Want to hear YOUR opinion...

[Andy Bettencourt]

We have recently received a couple letters asking for some specific allowances due to the availablility of OEM parts. I ask you this:

When a car becomes so old (or rare) that the OEM (even Mazda) doesn't support things like brakes, windshields, etc - and there are no aftermarket OEM equivilant parts available, should we............

1. Allow the car to die a slow death, relying on drivers to retire their cars because they can't field legal versions? Does this encourage cheating? Does this promote loss of membership to other clubs who will cater to these types of drivers?

2. Allow alternate parts from other, newer models...or even alternate materials for things like glass, etc.

My immediate thoughts are to let these cars die. It becomes a NIGHTMARE to manage this type of process, as well as having to take drivers at their word on things that 'can't be found' anymore. Not even mentioning how we police each other in grid...

But what is BEST for the membership as a whole?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited March 19, 2005).]

[SilverHorseRacing]

I normally stay out of these discussions, but my thought would be that it is time to let the car go. I've junkyard hunted many a part for my cars, and when the yards no longer have any examples, that should be a hint to either put the car into vintage, or restore it and put it out to pasture. I know that's tough for some to swallow, but the cars get older, just like we do. And at some point, if it can't be brought into line with the rules, what else are you going to do? My car will get there someday too, and by that point, it will have been so outclassed by newer models that I would have built a new one anyway to keep up.

------------------
-Marcello Canitano
www.SilverHorseRacing.com (http://www.SilverHorseRacing.com)

[jc836]

I think one has a good argument for allowing the cars to die. However, they should also be allowed to be used for non-competition (points) events in some sort of special class. Once the car is declared as no longer supported by the factory or aftermarket (such as glass)is probably the best point at which to move its spec line. This also has its issues, but would not render the car useless for things like track days (HPDE and autocross). Just a few rambling thoughts.

------------------
Grandpa's toys-modded suspensions and a few other tweaks
'89 CRX Si-SCCA ITA #99
'99 Prelude=a sweet song-FOR SALE
'03 Dodge Dakota Club Cab V8-Patriot Blue gonna tow

[ddewhurst]

I race a 1985 1st gen Mazda RX-7 & OEM equivilant parts including brake rotors are available. When the aftermarket parts are no longer available let the cars die....

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David Dewhurst
SCCA 250772
CenDiv
ITA/7 #14

[924Guy]

As an active owner/racer of a car that's likely to tip over that edge in the next 10 years - I'd say that yes, it's a hint that it's time to either move to a more open class (Prod or GT) or retire it to vintage. IOW, I'm happy with the current rules situation.

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

[Knestis]

When it's time to go, it's time to go - and they should do it with dignity.

K

[ITA Racer]

Originally posted by 924Guy:
As an active owner/racer of a car that's likely to tip over that edge in the next 10 years - I'd say that yes, it's a hint that it's time to either move to a more open class (Prod or GT) or retire it to vintage. IOW, I'm happy with the current rules situation.

My thoughts are the same as quoted above.



------------------
95 ITA Neon

[DaveITB1]

R.I.P.

[itbgti]

"Let me do it ma....Ole' Yeller was my dog."

[RacerBill]

I agree that when you can't get parts anymore, let it pass. But here's a proactive slant (and another reason for the National office to keep statistics on Regional races. Assign every line in the ITCS a number and keep track of each regional race with entrants keyed to the spec line number. Any lines with no entries for a year are placed on probation for a year and if no further entries, that line is dropped the following year. This would help keep the list of eligable cars manageable. Make allowances for unique situations - I was going through a (divorce, illness, new child, grandchild, whatever) in 2005 but intend to race my 19xx Gogomobile in 2006! I would just hate to see the GCR go to two CD's http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/biggrin.gif

------------------
Bill Stevens
Mbr 103106
BnS Racing
83 ITA Shelby Dodge Charger

[dickita15]

let em die. or go to prod http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

[Greg Amy]

Let 'em go.

[JeffYoung]

While I own one of these cars, I agree. Once you can't get parts to comply with the rules, you should change not the rules.

HOWEVER -- I do not believe in any proactive de-listing or de-classing of cars. Just because someone doesn't run the car doesn't mean no one ever will. Delisting of cars makes no sense to me. Keep as many options open for the racer as you can. Some people get off on driving something a bit unusual -- and keeping them in the ITCS may end up attracting more people than you think.

Also, I do not agree in moving the post 68 cut off date or any other rule change that would effectively ban existing, running IT cars. If the car can't meet the rules, so be it, but no changing the rules on an existing IT racer and his car to legislate it out of existence.

Prod is not an option for a lot of us by the way, either because of cost or, more likely for S and A cars, the car simply isn't classed in E Prod.

[badal]

You could do it a couple of ways:
Allow alternate parts and list them on a spec line. It sounds like the parts we are talking about would not be anything that would have a performance advantage.

Allow all cars older than a certain date to use alternate fenders/glass/whatever.



------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

[bldn10]

Until the last few days I would have said just let them die. But now I fear that we must obtain written, legal directives from all owners or else some may appeal to their elected representatives to pass laws w/ the intention of forcing us to continue to feed parts into these cars whatever the cost or indignity to them. :-)

------------------
Bill Denton
87/89 ITS RX-7
02 Audi TT225QC
95 Tahoe
Memphis

[Knestis]

As of very early this morning, Bill Frist wants to review every case before it is dropped out of the ITCS? Argh.

K

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">As of very early this morning, Bill Frist wants to review every case before it is dropped out of the ITCS? Argh.</font>

Did I miss something? - GA

[Ron Earp]

I've got one of "these cars" too and I do agree with letting them go - to an extent.

I don't think they should get kicked because one can't get a washer bottle, wiring harness, or similar non-performance part that gives no competitive edge. But, I assume we are not talking about parts like this.

I feel as many cars as possible should be listed to give folks options on what they can build. For someone like myself, I'm attracted to the car that others don't have and I'm 100% sure there are others like me. Met some this weekend at VIR. Not everyone wants a 240z/325i/Civic/Miata or whatever the most popular flavor of the day is. I don't think it costs any time or money to de-list a car, but it'll certainly cost time and effort to re-list it when someone comes along that has 41 shells and 35 motors of a XYZ Thingamajig GT and has finally decided he wants to race it.

I was actually trying to think of what cars would be out of parts. I think Jeff and I arguably have two of the rarest cars in IT and neither one of us have any real huge problems with parts - no I can't get some stuff but I can still get all the important stuff that is meaningful for racing. Certainly if I can still get windshields etc. for a JH one can do the same for most other stuff listed?

Ron

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning Tow Beast
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS - Zero

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited March 21, 2005).]

[gran racing]

[quote]

I do not agree with this theory. I understand the need to let some cars die out, but why narrow the options if we don't have to. I personally like having many different cars in a field. For someone new coming in, having many options is nice even if the car isn't the car to have in that class.

I do also feel that some parts should be allowed, but this makes managing the process a bit tougher.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[JeffYoung]

Two comments then I have to start collecting parts for my oddball....

1. Kirk, you crack me up. So my car is a TRSchiavo?

2. On delisting. You know how Ron Earp made his car choice? Me and him and 2 other guys were driving back from a karting event at VIR last summer. He saw a GCR laying in the back of my truck, opened it up, and started going down the lists of cars. The words "Jensen-Healey" and "Lotus 907" captivated him....and off to IT Oddball land he went.

Point is that a fair number of IT racers are IT racing because their odd car is classed. I've seen enough ITS GTV6s and Alfa Milanos and TR8s and ITB Opel GTs and ITA AMC Spirits to know that the following is true:

Ratio of Oddball Race Cars to "Normal Race Cars"

EXCEEDS

Ratio of Oddball Street Cars Still Running to "Normal" Street Cars still running.

[ShelbyRacer]

(taps plays in the distance)

Wow, a topic that we've reached almost total consensus on...

I agree to let them go...

Remember-
"I'd rather die in my sleep, like my grandfather, not screaming and flailing like his passengers..."

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[Ron Earp]

I'm still trying to find out what cars we are talking about for which we can't get racing parts?

De-listing them makes no sense, that is, just to de-list it because no one is racing one TODAY. They might be in a year or two.

Ron

[ShelbyRacer]

Ron et al-

I was not agreeing to the delisting thing, but merely to the idea of making it so that when parts are no longer available, the car goes away naturally.

I personally have some other views on de-listing and age limits, but that was not Andy's original question.

Now on whether it's "best for the membership" is another story, but I think it's best for the class. If we are going to mandate OEM wire harnesses and the like, it would be a nigghtmare to confirm availability for every part for every car. You'd be surprised how many parts go "unavailable" when you open that door...

Oh darn, my calipers aren't available any more, but the larger ones from the same model that's 2 years newer are... I guess I have to change calipers, and therefore rotors, and etc...

Crap. I've been here too long. I almost said, "and then before you know it, we've let preparation creep up..." Damn.

I've been assimilated. Resistance is futile.


------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer:

I've been assimilated. Resistance is futile.




In my best "Mr. Burns" Voice...Exxxxxxcellent.

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

BTW: Thanks for all your hard 'rules writing' work on the PDE stuff.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

[This message has been edited by Andy Bettencourt (edited March 21, 2005).]

[racer_tim]

I've always liked something like a 25 year rule for IT. They have the same for SS so why not make it a natural "transition" ?

SS = 10 years (curretnly in place)
IT = 25 years
Prod = ?
GT = ?

Just an opinion



------------------
Tim Linerud
San Francisco Region SCCA
#95 GP Wabbit
http://linerud.myvnc.com/racing/index.html

racer_tim @ yahoo dot com

[Ron Earp]

25 year limit to make a lot of competitive IT cars go away? Is that the intent?

I don't think this would be a good idea since a lot of these people race because of their love for their choosen car. Count me in that group. Many others don't like front drive cars are not going to start racing front wheel drive cars - count in amongst them as well. There is a huge gap through the 80s and 90s where a good IT rear wheel drive car is hard to find. If this is the way it is going I'd vote for a similar move to split IT into more groups, into ITF - IT for front drive cars.

Z's are 25+ years old, should we kill them? Plenty of parts around for them, kill them why, because they are 25+ years old? And still in the hunt for podium finishes? Sorry, I cannot support a rule like that and I think you'll find many that won't support it either.

You might like racing your newer Rabbit but not everyone shares your love.

Ron

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning Tow Beast
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS - Zero

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited March 21, 2005).]

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited March 21, 2005).]

[racer_tim]

New Rabbit? Ron, it's 21 years old. Maybe 25 years isn't the right number. All I'm saying, that if you can't get the factory OEM parts, then it might be a good time to bump it up a class, so you can remove more of the EOM parts, and replace them with aftermarket/upgraded parts. I'm not saying that IT car's aren't "real" race cars, but we all know that IT = "Invisible Technology"

This way, you would have a transition plan. Just look at the Neon's. Very popular SSC and SSB cars, but how many are running in IT?

Just 1 example of a a bunch of cars with cages that now have to become daily drivers.




------------------
Tim Linerud
San Francisco Region SCCA
#95 GP Wabbit
http://linerud.myvnc.com/racing/index.html

racer_tim @ yahoo dot com

[racer_tim]

This got me thinkng, and Ron's right, there aren't many newer cars getting classified.

Just looked through the 2005 ITCS, and without any of the FasTrack additions, here are the # of cars listed for 1999 and 2000 models in IT

ITS, 62 cars classified, 5 models from 1999
Acura Integra GS-R
BMW 323i
Honda Civic Si
Mazda Miata
Mercury Cougar

ITA, 83 cars classified, 4 models from 1999 and 1 model from 2000
Acura Intrega
BMW 318ti
Chrysler Neon, both SOHC and DOHC

and the ONLY 2000 car listed is a Dodge Stratus

ITB, of 90 cars classified, none from 99-00
ITC, of 72 cars classified, none from 99-00

This looks more like a car classification issue than an age issue.

I do like your ITF idea. Just let it rain



------------------
Tim Linerud
San Francisco Region SCCA
#95 GP Wabbit
http://linerud.myvnc.com/racing/index.html

racer_tim @ yahoo dot com

[Ron Earp]

As I read it you suggested a rule to bump it for age regardless of parts. If I mis-understood then forgive me. Z cars are approching 35 years old but I'm willing to wager parts will be around for them indefinitely due to numbers built and popularity.

I'm not against Rabbits, front wheel drives, or new cars. It is just there aren't many good ITS RWD choices out there throughout the 80s except water cooled Porsches and 300zxs. IMHO of course.

In the 90s there are a few - 240sxs, BMW 325s, but that is about it for rear drivers. Obviously I'm considering ITS but that is what I want to race.

There are lots of cars I've wondered why they have not been classed: Tarrus SHO (a front driver at that), 300z, early Porsche 928s, etc. Sooner or later we're going to have to face the fact that 200hp stock does not make a world beater in IT and class these cars. Hell, what happens in 5 more years when all these high hp pocket rockets out now are ready for IT? Keep writing responses to keep them unclassified that say "Too much performance potential?"

Ain't gonna keep the class alive. New cars need to be classed in IT and if they have too much performance for ITS then open a new class up.

Ron

------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning Tow Beast
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS - Zero

[This message has been edited by rlearp (edited March 21, 2005).]

[ddewhurst]

***Prod = ?***

Tim, don't be a chicken $hit. Put a number in place of the ? mark. The boys on the other site that lurk here will love you. http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

Have Fun http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/wink.gif
David

[lateapex911]

With the power of the net today, cars that were "impossible to find parts for" 5 or even 10 years ago are going strong today, thanks to Ebay, etc.

If your car is out of parts these days, it's REALLY over!

....let it slip quietly into prod....

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

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by racer_tim:
This way, you would have a transition plan. Just look at the Neon's. Very popular SSC and SSB cars, but how many are running in IT?


Actually, that's an issue of a car being grossly mis-classed. Now that they are in the right place (ITA), you'll be seeing a lot of them. They might not be big in some places, but I'm sure the CENDiv guys (or at least the ones from Michigan and a few other places) can tell you that Spec Neon was starting to take off. I do think that SN will dwindle now that ITA offers a real nice alternative.

Tim is right though, as I also feel that a transition plan needs to be in place, along with a philosophy that supports it.

And everything that has a beginning must have an end. The "natural causes" method that Andy put forth seems to be the intelligent choice.


------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
In my best "Mr. Burns" Voice...Exxxxxxcellent.

http://ITForum.ImprovedTouring.com/smile.gif

BTW: Thanks for all your hard 'rules writing' work on the PDE stuff.

AB



Thank you... I'm sure you noticed, it was more a rules "massage" than a rewrite.

In order to not hijack your thread with another topic, can you email me? I had a question or two for you...

mattgreen(at)msquaredracing(dot)com




------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."

[dickita15]

while this thread got a concenus that we did not want the itac going out and specifying alternate parts, delisting is a whole nuther kettle of fish. I see no reason to proactively purge old cars for the good the the class.

by the way I was the first in this thread to equate dieing with going to prod. that was meant to be tounge and cheek. I used my smiley face darn it.
dick

[Ron Earp]

I do like your ITF idea. Just let it rain.


I bet it won't be as much fun for you if it was split up FWD/RWD and you didn't have a bunch of rear wheel drivers to run off the track! :-)



------------------
Ron Earp
NC Region
Ford Lightning Tow Beast
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
1/2 a 260Z ITS - Zero

[racer_tim]

Ron, or having some SSC Acura take you out on the first corner.

http://66.160.139.36/Rose-Cup-Start.avi

And this was in the DRY.

That was my last race due to additional employment problems.



------------------
Tim Linerud
San Francisco Region SCCA
#95 GP Wabbit
http://linerud.myvnc.com/racing/index.html

racer_tim @ yahoo dot com

[xr4racer]

Ron, water cooled Porsches and 300z's? You better tell the 10 or so 86-90 ITS RX-7's that show at Mid Ohio that they do not make a good ITS car.

[Ron Earp]

Sorry, I was going by the IMHO. I know about the second gen RX7s, fantastic cars, but not what I personally wished to race or own. So, in fairness I should count them but you still have to admit, pickings are slim for good S cars in the dark years.

Ron

[Chuck Davis]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt:
We have recently received a couple letters asking for some specific allowances due to the availablility of OEM parts. I ask you this:

Andy,

Death is emanate for all human beings and so it is for most race cars. Old cars that don't die on there own need to go to a place called "vintage racing". Those guys have an endless supply of parts which I think come from purgatory. I think thre's a need to set an age limit on cars running in all classes.

Chuck Davis


When a car becomes so old (or rare) that the OEM (even Mazda) doesn't support things like brakes, windshields, etc - and there are no aftermarket OEM equivilant parts available, should we............

1. Allow the car to die a slow death, relying on drivers to retire their cars because they can't field legal versions? Does this encourage cheating? Does this promote loss of membership to other clubs who will cater to these types of drivers?

2. Allow alternate parts from other, newer models...or even alternate materials for things like glass, etc.

My immediate thoughts are to let these cars die. It becomes a NIGHTMARE to manage this type of process, as well as having to take drivers at their word on things that 'can't be found' anymore. Not even mentioning how we police each other in grid...

But what is BEST for the membership as a whole?

AB

[apr67]

I think the general plan to let them die is a good overview.

But, I think keeping an option open, isn't bad either.

Hypothetically, If 20% of the ITC cars were WomBat's, and the original WomBat ball joint was no longer available, but the WomBat GT ball joint was available, would you rather lose 20% of a class, or make an allowance for that ball joint?

In life we like to have a single solution for a problem, but that isn't always doable. Sometimes we have to have complex answers.

[Knestis]

That rule would have to allow alternate balljoints for all IT cars, or it would create potential nightmares. I'm already amazed that the allowance for different parts on some spec lines hasn't created greater issues.

K