ITAC Membership

[grjones1]

Can anyone tell me how members of the ITAC are chosen?
GRJ

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Can anyone tell me how members of the ITAC are chosen?
GRJ


I think I have a document on my work computer that discusses how the members are choosen... I'll try to find it and post it if I can...

Basically, I believe it's up to the CRB to make the final decision, with approval from the BoD. I was called by the then ITAC chairman, Rick Pocock, and, after a lengthy discussion and submission of a resume, I was asked to join the committee. There was some concern on the part of some CRB members who knew that I was fairly outspoken and critical of actions the CRB had taken in the past, but I've since learned to be patient and work within the system, convincing people with information, data, and facts when we have them, rather than rediculous 400 post rants...

The ITAC is made up of some VERY good people, who have a varying range of opinions and experiences. We are geographically diverse, which helps lend to the nationwide perspective of issues (for instance... out here... the 240Z is THE car to have in ITS... with the 944 and RX-7 right there as well... haven't had a BMW touch one yet at Portland or Seattle...)

NO one is going to make decisions that make everyone happy all the time, so we are ready and willing to take the critisism that some of you feel the need to dish out. We are also willing to fix our mistakes, should we make them. You might want to actually wait until something prooves that a mistake has been made, however, before you start calling for anyones head... Right now, some of you only THINK that we've made a mistake with this car (Beetle)... Only time will tell if we really have...

Anyhow, I'm not sure we are taking on more members at this point (we already have 9 at this point), but the process begins with the submittal of a racing resume and some background information...


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

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited August 11, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

I think I have a document on my work computer that discusses how the members are choosen... I'll try to find it and post it if I can...


He Darin, maybe you could find that information that you have about VW motors, while you're at it! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Banzai240:

but I've since learned to be patient and work within the system, convincing people with information, data, and facts when we have them, rather than rediculous 400 post rants...

Darin,
This is a terribly defensive answer to a very simple question. But if you are going to refer to a series of questions and rebuttals from very concerned club members and participants, a "ridiculous 400 post rant", maybe we should consider asking for people who may be in closer touch with the concerns of the whole IT community. I tried to step back from my initial posture (I admitted I was too angry when I first posted, but it sure got your attention), and I tried to carry on a sensible discussion among much ridicule, and I view answers, like " I love dealing with minutiae" when asked about top-end, as pretty much lacking patience. Seems like when the questions get tough you guys resort to lambast and "we'll just have to wait and see" answers , rather than admitting that perhaps further study is warranted.
GRJ

BTW, I'm not so unaware that I would ever consider myself capable of membership on the ITAC, but now that you mention it, maybe some current members are in my league.



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 12, 2004).]

[Geo]

GR, regarding being in touch, I think the current ITAC has done more in the last year than any ITAC in recent memory. At least half of us post here regularly. I know a number of others (if not all) are lurkers. If nothing else, despite things sometimes getting a little out of hand here, if you are honest with yourself, you have to give it to us that we work hard to stay in touch.

That said, this forum is but a small portion of the IT community and we keep in touch outside it as well.

As for tone and patience and being able to "take the heat...." I'll say this. We take plenty of heat. If we couldn't, it would be really easy to just stop posting here. But we come back every day. We field the tough questions. We take the occasional shot, some earned, some not. But we keep coming back. We take the heat. Sometimes our tone and patience are not at their best. We're human. We have lives outside this forum, and outside IT. Forgive us. Don't forgive us. I know I can speak for all of us here. We keep coming back.

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

[This message has been edited by Geo (edited August 12, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grjones1:
But if you are going to refer to a series of questions and rebuttals from very concerned club members and participants, a "ridiculous 400 post rant", maybe we should consider asking for people who may be in closer touch with the concerns of the whole IT community

If you consider this forum representing the "concerns of the whole IT community", then you need to get out more often. I can tell you from personal experience, and in meeting with SCCA members who simply lurk here, that the opinions expressed here are not necessarily shared by those who choose not to post... What you have here usually is a good sample of the extremes of any situation. I'm not about to base any decisions I make solely on what gets posted here, becuase all it takes is one person with a lot of time to post to make it seem like his/her opinion is THE opinion...

Also, I wasn't referring directly to your VW Beetle posts when I mentioned the "rediculous 400 post rants"... Those who know of my participation over the last 4 years know that I have been known to get these types of posts started myself, and that is the experience on which I was drawing with that statement... That being said, you can't tell me that the Beetle-in-ITC thread hasn't degraded into a bunch of non-sense, at least as far as the topic is concerned...


Originally posted by grjones1:

Seems like when the questions get tough you guys resort to lambast and "we'll just have to wait and see" answers , rather than admitting that perhaps further study is warranted.

That's a crock... The only study that's left to do is see how the car performs... All the information we have available, including that which you have provided, hasn't shown any concrete evidence that any mistake/misclassification has taken place. What has been shown is that the car would be a guaranteed DOG in ITB... It has yet to show that it's an overdog in ITC... Only some cars on the track are going to be able to provide us with that "further study"...

------------------
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 August 12, 2004).]

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Geo:
We keep coming back.



...and in the interest of more 'full disclosure', I have spoken with Al Bell on the phone recently. Although we agree that we come down on both sides of the fence on the NB/ITC issue, we also agree that our posts are sometimes taken in ways that were not meant and there are no hard feelings on either side.

AB

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

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited August 12, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Geo:
GR, regarding being in touch, I think the current ITAC has done more in the last year than any ITAC in recent memory. At least half of us post here regularly. I know a number of others (if not all) are lurkers. If nothing else, despite things sometimes getting a little out of hand here, if you are honest with yourself, you have to give it to us that we work hard to stay in touch.[quote]

I'll concede that you are more accesible than others have been in years past.
GRJ
__________________________________________

Forgive us. Don't forgive us. I know I can speak for all of us here. We keep coming back.
[edit] spelling
I can forgive and hope for the same.
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
That's a crock... The only study that's left to do is see how the car performs... All the information we have available, including that which you have provided, hasn't shown any concrete evidence that any mistake/misclassification has taken place. What has been shown is that the car would be a guaranteed DOG in ITB... It has yet to show that it's an overdog in ITC... Only some cars on the track are going to be able to provide us with that "further study"...

___________________________________________
Your own source, Eli, said he thought the car could be gotten to B weight (the reason you all posted for it not being competitive in B.

GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 12, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Also, I wasn't referring directly to your VW Beetle posts when I mentioned the "rediculous 400 post rants"... Those who know of my participation over the last 4 years know that I have been known to get these types of posts started myself, and that is the experience on which I was drawing with that statement... That being said, you can't tell me that the Beetle-in-ITC thread hasn't degraded into a bunch of non-sense, at least as far as the topic is concerned...
[/B]
Interspersed with the "nonsense" were some valid arguments that were treated as nonsense. That's the rub.
GRJ
But we're not going to settle this I see that. I'll just race my Fiesta 'til "the wheels fall off" or I'm lapped by that NB; but I'm glad you and Al remain on good terms.




[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 12, 2004).]

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Your own source, Eli, said he thought the car could be gotten to B weight (the reason you all posted for it not being competitive in B.

GRJ
[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited August 12, 2004).]

Eli is my engine-power source. He has not tried to take a NB to 2250ish from 2750. He also thought ITA or ITB at first glance. Then listening to the thought process, digesting the factors and considering the weight, he said he also thought it was a dog in ITC.

We have 9 talented members on the ITAC and we consider a ton of factors when doing our job. We have received tons of positive feedback, both on this board and off.

AB

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Eli is my engine-power source. He has not tried to take a NB to 2250ish from 2750. He also thought ITA or ITB at first glance. Then listening to the thought process, digesting the factors and considering the weight, he said he also thought it was a dog in ITC.

We have 9 talented members on the ITAC and we consider a ton of factors when doing our job. We have received tons of positive feedback, both on this board and off.

AB


OK, Andy, I hope I'm wrong.
GRJ

[Bill Miller]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">GR, regarding being in touch, I think the current ITAC has done more in the last year than any ITAC in recent memory. At least half of us post here regularly.</font>

C'mon now George! Andy just said that there are 9 members of the ITAC. The only ones I see posting 'regularly', are you, Andy, and Darin. And don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back!

Still waiting for that engine info Darin!

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

[OTLimit]

And the only reason Chris doesn't is because he spends more time working on his cars then in front of a computer, and doesn't have access to a computer at work.

For what it's worth, he is fully behind the NB being in ITC (and doesn't think it will be an overdog by any extent), was sooo excited to tell people about it. And it wasn't because it was a VW, it was because it was a NEWER car than what is currently there.

Can we just let the subject of the NB drop now?

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
C'mon now George! Andy just said that there are 9 members of the ITAC. The only ones I see posting 'regularly', are you, Andy, and Darin.

What about Chris? He doesn't post as much, but Darin, Andy and I usually beat him to it. Lee comes and goes a bit more, but he certainly doesn't just drop in for a single issue and leave.


Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And don't sprain your arm patting yourself on the back!

Well gee Bill, when you put it that way, I'm surprised your knee hasn't gone out from kicking us in the ass.


Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Still waiting for that engine info Darin!


Imagine that. You expect the chair of the ITAC to put your personal request ahead of everything else for personal service. And you aren't even an IT racer. I'm not trying to slam you Bill, but step back and look at a bit bigger picture.


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

[Bill Miller]

George,

Darin was the one that shot his mouth off about having said information, I've just asked him (repeatedly) to produce it. You see, it's usually a good idea to have supporting data/evidence to back up your claims (especially if you claim to have said evidence).

And since this request wasn't directed at you, unless you also have said information, and can produce it, I suggest that you stay the hell out of it! Darin's a big boy, and can speak for himself. I'm pretty sure he doesn't need you to do it for him

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
You see, it's usually a good idea to have supporting data/evidence to back up your claims (especially if you claim to have said evidence).

Hey Bill... You are right... I had e-mails with said information, and I thought I'd saved them... My Bad... However, If having Chris Albin on the ITAC isn't evidence enough that we have an idea of what a VW is capable of, as well as having guys like Mark Coffin to contact if need be (and I have in the past), then I just don't know what to tell you...

Using the numbers you gave us previously, even if the 1.6L is ONLY making 100hp in IT trim, it's just about right at the weight it needs to be for ITC to put it on par with the 510... and since most of us know that the VW is quite capable against the 510, well... I'm willing to make some assumptions about what it's REALLY making under the hood...

You guys wanted us to come up with a standardized method for classifying cars, and we've done that... but sometimes, you still have to apply some common sense to get the numbers to work out correctly. Assuming a 20% increase for IT prep makes the 510 work out to be precisely at it's ITC weight. Not coincidently, that number also works out to dyno numbers we were given for a well prepped ITC L-16... You've given us numbers that indicate a 35% increase for VW power, which still brings it in at about 80lbs lighter than it's classified ITC weight. Other than you perhaps, how many people here REALLY believe the ITC VW needs to LOSE 100lbs to compete with a 510?

This is just one of the problems with using stock HP numbers, which, as someone pointed out in the other thread, could be Net, Gross, or otherwise adjusted for insurance purposes, etc... At some point, we have to rely on individuals who we believe we can trust to give us real world information (as many of you have done concerning the MR-2, which I happen to STILL belive works out to an ITB car with a little more weight...)

That's the best I can do on this for now, so hopefully you'll be satisfied with this answer...

Now, back on topic... I happened to notice tonight in the latest SportsCar (September Fastrack) that there is a short explanation concerning how AC members are selected and an open invitation for members interested to submit their resumes. If you are interested, I'd suggest you read the memo and follow the directions to submit your resume to the CRB...




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

[Bill Miller]

Hey Bill... You are right... I had e-mails with said information, and I thought I'd saved them... My Bad... However, If having Chris Albin on the ITAC isn't evidence enough that we have an idea of what a VW is capable of, as well as having guys like Mark Coffin to contact if need be (and I have in the past), then I just don't know what to tell you...

Using the numbers you gave us previously, even if the 1.6L is ONLY making 100hp in IT trim, it's just about right at the weight it needs to be for ITC to put it on par with the 510... and since most of us know that the VW is quite capable against the 510, well... I'm willing to make some assumptions about what it's REALLY making under the hood...

Well Darin, that's how I thought this was going to go. And while I have a lot of respect for both Chris and Mark, you're the one that said you had info from top VW engine builders and that you KNEW what those motors made. You said that the stock hp numbers were false. It's clear now that you only assumed this, based on how well the motors responded to IT prep, and that you were using the wrong stock hp number (71 vs. 75). You do this a lot Darin, you state things as facts that are really just your opinions.


You guys wanted us to come up with a standardized method for classifying cars, and we've done that... but sometimes, you still have to apply some common sense to get the numbers to work out correctly. Assuming a 20% increase for IT prep makes the 510 work out to be precisely at it's ITC weight. Not coincidently, that number also works out to dyno numbers we were given for a well prepped ITC L-16... You've given us numbers that indicate a 35% increase for VW power, which still brings it in at about 80lbs lighter than it's classified ITC weight. Other than you perhaps, how many people here REALLY believe the ITC VW needs to LOSE 100lbs to compete with a 510?


Actually, it was <33%, at best, per the numbers Dick Shine provided. And just where the hell did you get the idea that I felt that an ITC VW needed to lose anything to compete w/ a 510? I've never had any issue w/ the ITC VWs vs. the 510 (or any other ITC car for that matter). Show me where I said that, and I'll apologize in front of the entire board.



This is just one of the problems with using stock HP numbers, which, as someone pointed out in the other thread, could be Net, Gross, or otherwise adjusted for insurance purposes, etc... At some point, we have to rely on individuals who we believe we can trust to give us real world information (as many of you have done concerning the MR-2, which I happen to STILL belive works out to an ITB car with a little more weight...)

That's the best I can do on this for now, so hopefully you'll be satisfied with this answer...



And no, I'm not satisfied w/ your answer, because it never really addressed my original question, which was about the Rabbit GTI 1.8 . I asked you what the weight would be in both ITB and ITC, based on your 'standardized method'. Somebody else also asked for the weight of the 1.8 8v Scirocco.

When I asked for the 1.7 VWs to be moved to ITC, I also asked for the 1.8 A1 8v cars to be moved as well (as did others). The FasTrack response was that the cars were 'too fast'. Yet only 2-3 months later, the ITAC is recommending that the 1.7 cars be moved to ITC. Either the initial request didn't get due consideration, or something changed in those couple of months. Maybe you were wrong about the 1.8 8v A1 cars as well.

So, to summerize, I would like to know what the weight on the 1.8 8v Rabbit GTI would be in both ITB and ITC, based on your 'standardized method'. You've pretty much told me that you don't have any hard evidence to support your earlier claims.

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

[1stGenBoy]

I look at and monitor this site several times a day. I may not post a lot but,i'm here lurking and thinking about my answers to the letters and requests that are sent in for us to review.

Bob Clark
ITAC member
#76 ITA Cen-Div

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And no, I'm not satisfied w/ your answer,.....


[Light hearted mode ON]

Bill, if Britney Sprears (or substitute your personal fave hottie) came to your house, and followed your instructions to the T doing whatever you wanted, you STILL wouldn't be satisfied.....


[light hearted mode OFF]


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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited August 13, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
And no, I'm not satisfied w/ your answer, because it never really addressed my original question, which was about the Rabbit GTI 1.8 . I asked you what the weight would be in both ITB and ITC, based on your 'standardized method'. Somebody else also asked for the weight of the 1.8 8v Scirocco.

... And I've already given you that answer... Without having a full VTS sheet to understand the brakes, transmission ratios, etc... and just going off of your 90hp estimate for stock hp... initial weights come in as follows:

Rabbit GTI 1.8L:
ITC ~ 2250lbs
ITB ~ 2050lbs

But, again, that's before talking to anyone who knows anything about these cars... Given the fact that it has almost 20 more stock hp than the 1.6L, and given the performance of the 1.6L in ITC, some discussion would have to take place as to whether or not these weights would seem reasonable...



Originally posted by Bill Miller:
When I asked for the 1.7 VWs to be moved to ITC, I also asked for the 1.8 A1 8v cars to be moved as well (as did others). The FasTrack response was that the cars were 'too fast'. Yet only 2-3 months later, the ITAC is recommending that the 1.7 cars be moved to ITC. Either the initial request didn't get due consideration, or something changed in those couple of months. Maybe you were wrong about the 1.8 8v A1 cars as well.


The initial request was rejected, and some of us on the ITAC insisted that this be revisited. But you already know this because you and I have corresponded about this previously. I personally put up a pretty decent fight to help get the 1.7Ls moved to ITC... But let's look at some "evidence" when comparing the 1.7Ls to the 1.8Ls... The 1.7's make very little more hp than the 1.6L, and most who we talked to say the 1.7L is a dog even compared to the 1.6L... The 1.8L, on the other hand, makes almost 20hp more in stock trim... makes moving it a little harder to justify.

Additionally, things were and are still changing... We are very close to having PCAs implemented, which, as you are well aware, change things a bit... We can now move cars without a battle over adjusting the weight (with PCAs)... We are also beginning to take a more global look at IT to see what classifications might need consideration WITHOUT having to receive a request to move them or adjust them... etc. etc. etc...

So, just because I don't have the e-mails any longer that detailed the information I professed to having, doesn't mean I didn't have it... Oh, and by the way... I NEVER said I had any "concrete info" on the 1.8L motors... I was referring to the HP output of the 1.6L motors, which you say is around 99hp, and I was told was more in the neighborhood of 105-112hp... Either way, it seems we at least agree that the 1.6L needs no adjustments in ITC...

A reality that many are going to have to face is that there are going to be cases where some cars just fit the scope of one class better than another, even if they end up being somewhat underdogs in the class they are in.... Every class has a range of performance, and some cars are naturally going to fall in the lower end of that range... Keep in mind the intent of IT before you start getting up in arms about this, because nowhere in our charter as ITAC members have we ever said it was our intent to change the intent of IT... We are trying to make it better... make competition closer, but in the end, we are still only trying to balance things better than in the past... there are still going to be cars that just don't quite fit. I have a feeling they will be few and far between, and if the NB classification in ITC works out, then that may open the door for some other options for some 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 August 13, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

I had a nice, long response typed out, but my internet connection went down, and I lost it. I'll have to sit down and re-craft it later. In the mean time, could you please run those same numbers (ITB and ITC weight, the way you did it for the Rabbit GTI) on the PL-510?

Thanks!

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
In the mean time, could you please run those same numbers (ITB and ITC weight, the way you did it for the Rabbit GTI) on the PL-510?

Thanks!



Bill,

Rather than just beating around the bush... why don't you just come out and say whatever it is you want to say? It's been my experience with you that you'll ask all these questions, take the pieces of the answers that suit you, then turn them around to attack me, trying to make some point in the process... Just make your point and let's get on with it.

In the meantime, it's silly to run the 510 numbers for ITC, since the ratios for ITC were derived using the 510, the VW, and the CRX... so the weight would come out exactly where it is, 2170...

For ITB, the weight would be something like 1950lbs...

What exactly is it you are trying to prove/disprove here? I've tried to answer every question you have asked... Lay it out on the table and let's let everyone know what point you are trying to make...

Sorry if this note sounds a little defensive/hostile... but I can never tell if you are genuinely asking, or if you are winding up to take a swing at my credibility...


------------------
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 August 15, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

So, what you're saying is that, for ITC, there are no "adders" or "subtracters" for the 510/CRX/1.6VW, and that the ratio is spot on for those three cars. Is that the way it worked out? I thought things like RWD and IRS were "adders" and things like FWD were "subtracters".

Like I said, I had a long response typed out, and I lost it due to an internet glitch. I just didn't have the time to re-craft it, yesterday.

Here's some of what I was going to say:

You speak of needing a full VTS for the Rabbit GTI, w/ info on brakes, gear ratios, etc. to be able to get closer to what the spec. weight should be. The brake data and gear ratios are right there in the ITCS, on the spec. line for the car, as are things like valve size, compression ratio, wheelbase, etc. What other information would you need from a VTS that you don't already have? And, 90hp stock is not 'my estimate', that's the factory published value.

You seem to like making it seem like these things are my opinion. The 99hp, in IT trim, for a 1.6 VW motor was a direct quote from Dick Shine, which he posted here. 90hp is the VW published value for a 1.8 Rabbit GTI (along w/ 100 lb-ft of torque). Unlike you, I don't just throw numbers around, I quote what I consider to be reputable and reliable sources. You, on the other hand, make claims that the factory is understating stock hp numbers, yet offer no evidence to back it up.

You also make statments like "The 1.8L, on the other hand, makes almost 20hp more in stock trim... ". And while you could make the case that 15 is 'almost 20', in this case, I think you're trying to slant things to support your position. Stock hp on a FI 1.6 VW motor is 75. That's a factory published value, just like 90hp for the Rabbit GTI.

This one also gets me.


<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Every class has a range of performance, and some cars are naturally going to fall in the lower end of that range... Keep in mind the intent of IT before you start getting up in arms about this, because nowhere in our charter as ITAC members have we ever said it was our intent to change the intent of IT... We are trying to make it better... make competition closer, but in the end, we are still only trying to balance things better than in the past... there are still going to be cars that just don't quite fit.</font>

You've come out and stated, on more than one occasion, that you're targeting the top performance level in a class when you classify/move cars. And w/ PCA's in your tool bag, why would there be any cars that don't fit? If a car doesn't fit, it should get moved to a different class, and the weight adjusted.

And while you may say you're not trying to change the intent of IT, you certainly are doing it.

And if you think I'm taking swings at your credibility, it's because, time and again, you state your opinions as if they were facts and make claims w/o providing any supporting evidence.

Let's look at that 510/GTI example. Cars make similar power in IT trim (20% increase on 96 is 115, 115 is almost a 28% gain over 90. One car is RWD w/ IRS while the other one is FWD. One car is carbed w/ a 4-spd, and the other is FI w/ a close-ratio 5-spd. How do they end up 80-100# apart in spec weight, especially since the 510 fits the ITC model exactly? You want to make claims like this, back them up. If you provide evidence to support your claims and arguements, you won't see me taking any shots at your credibility.

/edit/ Something I left out from my previous response was why do you have a 'battle' if you want to change the weight when you move a car? It's already there in the ITCS, no PCA's/comp. adjustments needed. What reasoning to the ones who are 'battling' give for not being able to use the rules as currently written?

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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited August 15, 2004).]

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

So, what you're saying is that, for ITC, there are no "adders" or "subtracters" for the 510/CRX/1.6VW, and that the ratio is spot on for those three cars. Is that the way it worked out? I thought things like RWD and IRS were "adders" and things like FWD were "subtracters".

You've come out and stated, on more than one occasion, that you're targeting the top performance level in a class when you classify/move cars. And w/ PCA's in your tool bag, why would there be any cars that don't fit? If a car doesn't fit, it should get moved to a different class, and the weight adjusted.

And while you may say you're not trying to change the intent of IT, you certainly are doing it.

Let's look at that 510/GTI example. Cars make similar power in IT trim (20% increase on 96 is 115, 115 is almost a 28% gain over 90. One car is RWD w/ IRS while the other one is FWD. One car is carbed w/ a 4-spd, and the other is FI w/ a close-ratio 5-spd. How do they end up 80-100# apart in spec weight, especially since the 510 fits the ITC model exactly? You want to make claims like this, back them up. If you provide evidence to support your claims and arguements, you won't see me taking any shots at your credibility.

/edit/ Something I left out from my previous response was why do you have a 'battle' if you want to change the weight when you move a car? It's already there in the ITCS, no PCA's/comp. adjustments needed. What reasoning to the ones who are 'battling' give for not being able to use the rules as currently written?



Bill,

I don't know about everyone else, but the banter between you and Darin is getting old. It seems like you are getting peeved that he isn't acting as your personal liason to the ITAC by answering every question you have. "Run these numbers". "What about those numbers?" "How about the numbers for the xxx". We love to be on this board but for goodness sake, back off. (Darin can handle himself but you seemingly are looking to fight ALL THE TIME) Seems like you could take these types of requests off-line - or even better, write a letter with your hypothosis and supportive facts.

OK, on to some of your issues:

Types of things that are adders: VW - FI, Close ratio 5-speed. 510 - IRS, RWD.

Net total - tie.

Why wouldn't there be cars that don't fit? Because, as we have also stated time and time again, is that PCA's are NOT meant to be Prod-style comp adjustments. We are not looking to get every car withing a pin-head of each other...just bring the haves and the have nots closer together. With only 4 classes, there will always be cars that are too good for the lower class and not quite good enough for the upper. If that isn't the way you would like to see it, then I would suggest you request a change in the overall philosophy of IT - which hasn't changed as of this minute. There still is no guarantee of competitivness...but we want to make every effort to do what is right for the class from a 10,000 foot view - and address peoples individual letters with the class in mind.

AB

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

[ITSRX7]

Edit - duplicate

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited August 15, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Types of things that are adders: VW - FI, Close ratio 5-speed. 510 - IRS, RWD.

Net total - tie.



Ok Andy, if the 'adders' are a tie, why would the cars (Rabbit GTI and 510) differ by 80-100#, if they were classed together?

And that's pretty much what I expected regarding the 'no guarantee...' clause, it'll get trotted out when it's convenient. But then again, maybe it's just me that sees things like PCA's and the 'no guarantee...' clause as not being internally consistent.

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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Ok Andy, if the 'adders' are a tie, why would the cars (Rabbit GTI and 510) differ by 80-100#, if they were classed together?

And that's pretty much what I expected regarding the 'no guarantee...' clause, it'll get trotted out when it's convenient. But then again, maybe it's just me that sees things like PCA's and the 'no guarantee...' clause as not being internally consistent.



Bill,

None of us were in on the original classifications - obviously. Trying to 'predict' what other factors other regimes used when classing is impossible. I know you will probably come back and claim this is a cop-out, but the facts are the facts - you ask a question we just don't have the answer for.

We work in the present and for the future.

As far as PCA's go, the orginal intent was to be able to correct mistakes and make a low quantity of changes that would add to the category as a whole. It wasn't to go through the whole class list and try and bring everyone in line. Always has been and you know it.

When you look at 'comp-adjustments' and the IT philosophy, they aren't consistent. But when you pay attention to the ITAC intent statements for PCA's and what we have told you here, it is what it is. What is it? Read BOLD above, maybe twice.

AB

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

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
...... maybe it's just me that sees things like PCA's and the 'no guarantee...' clause as not being internally consistent.




In the begining, it ws "No gurantee", and up until now, it really meant, "Take it as it comes, and if there are errors or misclassing, well, tough nuts...".

Now, it's "No guartantee", but it really means "we'll take a few more cracks at getting things closer, but we can't make everything perfect...racer beware".

Seems like progress to me.

(And this from a guy whose car could have been considered a poster child for the need for PCAs, but finds itself in the classic too slow for A and too fast for B situation.)

Just like life, racing DOES come with ONE guarantee: There are NO guarantees!

Nice to see the folks at the top trying harder though...



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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Bill,

None of us were in on the original classifications - obviously. Trying to 'predict' what other factors other regimes used when classing is impossible. I know you will probably come back and claim this is a cop-out, but the facts are the facts - you ask a question we just don't have the answer for.

What question is that Andy? Darin gave me numbers for the Rabbit GTI and Datsun 510, both in ITB and ITC, based on the current formula you guys (ITAC) are using. What's that have to do w/ 'other regimes'?


We work in the present and for the future.

As far as PCA's go, the orginal intent was to be able to correct mistakes and make a low quantity of changes that would add to the category as a whole. It wasn't to go through the whole class list and try and bring everyone in line. Always has been and you know it.

When you look at 'comp-adjustments' and the IT philosophy, they aren't consistent. But when you pay attention to the ITAC intent statements for PCA's and what we have told you here, it is what it is. What is it? Read BOLD above, maybe twice.

AB



Well Andy, that's one of the main things I don't agree with with PCA's. You're going to 'pick and choose' the cars that will get consideration or get adjusted. One of the main concerns w/ any kind of adjustment process, was that it would potentially lead to favoritism, etc. I think, and this is just my opinion, that by NOT going through ALL of the cars, and seeing what the weight would be, based on the new system, is actually creating a system that is potentially worse than what we have today.

You're creating a mechanism that will better facilitate favoritism, and the 'no guarantee' clause gets trotted out as an easy way to justify why Car X doesn't get consideration/adjustment. You can say this is 'black helicopters' all you want, but w/o better internal consistency, that's the way I see it.

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

[planet6racing]

Can you guys just get your own forum and leave Rules and Regs for the rest of us to actually talk about the Rules and Regs? Every single topic in this area has seemed to degrade into an arguement between you two and, quite frankly, I'm tired of trying to muddle through it all to see if there is actually anything of interest there.

I know I could just not click on the thread, and believe me, I usually just skip this area, but come on!

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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Well Andy, that's one of the main things I don't agree with with PCA's. You're going to 'pick and choose' the cars that will get consideration or get adjusted. One of the main concerns w/ any kind of adjustment process, was that it would potentially lead to favoritism, etc. I think, and this is just my opinion, that by NOT going through ALL of the cars, and seeing what the weight would be, based on the new system, is actually creating a system that is potentially worse than what we have today.

You're creating a mechanism that will better facilitate favoritism, and the 'no guarantee' clause gets trotted out as an easy way to justify why Car X doesn't get consideration/adjustment. You can say this is 'black helicopters' all you want, but w/o better internal consistency, that's the way I see it.



Bill,

In an effort to TRY and settle this - for the other Bill's sake - here are my final thoughts:

You are complaining that cars with equal hp in IT trim (510 and VW) and potentially equal 'adders' or 'subtractors' aren't at the same weight. I don't know why, somebody else did that a long time ago. Let it die.

As for PCA's and your perceptions (Rules Planet 6!), I can understand your point - but only from a glass is half empty perspective. I think this ITAC has listened to IT racers, and turned the ship in a better direction. If you don't trust that we will do what we think is best for the category, fine. This job is a thankless and poor paying http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif gig. Why would anyone do it except to try and make it a better place to race?

AB

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

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited August 16, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by planet6racing:
Can you guys just get your own forum and leave Rules and Regs for the rest of us to actually talk about the Rules and Regs? Every single topic in this area has seemed to degrade into an arguement between you two and, quite frankly, I'm tired of trying to muddle through it all to see if there is actually anything of interest there.

Hey, sorry guy... Just trying to answer the questions asked of me... We can either communicate, or not communicate... Which would you prefer??



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

[planet6racing]

Darin:

Don't take offense by what I said! I'm happy you guys are communicating, and I really like it. But, the 450 page long discussion of one person nitpicking the other person's statements and only 2-3 people participating in the discussion just annoy the crap out of me.

I'll happily just go about reading the board and skipping the rules and regs section. It's just frustrating to think that there could be someone with a question that wants to post here but is afraid that it will get turned into a dissertation on what the meaning of the word "is" is...

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by planet6racing:
But, the 450 page long discussion of one person nitpicking the other person's statements and only 2-3 people participating in the discussion just annoy the crap out of me.

I'll happily just go about reading the board and skipping the rules and regs section. It's just frustrating to think that there could be someone with a question that wants to post here but is afraid that it will get turned into a dissertation on what the meaning of the word "is" is...



I'm with you, Bill... I've been doing my best lately to try to keep from getting sucked into that vortex of message-board death... Sometimes, the pull is just too strong. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

[Bill Miller]

You are complaining that cars with equal hp in IT trim (510 and VW) and potentially equal 'adders' or 'subtractors' aren't at the same weight. I don't know why, somebody else did that a long time ago. Let it die.



No Andy, what I'm 'complaining' about, is that you've got one car (GTI), that has been deemed 'too fast' for ITC, yet you've got another car (510), w/ a damn near equivalent performance potential, and less weight, running in ITC. Couple that w/ the recent classification of the NB in ITC, and you tell me if things seem fair and equitable.

I'll take a 'half full' perspective when these kinds of inequities start going away.

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

[grjones1]

I think it would be in the best interest of IT that to maintain strict objectivity and preclusion of any possible conflicts of interest, the ITAC and even the CRB should be made up of members currently uninvolved in racing in the IT category. This is not to say that members could not have past experience in the category (and probably should have) but their current involvement raises the possibility of slanted decisionmaking which could be partially remedied by this practice.
And in no way does this proposition intend to reflect on the character of present membership. Does anyone agree?

G. Robert Jones

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

[apr67]

Nope. I disagree.

I think members of the ITAC should inform their co-members of what horses they have in the race. And I belive they currently do this.

But I do not want my Ad-hock committee run by a whole bunch of 'non-racers'. I think guys with a dog in the hunt are better.

Personally I think this is part of the problem with some stewards. They don't remember what racing was, if they ever raced. Nor do they understand what real F&C'ers do. So they make decisions that are very suspect.

Alan Russell

[OTLimit]

I have always wondered what kind of person volunteers for a non-paying position in a mostly VOLUNTEER organization knowing that (s)he has to give up what he loves to do the job.

What kind of volunteers do you think you would get?

Or would you get the kind of people who think they know what they are talking about, and like to let their opinions be known on every possible occasion, even if their opinion has no basis in fact?

Whatever.

I think that some of the people who are the most critical of volunteers are the least likely to have a real clue as to how many hours these VOLUNTEERS spend every day and month working for the club.

My opinion only. Please don't take it out on my other half who will give up most of his evening for a conference call tonight.

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by OTLimit:
I have always wondered what kind of person volunteers for a non-paying position in a mostly VOLUNTEER organization knowing that (s)he has to give up what he loves to do the job.

What kind of volunteers do you think you would get?

Or would you get the kind of people who think they know what they are talking about, and like to let their opinions be known on every possible occasion, even if their opinion has no basis in fact?

Whatever.

I think that some of the people who are the most critical of volunteers are the least likely to have a real clue as to how many hours these VOLUNTEERS spend every day and month working for the club.

My opinion only. Please don't take it out on my other half who will give up most of his evening for a conference call tonight.


Lesley,
Just in case some of your remarks are pointed at me, I've already stated that because I am not qualified (I have no formal automotive engineering background) I would never consider even the possibility of membership.
That said, what keeps us from seeking out those people who have participated and for whatever reasons are no longer actively competing. There are plenty of "retired" racers who are directly experienced with our venue and hopefully with real engineering backgrounds, and whose very "retired" status allows the time it takes to participate in making critical decisions. And to allow me to step out of further comment to keep this thing open, let me throw in, can you suggest a way to have the board memberships more representative of IT attitudes across the different regions.
GRJ

[ITSRX7]

GRJ,

Interesting question.

I think that the committee should be made up of current members for a variety of reasons.

1. They have some skin in the game. They aren't 'governing' without repercussion.
2. They SHOULD be more in tune with the IT climate than someone who is inactive that has only historical knowledge.

Having said that, with 9 members, it is easy and possible to recuse yourself from a vote if there is a conflict of interest - and it is an active practice.

The current group is well represented from all over the country and all over the class structure. What improvments are you specifically asking for that we can attempt to implement?

AB
AB

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
GRJ,

Interesting question.

I think that the committee should be made up of current members for a variety of reasons.

1. They have some skin in the game. They aren't 'governing' without repercussion.
2. They SHOULD be more in tune with the IT climate than someone who is inactive that has only historical knowledge.

Having said that, with 9 members, it is easy and possible to recuse yourself from a vote if there is a conflict of interest - and it is an active practice.

The current group is well represented from all over the country and all over the class structure. What improvments are you specifically asking for that we can attempt to implement?

AB

Andy, I'm not going to give some of the participants further opportunity to raise my blood pressure. But if you will call me collect 540-972-1996, or email [email protected] , I would welcome and appreciate the opportunity to discuss my concerns.
GRJ

[OTLimit]

My comments were not directed at any one person. However, I think it would be difficult to get GOOD people who no longer participate in a certain sector to volunteer for these positions. If they are still racing, they have their own issues to deal with. If not, they probably couldn't care less about our issues.

It would be interesting to see what everyone thinks should be the minimum requirements for being eligible for being on an AdHoc committee.

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

[dickita15]

G Robert,
I would be more worried about conflicts if it was a very small board. if it were one, three or even five I would probaly be think along the same lines, but with 7 of more we most likely have someone on both sides of any issue. hmmm as I think about it however are there any ITC guy. if not maybe you should find one to apply.
dick patullo

[lateapex911]

I would agree with most here. The current ITAC is one step removed from having a bit of the non active racer. The resigning (moved to another category) chairman was seasoned, and actualy not as active as he once was. Even took a season off as I remember.

While in theory, having active members can lead to the appearance of conflicts of interest, I doubt in practice it really has much of a bearing. As many mentioned there are too many members, which leads to checks and balances. Also, its hard to hide your "agenda" when everyone sees you in it once a month!

I also think that IT is an active arena, and I really want the ITAC guys to be active and involved.

Finally, I agree that most stewards strive for quality in there decision making, but I have seen calls from stewards that showed they really had either forgotten what its really like out there, or had never been there. I wish the SIT program wasn't so involving and that more workers raced, and that more racers worked.

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

[Asok #25]

I am wondering what each member drives and what the competition is like in their region.

Darin-ITS-240sx
Chris A.-ITB/prod-golf
Bob-ITA-Rx-7
P.K.-SM
Les-ITB-volvo
Andy-ITS/SM-rx7
Geo-ITS-Sentra/944

Could someone help me out with Chris C. and Lee G.?

[ITSRX7]

Andy Bettencourt
Northeast based - New England Region
NARRC and NERRC Series

ITS RX-7:
25 car fields
Teammate holds 3 track records in similar car
Races made up of about 1/3 Bimmers, 1/3 RX-7's and 1/3 other
Podium finisher year end points

SM/ITA Miata
30+ car fields
Development of ITA car on SM platform
Learning what a real momentum car is all about!


AB

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

[Banzai240]

Darin Jordan
Oregon and Northwest Regions
Tracks:
Portland International Raceway (1.9 mile Momentumn track)
Pacific Raceways (2.25 mile, formerly SIR... HP works at this track...)
Bremerton Motorsports Park (1.1 mile Airport track... LONG straight attached to an autocross course...)

ITS - 1998 Nissan 240SX
Fields of 4-8 ITS cars consisting of 240Zs, 944s, RX-7s, Acura GS-Rs, 240SX, and the occasional BMW 325.

240Zs and 944s seem to rule the roost out here, with the advantage usually going to the 240Z. The Acura showed some REAL speed earlier this year, qualifying right beside one of the 240Zs at PIR and running with him most of the race.
The BMWs that show up don't show the speed you guys talk about, but they aren't fully developed either.

As for other IT classes... There are good ITA fields, usually with RX-7s, a 240SX, and others... I don't recall too many ITB fields, and the ITC fields are alright, consisting mostly of 510s and Rabbits. There may be a Honda as well, I can't recall off the top of my head...

My car isn't fully developed, still lacking spherical bushings and a few odds and ends. The engine is just about there, and I'm tweaking the exhaust system currently. Not sure there is too much more to be had there. Likely another 5hp or so to be had with some tweaking, as well as a few more if I were to go to oversize pistons... Otherwise, it has a good ECU, tranny, gearing, etc...

Anything else you'd like to know??? Just ask... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif




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

[p.keane]

New to SM last year. Went to the dark side when my IT car was obsolete. Usually a top ten car in the SE, but the tight competition is wearing me out. Poor old crip never gets a chance to rest.

Started out in ITC Fiesta (1989), then went to ITC Rabbits. Built an ITB Golf in 1995, well two, the first one did not fare to well (see picture at the begining of this site).

Finished forth in ITC and Fifth in ITB 1998 ARRC. Should have won the ITC race, but the rear suspension beam was coming loose. After that weekend, I knew that the Golf could not get it done in ITB. I started sending requests to the ITAC for a better mouse trap. After several go rounds we settled on the Accord (not my first choice). The rest is history.

In the family we have one SM, one SM under construction, two ITC VWs, one ITB Golf and enough stuff to build a second Golf.

I plan on running the 2004 ARRC in the SM and a ITC rabbit. In 2005, I will bring the Accord out of storage, with BOD approval.
PK

[p.keane]

To answer the second part of your question.

SM Huge fields
ITS and ITA 25+
ITB and ITC in the past they where big fields, but lately they seem to be down.

[Geo]

The ITS field here is typically 6-10 cars. In the past we were fielded with ITB, ITC, ITE. Typical run groups are about 20-30 cars.

Recently we have been grouped with ITE, SPO, SPU, ITA. Last year I got to race against Bob Stretch in his ITA 240SX, or I should say I was on the track at the same time. He was contending for the overall lead at the time. I wasn't. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

In ITS here in TX it's pretty much dominated by a variety of Z cars. I know of a couple of E36 being built and we've picked up a Prelude and there is another 944 that comes around a bit. We also have an Alfa GTV6. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


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

[gsbaker]

Originally posted by Geo:
...We also have an Alfa GTV6. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

George,

Who races the Alfa?

Gregg

[Banzai240]

Oh, I should probably add that I received my license for ICSCC in 1992, raced a Datsun 510 in ITC for a year, then raced a Mazda RX-3SP (essentially IT car with Wilwood front brakes and a 240+hp bridge-port 12A) in GT-3. I was out of race driving for a couple of years when I went back to school, and have been racing the 240SX since 1999...

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

[Asok #25]

Thanks Guys, it's nice to see the health of IT around the country and who helps shape its direction.

Gregg
A. Garcia runs the GTV-6 in texas.

Back to my question.
Where, what, and who with do Chris C. and Lee G. run?

[lateapex911]

I should probably say that I haven't seen Chris in a while, but the last time I did he was in a 944. After that I heard (thru the grapevine) that he was changing over to a 944S.

I hope so. Need more P-cars out there!

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

[Asok #25]

Jake
If you want more ¡§P-cars¡¨ out there thank these 7 guys because they have played a big part in getting the 914 correctly classified to ITC and 924 correctly classed in ITB. And now with all the cars that have moved to ITA maybe the 944 will move as well. Before these guys Jake ¡§p-cars¡¨ could only win a rare race in ITS but now (sorry 2005) they will be able to win in three classes. How exciting.


[This message has been edited by Asok #25 (edited September 16, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Asok #25:
... but now (sorry 2005) they will be able to win in three classes. How exciting.


Well... they'll hopefully be able to be competitive in their respective classes... Moving cars so they could "win" is definately not one of the goals of the ITAC... Building competitive fields IS!

Thanks for the positive feedback...



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

[1stGenBoy]

Hi all,
A little correction. I drive a 1986 Honda CRX Si 12 valve ex-Jim Dentici Firehawk car in ITA.
Up here in CEN-DIV we get 25-40 cars in the IT group on average.
I'll be doing my 9th race of the year on Oct 9th-10th at Blackhawk Farms. This will only be my 6th IT race as i, co drive a vintage car in enduros with VSCDA and SVRA

Bob Clark

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Oh, I should probably add that I received my license for ICSCC in 1992, raced a Datsun 510 in ITC for a year, then raced a Mazda RX-3SP (essentially IT car with Wilwood front brakes and a 240+hp bridge-port 12A) in GT-3. I was out of race driving for a couple of years when I went back to school, and have been racing the 240SX since 1999...




Darin,

I thought you said you were converting your RX3 to EP in 2000? And where did you race that 240SX in '99? Sure wasn't IT.


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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Darin,

I thought you said you were converting your RX3 to EP in 2000? And where did you race that 240SX in '99? Sure wasn't IT.




Ya, you might be right... I think I may have still had the RX-3 in 2000, as I recall attending the Runoffs and talking to Don Girven concerning his RX-3... So it must have been in 2001 that I first raced the 240SX... Ya, that's right, because I've raced it for three seasons... Oh, and my first season in the car was actually in RS (Radial Sedan)... Still had the 12:1 motor in it then from it's World Challenge days...

Thanks for the correction...


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

[Bill Miller]

No problem Darin. I know Don, he's a good guy. He was at Pocono again this year.

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

[RSTPerformance]

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited September 16, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

...Oh, and actually, I guess I have 4 seasons on the 240SX... 2001, 2002, 2003, and this season...

Don's car was pretty nice too... In a way, I wish that I would have had a chance to actually put my RX-3 on the track in EP trim... Had a top-notch motor and transmission for it, and I think it would have been a blast to drive... Oh well... I'm LOVING IT these days!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

[Spinnetti]

At some point, we have to rely on individuals who we believe we can trust to give us real world information (as many of you have done concerning the MR-2, which I happen to STILL belive works out to an ITB car with a little more weight...)
[/B]

Hijak!!!!
So, I totally agree on the MR-2, and its 'sister' the Corolla GT-S. Having both cars since the 80's, and having one of the top Corollas ever, I still don't have a fighting chance in IT/A anymore, nor do any Toyotas in IT/A. How 'bout a move to B where we would have a chance without dominating?

[Geo]

Originally posted by Spinnetti:
Hijak!!!!
So, I totally agree on the MR-2, and its 'sister' the Corolla GT-S. Having both cars since the 80's, and having one of the top Corollas ever, I still don't have a fighting chance in IT/A anymore, nor do any Toyotas in IT/A. How 'bout a move to B where we would have a chance without dominating?



Perhaps a letter or e-mail to the CRB would be a good thing?


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

[lateapex911]

Do me a favor...when you write the letter, include the RX-7...so far the letters have fallen on deaf ears!

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

[p.keane]

Jake, that is not true.

[almracing]

Hey Peter K,

Does the latest news from the CRB mean the Accord is coming out of mothballs?

Anthony R.
#86 NER ITA

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by p.keane:
Jake, that is not true.

Ok, fair point, I was being too glib. The letters and discussions I have had have resulted in feedback that is not encouraging, but that is all unofficial, of course. Officially there has been zero feedback that I am aware of from any requests or letters sent by anyone that I know.

So far, all alternatives have yeided no positive comments, most were shot down for various reasons, and the only option that I am aware of being discussed, (weight break) is nearly a moot point as getting much more weight out of the car legally is very difficult.

However, if you feel that there are ears that would be willing to listen to a reasoned request, I will be happy to put one together and forward it to the powers that be. I was just under the impression that it would be a waste of time, that the car is a "tweener", and I should learn to live with it.


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