the chip will probably advertise “up to” 20 hp gains. Deep down, you honestly can’t believe this can you?

At this point, I think that everyone has provided their feelings on the Beetle in ITC. We’re kinda going around in circles now, aren’t we?

Mr. Jones (I’m actually not being a jerk here), this decision has already been approved by the ITAC and you’ve already expressed your beliefs here. But it still needs to obtain approval by the board in August, so nothing is final. Maybe you and any other people that share your objection with the move should now focus on writing a well composed letter with supporting facts to the board. Get other racers to sign your petition. Not saying this will change things, but at it will be much more productive for you. Somehow I don’t think you’ll convince anyone on the ITAC board that they made a mistake. The reason for this really doesn’t matter.

Although I am getting a big kick out of reading all of this!

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

grjones1
07-27-2004, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:

Although I am getting a big kick out of reading all of this!

[/B]
Dave,
I appreciate your comments and advice and I'm at least happy that you have enjoyed the discussion.
GRJ

JOESELLSVW
07-27-2004, 02:23 PM
Here's my two cents... I think tht this may be a mistake, but the board is prepared to fix a potential mistake by moving the car to B after it dominates C (if that does happen)we should take that as a good sign of progress in the way the board looks at IT. My personal view is that they'd like for people to build the cars and see what happens. I think this way because the A3 was in ITA and very few cars were built. Now with the car in B several cars are being built! Including Kirk's car as well as my own. New cars will me good for the class. To address the cost fator of the New Beetle several of the cars have been traded at my dealership in the four to five thousand dollar mark with 80k. Seems to me that this car could be put into IT trim for about $12,000. Not cheap, but building a "new" car that nobody has done before isn't either. JOE

Catch22
07-27-2004, 05:25 PM
Mr. Jones,

OK, you are a terrible debater. Thats why you'll never win. You say things that make no sense, constantly contradict yourself, and generally babble incessantly. The chip on your shoulder is so big I'm sure its giving you back problems.

But all that aside, I started wondering how your little Fiesta rates against the current crop of ITC cars. So I did some research (the internet is a wonderful thing). First off, it looks like you spend at least 90% of your racing life running against the same guys over and over again at the same track (Summit Point). There's certainly nothing wrong with this, but its really not teaching you anything about how competitive you truly are and whats going on in the whole of the ITC world.
I did however see that you trekked to VIR earlier this year, where your best lap times were 2:35s and you finished well down in the SARRC/MARRS pack on both days. I'll note here that I ran consistent 2:29s in my Civic 3 weeks before you were there in nearly identical weather conditions. Finally, I'll note that while I was 6 seconds faster than you, I was still 2 seconds off the track record.

Maybe you were having mechanical problems?
Maybe you'd never been there before?
Maybe the track intimidated you?
Or maybe, when you wander away from MARRS at Summit Point you discover that you're really not all that competitive after all.

My point is not to pick on your performance at VIR. The point is that you appear to be standing on a box screaming that the Beetle will make your car uncompetitive when it seems that outside of the confines of the West Virginia mountains you are ALREADY not all that competitive.
C'mon... Seriously. With that kind of performance I'd lap you in an Enduro at VIR. You need to stop worrying about the Beetle and worry about me (or Vesa Silegren or Will Perry or Gareth Rebstock or Mark Senior) bringing our long time ITC classed Hondas up to Summit Point for some MARRS races.

Tell you what. Bring that Fiesta down to the ARRC and lets find out how competitive it really is against many of the best current ITC cars and drivers. Finish in the top 5 and I'll join you in the quest to keep the Beetle out of ITC. Finish where I think you'll finish and you just need to shut the hell up because all youre doing is arguing to keep a 25 year old car that is already uncompetitive... Competitive. Which is just plain stupid.

Scott, who realizes that 10 years from now, if ITC still exists and I'm still racing, that my current frontrunning Civic will likely NOT be competitive... And I'm OK with that because its inevitable.

grjones1
07-27-2004, 06:47 PM
Scott (Who curiously refers to himself in the third person - have you been under any kind of psychiatric care?):
As to my debating prowess, I'll leave that to others to judge. But I really can't find any contradictions in what I've said. Enlighten me.

And I really don't think my record has much to do with these discussions, but I'll talk about it.
As far as my performance at VIR. You are right, not very good, but good enough for 2nd and 3rd MARRS finishes our last weekend there which is what I was looking for. And yes I do race predominantly at Summit, because it's close to home. (And I've finished in the top 5 of 30-car ITC fields for about 5 years.) I have taken 3rd at Lime Rock in an FP Sprite. Several 2nds and 3rds at Nelson Ledges in the same Sprite, and numerous top 5 finishes at Summit in a number of SS cars including a '75 R-5, 83' GTI, '84 GLH, and would you believe I hold a lap record at VIR in what was SSSC in a 914-2.0. I would offer as an excuse for present day times at VIR, that my Fiesta is really set up for Summit. But you have given me good reasons now to do better there.
As far as not having contended with the best in IT, I heartily disagree. I think the likes of Al Bell (whom I have never beaten), Andy Stapor, Dave Flinchbaugh, Mark Barracka, Dave Coleman, Danny Anderson, Lee Kaufman and others (all whom I have been fortunate to finish in front of at times) are as good as it gets. And of course I invite you to join us at Summit Point and see. You'll find first of all the fields are bigger (in C) and you'll have a little more traffic (composed of cars within .5 seconds of each other) to deal with in class than at VIR. My best time st Summit is 134:3 in the Fiesta. Let's see how close you get to that or me.
And if you think the best IT drivers only attend the ARRC, wait til you drive against this crowd.)

Now Scott you have told me to "shut the hell up. and F.. you." I don't recall using that language with anyone in this forum, but I'll tell you this: Bring on your car and your mouth I'll be glad to contend with both with my "uncompetitive" Fiesta and I fully intend to flap your doors. And Scott: Get Bent!
G. Robert Jones

Catch22
07-27-2004, 07:15 PM
Not surprisingly you've typed up a long answer that didn't really answer anything. Alot of your reply, whether you understand it or not, actually agrees with my last post.

Leave Summit every now and again and run against some other people. I'm betting you'll discover that your Fiesta is currently not really incredibly competitive. Again, basing your results and opinions on what happens on one track against mostly the same people just doesn't work. But you did a fine job of missing my point, which surprised the hell out of me.

lateapex911
07-27-2004, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Catch22:
Mr. Jones,

OK, you are a terrible debater. Thats why you'll never win. You say things that make no sense, constantly contradict yourself, and generally babble incessantly. The chip on your shoulder is so big I'm sure its giving you back problems.





But that chip is worth 20HP!!!!!

Har har ...jeez I crack myself up sometimes! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


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

grjones1
07-27-2004, 07:49 PM
[B][/QUOTE]
Your point Scott is that because you see my car as uncompetitive because I haven't raced it at more tracks against what you consider to be superior competition , I do not have a right to complain about what I feel is a misclassification. Your point is so ad homminem, so much begging the question, so much post hoc, ergo propter hoc, so full of non-sequitor, and so full of arrogant presumption it deserves only to be missed. You make no point other than one's argument can only be gauged on one's experience, which itself is falacious.

I've offered to show you how competitive the Fiesta can be. Now put or shut up.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 27, 2004).]

lateapex911
07-27-2004, 07:50 PM
OK, ok, I'l settle down...

A chip alone worth 20HP?? Hmmmmm.....sounds kinda optimistic. here's one from a fairly reputable company...:

Unleash the power hiding in your factory Engine Control Unit (ECU.) NEUSPEED engineers reprogram your ECU chip to optimize ignition timing under part throttle and full throttle load, and raise the rev-limiter and top speed governor. Horsepower is increased by approximately 5-7hp at the wheels. CARB approved (D236-10) when used with a K&N air filter or NEUSPEED P-Flo.

Notes
91 octane or higher fuel must be used with this chip.

Methinks 5-7 is a long way from 20.

Now, that said, of course, a chip can be used to extract the most from other changes that awouldn't be available to non ECU cars....but it's not an extra free 20hp! Some cars do benefit more than others. If you really want to use a figure as high as 20, (which sends red flags upto most folk who deal with these things), I think documentation (other than "My 20 yr. tech sez' so") is advisable.

Regarding competitveness, there's a lot of mumbo jumbo going on in the presentation of qualifications. It's not germaine to the discussion, Mr. Jones, if you heve trophys for your FP car or your GLH. What matters is the Fiesta, and the relative competiveness of that car at various tracks against known front runners.

And the P/W ratio is interesting, but not alone. What are the P/W ratios of other known front running cars in the class??

I sugggest Mr. Jones, that if indeed the New Bettle is so dominant over your Fiesta that you have to determine if it is truly a class overdog or not. (You have provided no information to that effect, as most of your comments are comparing it to your Fiesta.) If it is not an overdog vis a vis the Civic, the CRX, et al., then perhaps you need to solicit the ITAC and the CRb for a break for your car.

Of course, if that IS the case, you might find that your comments have left them in a position where it will be veeeeeeery hard to be objective, eh?

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

grjones1
07-27-2004, 07:55 PM
You know Jake, not having proven that the chip cannot make 20 Hp, your self-only enjoyed humor takes a great deal for granted.
You guys crack me up. Because you say the chip won't do it, that's supposed to be taken as gospel Bullshit!
GRJ

grjones1
07-27-2004, 07:57 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
[B]
Your point Scott is that because you see my car as uncompetitive because I haven't raced it at more tracks against what you consider to be superior competition , I do not have a right to complain about what I feel is a misclassification. Your point is so ad hominem, so much begging the question, so much post hoc, ergo propter hoc, so full of non-sequitor, and so full of arrogant presumption it deserves only to be missed. You make no point other than one's argument can only be gauged on one's experience, which itself is falacious.

I've offered to show you how competitive the Fiesta can be. Now put up or shut up.
GRJ[/QUOTE]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 27, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 27, 2004).]

grjones1
07-27-2004, 08:12 PM
Jake,
As usual you switch the details to further your argument. Your ad reports at "at the wheels," I beleive my claim was at the crank. A difference as I'm sure you will admit. No I don't know for sure what the damn chips will produce but even if they only produce 7 Hp, that's 7 more than the remainder of the class gets. And I'll bet the ITAC contingent knows as little as I do about this and they need to know it all for sure before they go recommending new models for old classes.

And I heartily apologize for boring everyone with my less than stellar driving record. Old Scott there really pushed my defensive buttons. I can't wait to see him on the racetrack. I am sure his mere prescence will take 2 seconds off my best time.
GRJ

lateapex911
07-27-2004, 08:30 PM
I am such the detail switcher aren't I??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gifTch tch thc...

OK, then..... you chastised me earlier for not accounting properly in my conversion of crank to wheel HP. If you remember, I used a figure of 13%, but you told me I was WAY high. You never did suggest a better number.
SO.....they say the chip is 5-7 hp at the wheels ...you say 20 at the crank. Fine. Now lets convert your crank to an at the wheels figure...is a 10% conversion more to your liking??? That leaves yor chip adding 18Hp at the wheels, or about 3 times what a well known, reputable firm states is reasonable.

I'm not saying 20 is impossible, but that's a heck of a high percentage change from stock. I still think you need to back up a claim like that a lot better.

And PS, I am sorry if I have been profane in any of my posts with you, although I don't think I have. Please refrain from using it with me, dig?

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited July 27, 2004).]

grjones1
07-27-2004, 08:38 PM
Regarding competitveness, there's a lot of mumbo jumbo going on in the presentation of qualifications. It's not germaine to the discussion, And the P/W ratio is interesting, but not alone. What are the P/W ratios of other known front running cars in the class??
[/B][/QUOTE]
Jake,
My Fiesta has and does beat ITC Civics, rabbits and even 510s fairly often. I can document that. And if I can beat those cars is not a comparisom to my Fiesta with the NB a fairly sound comparisom for judging whether or not the NB is fairly placed in the class? And again shopuldn't the ITAC have already researched all this before the car was classed?
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 27, 2004).]

grjones1
07-27-2004, 08:47 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
I am such the detail switcher aren't I??? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gifTch tch thc...

And PS, I am sorry if I have been profane in any of my posts with you, although I don't think I have. Please refrain from using it with me, dig?

Jake,
I too apologize for aiming profanity indiscretely. I will be the first to acknowlege mutual respect. (Scott excluded of course.)
Please allow me to continue later I must be excused.
GRJ

Bill Miller
07-27-2004, 08:49 PM
It's a freaking VW motor, which has been explained to be just like all the other VW motors out there...


Actually Darin, it's not like 'all the other VW motors out there'. This motor (the 2.0 in the A3 and A4 cars, including the NB) is a cross-flow head design. The only other VW motors like this are the 16v motrs. The 8v motors in the A1 and A2 cars in ITB and ITC have the intake and the exhaust manifolds on the same side of the head.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">There is NO WAY that the 1.6VW only makes 75hp stock... either that, or IT prep REALLY wakes these things up, because the hp numbers for an IT prepped motor show that it's gaining a LOT more than 25% in the prep process... </font>

Ok Darin, time to put up or shut up. Let's see the data that support this claim. I forget if it was here on on the VW site, but Dick Shine said, IIRC, that the most they ever got out of a legal ITC motor was 98-99 hp. That's 30% - 32% increase over the stock 75hp. Hardly what I'd consider a LOT more than 25%.


If 90hp is the right number for the GTI you are referring too, then I'd say it should be in ITC at roughly 2290lbs... give or take 50lbs. This would only hold true if guys like Chris Albin, or Mark Coffin, or any number of other VW experts didn't provide us with evidence of the true HP for this car in IT prep...



That could change if someone came forward with some real dyno numbers for an all-out IT prepped engine (which is why I don't believe the stock hp numbers on the 1.6... I KNOW what they really make in IT prep...)



Well Darin, which is it? Either you've got numbers on the Rabbit GTI motors or you don't.

And by all means, post this proof that you have about the 1.6 motors. Should be interesting.

Oh, and just for some added info, a well known VW engine builder has stated that 122-123 hp is the most you will get out of a legal A2 1.8 8v motor. This is a motor that has 1.5 pts. more compression, a larger throttle body bore, and a better intake manifold, than does the Rabbit GTI.

/edit/

Here's Dick Shine's quote Darin, from this board.


I have built and tested many of these. The best ITC motor made 99.6 and the worse was 97.2HP on a SAE corrected dyno @ 230 degrees oil temp,210 degrees water and Mobil One 5W20. The O weight oil would occasionally lose prime and made no more power.The factory stock cam made as much power as the G and overfilling by .5 quarts lost 7 HP These are sensitive to exhaust and tail pipe length. We couldnt make 100 no matter what we tried (legally).
Dick Shine



Can't wait to hear your numbers. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif

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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited July 27, 2004).]

gran racing
07-27-2004, 09:10 PM
Oh gosh. Dave being sucked in once again...

First of all, driving record has nothing to do with the Beetle being in ITC. And the fact that Jones races primarily at Summit? So what? I primarily race at Lime rock. And guess what? I run mid-pack in ITA. I also get beat by some of the top ITC drivers. Does that mean I am not a good driver? I personally don't think so. There is a lot that isn't seen.

Everyone has their home track no matter who you're talking about. Will I do better at LRP then the ARRC? I freaken hope so. And why shouldn't proximity matter? Listen, I work 40+ hours per week and am not a professional race car driver (I know, they are truely missing out here).

As far as records go, I wish "only" won the regional races on my home track. You gotta be kidding me!

Again, not that it really matters, I've raced Summit. It took me a few sessions to get it. No practice; the first race I qualified dead last. Boy did I have fun during the race though! So, am I a horrible driver? My home track Lime Rock. The down hill took me several times to get it / grow (yes, took some special pills) the balls get accustomed to it. Heck, now I'm passing people there? Until I got used to the track I thought you'd be crazy to do this!

What's the point? You know what, I am not even sure myself. Just got sucked in. Ut oh, heard DAVE!!!! as only a wife can do.

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

grjones1
07-27-2004, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
[/B]

Thanks Dave. I don't want you guilty by association, but I need all the help I can get. If ever you want a tour around Summit, I'll be glad to help. If you don't trust me [as others apparently see my competitiveness as questionable (I'm only second in the MARRS ITC points this year.)I'll fix you up with the fastest people there. At any rate be sure to find me, I want to buy you a beer (Of course they are free at the Saturday social.)
G. Robert

lateapex911
07-27-2004, 10:56 PM
iginally posted by grjones1:

Jake,
My Fiesta has and does beat ITC Civics, rabbits and even 510s fairly often. I can document that. And if I can beat those cars is not a comparisom to my Fiesta with the NB a fairly sound comparisom for judging whether or not the NB is fairly placed in the class?

Well, I beat ITS RX-7s too but God knows I'm not the big dog even in ITA! Beating people is great, but irrelevant. Beating the RIGHT people on the right day has SOME relevance. Running fast at well attended tracks has some relevance as long as the car is known to be legal. And real hard data has the most bearing. For example, what do the Civics put down at the wheels in IT trim, and what do they weigh? How about the CRX?



Shouldn't the ITAC have already researched all this before the car was classed?
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 27, 2004).]

Well, yes they should have, and according to them, they DID. It was YOU, after all that brought it up in the first place, and now we are debating the merits of your charge. Help us out and give us some real data. I know if you asked me about ITA I would be able to tell you EXACTLY what some of the the frontrunners (In the country, not just guys from one track) have for real documented power, how much they weigh, and comparative lap times on the same track.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited July 27, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited July 27, 2004).]

Catch22
07-27-2004, 11:37 PM
See Mr. Jones, on the one hand you tell us that what your car can do at one track with you behind the wheel has no bearing on the accuracy of placing the NB in ITC. You said this here...

And I really don't think my record has much to do with these discussions

But in multiple other places you tell us multiple other times about how you consitently finish at the top and are in the running for MARRS points. You tell us this, presumably and apparently, because you think it demonstrates that your car IS currently competitive and the Beetle will injure this competitiveness.

You simply can't use an argument on the one hand when it meets your needs, and throw it out (using a bunch of big words... congratulations on that.) when someone else uses it against you. Or maybe you think you can. Well... Obviously you think you can.

In short, to make it easy on you...
- You use your current finishing record in MARRS to argue that your Fiesta is currently competitive. Something that a car like the Beetle will harm.
- When I say that your finishing record isn't a useful data point because you only race in one place, against pretty much constant competition, you tell me that your record doesn't have much to do with these discussions.

See how that just doesn't work?
I know you looked up a whole bunch of big words and stuff, but it still doesn't change the fact that you are constantly contradicting yourself to support your position. You really kind of need to work on that if you expect to win an argument of this sort.

And I've been to Summit Point once and thats all I needed. The track is a collection of frost heaves and mismatched patches, the paddock is horrible, and I was afraid to piss in the urinals for fear of some unknown brood of south american mosquito biting Scott Jr. But hey, at least its a 14 hour tow from my front door. I'll pass on the invite... Thanks anyway.
But if you want to make a date for VIR next year to see if you can make up those 6 seconds by changing that "Summit Point setup," I'll be there waiting for you.

Scott, who thinks thats one hell of a dialed in set-up for Summit that costs 6 seconds at VIR.

Banzai240
07-28-2004, 12:49 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Can't wait to hear your numbers. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/rolleyes.gif



Is that flywheel hp or wheel?? And which car are we talking about now? We've talked about GTI's, 1.6/7s, 2.0L 4th gen Beetles, etc... Which cars and which motors are you looking for information about?

Also, what exactly are you trying to prove here?? Once again, you bait me into these discussions, and then you just slam me left and right when I say something you don't agree with, or when I misread/miss something you've said/asked/stated... I have no problem "giving you the numbers", and you aren't going to make any headlines by suggesting that some of these cars need to be moved. We already know that. We can only do so much in one year and over this next year, one of the major goals of the ITAC is to strategically analyze ALL cars in IT and see what might need to be adjusted.

Oh, and one more thing... a 35% increase IS A HUGH increase... (or 32%, or 30%...) for IT prep... Which is why I think the stock hp numbers are low and the real numbers would equate to something more along the lines of a 20-25% increase... Unfortunately, I can't find the e-mails that detailed the power output of some VW motors out there, but I'll try to get them again to confirm what I'm saying... The numbers were more in the neighborhood of 109-115hp for a 1.6L ITC motor.

If your numbers are correct, then this car must run better than the sum of it's parts, because based on it's current classification, it's able to compete with and even out-compete the 510s out there with a 1.0pt deficit on wt/pwr ratio, which just doesn't make sense...


------------------
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 July 28, 2004).]

grjones1
07-28-2004, 01:53 AM
[/B]
OK guys this is going to be longwinded but I'm going to try to answer you.
We pretty much do not share horsepower figures among ourselves in MARRS. At least not competing marques. I assume everyone is as legal as I am, so whatever a Civic or VW, or Escort can make legally is what I race against.

If you recall, I began my argument with a comparison of what the ITB Volvo shows and why I thought the NB appeared to be pretty close to that: 2650 lbs, etc., supposedly 140 Hp I still think the NB is more than capable of: 2.0, 10.5 compression, crossflow, and a chipable new tech computer. I was trying to use the available figures to make my argument.

Then I again used the ITAC's own figures (e.g., 25% gain in IT trim to show how much more the NB potential is compared to my own car, which I know best. I don't race a Rabbit or a Civic or a Volvo, I really don't know what kind of figures they offer. All I know is I beat last year's MARRS champion (a very quick Scirocco driven by a very good driver this last race, together with Danny Anderson's 510 that has won every race in the MARRS series this year up to last weekend, including a MARRS 1st at VIR (2nd to the SARRC VIR ITC lap record holder at VIR).

Now none of this means by any means that I'm some kind of hot shoe, but it does prove to some degree that my Fiesta is still somewhat competitive and a viable representative of current ITC capabilities. That's all I intended to show. I didn't think my whole driving record had to be displayed to prove the NB is not an ITC car.

As far as other tracks and other well-known drivers, beleive me their cars and their tracks are no more (or less as far as I know) competitive than the people I run against. For example, David Flinchbaugh won ITC this last weekend at Watkins Glen in his Escort, and David has won numerous times at Summit. Evidently he's had some motor problems this year, and I've been able to score ahead of him also at Summit for what that's worth. I really don't like talking about who I beat publically and I sure as hell don't appreciate someone digging up parts of my record and throwing them in my face. (Especially someone who evidently races all over the East Coast but won't show up at Summit because the restrooms weren't clean enough. And who evidently doesn't realize that a final drive used for the 10 turns and .9-mile straight at Summit might not provide the right gearing for the 19-turns and 1.5-mile straight at VIR.) (And forgive me Jake for going on about this, but I might add I was on 1-year-old Toyos at VIR because my new Hoosiers had not yet come in, Might have had something to do with those lap times Scott saw fit to bring into the argument.

But I will see him at VIR, I plan to make a point of it. And he better be more than 6 seconds faster than my last lap times.

By the way another "unknown," Rich Allen,in a Rabbit with whom I race with at Summit and with whose lap times I usually compare took a 3rd at VIR last Spring in a 12-car C group. OK enough of this crap, again my record has nothing to do with whether or not the NB belongs in C. My car's performance I beleive has proven that it is representative of a competitive ITC car.

To the point I hope. If no other figures I have mentioned make any sense, the question I asked in so many words and never received an answer was that the ITAC offers the excuse that they believed an NB could not make the 2300 lb. weight they thought it had to be to be competitive in B.

I ask you, and please answer with all honesty, Do you seriously beleive that an NB cannot shed 350 lbs of Catalytic converter, AC, radio, seats, sound deadening, carpet, airbags, trim, stock headers, etc., to bring a 2650 lb. curb weight to 2300 lbs? This above all is why I find their explanations questionable.


And for the life of me I cannot see any car even weighing 2650 lbs beginning dead stock with 2.0 liters, at 115 Hp with overhead cam, crossflow head, state-of-the-art fuel injection and electronics, four wheeled disc brakes, and an almost close ratio five speed in any way comparable to 1500-1600 cc, 65-75 original HP econoboxes,with stretched out 4 spd ratios (most with 4th gear overdives), most with solid tiny rotors and rear drums, and totally outdated induction systems. Guys, it just doesn't add up. And I'm willing to bet my ride, it will prove to be the case that the NB will dominate ITC immediately.
G. Robert


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

grjones1
07-28-2004, 02:35 AM
[quote]Originally posted by Catch22:
[B] You tell us this, presumably and apparently, because you think it demonstrates that your car IS currently competitive and the Beetle will injure this competitiveness.
__________________________________________'
Correct for a change.
GRJ
___________________________________________
You simply can't use an argument on the one hand when it meets your needs, and throw it out (using a bunch of big words... congratulations on that.) when someone else uses it against you. Or maybe you think you can. Well... Obviously you think you can.
__________________________________________
You offer yourself up as the great judge of debate, Scott. I'm surprised you were impressed with pretty standard terms for argumentation.
GRJ
________________________________________
In short, to make it easy on you...
- You use your current finishing record in MARRS to argue that your Fiesta is currently competitive.
__________________________________________
It is.
GRJ
__________________________________________
Something that a car like the Beetle will harm.
_________________________________________
Not just my car. all current ITC cars,
GRJ
_________________________________________
- When I say that your finishing record isn't a useful data point because you only race in one place, against pretty much constant competition, you tell me that your record doesn't have much to do with these discussions.
____________________________________________
My record as you presented it. And I think that it is a "useful data point" because the ITC fields at Summit Point MARRS races have ranged from 12 to 32 cars in the last 5 years. How many in class do you race with consistently?
As far as I can see Scott, in my own little bit of research is the best you've done is a 3rd in class fields of six and seven cars. And most of your racing is done at Road Atlanta. Where else do you race that exposes you to the creme de la creme of ITC racing? That's real impressive. Does that qualify your car as a prime example of a competitive C car? You see two can play this stupid game!
GRJ
_____________________________________________
See how that just doesn't work?
I know you looked up a whole bunch of big words and stuff, but it still doesn't change the fact that you are constantly contradicting yourself to support your position. You really kind of need to work on that if you expect to win an argument of this sort.
___________________________________________
No I didn't have to look them up. They are part of my vocabulary. The only thing I need to work on is trying to communicate with an idiot.
GRJ
__________________________________________
And I've been to Summit Point once and thats all I needed. The track is a collection of frost heaves and mismatched patches, the paddock is horrible, and I was afraid to piss in the urinals for fear of some unknown brood of south american mosquito biting Scott Jr. But hey, at least its a 14 hour tow from my front door. I'll pass on the invite... Thanks anyway.
___________________________________________
I think we're probably fortunate you didn't corrupt our urinal.
GRJ
_____________________________________________
But if you want to make a date for VIR next year to see if you can make up those 6 seconds by changing that "Summit Point setup," I'll be there waiting for you.

Scott, who thinks thats one hell of a dialed in set-up for Summit that costs 6 seconds at VIR.
__________________________________________
I really don't think Scott "thinks" at all. And you better believe I'll be there. Best leave Scott Jr. at home. I don't want him to see his father embarassed.
GRJ
________________________________________


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

Quickshoe
07-28-2004, 03:40 AM
Here I am, all wound up after just coming back from a night of arrive and drive karting. I find this entertaining for a momment or two and then realize these are real people out there racing http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif!


Originally posted by grjones1:
No I didn't have to look them up. They are part of my vocabulary. The only thing I need to work on is trying to communicate with an idiot.



grjones1, I'd suggest that you have other things you need to work on. Perhaps someone more educated than I can give you a tutorial on the quote function in Latin. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

off on a tangent--challenging people to race for pink slips is crazy, sounds to me like adolescent bravado. Surely, you realize that things can happen, you could have an off day, your car could suffer a mechanical failure, any number of things could go wrong. Or perhaps you have underestimated your competition. If you really want that challenge you are crazier than you are stubborn.

For the benefit of us less educated folks, perhaps you could use words that most of us can comprehend. I see it (perhaps you couldn't care less how I see it) as if you can't sway us with facts, baffle us with B.S.

Way out on a limb--perhaps given the cars that you have chosen to build, you may not be aware, but you can spend a lot of time trying to remove part X from a newer model car, you finally rejoice triumphantly as you have successfully removed the part only to find it weighs about 30% of what you expected. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif Removing some of these components in newer cars just doesn't equate to removing similar items in older cars. Don't know that 300# is doable...time will tell. If we see a grid full of NB's with 100# of ballast in them and all kinds of supplemental cage work we'll know otherwise.

grjones1
07-28-2004, 04:20 AM
[quote]Originally posted by Quickshoe:
[B]

Quickshoe,
Actually I am embarassed to have had to stoop to the depths I have in this whole dialogue. But arrogance is something that drives me up the wall. Even my own. And arrogance is basically what I've been dealing with whenever I question the ITAC or the CRB. And maybe with the work these guys put in they have earned the right to be arrogant. But I'm not going to stand for it from some Atlanta-based punk who thinks he knows everything about everything and especially when he uses the language he has used with me. He's going to have to prove what he knows one way or another. I'll ask your indulgence and just say I was driven to distraction. And ask that your remarks might be directed at other's indiscretions as well as my own.

As far as the removal of weight in the NB. Again I called upon my VW tech acquaintance, who works with these cars every day and he agrees 300 lbs. is easily and legally removed from a 1998-99 NB. I can only go on the expertise I have at hand.
Thanks for listening.
GRJ

Bill Miller
07-28-2004, 07:07 AM
Oh, and one more thing... a 35% increase IS A HUGH increase... (or 32%, or 30%...) for IT prep... Which is why I think the stock hp numbers are low and the real numbers would equate to something more along the lines of a 20-25% increase... Unfortunately, I can't find the e-mails that detailed the power output of some VW motors out there, but I'll try to get them again to confirm what I'm saying... The numbers were more in the neighborhood of 109-115hp for a 1.6L ITC motor.

If your numbers are correct, then this car must run better than the sum of it's parts, because based on it's current classification, it's able to compete with and even out-compete the 510s out there with a 1.0pt deficit on wt/pwr ratio, which just doesn't make sense...



First off Darin, there's one of the problems when you start talking percentage gains, and establishing an arbitrary benchmark. The lower the stock hp, the larger percentage gain 1 hp is. In the case of cars that start w/ less than 100hp, 1hp is more than a 1% gain. And while you may consider a 30% gain HUGE, you have to look at the real increase, not just the percentage. Based on Dick's numbers, the Rabbit is making 32% more hp over stock, that's a 24hp increase. Let's look at another car that makes 32% (or more) over stock, the E36 BMW. Stock is 190, and there have been reports of 250-260 in IT trim. That's a 32%-38% increase. It's also a 60 - 70 hp gain.

So, if a BMW can get 32-38 percent increase, with IT prep, why would you think that a VW can only get 20-25 percent?

I don't know where you're getting your 109-115 hp out of a 1.6 in IT trim numbers from, but if you're only getting a 20-25 percent increse, base hp is somewhere in the 90 range. Sorry, but that's just not the case.

What I quoted above came straight from Dick Shine, certainly one of the most experienced VW IT motor builders out there. I don't know about you, but I put a fair amount of stock in what he says, when it comes to VW's. And, since you've got VW numbers, I'm sure you've probably got Datsun/Nissan numbers as well. What's the output on a Rebello ITC L16?

You've fallen into the same trap that a lot of people have, and one you've argued the other side of. You state that just because car X can compete w/ car Y, it must be making more power. Can be true, but needs further analysis. I'm also concerned by your position on this, vis-a-vis PCA's down the road.

And Darin, I don't 'slam' you because I don't like what you say, I slam you because you say one thing and then come back and say that's not what you meant. Your use of language is pretty cavalier, yet you get mad when people call you on it. You also get mad when people call you on supposed evidence that you have, yet you can't/don't produce. You also get mad when it's pointed out that you're not internally consistent w/ your statements.

And, I still want to see those numbers that you have.

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

Knestis
07-28-2004, 08:40 AM
http://www.it2.evaluand.com/images/bangdesk.gif

Not taking sides here but this has degenerated to a real poo-flinging contest.

Hint - when it stops being about the topic at hand and starts being about what someone said about the topic at hand or how they said, it might be time for an new topic.

K


[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 28, 2004).]

oanglade
07-28-2004, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
I ask you, and please answer with all honesty, Do you seriously beleive that an NB cannot shed 350 lbs of Catalytic converter, AC, radio, seats, sound deadening, carpet, airbags, trim, stock headers, etc., to bring a 2650 lb. curb weight to 2300 lbs? This above all is why I find their explanations questionable.
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]


It's not only 350 pounds that it would need to lose, it's 350 pounds, plus the 180 pound driver weight. Can the NB lose 530 pounds? I doubt you can get a NB down to 2120 pounds legally with a cage.


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

Greg Amy
07-28-2004, 09:01 AM
I'd need ot read through this mess again to find out, but has anybody asked the basic question:

"Does anybody except GRJones give a rat's ass if the Fiesta is competitive in ITC?"


(Oops, I apolgize for that. I'll go back to adjusting the Reynold's Wrap, thank you sorry....)

[This message has been edited by grega (edited July 28, 2004).]

ITSRX7
07-28-2004, 09:01 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:


I ask you, and please answer with all honesty, Do you seriously beleive that an NB cannot shed 350 lbs of Catalytic converter, AC, radio, seats, sound deadening, carpet, airbags, trim, stock headers, etc., to bring a 2650 lb. curb weight to 2300 lbs? This above all is why I find their explanations questionable.

G. Robert[/B]

The curb weight on the 1999 NB is 2785lbs. Your 350lbs just became 485.

Look, we understand you disagree but lashing out and telling us we didn't do the research is rediculous. We questioned the cars ability to get to minimum in ITB, then ran the numbers in ITC. We classed it at a weight we think with provide a cool option, but not a dominant one in ITC - all in good faith.

If we f*&^ed the pooch, we will fix it if and when PCA's come about. If they don't, it will get reclassed up to ITB.

Just don't attack us without getting the facts. We have done the research and think we did the right thing. OK? We GET IT that you think we made a mistake.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited July 28, 2004).]

Geo
07-28-2004, 09:39 AM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Just don't attack us without getting the facts. We have done the research and think we did the right thing. OK? We GET IT that you think we made a mistake.

Yep. The only facts in evidence here are that nobody actually has the facts. We are all making speculations. Nobody has built and raced an ITC NB yet.

The NB is classified into ITC. If it proves to be a class killer we can either add weight (in the first year w/o PCAs or later with PCAs) or we can reclassify it to ITB. At least it's not an E36 that cannot be reclassed upward.


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

gsbaker
07-28-2004, 09:56 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
http://www.it2.evaluand.com/images/bangdesk.gif

Not taking sides here but this has degenerated to a real poo-flinging contest.

K

Four pages in six days? This rivals some head and neck restraint threads. Gotta be a record.

(Hey Kirk, is the banging head public domain?)

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

Banzai240
07-28-2004, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
First off Darin, there's one of the problems when you start talking percentage gains, and establishing an arbitrary benchmark. The lower the stock hp, the larger percentage gain 1 hp is. In the case of cars that start w/ less than 100hp, 1hp is more than a 1% gain. And while you may consider a 30% gain HUGE, you have to look at the real increase, not just the percentage. Based on Dick's numbers, the Rabbit is making 32% more hp over stock, that's a 24hp increase. Let's look at another car that makes 32% (or more) over stock, the E36 BMW. Stock is 190, and there have been reports of 250-260 in IT trim. That's a 32%-38% increase. It's also a 60 - 70 hp gain.

You are right Bill, which is why you can't compare %gains of a 2.7L BMW to a 1.6L VW motor... We are talking about the gains of a 1.6L Nissan vs. a 1.6L VW... There is a fininite amount of power that a naturally aspirated 1.6L will be able to produce. Given that we have no real way to judge Volumetric Efficiency for all of these different motor designs, we have to make some assumptions... Apparently, based on your Data, the VW must have some real restrictions in it's emmisions equipment/stock configuration, because for a 1.6L to go from 71-75hp stock to 100hp is quite a good gain for a header, an extra .5 compression, and very little else...



<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">You've fallen into the same trap that a lot of people have, and one you've argued the other side of. You state that just because car X can compete w/ car Y, it must be making more power. Can be true, but needs further analysis. I'm also concerned by your position on this, vis-a-vis PCA's down the road.</font>

Your painting us with the same brush that Mr. Jones is... assuming that this is all we are looking at. It's not about how much power it "must be making", it's about the resulting wt/pwr ratio. According to your numbers, the VW has over a 1.0pt worse wt/pwr ratio than the Nissan, yet it's arguably equally competitive. I know the Nissan... It has competitive brakes and can be made to handle extremely well. I imagine the same is true for the VW. So, if they both handle well and have decent brakes, where is the advantage that the VW has that allows it to overcome this theoretical disadvantage in wt/pwr??? I'm really asking... do you know? If so, please enlighten me. Help me understand how this can be so...

As far as PCAs go... we work by committee, and I can assure you that ALL aspects of these topics get discussed. No one factor, and no one opinion, is going to drive any PCA decision. Don't forget, I've told you guys before that we "run the numbers", but then sit back and ask if they make sense. We do pretty in depth comparisons to other cars in the class in an effort to make sure they do.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">And Darin, I don't 'slam' you because I don't like what you say, I slam you because you say one thing and then come back and say that's not what you meant. </font>

You are right... I wish I had time to write a novel every time I post, so every last detail could be reitterated and all my i's could be dotted and t's crossed, but I just don't... I say what I mean, but it's done with the presumption that you have been a part of the same conversation I have. We have ALL been guilty of not taking the time to fully read someones post, and we all make assumptions when responding from time to time. If I say something that doesn't seem to jive with what I'm responding too, perhaps you can keep that in mind (as will I) and give the person the benefit of the doubt once in awhile. Ask me to clarify if you think I'm off track in my information... I'll be happy to try to answer more clearly.



And, I still want to see those numbers that you have.

Which numbers were those again... I've lost track at this point...



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

Catch22
07-28-2004, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
The numbers were more in the neighborhood of 109-115hp for a 1.6L ITC motor.



I will agree with this wholeheartedly because I saw with my own eyes the dyno results from a 1.6 Scirocco with a fresh motor. This was from a dynojet that is recognized as one of the most accurate around (if you read Grassroots, you've read about this operation more than once).

On the other hand, while this specific Scirocco is out p/wing most every car around it, it also has really crappy aero and terrible brakes. So it seems to balance out and the car hasn't proven to be at all dominant. (actually, there's 2 of them with VERY similar performance on track, but I haven't seen the dyno plot on the other one.)

HOOSER 99
07-28-2004, 10:50 AM
IS IT WINTER ALREADY!!

I am sure glad for the electronic age, because I would feel bad that lots of trees would be turned to paper in the old days for a car that won't see the light of day for 6 more months.*

jerry monaghan

* very sarcastic reply

Catch22
07-28-2004, 10:55 AM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
The curb weight on the 1999 NB is 2785lbs. Your 350lbs just became 485.



Lets look at in in IT "roll across the scale" terms.

Stock NB Curb Weight - 2785
Driver - 180
Cage - 100 (conservative estimate I'm guessing)

That gives us 3065lbs for a race legal stock Beetle with driver. So if it loses the 350lbs Mr. Jones says it can lose we're at (OH MY GOD ITS UNBELIEVEABLE!!!)... 2715lbs!!!

I sooooo glad the current board contains who it contains, and as I've mentioned before finally now have an understanding of how IT got so incredibly goobered up in the first place... There really ARE people out there who think like Jones and apparently some of them used to make the rules.

Scott, who may be a know-it-all punk but at least he understands that IT cars are weighed with a cage and a driver and is capable of simple math.

JohnRW
07-28-2004, 11:29 AM
Originally posted by grega:


"Does anybody except GRJones give a rat's ass if the Fiesta is competitive in ITC?"

[This message has been edited by grega (edited July 28, 2004).]

No, but I'm jaded - I'm still haven't gotten over the injustice of Gremlins getting dropped out of the ITCS.

Knestis
07-28-2004, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by gsbaker:
(Hey Kirk, is the banging head public domain?)

I got him off of one of those free images sites more than three years ago but couldn't tell you now which one.

He's come in handy over the years...

K

EDIT - I do think that we have an obligation, to the greatest extent practical, to avoid obsoleting currently classified IT cars that are actually being entered. This would include the Fiesta. However, as cars/parts get scarcer and more expensive, I draw the line philosophically at going outside of the first principles of the category to keep them on life support. (See the great Fiat washer bottle debate of 2001.)



[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited July 28, 2004).]

ITSRX7
07-28-2004, 11:50 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:

EDIT - I do think that we have an obligation, to the greatest extent practical, to avoid obsoleting currently classified IT cars that are actually being entered. This would include the Fiesta.

As does the ITAC.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

mgyip
07-28-2004, 11:53 AM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I do think that we have an obligation, to the greatest extent practical, to avoid obsoleting currently classified IT cars that are actually being entered. This would include the Fiesta. However, as cars/parts get scarcer and more expensive, I draw the line philosophically at going outside of the first principles of the category to keep them on life support. </font>

Kirk - I must respectfully disagree. At some point, newer, faster cars will eclipse the older cars regardless of PCA and the like. At that point, if the older cars are to continue as racecars, they should be classified downwards where they can compete with cars of the same caliber. In other words, as ITS gets faster, the slow ITS cars would migrate to ITA and so forth. However the slow ITC cars would get bumped - most likely into Production.

I applaud SCCA for FINALLY classifying a fairly new car in a class other than ITS or ITA. Does the NB belong in ITC and at the disputed minimum weight? Dunno - that remains to be seen since no one has attempted this feat.

Super Swift
07-28-2004, 11:58 AM
Scott & GRJ

How about VIR in october this year?
Short course that way it is new to both of you and there are no new bugs to get in the way.

Kirk

Your right, but you have to admit this is funny.

[This message has been edited by Super Swift (edited July 28, 2004).]

16v
07-28-2004, 12:38 PM
geez... was this thread imported from the vwvortex forums? poo-flinging is putting it nicely

------------------
Doug :)
NER.org (http://ner.org)
the16v.com (http://the16v.com)
briansgarage.com (http://www.briansgarage.com)

badal
07-28-2004, 01:12 PM
Originally posted by Geo:

The NB is classified into ITC. If it proves to be a class killer we can either add weight (in the first year w/o PCAs or later with PCAs) or we can reclassify it to ITB. At least it's not an E36 that cannot be reclassed upward.




Not many cars have ever been moved up. Not even the CRXsi in ITA. It seems it would be a better idea to give the benefit of the doubt to the guys with an actual investment in ITC cars, than to take a chance on putting an "e36" VW in ITC and killing another good IT class.


------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

gsbaker
07-28-2004, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by 16v:
geez... was this thread imported from the vwvortex forums? poo-flinging is putting it nicely

I usually don't consider myself a lurker, but this is amusing. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

BTW, we just got the wife a NB ragtop--she had the original Beetle a few decades ago and just had to get the new one. While test driving, I got my hands on the Turbo stick and was rather impressed.

We don't want to add turbos to this discussion, do we? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Gregg

Geo
07-28-2004, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Super Swift:
Scott & GRJ

How about VIR in october this year?

Or perhaps windshield washer nozzles at 3 paces? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif


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

Geo
07-28-2004, 02:00 PM
Originally posted by badal:
Not many cars have ever been moved up. Not even the CRXsi in ITA. It seems it would be a better idea to give the benefit of the doubt to the guys with an actual investment in ITC cars, than to take a chance on putting an "e36" VW in ITC and killing another good IT class.




Ah, but it has happened. At least the possibility is open.


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

badal
07-28-2004, 02:35 PM
George-can you name the car? I bet it was before your time in IT.
And moving a car up would take 5 years.

"not enough cars-insufficient data"

"cars not fully prepared, lacking data"

"unfair to move this many fully prepared cars to a class they would not be competitive in"

ITC has the most variety of potential winners. There are no current class killers. Why upset the apple cart?

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

ITSRX7
07-28-2004, 02:49 PM
Al,

ITB Accord to ITA. Knee-jerk reaction to a top prepared car with a now-Pro driver. Look for that car to be back in ITB...

If we thought the NB would upset the apple cart, we wouldn't have classed it there. ITC is our version of a 'vintage' class. Nothing has happened in there for years. We think this car freshen the choices while NOT upsetting the AC.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

RFloyd
07-28-2004, 02:52 PM
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Ah, but it has happened. At least the possibility is open.</font>

it happened with the ITB Accord being moved up, which was a farse, and wasn't the possibility for such moves and adjustments the whole reason for the move to PCA's?


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

grjones1
07-28-2004, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Catch22:
Lets look at in in IT "roll across the scale" terms.

Stock NB Curb Weight - 2785
Driver - 180
Cage - 100 (conservative estimate I'm guessing)

That gives us 3065lbs for a race legal stock Beetle with driver. So if it loses the 350lbs Mr. Jones says it can lose we're at (OH MY GOD ITS UNBELIEVEABLE!!!)... 2715lbs!!!

OK Scott I'll accept your figures. (Except of course a good IT chromemoly cage with underdash and aft brace horizontals and NASCAR bars comes in at 60 lbs., and I believe the average weight for drivers is 165 lb.) But let's take your figures. And I want to be sure I understand you perfectly: given 350 lbs extracted weight, the NB will come in at 2715 lbs race weight. I'll concede all I have conjectued if this is true and ask: If a 1998-99 2.0 NB can weigh within 75 lbs of a 25-year old ITB Volvo (race weight 2640-2780)why can't the NB be competitive in ITB?

And if you are going to tell me the Volvo makes 160 Hp and the VW can only make 140 Hp tops, I'm going to say that both ratings are conjecture and you need to prove them before you put the VW in C, not after.

And I am attempting to remain even-tempered on this (I need to conserve my energy to flap Scott's doors this Fall), but I must ask what do you guys have against my Fiesta? And I really resent that you suggest my only motive is selfish - I don't pretend absolute altruism, but I am interested in the integrity of the whole class, not just my car. As I said, I and my car will become completely outdated pretty soon, inevitable, but not without a fight.

And I must refer back to Jake's rub that he would be glad to add 1000 lbs to the Fiesta. Fine Jake but be sure to mandate a 2.0 with overhead cam, fuel injection, oversized brakes, etc., etc. But then of course, my Fiesta would then be a B car.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

ITSRX7
07-28-2004, 04:00 PM
I think the shots at your Fiesta by some were jokes. The ITAC cares about the competitive balance of all the classes and considers such when making all decisions.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

grjones1
07-28-2004, 04:13 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
I think the shots at your Fiesta by some were jokes. The ITAC cares about the competitive balance of all the classes and considers such when making all decisions.
AB


You know Andy, I'm beginning to believe you. But darn it, I think you've made a mistake on this one, and I just hate to see it have to run its course. I appreciate your efforts and believe it or not I appreciate your putting up with my comments. Good Racing.
GRJ

ITSRX7
07-28-2004, 04:45 PM
...and that just may end the thread.

Good night Gracie.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Catch22
07-28-2004, 04:48 PM
I really feel sorry for the ITAC. Really, I do. For years everyone has bitched that IT is so immensely screwed up and begged for improvement. Now, they attempt to do some groundbreaking stuff and all the knees jerk and people start yelling about apple carts tumbling downhill end over end. The AC just cant win.

I have an ITC car just like Jones and Bell, but the New Beetle thing doesn't bother me at all. Its not that I think I'm such a bad-ass that it won't matter to me, its that I realize that ITC has become a vintage class and things like this NEED to happen to keep it vital. So OK, they get lots of ITC cars at MARRS races, but thats not happening everywhere. I'll say it one last time, you can't look at one region and one track and call it a representative sample of ANYTHING for the whole club. This is why I brought up Jones' performance at VIR. Not to pick on his lap times, but to demonstrate this very valid point (that sometimes things look alot different when you leave your region). I had no itention of a pink slip match or poo flinging contest with him, but if he chooses to be so bold, fine.

As far as putting the Beetle in ITB... Why?
The A3 GTI shares most of the same parts (I think the drivetrain is exactly the same) and its (rightfully) in ITB at under 2400lbs. Its absolutely silly to class the beetle, with the same drivetrain but weighing 2700lbs, in the same class and expect anyone in their right mind to actually build one. And what the hell is the point of classing a car that nobody with 1/2 a brain would build??? Look at the 88-91 Honda Civic DX... There's about a billion of them out there with lots of racing support available, but its classed in ITA so nobody bothers to build one.
Get it?

The old ITAC would no doubt have thrown the Beetle into ITB without much thought, which would have been a total waste of an interesting, mass produced, easy to find (and find parts for) car.

How about another previous, similar example of this classing wastefulness and how critical it is to get the weight spec right...
The '94 to '99 Integra GSR COULD be a great ITS car. Mass produced, Honda reliability, HUGE aftermarket support, looks good and is fast. But after several years of classification there's still only a hand full of them in the whole country... Why???
2690lbs... Thats why.
This same car ran Grand Am cup at a weight of 2575. It runs in NASA at that same weight. So why has SCCA added 115lbs to the car?
Well, its certainly not because it would be a world beater. At 2575 it comes in at about the same p/w ratio as an RX-7 and well under an E36. Maybe the old AC just made a mistake? OR MAYBE they were afraid to upset the old apple cart, so they threw an extra 100lbs in the car so current ITS folks wouldn't bitch. Great, all that did was greatly hamstring what COULD be a nice, competitive car and cause very few people to build one. Who loses??? ITS loses, thats who loses.

So bring it on ITAC. Class all the 2.0 liter 2700lb cars you want in ITC and we'll hope people build them. If they do, and they actually upset the cart, then we'll write some "Accord letters" and see if we can get it moved to ITB. But I refuse to halt potential progress because I'm es'keered of that car. The car looks right on paper for the class and thats good enough for me (for now).

PS - It is 180lbs for a driver Jones, you have no idea how much cage a Beetle needs, and go ahead and add 10lbs for a fire system while you're nitpicking.

Geo
07-28-2004, 04:49 PM
Originally posted by badal:
George-can you name the car? I bet it was before your time in IT.

The Accord.

I don't know if it was before my time in IT, but it was certainly before my time on the ITAC. I think the current ITAC has taken a very active role in trying to make IT a good place to race and to try to make a little more sense of the classifications. Perhaps you don't think so? But I think we've shown the willingness to do the right thing. We probably will not please everyone and we can't do everything we think needs to be done overnight. But even many of the most jaded critics of "the system" have said they are cautiously optimistic. That in itself is a victory I think.


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

Geo
07-28-2004, 05:05 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
...I must ask what do you guys have against my Fiesta?

You lost me here. Why do you think anyone has anything against your Fiesta?


Originally posted by grjones1:
And I must refer back to Jake's rub that he would be glad to add 1000 lbs to the Fiesta.

I must confess. It wasn't Jake. It was me. I was teasing you because at the time you were going on about the weight difference between your car and the NB. Easy solution to the weight difference. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Seriously, this is all old ground and if you want to beat on me for the joke, fine. It was still a joke. I think everyone else realized it.

Just try to have at least a little faith in the current ITAC. If the NB runs roughshod over ITC I can't imagine we wouldn't do anything about it.


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

Bill Miller
07-28-2004, 05:40 PM
Darin,

I was asking to see the dyno data, etc. that you have on the 1.6 and 1.8 JH (Rabbit GTI) VW motors.

Scott,

It's certainly possible to get that much hp out of a 1.6 VW motor. The big question is, can you do it legally? Based on what Dick Shine has stated, it sure doesn't seem like it. The original European GTI's w/ the 1.6 made 110hp, stock.

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

badal
07-28-2004, 06:52 PM
Al,

ITB Accord to ITA. Knee-jerk reaction to a top prepared car with a now-Pro driver. Look for that car to be back in ITB...

Is Mr. Keane really a pro driver?
What is the delay in returning it to ITB?

If we thought the NB would upset the apple cart, we wouldn't have classed it there. ITC is our version of a 'vintage' class.

How about ITB? Just as vintage, maybe more so.

Nothing has happened in there for years. We think this car freshen the choices while NOT upsetting the AC.

Nothing has happened-so? We have stable classifications, not the dreaded class creep like ITS.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

Geo
07-28-2004, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

I was asking to see the dyno data, etc. that you have on the 1.6 and 1.8 JH (Rabbit GTI) VW motors.

Bill, be reasonable. Do you think the very best builders of engines for every car share dyno charts with us?

I'm sorry to interject myself into this (but probably not as sorry as I'm going to be). It's just that we simply have to make assumptions. BTW, you do know we have a prominent VW competitor on the ITAC who can and will tell us when our assumptions are out of whack to the best of his knowledge?


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

pfcs
07-28-2004, 07:47 PM
Intersting to listen to all you "experts" seriously debate this. I've watched this thread with some amusement but mostly it's depressing. So how come nobody knows or has pointed out that the NB engine/chassis is most decidedly not the same as the newly classified A3, but is totally Golf/Jetta IV.
The engine, although still 2L, is a completely different unit (AEG, replacing ABA). The block is nearly the same as the 1.8T block, sharing the same cambelt driven waterpump, etc. As to it's performance possibilities, I haven't a clue. I guess most of you don't either. Phil

ITSRX7
07-28-2004, 07:52 PM
Originally posted by badal:
Al,

Is Mr. Keane really a pro driver?
What is the delay in returning it to ITB?

How about ITB? Just as vintage, maybe more so.

Nothing has happened-so? We have stable classifications, not the dreaded class creep like ITS.



When I say that about a Pro driver, I look at the RA track record, set at the 2001 ARRC. Randy Pobst, 1:47.916. We have received a letter on it, and voted just recently.

If we thought the NB was better in ITB, it would be there. Look for it's Golf twin to be in ITB at a more acheivable minimum weight.

You say stable, *I* say STALE. Old cars that are hard to find parts for, nevermind rust free chassis to start building one. ITC participation numbers are HORRIBLE accross the country with few exceptions. Why is that? I say because very few have any interest in getting INTO ITC becuase of the cars, their age, and the ability to build and maintain one. If stability was the only factor, ITC would see the same surge in drivers as Spec Miata.

I understand that some ITC folks would be concerned. We think the car will be fine in C.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

ITSRX7
07-28-2004, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by pfcs:
Intersting to listen to all you "experts" seriously debate this. I've watched this thread with some amusement but mostly it's depressing. So how come nobody knows or has pointed out that the NB engine/chassis is most decidedly not the same as the newly classified A3, but is totally Golf/Jetta IV.
The engine, although still 2L, is a completely different unit (AEG, replacing ABA). The block is nearly the same as the 1.8T block, sharing the same cambelt driven waterpump, etc. As to it's performance possibilities, I haven't a clue. I guess most of you don't either. Phil

Phil,

Many have mentioned in this thread that they assume the Golf IV would automatically be in ITC given this classification. We have stated that given it's much lighter curb weight, it should be able to make the weight we think it fits in ITB.

We have said many time in this thread ALSO, that we have to make assumptions. Until someone tells us how THIS motor has so much more potential than every other air pump on the track, we think a 25% improvment in IT trim is as resonable for this motor as it is for any other SOHC 2.0.

Any other "HELP" you can provide? http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited July 28, 2004).]

Quickshoe
07-28-2004, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
...we have an obligation, to the greatest extent practical, to avoidobsoleting...

Emphasis mine.

I agree 100%, how we define 'the greatest extent practical' and 'obsolete' is where we will probably have IT members all over the board.


I don't know if the NB in ITC is a good/bad thing as I don't know enough about the current crop of cars and the potential of the NB. I like the fact that the ITAC studied the issue before deciding. I also really like the idea that they are much more apt to correct a mistake, if/when they make them.

This whole PCA issue might just become a constant "please adjust this/that because..." exercise. Soon the tools may be in place, the ITAC will probably be flooded with more letters than any issue in the past...no envy there. As frustrating as some of the seemingly canned responses from the old regime might have been, I bet it would be nice (for them) from time to time if the new ITAC would spit out some of the same canned jargon, without explanation. It seems just about any explanation of their logic invites rebutal. If they didn't have to explain their methods or logic how can you successfully argue their logic or method is wrong???

On edit--How did I turn my HTML/UBB mode OFF? More importantly, how do I turn it back on??
Nevermind, figured it out..can't put something in bold AND italics.



[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited July 28, 2004).]

badal
07-28-2004, 09:14 PM
Andy, the ITB Accord was moved to ITA before Randy ever drove it. Peter Keane put Randy in it either to make the point that it was still not an overdog, or to win the ARRC. He did one, not the other.

I agree that ITC numbers are down, but maybe someone needs to find out why the cars that were out there are not showing up, and fix that problem.

We used to have a good ITS field at Summit Point. 240z's, RX-7's, e-30 BMW's all had a chance at the win. Then the E-36 BMW was put in the class. Now all the other cars stay home. So now we have a newer appearing class, but half the size it was before.

How does that serve the membership?

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

gran racing
07-28-2004, 09:21 PM
So the vote for the Accord took place. Are you going to make us wait until next month? At what weight? Somehow I can't imagine the 110 hp version not going into ITB. Definately fits.

I have to say, it is pretty cool that members from the ITAC post here and take the time to explain the decisions being made. Agree with them or not.

About the weight of the Beetle. I would rather a car be classed in a lower class with a bit more weight then in a faster class at a weight that would be tough to obtain. Sure, it might be theoretically possible to obtain some of these weights, but at what cost? -CLUB RACING- Think this important to remember. Much cheaper to add weight then find all of the secrets of losing it.

Just curious, how many members on the ITAC are there?

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

lateapex911
07-28-2004, 09:30 PM
Sure you can!

1999: "...new Bettle will be classified in ITC."

2004: "...new Bettle will be classed in ITC, because.....the ITAC feels that, it will producce approc X power in ITtrim, and it will be difficult or impossible to acheive the approprioate weight in ITB."

Wow, what difference a few years make.

HUGE progress, and this Bettle move is a good one. No worries.

'Nuf said, lets see what happens...I predict not much....a pretty expensive build for ITC, so the counts will be low.

(IF we are all wrong we will all get an "I told you so" letter form GRJ!)

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

Geo
07-28-2004, 09:42 PM
Originally posted by gran racing:
I have to say, it is pretty cool that members from the ITAC post here and take the time to explain the decisions being made. Agree with them or not.

Thanks so much. It's not easy. One could second guess most of our decisions. It's not like we don't second guess ourselves sometimes. But I am 100% convinved that every member of the ITAC is commited to making IT the very best we possibly can.


Originally posted by gran racing:
Just curious, how many members on the ITAC are there?

At present there are 9 of us.

http://www.scca.org/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=0...70&x=080|070&~= (http://www.scca.org/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=00D484-A225F70&x=080|070&~=)



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

badal
07-28-2004, 09:47 PM
Jake said:
.a pretty expensive build for ITC, so the counts will be low.

Yeah, you are probably right. Might as well buy a Spec Miata. So how does it help the nationwide car counts? Not much.

But, someone will build one. And if it is fast, one car will chase away 5 others. Just like ITS.

Andy, George-Bonus question:
Any other cars ever moved up?
I can think of at least 5 moved down to ITC.

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

ITSRX7
07-28-2004, 09:52 PM
Originally posted by badal:
I agree that ITC numbers are down, but maybe someone needs to find out why the cars that were out there are not showing up, and fix that problem.

I provided my thoughts on why ITC counts are down, anyone else care to dispute them?

1. Real old cars with VERY limited shells available
2. Cars so old that parts are ultra-hard to find
3. No 'new' cars so no 'new' interst
4. Hard to stay legal becuase of #2


We used to have a good ITS field at Summit Point. 240z's, RX-7's, e-30 BMW's all had a chance at the win. Then the E-36 BMW was put in the class. Now all the other cars stay home. So now we have a newer appearing class, but half the size it was before.

How does that serve the membership?



Al,

You make it seem like the current ITAC put the E36 in place. Frankly, the E36 IS the original catalyst for PCA's. There is no current way to fix that mistake. Nobody here (except E36 drivers) have stated otherwise.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

ITSRX7
07-28-2004, 10:00 PM
Originally posted by badal:

Andy, George-Bonus question:
Any other cars ever moved up?
I can think of at least 5 moved down to ITC.



Al,

Not that I can think of off the top of my head. But - what is your point? You tried to prove that it never happened, we said it COULD, you said WHEN and we GAVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

IF the NB is a bad choice in ITC, it will either gain more weight or be reclassed in ITB at a different weight. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

grjones1
07-28-2004, 10:22 PM
Originally posted by Geo:
I must confess. It wasn't Jake. It was me.

I'm sorry Jake.
G. Robert

grjones1
07-28-2004, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by Catch22:
I had no itention of a pink slip match or poo flinging contest with him, but if he chooses to be so bold, fine.

PS - It is 180lbs for a driver Jones, you have no idea how much cage a Beetle needs, and go ahead and add 10lbs for a fire system while you're nitpicking.

I am so bold, ever so bold.
And yes I can make an accurate approximation on the cage weight based on the interior dimensions and published wheelbase and after discussion with a professional NASCAR, NHRA, and SCCA cage builder(Pat Bennet Racing in Amherst, VA. (Would you like to talk to him, Scott, you might learn something.)And did you subtract 40 lbs for lighter wheels (While we're nit picking?)
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

grjones1
07-28-2004, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Sure you can!
(IF we are all wrong we will all get an "I told you so" letter form GRJ!)


You better believe it Jake, together with a request for new management.
GRJ

grjones1
07-28-2004, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Al,
There is no current way to fix that mistake.
Pardon me Al, I 'm sorry to intrude on your dialogue.

Andy, do you plan to add weight to the E36?
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

Banzai240
07-28-2004, 11:26 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
But wait a minute Andy, why haven't you added weight to the E36?
GRJ



I'll take this one Andy...

Because there is NO LEGAL WAY TO DO THAT! That's what we've been trying to say... Without PCAs, we can't do a thing...



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

grjones1
07-28-2004, 11:38 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:
I'll take this one Andy...


I changed my question after I realized my mistake. But you said if the NB doesn't fit in C, you would either "change the weight or move it up at a different weight." And now you say you can't do that. I know I'm missing something here but it does appear contradictory.
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

Banzai240
07-29-2004, 12:04 AM
Originally posted by grjones1:
I know I'm missing something here but it does appear contradictory.
GRJ

In the case of cars like the New Beetle classification or the Neons, etc...

There is a provision in the GCR that allows for the specifications to be changed within the first year of a classification or reclassification. That would be one method of handling this if it's an immediate problem...

The other way to handle after the first year, is to simply reclassify the car, which is currently the only allowed method of "competition adjustment" per the ITCS, at which time, the same provision mentioned above then can be reapplied... This is all WITHOUT the implementation of PCAs...

Now, should PCAs be accepted by the BoD, and we are basically counting on this happening, then we have another method of correcting this problem...

The issue with the BMW is that it's been classified for well beyond a year, and there ISN'T a higher class to move it to. So, without PCAs, there is not legal way for us to make any adjustments to it... (regardless of what some may think or what has been done in the past...)

------------------
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 July 29, 2004).]

grjones1
07-29-2004, 12:08 AM
[quote]Originally posted by Banzai240:

That clears that up. Thank you.
GRJ

badal
07-29-2004, 12:14 AM
Al,

Not that I can think of off the top of my head. But - what is your point? You tried to prove that it never happened, we said it COULD, you said WHEN and we GAVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

The point is that is much easier to move a car down than up after the initial classification.

IF the NB is a bad choice in ITC, it will either gain more weight or be reclassed in ITB at a different weight. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?

I want it to be tried in ITB first, where it can't hurt anybody.

AB

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

badal
07-29-2004, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by badal:
I agree that ITC numbers are down, but maybe someone needs to find out why the cars that were out there are not showing up, and fix that problem.

I provided my thoughts on why ITC counts are down, anyone else care to dispute them?

1. Real old cars with VERY limited shells available
2. Cars so old that parts are ultra-hard to find
3. No 'new' cars so no 'new' interst
4. Hard to stay legal becuase of #2

1-No, there are alrady built cars, they just stay home.
2-N/A, see #1.
3-see #1
4-no, see #1.

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

badal
07-29-2004, 12:22 AM
There is a provision in the GCR that allows for the specifications to be changed within the first year of a classification or reclassification. That would be one method of handling this if it's an immediate problem...

That works only if the ITAC is willing to admit they made a mistake, and based on Andy's tone when I ask some simple questions semms unlikley.

That would also require enough cars be built in a year to give enough data, again unlikely.

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

Quickshoe
07-29-2004, 12:27 AM
I provided my thoughts on why ITC counts are down anyone else care to dispute them?

1. Real old cars with VERY limited shells available
2. Cars so old that parts are ultra-hard to find
3. No 'new' cars so no 'new' interst
4. Hard to stay legal becuase of #2



Dispute them? No. I would add:

5. All the same reasons that the VARA race group counts (of ITC-like cars) out number the SCCA Cal Club entires (same geographic area) over 15:1

Bill Miller
07-29-2004, 07:19 AM
Phil,

I believe I mentioned that the NB was an A4 VW, like the Golf IV and Jetta IV.

Andy,

The data that I have seen shows the curb weight of the Golf IV to be <50# lower than that of the NB. Not exactly what I would call "much lighter". If anything, the Golf IV should be in ITC w/ the NB, at the same weight (w/ possibly an adjustment up or down, based on the aerodymanics). The Jetta IV is actually heavier than the NB (on the order of 75# IIRC). And the Jetta should be at the same weight as the Golf, based on the precedent set in ITS, when the weights of the VR6 Golf and Jetta were equated. Oh yeah, and that would also be one of those cases where the weight of a car was 'corrected', more than a year after the car was classified.

George,

Darin's the one that mentioned that he had performance data on the motors, I'm just asking him to produce it. And yes, I know that Chris is on the ITAC. His wife posts here regularly.


Because there is NO LEGAL WAY TO DO THAT! That's what we've been trying to say... Without PCAs, we can't do a thing...



Darin,

That's flat out not true. Car weights have been corrected under Errors and Omissions in the past, more than a year after the car was classified. Either that, or those weight 'corrections' were not legal. I don't see any other way to explain it. You can say that it doesn't matter what happened in the past, but that doesn't make it correct. And I'm sure I'll get the "Hey, it happened before we were around." response, but IIRC, the VR6 Golf/Jetta 'correction' was done on your watch.

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

ChrisCamadella
07-29-2004, 07:24 AM
Originally posted by badal:

Andy, George-Bonus question:
Any other cars ever moved up?
I can think of at least 5 moved down to ITC.


I'll address this one. The reason is that cars that were originally classed by our IT forefathers are getting to be pretty old. If we're ever going to class new cars, and still have a relatively even distribution over four classes, then cars are naturally going to have to be moved down as the faster classes are populated with cars of newer design. I'm afraid that you can't continue to count on the fact that your (quite old) Datsun 510 (how long has it been since they were called 'Datsuns', anyhow?) is going to remain the car to beat in ITC - we're going to have to move some of the A and B cars down to maintain an equitable distribution.

For example, when the rules were written, the ancients allowed 7" wheels in ITA and ITS, and 6" wheels in ITB and ITC, a rule which still stands. But at that time, not one car that was classified came with wheels nearly that wide - the ancients were doing you a favor by allowing you to have much wider wheels than stock. Now, 30 years or so later, cars routinely come with 7" and 8" wheels, and folks are having to trade in their stock wheels for NARROWER ones, something which the ancients did not anticipate.

Likewise with ABS brakes, traction control, ECU modification, the list goes on and on.

In order for us to keep up with the changing technology provided for us by the car manufacturers, we are going to have to redistribute the classes to allow some new cars to join - and cars are, in general, getting faster, not slower.

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

ITSRX7
07-29-2004, 08:01 AM
Originally posted by badal:
That works only if the ITAC is willing to admit they made a mistake, and based on Andy's tone when I ask some simple questions semms unlikley.

That would also require enough cars be built in a year to give enough data, again unlikely.



Al,

We are just coming down on opposite sides of the fence. You have obviously not read ANY of my posts if you believe what you type or are just so stuck in your ways that you refuse to believe us. I have stated NUMEROUS times that if it proves to be a mistake, we will/can/should fix it.

As far as your forecast for not many cars being built, I say that it ain't much of a perceived overdog if people ain't building them.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)


[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited July 29, 2004).]

Knestis
07-29-2004, 08:05 AM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
... 5. All the same reasons that the VARA race group counts (of ITC-like cars) out number the SCCA Cal Club entires (same geographic area) over 15:1


Originally posted by badal:
1-No, there are alrady built cars, they just stay home. ...

Both of these explanations fall short of getting at the ultimate "antecedent conditions" (causes, factors, or influences) that are creating the problem of low enrollment in ITC.

I really believe that the class has huge potential in SCCA so want to know why you think they are staying home and/or jumping ship to other organizations.

I buy Andy's four conditions and put a couple others out for consideration:

6. The perception is that it costs relatively little more to go notably faster in ITA

7. There is competitive social pressure to not be in the slowest class on the track

8. Racers willing to spend the dough to run competitive programs don't want to drive what they see as "low class" cars

ITSRX7
07-29-2004, 08:28 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Andy,

The data that I have seen shows the curb weight of the Golf IV to be <50# lower than that of the NB. Not exactly what I would call "much lighter". If anything, the Golf IV should be in ITC w/ the NB, at the same weight (w/ possibly an adjustment up or down, based on the aerodymanics). The Jetta IV is actually heavier than the NB (on the order of 75# IIRC). And the Jetta should be at the same weight as the Golf, based on the precedent set in ITS, when the weights of the VR6 Golf and Jetta were equated. Oh yeah, and that would also be one of those cases where the weight of a car was 'corrected', more than a year after the car was classified.



Bill,

What bothers me about some of your beefs is that you use history to support what you want. Either the CRB did it wrong in the past and we, as a newer regeame need to get it right going forward OR we HAVE to go by the precedents that were set in the past. Which way would YOU like it to work?

Your Golf IV numbers look good. I would ASSUME the car would hit ITC at a similar weight to the NB. Hopefully some IV's and NB's will be built so we can make sure our decisions were correct.

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)




[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited July 29, 2004).]

Banzai240
07-29-2004, 08:35 AM
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

That's flat out not true. Car weights have been corrected under Errors and Omissions in the past, more than a year after the car was classified. Either that, or those weight 'corrections' were not legal. I don't see any other way to explain it. You can say that it doesn't matter what happened in the past, but that doesn't make it correct. And I'm sure I'll get the "Hey, it happened before we were around." response, but IIRC, the VR6 Golf/Jetta 'correction' was done on your watch.



Bill,

You keep accusing me of not using language properely and typing one thing then meaning another, but it's because of mis-information such as this that these conversations get confused...

As we've explained MANY, MANY TIMES before... The cars you mentioned above were corrected as a part of a GROUP of cars that were noticed to be in error. NOT as CAs, as you are suggesting.

The basic scenario was this. A letter was received that pointed out the descrepancy in weight. We investigated and found the weight to be a typo. We figured out what the inteneded weight should be. We corrected all the models that shared similiar flatforms...

Should we just fix them onesies-twosies, or should we be thorough??? When we see a problem, we try to fix it right, and fix it once... If that's a problem, it's one you are just going to have to live with...

As for fixing the BMW weight under "Errors and Ommissions"... that's CLEARLY not what this is, and, like I said before, We are doing things by the book, regardless of what's been done prior to us getting here...

The BMW needs a CA, becuase the original weight set of the car, and the corrected weight it currently carries, were off target based on the performance of the car on-track and in light of new performance data that has been supplied concerning the motor. I don't think that's what "Errors and Ommisions" was meant to fix...



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

gran racing
07-29-2004, 08:46 AM
K brought up a good point about perception. I now know I was wrong, but when first looking at SCCA I thought S cars were the highest class, then A... That the fastest drivers would graduate from B to A then S. Maybe I did't word it right, but you get the idea.

Heck, I told my sponsor that I might be moving to a lower class, ITB. His response was "And that is a good thing?".

But if you can get bigger fields with newer cars, that might change.

Side note: I know know that some of the best drivers race in ITC. It takes a lot to keep those cars going and fast. Being in ITA, I race with them and are amazed at watching them NOT brake.

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

oanglade
07-29-2004, 08:50 AM
Originally posted by badal:
Andy, the ITB Accord was moved to ITA before Randy ever drove it. Peter Keane put Randy in it either to make the point that it was still not an overdog, or to win the ARRC. He did one, not the other.


I'm sorry, but I was there at Road Atlanta in 2001 when Randy drove Peter Keane's yellow accord in ITB and won the enduro. I started the race right next to him in my SM. ITA was in the other race group and not with us.

Here are the results from that race:
http://www.arrc-online.com/results_2001/ra...2001_group8.pdf (http://www.arrc-online.com/results_2001/raceresults2001_group8.pdf)

Randy finished second to Sam Moore in the 2001 ARRC in ITB in that Accord.

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

Catch22
07-29-2004, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by badal:
I want it to be tried in ITB first, where it can't hurt anybody.




But here we go again.
If you class it in ITB FIRST, nobody in their right mind is going to spend the time and money to build one, so you've effectively wasted a potentially good car. Look at all of the Honda Civic DX products that are in ITA when they should be in ITB... NOBODY is building these things and it certainly isn't because they aren't available or that there aren't go-fast parts for them.

What some of you guys are asking for is status quo, and status quo simply won't keep the category healthy. IF the NB comes in and starts kicking the asses of front running ITC cars, I'll be the first to put my name on a petition with GRJ and Al to get it moved to ITB. But we'll never know whats going to happen until someone builds one and nobody is going to build one unless its in the right class.

There's an old (very funny) Saturday Night Live skit that centers around a group of Vikings that kills everything they don't understand. Thats pretty close to whats happened with IT in the past and what some of you guys would like to keep happening. Again, it won't work. To progress and to get car counts up you have to take some risks.

You can't compare the E36 to this situation because of several reasons...
1. Now that its a proven overdog, there is nowhere to move it (a fine reason the AC SHOULD be more conservative with ITS classifications).
2. It doesn't even look right on paper (the Beetle does).
3. When it became an obvious class killer in the first couple of years, nothing happened (and I think something WILL happen if the VW does the same).

Finally, Andy or Darin... Please take a look at the "cars potentially classed in ITC" thread and let me know the best way to proceed about getting these looked at before the 2005 GCR comes out. My email is "[email protected]"

Thanks,
Scott

RacerBowie
07-29-2004, 10:42 AM
Ony, the classing had already been changed, effective 1/1/02 or whatever the next year was.

The ARRC that year was the car's "last hurrah" as a B car.

Bowie

[This message has been edited by RacerBowie (edited July 29, 2004).]

Super Swift
07-29-2004, 11:11 AM
Ony

I think Bad-Al was saying that a fastrack came out moving the car in september or so of 2001 effective Jan 2002. So the car was moved befor the race but not for the race.

Al
Is that right? Or, am I way off?

Bowie (edit) you beet me to it.

[This message has been edited by Super Swift (edited July 29, 2004).]

cherokee
07-29-2004, 11:19 AM
I have read this entire thing...it got a little nasty at times, but I will put my two cents in FWIW.

I am fine with putting the NB into ITC, If it is a killer I am going to think that there will be a way to slow it down in the near future or move it. I think with the weight and the skinny tires it will ballance out. I fully expect that my old car is not going to be top dog in any class as new blood comes in. And the new blood will have to be in the form of a car that has some intrest behind it, the NB has a following I doubt that some of the mentioned econo boxes have much of one. I just want to keep running my old car somewhere besides in vintage, so please don't take that away...even if I am the only one running one, and I show up for three races a year.
I have said it before as new cars come in the bar will be raised, its just evolution and I understand that.
It would be frosting on the cake if they would let us older cars do some things that the newer ones can't to try to keep up. (let me put on disc's on the back, change my weight, give me different carbs to play with, those kind of things, perhaps a cam http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif ) I am not asking for anything that any modern car does not come in from the factory. But until there are fields full of Bugs (or whatever) then I would just leave everything alone and see how things fall out.
This might be all about nothing.

oanglade
07-29-2004, 02:41 PM
Originally posted by RacerBowie:
Ony, the classing had already been changed, effective 1/1/02 or whatever the next year was.

The ARRC that year was the car's "last hurrah" as a B car.

Bowie

[This message has been edited by RacerBowie (edited July 29, 2004).]


Oh yeah! You are correct, of course. Oops.

p.keane
07-29-2004, 03:47 PM
I would like to put my two cents in. First, of all I support the NB classification in ITC.

Second, I started out in IT (1989) in a ITC Fiesta (we built for Linda Pobst), later that year I built and raced one for myself. I later built and raced ITC VW's (better car in my opinion). I think I am pretty fimiliar with the class and both cars.

Third, We still have two ITC VW's in the family and if all goes well we will bring them to this years ARRC. We also have no intension of building a NB.

Last, (for Bad AL) in 1990/1991 the Toyota supera was classed in ITA and people S**T themselves, the car was moved to ITS.

Thanks PK.

Knestis
07-29-2004, 04:17 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
I... I think with the weight and the skinny tires it will ballance out. ...

Whoa. I am slow but this just sunk in: I think that, while the steel wheels on a NB are 6" wide, the available alloys are 7". To my knowledge NOBODY builds a 16x6" aftermarket aluminum wheel.

K

Catch22
07-29-2004, 05:09 PM
I noticed that back on page 1 Kirk. Thats why I suggested that the car be allowed to run 15" wheels.

And yes, thats a whole lot of weight over the front 6" wide wheels on that car. Frankly, not only am I not worried about it, I wouldn't build one.

Al Seim
07-29-2004, 05:18 PM
Not sure it was intended the way I read it, but as an ITC VW Scirocco owner a red flag went up when I read Chris Camadella's reply to Al Bell. Basically, what I heard in that reply was that the integrity of S, A & B are more important than C, and that the competitiveness of new cars is more important than old.

Based on what I've seen in the (very competitive) MARRS series, there seems to be near parity in ITC between the 510, VW Rabbits & Sciroccos, and several Hondas. If you're going to happily obsolete the 510, you just trashed the whole existing class.

Hopefully that isn't really the attitude. And, equally hopefully, the ability to do performance adjustments will avoid having to make some of those choices.

Al Seim
www.actdigital.com (http://www.actdigital.com)

Geo
07-29-2004, 05:32 PM
Originally posted by Al Seim:
Not sure it was intended the way I read it, but as an ITC VW Scirocco owner a red flag went up when I read Chris Camadella's reply to Al Bell. Basically, what I heard in that reply was that the integrity of S, A & B are more important than C, and that the competitiveness of new cars is more important than old.

I don't think that is what Chris was saying.


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

ITSRX7
07-29-2004, 05:42 PM
Actually, the goal of the ITAC is to ADD a fresh face to that already balanced mix.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

gran racing
07-29-2004, 05:48 PM
If the Accord got second place, why wasn't the car model that got first place bumped to ITA? Not saying it should, but just doesn't make sense. Guess that's why it is being moved back to B. (Yeah I know, that hasn't been said yet)

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

Bill Miller
07-29-2004, 06:38 PM
Kirk,

I believe the steel wheels on the NB are 16x6.5. I think I mentioned this back on page 1 or 2.

Andy,

Like I said, the Golf/Jetta correction was done this year. So, I can only assume that's the way you guys operate, and will continue to operate.

Darin,

Induldge me and send me the list of the cars in that group. IIRC, the 2.0 16v A2 Golf/Jetta in ITS weren't corrected to have their weights match, nor were the 1.8 16v A2 Golf/Jetta in ITA.

And, you keep saying the weights were incorrect. Based on what? That's what I've been asking all along. Same goes for the Corrado. If I understand what you're saying, the weight on the BMW is correct, if it responded 'normally' to IT prep. It's only because it responded 'better than anticipated' that the weight is incorrect. Assuming we know nothing about the performance of the car on the track (yeah, I know you can't put the jennie back in the bottle), what would the weight be, if the car were classed today? I contend, that if it's not what the current spec weight is, that the current weight is incorrect, and can be corrected under E&O. And, I never said any of those other weight corrections were CA's, those are your words.

And, just so you don't think I've forgotten about the Rabbit GTI. Looking at Jake's spreadsheet, I see that the 'power ratio' on the Rabbit GTI is 24.20, yet the 510 in ITC is 22.60. But the GTI's going to be too fast for ITC. And I'd still like to see all that VW engine data you have.

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

badal
07-29-2004, 07:29 PM
Chris C wrote:
I'll address this one. The reason is that cars that were originally classed by our IT forefathers are getting to be pretty old. If we're ever going to class new cars, and still have a relatively even distribution over four classes, then cars are naturally going to have to be moved down as the faster classes are populated with cars of newer design.

Who really cares if we have an even distribution? If we have 40 IT cars in a race, we need 10 in S, 10 in A, 10 in B and 10 in C? Why?

I'm afraid that you can't continue to count on the fact that your (quite old) Datsun 510 (how long has it been since they were called 'Datsuns', anyhow?) is going to remain the car to beat in ITC - we're going to have to move some of the A and B cars down to maintain an equitable distribution.

I’m not sure why you think it is the car to beat. I think it is a good car, but so are the Fords that have lap records at VIR and the Glen, The Hondas, and the VW’s. Fiat and Isuzu have contenders too.

For example, when the rules were written, the ancients allowed 7" wheels in ITA and ITS, and 6" wheels in ITB and ITC, a rule which still stands. But at that time, not one car that was classified came with wheels nearly that wide - the ancients were doing you a favor by allowing you to have much wider wheels than stock. Now, 30 years or so later, cars routinely come with 7" and 8" wheels, and folks are having to trade in their stock wheels for NARROWER ones, something which the ancients did not anticipate.

I’m not sure I follow what this is supposed to be an example of. And the Supra did have 7 inch wide wheels. And it is 20 years later, not 30.

Likewise with ABS brakes, traction control, ECU modification, the list goes on and on.

We seem to have some close races without all that.

In order for us to keep up with the changing technology provided for us by the car manufacturers, we are going to have to redistribute the classes to allow some new cars to join - and cars are, in general, getting faster, not slower.

If that is the true goal, move all ITC to ITD, ITB to ITC and create a 5th IT class. Wasn’t that your idea Kirk K?

Cheers,
Chris Camadella

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

[This message has been edited by badal (edited July 29, 2004).]

Quickshoe
07-29-2004, 07:39 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I really believe that the class has huge potential in SCCA so want to know why you think they are staying home and/or jumping ship to other organizations.

I am not certain what the original draw to the other organization was. I can tell you I have a car that is eligible to race in either SCCA or VARA. I chose VARA because I am more interested in racing against 20 cars in class than 1 or 2. So to me, it's not an SCCA/VARA thing. If the situation was reversed (in my area) I'd be where you find the competition regardless of what sticker is on my car.



Racers willing to spend the dough to run competitive programs don't want to drive what they see as "low class" cars


I'd agree that your generalization is accurate. However, oddball me, I don't care what class I race in as long as I can afford to be competitive. I am talking about a modest budget that will give me a few choices. I will spend the money where I can be the fastest (vs. the competition), not where I can be fast (vs. the clock).

Catch22
07-29-2004, 09:09 PM
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
I'd agree that your generalization is accurate. However, oddball me, I don't care what class I race in as long as I can afford to be competitive


This is something that many young folks (unless they were raised in an SCCA family) just do not realize. They want to race the cool cars, and who can blame them. I was once in my mid 20s and the car I chose to build was 1. Expensive, 2. Not competitively classed, and 3. Expensive. But it was a cool car and we're drawn to cool cars, especially when we're younger.

Some of the younger folks (under 30) I hang out with at various track events and such have taken to calling ITB and ITC "ITJ." That stands for "Improved Touring Jalopy." Well... Know what? They are kind of right. With the average age of the classified ITC cars being 22 years old, its hard to argue with the ITJ mindset.

Why does this matter? Well, because the Al Bells and the Scott Giles and the GRJs of the world are not the future of SCCA. The "ITJ" guys are. And you need to give them something they are interested in so they'll build it. I love old 510s, I think they are great. But I'm a rare person under 40 that gives a crap about this car. These guys (say what you will, but they ARE the future of the club) care about Civics and Beetles and Neons and Proteges. They DONT give a rats ass about cars built before they were born.

We MUST accept this (and it looks like the AC has, thank god) and move forward. And nobody has yet proven that the 45 year old guy in the 510 won't be able to compete with the 25 year old guy in the Beetle. Actually, my money is on the 510, but at least there's a 25 year old guy in a Beetle there.

NASA is killing us in the youth department guys. Mindsets have to change, or NASA WILL NOT be #2 in U.S. amatuer club racing 10 years from now. Bank on it.

Scott, looking forward to Racing BadAl and GRJ and some punk in a Beetle sometime soon.

badal
07-29-2004, 09:21 PM
The other AB wrote:
Al,

We are just coming down on opposite sides of the fence. You have obviously not read ANY of my posts if you believe what you type or are just so stuck in your ways that you refuse to believe us. I have stated NUMEROUS times that if it proves to be a mistake, we will/can/should fix it.

Andy, what is so bad about us having different opinions? I have read your posts-have you read mine? Don't take this as a personal attack. I'm asking legitimate questions. If you want to be on the ITAC, you need to expect that.

You have said in general terms:
The NB should be in ITC to add to car counts.
You wil move it if it is an overdog.
(feel free to correct me if I am wrong)

I said we don't need the car counts.
It will be hard to move the NB

As far as your forecast for not many cars being built, I say that it ain't much of a perceived overdog if people ain't building them.

Once again, we don't know.
I suspect not every Tom(Fowler), Dick (Shine) or Stewie (Brummer) will build a car, but I can see how it might be good for business to at least support one. And if that happens and one car gets an ARRC win, do you move it? Or do you say "That Tom Fowler, what a driver"?


------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

lateapex911
07-29-2004, 09:33 PM
Originally posted by grjones1:
....

And Jake I'm sorry I accused you of being on the ITAC.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 26, 2004).]

I know this goes back a few days, but it slipped under may radar for a bit, and I can't allow it to go with out a comment.

There's been a LOT of stuff said about the guys on the ITAC in this thread by Mr. Jones, none of it complimentary. I could go back and quote, but...it's a waste of time...we all can read.

But this one started to annoy me....

"Accuse" me of being on the ITAC???? You make it sound as if they are a bunch of back stabbing good for nothing guys with little intelligence and no integrity! Hardly!

I for one, would be more than happy, honored actually, to serve on the ITAC in whatever capacity they deemed appropriate.

Every member of the ITAC that I have met in person, or communicated with via the phone or correspondence, has been straightforward, honest, reasonable, has shown integrity in their actions, and more than anything, have demonstrated that they care about IT as a whole, and are willing to work hard (And take a lot of BS along the way) for the overall betterment of IT and the SCCA in general.


It is fine to disagree with their actions, and it is healthy to debate them with well researched facts and documented figures, as well as with reasonable opinions, but frankly you have been a bit light in that area, and heavy in the accusatory and insulting department. Some of the things you hve stated have been downright mean spirited and inappropriate.

There is NO need for that.

I think you, Mr. Jones owe these folks an apology, and a public one at that.

See guys?? you can use italics and bold at the same time! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Back to your regularly scheduled debating....



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

lateapex911
07-29-2004, 09:55 PM
Originally posted by Catch22:


We MUST accept this (and it looks like the AC has, thank god) and move forward. And nobody has yet proven that the 45 year old guy in the 510 won't be able to compete with the 25 year old guy in the Beetle. Actually, my money is on the 510, but at least there's a 25 year old guy in a Beetle there.

NASA is killing us in the youth department guys. Mindsets have to change, or NASA WILL NOT be #2 in U.S. amatuer club racing 10 years from now. Bank on it.

Scott, looking forward to Racing BadAl and GRJ and some punk in a Beetle sometime soon.


Scott, you make an excellent case here. If you asked the ITAC guys what they are trying to do, I bet most of them would agree that:

It is important to get new cars in the class...little sense having a class (ITC) for the car counts it currently averages across the country. (I know it's big in areas, but nationally it is weak, and underutilized)

And that it is vital to appeal to a wide range of ages and demographics.

I also think that they will attempt to class the newer cars in such a way as to not destroy the balance in any particular class.
)The SCCA has shown over the years, as it's strength, a determination to protect the
"old guard". It has also demonstrated that it's strength is a weakness. And I think it has at least realized this contradiction, and is making changes in it's course. )

Trickle down should become a more regular occurance, and if done right, the losers should be few. Notably there are cars at the bottom of ITC that currently duke it out for last place. They will continue to duke it out for last place, albeit in hopefully larger classes.

And finally, proper distribution IS important to IT. In the NE, for example, we have typical car counts like: ITC 3-6 cars, ITB 18-25 cars, ITA 28-34 cars, and ITS 20 -30 cars. A better distribution makes for better racing, easier race group organization, and fairer trophy counts.

Lastly, people want to race and have a chance . Not much fun showing up to a race and finding out that your will be fighting for 18th place, when you could be more fairly classed and have a shot, just a shot, at a trophy.

I submit that one of the things "other" organizations do that attracts drivers, is better classing.


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

Catch22
07-29-2004, 10:34 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:

I submit that one of the things "other" organizations do that attracts drivers, is better classing.




Actually, and I speak as a former NASA insider, its the ONLY thing that NASA does better than SCCA. BUT, that one thing is obviously enough to steal a great deal of drivers away from SCCA.

Far and away the number 1 complaint about SCCA that you will hear amongst NASA race participants is "SCCA doesn't have my car classed competitively, NASA does."

It looks like thats changing, thank god.