ITR, When???

[Z3_GoCar]

So I've got my car comming, and it's a Z3 2.8l. I can run DE's and BMW club with it, but I want to build it so that I can run IT when a class opens up. So I'd just like to know what's going on in this department. Also, would it be helpful if I filled out a request to classify form? Want to class the Boxter and S-2K also? How about the 3 series 328's? Audi A-6? BMW classes the Z3 2.8 at 2730 lbs. if that gives any idea of a resonable weight. So, maybe outline the process that needs to be performed and any place I might be able to help. Thanks,

James

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Nov 14 2005, 10:08 PM
So, maybe outline the process that needs to be performed and any place I might be able to help. Thanks,

James

65357


James,

The Rules Making process is outlined in the "Garage" section of the SCCA.com site...

As for making a class above ITS... Here's what I think it would take...

You guys who would commit to such a class need to write letters to the CRB in the form of classification requests for the cars in question. I'd personally do a seperate request for each car, which may be necessary anyhow since you need to fill out a VTS sheet for each one...

With that done, send them to the CRB, via the SCCA tech department with the appropriate request and data...

I think if we could show enough interest, we could get this done. We've already had to turn cars down because they could not be made to fit into ITS, so those would be back on the table as well and would be considered along with these requests...

Get started now! That would give us until next August to work out the details and see if we could put a package together that would fly...

Not sure about the weight, but when we've played around with it, the E36 would come in in such a class at around 2700lbs... 300Z perhaps at 3050lbs, etc... It would all depend on the range of cars and what would seem like a reasonable target wt/pwr ratio for the class as a whole...

Write and we'll see what we can do... I don't think I'm alone in thinking that this would be a wonderful idea and would WORK!

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

Please don't take this the wrong way, but this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that should be part of the overall Club Racing Strategic Plan. This should be a pro-active step. The writing is on the wall, make a place for these cars to run. You guys now have the tools in place to make a list of 20-30 cars that should fit nicely, with target weights.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 14 2005, 11:38 PM
Darin,

Please don't take this the wrong way, but this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that should be part of the overall Club Racing Strategic Plan. This should be a pro-active step.
65375


Bill... who said it WASN'T part of an plan?

But... we (the ITAC), don't make recomendations to please ourselves... We have to be able to show a need. It's not exactly a small job...

Nothing garners support for something like this better than numbers...

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 14 2005, 04:38 PM
Darin,

Please don't take this the wrong way, but this is EXACTLY the kind of thing that should be part of the overall Club Racing Strategic Plan. This should be a pro-active step. The writing is on the wall, make a place for these cars to run. You guys now have the tools in place to make a list of 20-30 cars that should fit nicely, with target weights.

65375


I think Darin and others on the ITAC would agree with you. However (and this is important) there HAS to be support among the members if you get my drift.

What if they had a race and nobody came?........

[Geo]

Looks like Darin got a response in while I was typing. Interesting that the response was essentially the same, eh? :)

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 14 2005, 03:50 PM
James,

The Rules Making process is outlined in the "Garage" section of the SCCA.com site...

As for making a class above ITS... Here's what I think it would take...

You guys who would commit to such a class need to write letters to the CRB in the form of classification requests for the cars in question. I'd personally do a seperate request for each car, which may be necessary anyhow since you need to fill out a VTS sheet for each one...


65366


Darin,

I've found the VTS sheet under-club racing/Vehicles and will fill one out for the Z3 2.8l as best as I can gather all the pertinant information.


Originally posted by Banzai240+Nov 14 2005, 03:50 PM-->
With that done, send them to the CRB, via the SCCA tech department with the appropriate request and data...

I think if we could show enough interest, we could get this done. We've already had to turn cars down because they could not be made to fit into ITS, so those would be back on the table as well and would be considered along with these requests...

Get started now! That would give us until next August to work out the details and see if we could put a package together that would fly...

65366
[/b]

Not this season but next, may be the best time frame for me also as I'll be able to work on my driving experience

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Nov 14 2005, 03:50 PM
Not sure about the weight, but when we&#39;ve played around with it, the E36 would come in in such a class at around 2700lbs... 300Z perhaps at 3050lbs, etc... It would all depend on the range of cars and what would seem like a reasonable target wt/pwr ratio for the class as a whole...

Write and we&#39;ll see what we can do... I don&#39;t think I&#39;m alone in thinking that this would be a wonderful idea and would WORK!

65366


As mentioned before the Z3 is in fact an E-36 with the older E-30 trailing arm suspension. In the BMW club the 328 and Z3 are both listed in the JP class, but the 328 is listed at 2995lbs and the Z3 2.8 is 2730lbs so 265lbs based on the chassis differences with the same basic engine.

James

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Nov 15 2005, 02:17 AM
... but the 328 is listed at 2995lbs and the Z3 2.8 is 2730lbs so 265lbs based on the chassis differences with the same basic engine.

James

65387



So, which one is considered the better classified with the BMW club??

[Bill Miller]

Guys,

How many requests to classify cars that are deemed &#39;too fast&#39; have there been? Also, haviing the cars classed in SS and T should be more than enough interest and support. I&#39;m a firm believer, that when a car gets classed in SS, that the preliminary IT specs should be crafted as well. All the VTS info is there, should be pretty easy to plug it into the process. Couple that w/ the fact that most of the T3/SSB cars are outside the ITS performance envelope, and it would seem fairly obvious that ITR (or whatever the hell you want to call it) is needed. You want member supoort? Put a simple question out in the next FasTrack. Ask if people want an IT class above ITS. Have the center of the performance envelope defined, and throw out a couple of example cars.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 14 2005, 09:32 PM
Guys,

How many requests to classify cars that are deemed &#39;too fast&#39; have there been?
65391


IIRC, maybe 3 letters for 2 cars. Integra Type R just recently and a couple over the past few years for the NA 300ZX (222hp V6).

You think if we build it, they will come? Will they come from OUTSIDE of IT (SS?) or will we canibalize the current crop?

I think we design it over 2006 for a 2007 implementation.

AB

[lateapex911]

I agree, Bill, but.....

I would love to get a real handle on the "pent up demand".

A lot od SS and Touring guys won&#39;t race regionals, due to the stigma attached to it, or the quality of drivers or some other perceived reason, so just having the cars available doesn&#39;t mean they will actually show up.

Of course, NOT having a place for the car to go at the end of it&#39;s "National" life assures they will NOT race IT. I know that if I were thinking of going SS or Touring, having a place the car could race in the club racing structure after SS or Touring would ease my worries.

I spoke with a strong SS guy (and a very strong IT driver) at the ARRCs, and he told me he is selling his Honda SS car THIS year...and isn&#39;t sure what he will do...getting out while the getting is good, so to speak.

I hate when changes like that force people out. I know, racing is expensive, there are no guarantees, bla bla bla,....

So, agreed, there needs to be a cohesive big picture plan....I think a uber class is needed, but I worry about thin fields.

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Nov 14 2005, 07:28 PM
So, which one is considered the better classified with the BMW club??

65390


I know of only one other person currently running a Z3 in the wild West. Tom Bell runs his 2.8 in the JStock category and is seriously considering switching to a sedan. The main reason being the shorter wheel base and semi trailing arms make it less stable at high speeds, demanding more driving attention. The weight&#39;s the same irreguardless of prep level, so a JStock weighs the same as a JPrepared. Which is better classified, is hard to say, most people take the easy route and run a sedan that&#39;s less expensive to purchase initally. You probably know the drill. Starts as your street car that can be tracked and slowly turns into a dedicated track only car, and finally into a full on race car. I&#39;m off to fill in my VTS :023:

James

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 15 2005, 02:32 AM
Ask if people want an IT class above ITS.
65391


Bill... I JUST did!

Please... If ever the ITAC deserved anything from you guys after the past couple of years, it&#39;d be TRUST! At least as far as knowing the process and what needs to be done to GET things DONE!

This upper class (ITU, if I get my way... ;) ) has already been discussed with the CRB, a couple of times actually... so it&#39;s not a new idea... We already have a basic roster in place, but none of that is good enough to guage the actual interest in it...

Once we have a package together, THEN we can put it out for comment, but, as has been pointed out previously, members can&#39;t comment if they don&#39;t know what they are commenting on...

Anything like this that we decide to tackle WILL be put out for member comment, but to get things rolling, anyone who is interested should write us NOW! Get ahead of the system!

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

How about doing it in a more &#39;official&#39; manner? People have complained in the past about things not being put out &#39;for member input&#39;. Others have commented that this board is not really representative of the IT community.

Andy,

A couple of others that jump to mind are the E36 328 and the E30 M3, and I&#39;m sure there are others. Other cars that would probably fit are the Acura RSX-S, the new Civic Si, and probably just about anything that&#39;s classed in T3 (yep, get ready for those forced induction cars and the AWD cars).

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 15 2005, 03:55 AM
Darin,

How about doing it in a more &#39;official&#39; manner? People have complained in the past about things not being put out &#39;for member input&#39;. Others have commented that this board is not really representative of the IT community.

65415


Perhaps some show of interest could help grease the wheels in making this happen....

[racer_tim]

James, you can run your car in it&#39;s current state in San Francisco Region&#39;s ITE class. This is a regional only class, that as long as the car meets the IT safety requirements, it&#39;s a go.

From our Supps,

1. Any tub chassis production vehicle running with DOT Tires.

2. Preparation rules: International Sedans may modify the floor pan/rocker panel sections.

3. Cars must meet the Showroom Stock or IT safety requirements of the 2005 GCR.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 15 2005, 08:41 AM
Perhaps some show of interest could help grease the wheels in making this happen....

65417


George,

IIRC, people have written letters in the past, requesting an addtional class. I don&#39;t have time right now to pour through the old FasTracks, but I&#39;m pretty sure they&#39;re in there. What else are you looking for?

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 15 2005, 10:07 AM
George,

IIRC, people have written letters in the past, requesting an addtional class. I don&#39;t have time right now to pour through the old FasTracks, but I&#39;m pretty sure they&#39;re in there. What else are you looking for?

65433


You are correct Bill. There were maybe 2 or 3 letters. I&#39;m sure it would take more apparent interest than that to get the CRB to float it in Fastrack, especially when we don&#39;t even know if it will increase participation or simply rob participation from other areas.

Now, you could correct say that if the members want it, then it shouldn&#39;t matter. However, the wants of the membership are certainly influenced strongly by letters received. Two to three letters doesn&#39;t show much interest. Now a dozen or more might start and sustain a conversation.

As for just putting it into Fastrack and seeing what happens, space in Fastrack is at a major premium right now as it is.

I&#39;m not trying to be negative Bill, or even contrarian. I&#39;m just trying to help suggest what may help and why.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 15 2005, 10:43 AM
You are correct Bill. There were maybe 2 or 3 letters. I&#39;m sure it would take more apparent interest than that to get the CRB to float it in Fastrack, especially when we don&#39;t even know if it will increase participation or simply rob participation from other areas.

Now, you could correct say that if the members want it, then it shouldn&#39;t matter. However, the wants of the membership are certainly influenced strongly by letters received. Two to three letters doesn&#39;t show much interest. Now a dozen or more might start and sustain a conversation.

As for just putting it into Fastrack and seeing what happens, space in Fastrack is at a major premium right now as it is.

I&#39;m not trying to be negative Bill, or even contrarian. I&#39;m just trying to help suggest what may help and why.

65437

Rather than guess why not try to convince one of the Sports car writers to do an article on the need for new classes with a survey link to the Sports car website or the SCCA.com website? This will reach the most people and get the most direct answer.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 15 2005, 10:55 AM
A couple of others that jump to mind are the E36 328 and the E30 M3, and I&#39;m sure there are others. Other cars that would probably fit are the Acura RSX-S, the new Civic Si, and probably just about anything that&#39;s classed in T3 (yep, get ready for those forced induction cars and the AWD cars).

65415


And some others:

94-95 Ford Mustang V8 (stock 215 hp, pushrod motor)
96-98 Ford Mustang V8 (stock 215hp, SOHC motor)
Nissan 300Z
Toyota Supra non-turbo,
99+ Ford Mustang V6 (stock 190 hp)
BMW E36 M3 95-99
BMW M Coupes

I&#39;ll build one of the above for the class, promise. Before someone cries foul on the V8 Mustangs as already being in AS and race one there if you like - remember, AS allows for a lot of prep (read the rules) that we don&#39;t have in IT and Mustangs are the heaviest cars on the list above.

R

R

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 15 2005, 11:07 AM
Rather than guess why not try to convince one of the Sports car writers to do an article on the need for new classes with a survey link to the Sports car website or the SCCA.com website? This will reach the most people and get the most direct answer.

65438


That would be good if the powers that be are sufficiently convinced it&#39;s warranted. I think convincing the ITAC wouldn&#39;t be so hard. I would say what you and Bill are thinking is more along the first step. Right now we&#39;re trying to crawl if you will.

It&#39;s very hard to get movement without letters. They are the first step. One or two are not enough to start anything moving. If you remember the push for allowing up to 15" wheels, it was a slow process that took a lot of prodding for folks to write letters to even get it off the dime. The BoD and CRB are not interested in fixing things that aren&#39;t broken or creating classes where there is no apparent interest. This club is member driven and as Kirk has mentioned many times, action is geared around letters. A lack of letters is received as a lack of interest.

If letters come in, the issue will get some discussion and as a result of the discussion, some of the things you and Bill have mentioned will certainly come up. But it requires at least some action on the part of the members to get it rolling.

[Banzai240]

Here was an initial list that we put together just off the top of our heads... Keep in mind that some of these might actually be in ITS already, but they are pretty heavy in that class, and "could" be made to fit in a higher class at a lesser, more reasonable weight... (diclaimer... THIS WAS JUST BRAINSTORMING.... it is in no way complete or otherwise to be considered anything other than just brainstorming... ;) )


Make Model Version Stock HP Displ (cc)

Acura RSX Type-S 2002 1988
Acura Integra 97-99 190 1797
Alfa Romeo Milano 3.0L (87-89) 183 2959
BMW 325i/is (2 & 4door) (92-95) 189 2494
BMW M Coupe 98-99 3152
BMW M3 95-99 3001
BMW 328ci/i 1999 2793
BMW Z3 2.8L 97-98 2793
Ford Contour V-6 (non-SVT) -1995 170 2544
Ford Mustang V6 1999+ 190
Honda Prelude SH & non-SH (97-98) 195 2157
Honda Prelude V-Tech 190
Honda S2000 2000 1997
Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L 16V 185 2299
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 86-88
Nissan Maxima 89-94 175 2960
Nissan Maxima 95-99 (A32B) 2960
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 225 2960
Porsche Boxter S 2000 3179
Porsche 968 1995 2990
Porsche 944S (4V) (87-88) 188 2479
Toyota Supra 1998 2997
Toyota Supra 95-97 2997
Toyota Supra (86 1/2-87) 200 2954

[evanwebb]

The possibility of a V8 Mustang IT car? You guys will lure me back from Production racing ;-)

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by evanwebb@Nov 15 2005, 07:21 PM
The possibility of a V8 Mustang IT car? You guys will lure me back from Production racing ;-)

65453


Yeah, but everytime I put one out there on a list it gets taken off! :angry:

There is no reason at all the 82-83 Mustang 5.0L cars should not be in ITS right now with its 157 hp stock rating, POS Autolite 2bbl carb, and cam that has tiny little bumps on it that some call lobes. The brakes are complete crap and you won&#39;t get as much power out of that lump as you will from a built ITS 325. You&#39;ll get a lot of torque, no doubt, but you won&#39;t run away with the field.

The 94-95 5.0L motor at a correct weight would fit well in ITR, as would the 4.6L SOHC motor. Neither are have any more potential than the 300z/Supra naturally aspirated engines, would would also fit well in ITR.

R

[JeffYoung]

Is the CRB&#39;s address on teh SCCA website?

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Nov 15 2005, 05:53 PM
Is the CRB&#39;s address on teh SCCA website?

65462


Jeff,

I believe it is [email protected]

Darin,

Given that list, the 2.7 and 3.0 Porsche 911s should be on that list as well. IIRC, an &#39;81 911 SC 3.0 made 190 or 195 hp stock.

How cool would that be?? IT 911s racing agains IT V8 Mustangs and Camaros??

Is it remotely possible that would could make this new class look like TransAm of 20-25 years ago??? :o :023: :happy204: :smilie_pokal:

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 15 2005, 11:37 PM


Given that list, the 2.7 and 3.0 Porsche 911s should be on that list as well. IIRC, an &#39;81 911 SC 3.0 made 190 or 195 hp stock.

How cool would that be?? IT 911s racing agains IT V8 Mustangs and Camaros??

Is it remotely possible that would could make this new class look like TransAm of 20-25 years ago??? :o :023: :happy204: :smilie_pokal:

65470


Absolutely!!!! That would be fantastic and I think highly plausible. ITR would be a really neat class with "real" sports cars competing in race trim on the courses. I for one would be all over it. I&#39;ll definitely do my part to write a letter.

Ron

[JLawton]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 15 2005, 01:56 PM
I&#39;ll build one of the above for the class, promise.
65447


Ron, Ron, Ron..........You need to do something about your ADD. :119:

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by JLawton@Nov 16 2005, 01:08 AM
Ron, Ron, Ron..........You need to do something about your ADD. :119:

65474


My ADD is a well known characteristic! But, you can&#39;t limit yourself to just one race car - how would you fill in all the free evenings with work on cars? One car just doesn&#39;t consume enough time, you need enough cars so that ALL your free evenings are spent underneath one! At least, that is what I&#39;ve been taught.

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 15 2005, 07:37 PM
How cool would that be?? IT 911s racing agains IT V8 Mustangs and Camaros??

65470


so right. I brought a guy interested in IT to a couple of races. he has done some drag racing and a little stock car. no interest in jap crap but when he talked to AS drivers he found the rule very costly. really wanted to build a pony car to a rule set more like IT

[Knestis]

I&#39;m having trouble making all of the Mustang (et al.) math work out on my cocktail napkin. What happens when someone builds one of those 157-hp cars to the IT rules and discovers that, in terms of lap times, it is a stinker?

The current AS rules have their roots in regional "ITGT" classes, that were created as a place for retired SSGT cars to go. Entrants wanted more performance than IT-level preparation would give them and created their own set of too-expensive rules.

I still think that there is room for a class above the current ITS envelope. Ron and a few others will no doubt disagree but I just don&#39;t think that the future of "ITR" is in the hands of 20-year-old Fox-bodies. 5-year-old ones, sure. 10-year-olds maybe...

It&#39;s also going to be inevitable that, if this class becomes a reality, the questions of AWD and turbos must addressed in a proactive way. Look at the list of cars in T3 and T2. It wo0ld be wise to figure out in advance how blowers and four-wheel-drive will - or will not - be integrated into this concept, since it&#39;s going to take about 3 minutes before someone makes perfermance/cost/market position comparisons between cars that are "in," and those that are excluded based on a 20-year-old rule, left over from the day when these technologies were really exclusive.

It is too easy to think in a micro way about how cool it would be to have (whatever) race in an IT class. Yes, I think an IT M3 would be freakin&#39; awesome, and there&#39;s no doubt that someone would build one if it were possible within the rules, but reasonable arguments that the simple addition of more classes is a negative thing demand consideration of cost and benefit well in advance of simply making new rules.

K

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 16 2005, 02:25 PM
I&#39;m having trouble making all of the Mustang (et al.) math work out on my cocktail napkin. What happens when someone builds one of those 157-hp cars to the IT rules and discovers that, in terms of lap times, it is a stinker?

I still think that there is room for a class above the current ITS envelope. Ron and a few others will no doubt disagree but I just don&#39;t think that the future of "ITR" is in the hands of 20-year-old Fox-bodies. 5-year-old ones, sure. 10-year-olds maybe...
65511


K, I completely agree there is room for a class above ITS and I don&#39;t think ITR is for 20 year old fox bodies. I think the 20 year old 157hp Stang should be in S but there is a stigma, an unfounded one, over classing that thing in S.

R should be for late SN95 Stangs as mentioned above such as the 94-95 5.0L, the 96-98 4.6L, the 99 V6, etc. plus all the other wonderful cars you and other have brought up. As well as AWD. I think forced induction is generally frowned upon by the SCCA since it is hard to police, but AWD, I think R is the place for it to be.

R

[Bill Miller]

Kirk raises a good point about the AWD and Forced Induction issues. As of now (&#39;06 season) we&#39;ve got almost an entire cateogory of production cars, that will really have no place to race when they&#39;re too old to run in their current class. You&#39;ve got T1-T3, where pretty much every car there is outside the performance envelope for ITS. There may be a few of the lower-end T3 cars that _might_ fit, depending on how much lead has to get thrown at them.

I also agree that the class above ITS shouldn&#39;t be driven by 20 y/o cars. BUT, it sure would be nice if those cars fit in the new class as well. The comment about TransAm racing in the 80&#39;s was due to a flashback to a TransAm race in &#39;81 or &#39;82, IIRC, at Watkins Glen. Was just a flat out cool race. Damn, now I want to go pull out all of those old race programs from the 80s. IMSA GTU/GTO, TransAM, Firehawk, etc. Damn that was some cool racing!!!

Kirk,

Given the current classification process, I would like to believe that an old 157hp 5.0 Mustang could be spec&#39;d correctly to fit in ITS, w/o being a class killer or a stinker.

Dick,

I&#39;ve seen people talk about this before, how expensive AS is. Point of fact is, AS is probably about the same, or cheaper than ITS, certainly at the pointy end of the field. You can pretty much get just about any AS car for under $25k, and have some reasonable choices for under $15k. That&#39;s pretty much at, or below where ITS cars are selling at. There&#39;s an ITS E36 in the Nov. SportsCar for $19k, and I thought I saw one listed on this site for $24k. We&#39;ve seen a few others that were well North of $30k.

That being said, I think it might, and I say might, be cheaper to build a 5-liter V8 pony car to IT rules, and run at the front.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 16 2005, 03:38 PM

That being said, I think it might, and I say might, be cheaper to build a 5-liter V8 pony car to IT rules, and run at the front.

65521


The problem is, front of what, four of your closest buddies? AS doesn&#39;t seem to draw any big fields where I am. Few here and there, but nothing like IT.

R

[Hotshoe]

Hey,

... I hope that the SCCA can come up with a place in Improved Touring for the older Touring cars (T1,T2,T3) to go. I&#39;m building a 98 BMW Z3 2.8 with hopes that it will have a good class to compete in when it is to old for T2.
... If not I guess I will race it in NASA or the BMW club.

... Rick Thompson

[Joe Harlan]

Rick, I have to tell ya that after the 10 years of T2 racing there won&#39;t be much left of the chassis. Watch the T2 runoffs race. It look like a ITS race 10 years ago.

[RSTPerformance]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 14 2005, 10:32 PM
Guys,
Also, having the cars classed in SS and T should be more than enough interest and support. I&#39;m a firm believer, that when a car gets classed in SS, that the preliminary IT specs should be crafted as well. All the VTS info is there, should be pretty easy to plug it into the process.


I just don’t get why this is so complicated??

Darin, enlighten myself and Bill on how this is so hard?

Why can’t we just take a car and classify it in SS (Or Touring whatever we decide to do!) and also classify it in IT, Prod, and GT. How is this difficult when you have all the stats in front of you!

We should be proactive on giving members a future and the cars a future. Being Reactive to member input is a poor solution and not a leadership skill our club should consider. SCCA is better than that! We should be Proactive and support our current members, there cars and future members that we try to get!

We will never increase membership if we don’t start planning for our future. Half the Touring/SS cars will have no place to race in 5 yrs. What is our club planning to do for those members so we don’t loose them?


Stephen Blethen

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 16 2005, 12:39 PM
Rick, I have to tell ya that after the 10 years of T2 racing there won&#39;t be much left of the chassis. Watch the T2 runoffs race. It look like a ITS race 10 years ago.

65531


Joe,

I think he said he is just building the car, so he&#39;s got 2 or 3 years (at the most) to race the car in T2.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 16 2005, 04:49 PM
Joe,

I think he said he is just building the car, so he&#39;s got 2 or 3 years (at the most) to race the car in T2.

65613


Watch this years race.....2 to 3 years may not be enough time......lol I am not against a class above there are a few of my favorites that fit there. Having done the race against Turbo car deal this year I would still suggest that IT-Turbo is the way to go. Once you apply the IT rules to an STI or and EVO the numbers will be out of sight. Or we are gonna have to learn to use single inlet restrictors in a proper fashion.

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 16 2005, 09:24 AM
Hey,

... I hope that the SCCA can come up with a place in Improved Touring for the older Touring cars (T1,T2,T3) to go. I&#39;m building a 98 BMW Z3 2.8 with hopes that it will have a good class to compete in when it is to old for T2.
... If not I guess I will race it in NASA or the BMW club.

... Rick Thompson

65529


Exactly why I started this thread. Sure as a non-member, I could take a wait and see approach; however, I&#39;d rather take a more proactive approach. For now I&#39;d do DE&#39;s and BMW JP class events, but I&#39;d like to matriculate to IT in the year after or two. Having looked at the rules for T2 for the Z3, I&#39;d have to run Ebach springs, no coil overs, and I&#39;d have to put the whole interior back in to SS standards after my car&#39;s already built for World Challenge.

James

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Nov 16 2005, 09:55 PM
Exactly why I started this thread. Sure as a non-member, I could take a wait and see approach; however, I&#39;d rather take a more proactive approach. For now I&#39;d do DE&#39;s and BMW JP class events, but I&#39;d like to matriculate to IT in the year after or two. Having looked at the rules for T2 for the Z3, I&#39;d have to run Ebach springs, no coil overs, and I&#39;d have to put the whole interior back in to SS standards after my car&#39;s already built for World Challenge.

James

65638


Well there is already a group trying to create a home for former world challenge cars and wherever it ends up it is unlikely to be IT. Think production or something relatively different altogether. The list of allowed WC mods far exceeds IT prep such as brakes, modified suspension pickup points, modified cotrol arms and the list goes on. So the car is really not eligible to be run in either SS/Touring or IT trim if it was built to the limits of WC.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 16 2005, 08:38 AM
I&#39;ve seen people talk about this before, how expensive AS is. Point of fact is, AS is probably about the same, or cheaper than ITS, certainly at the pointy end of the field. You can pretty much get just about any AS car for under $25k, and have some reasonable choices for under $15k. That&#39;s pretty much at, or below where ITS cars are selling at. There&#39;s an ITS E36 in the Nov. SportsCar for $19k, and I thought I saw one listed on this site for $24k. We&#39;ve seen a few others that were well North of $30k.

65521


You know Bill, this is an extremely good point. Perhaps all the talk about IT being cheaper is just a red herring.

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Nov 16 2005, 08:05 PM
Well there is already a group trying to create a home for former world challenge cars and wherever it ends up it is unlikely to be IT. Think production or something relatively different altogether. The list of allowed WC mods far exceeds IT prep such as brakes, modified suspension pickup points, modified cotrol arms and the list goes on. So the car is really not eligible to be run in either SS/Touring or IT trim if it was built to the limits of WC.

65639


But other than the full cage, removal of the drivers window glass and interior gutting, this chassis is stock with stock spring/dampers even. So it&#39;s headed for JP/IT at this point depending on the engine prep.

James

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Geo@Nov 16 2005, 11:11 PM
You know Bill, this is an extremely good point. Perhaps all the talk about IT being cheaper is just a red herring.

65640


George,

I&#39;ve been saying that for a while now. The pointy end of ITS hasn&#39;t been &#39;cheap&#39; for a looonnnggg time. And ITA is not that far behind (what&#39;s a Serra Acura go for?). Heck, I remember a guy selling an ITC Scirocco a year or two ago, asking $12,500 for it! :119:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Funny story. Was at a party tonight with a kid who wants to build a 300ZX over next year while he gets liscenced for 2007...

...he just may have a place to race then!

Let me ask these questions:

Roll cage min thickness?
8" wheels max?

AB

[lateapex911]

I&#39;ve been thinking about this too....

8" wheels would be keeping with not only the speed of the class, but the equipment that comes with the typical car that would fit the class.

But..what happens in few years when we need to move a car to ITS because it&#39;s just a "tweener"?

I know, the process is too good, and the ITAC to sharp for that to happen! Pat pat...

Still, planning for the unexpected makes the unexpected...expected.

I would look to Touring and Prod to align cage specs, as that&#39;s where some of the cars would presumably come from, and possibly go to in time.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 20 2005, 09:52 PM
I&#39;ve been thinking about this too....

8" wheels would be keeping with not only the speed of the class, but the equipment that comes with the typical car that would fit the class.

But..what happens in few years when we need to move a car to ITS because it&#39;s just a "tweener"?

I know, the process is too good, and the ITAC to sharp for that to happen! Pat pat...

Still, planning for the unexpected makes the unexpected...expected.

I would look to Touring and Prod to align cage specs, as that&#39;s where some of the cars would presumably come from, and possibly go to in time.

66113

Stay away from the prod cage stuff. The touring cage rules are perfect for what you are looking. You guys really should talk to Bob Dowie about SIR&#39;s before you look to hard at a class above. You may find it interesting how easy it would be to fit and use.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 21 2005, 01:36 AM
Stay away from the prod cage stuff. The touring cage rules are perfect for what you are looking. You guys really should talk to Bob Dowie about SIR&#39;s before you look to hard at a class above. You may find it interesting how easy it would be to fit and use.

66115

LOL

Bob? Bob who?

Kidding..kidding..Bob is the Comp Board liason who is on the ITAC con calls... I&#39;ve been to Bobs shop and yes, the SIR topic has been discussed repeatedly..........

and for some strange reason, I bet it comes up on tomorrows con call as well...

;)

On the cage, I guess I was inferring that whatever the cage rules end up being, they should segue nicely between the categories. I would hate to see a conflicting design prevent movement of a car from one category into another. I prefer to allow the car to "morph" over it&#39;s racing lifetime.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 20 2005, 11:52 PM

But..what happens in few years when we need to move a car to ITS because it&#39;s just a "tweener"?


66113


The same thing that happens when a car goes from A to B, they buy new wheels! I think the cost is far outweighed by the opportunity to compete.

Besides, these cars we are talking about for IT® are too much for ITS, I don&#39;t see many, if any tweeners.

AB

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 21 2005, 04:52 AM
I&#39;ve been thinking about this too....

8" wheels would be keeping with not only the speed of the class, but the equipment that comes with the typical car that would fit the class.


66113


Jake and Andy,

... I agree on the eight inch wheels. My 98 BMW Z3 came stock with that width rim. Plus I can still run the wheels that are allowed in T2.

... Do you guys think that this has a good chance of happening? ( ITR ) And is there anything I can do to help?

...Rick

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 21 2005, 10:19 AM
Jake and Andy,

... I agree on the eight inch wheels. My 98 BMW Z3 came stock with that width rim. Plus I can still run the wheels that are allowed in T2.

... Do you guys think that this has a good chance of happening? ( ITR ) And is there anything I can do to help?

...Rick

66124


I think that it would be a great thing to develop and tweak over the 2006 season for proposed implamentation in 2007.

Joe raises a question: Would you rather a seperate class with it&#39;s own performance envenlope (which may be harder to get done) or some specific cars with SIR technology?

AB

[1stGenBoy]

[ I bet it comes up on tomorrows con call as well...


Jake,
I think you really mean the 28th not the 21st


Bob Clark

[Joe Harlan]

Andy Just for laughs run the numbers on a 90 to 96 300zx and consider that the car will like not be able to get ligher than 3000lbs. These are fun cars to drive but they needed 2 turbos to make them exciting to drive.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 21 2005, 10:42 AM
The same thing that happens when a car goes from A to B, they buy new wheels! I think the cost is far outweighed by the opportunity to compete.

Besides, these cars we are talking about for IT® are too much for ITS, I don&#39;t see many, if any tweeners.

AB

66121


I agree Andy. The other thing to do, is give people the option. If a car gets moved from ITA to ITB, don&#39;t actually &#39;move&#39; it, just create an additional classification in ITB. That gives people the option of staying in ITA or moving to ITB. Also, see my earlier comment, in another thread, about no future adjustments on the ITA car.

As far as choking down the proposed ITR cars, w/ a SIR, so that they fit in ITS, I don&#39;t think you&#39;ll see a whole lot of interest there. After all, who wants to race a car that is totally choked down, and will be slower than their street version? If you&#39;re going to class them, they need their own space, above ITS.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 21 2005, 09:13 AM
I agree Andy. The other thing to do, is give people the option. If a car gets moved from ITA to ITB, don&#39;t actually &#39;move&#39; it, just create an additional classification in ITB. That gives people the option of staying in ITA or moving to ITB. Also, see my earlier comment, in another thread, about no future adjustments on the ITA car.

As far as choking down the proposed ITR cars, w/ a SIR, so that they fit in ITS, I don&#39;t think you&#39;ll see a whole lot of interest there. After all, who wants to race a car that is totally choked down, and will be slower than their street version? If you&#39;re going to class them, they need their own space, above ITS.

66135


Bill, don&#39;t get what I am saying wrong. I think we have a shot at 1 class above ITS not 2. The problem I see is the need will be for cars 300HP and above. (look at the T2 model) a lot of the cars we are talking about here are 230 to 300. at weights 2700 to 3300 lbs. If you could limit then even only a tiny amount but know they were limited. themn rather than be a back marker they could fit into an existing class. I also am not say a flat plate restrictor(which junks out the way a car drives) I am saying use a properly engineered inlet restrictor.

[Bill Miller]

Joe,

I hear what you&#39;re saying. Honetly, based on some of the cars that have been proposed for ITR, some kind of power limiter will be needed. Otherwise, you&#39;re going to create another version of what ITS is today.

I honestly don&#39;t know what you do w/ the T2 cars. Even w/ ITR, I don&#39;t think they fit. What&#39;s a good target wt/hp ratio for ITR? Are folks going to want to race T2 cars in IT, and turn slower lap times than they did in T2?

What&#39;s stock HP on an RX8? 350Z? Z4 3.0? &#39;03 Mach I? E36 M3? &#39;04 CTSv?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 21 2005, 12:24 PM
Joe,

I hear what you&#39;re saying. Honetly, based on some of the cars that have been proposed for ITR, some kind of power limiter will be needed. Otherwise, you&#39;re going to create another version of what ITS is today.

I honestly don&#39;t know what you do w/ the T2 cars. Even w/ ITR, I don&#39;t think they fit. What&#39;s a good target wt/hp ratio for ITR? Are folks going to want to race T2 cars in IT, and turn slower lap times than they did in T2?

What&#39;s stock HP on an RX8? 350Z? Z4 3.0? &#39;03 Mach I? E36 M3? &#39;04 CTSv?

66148


Stock RX-8 is 238hp. Betting that it could make 300 in IT trim. This thing would rock at 2850...

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 21 2005, 10:24 AM
Joe,

I hear what you&#39;re saying. Honetly, based on some of the cars that have been proposed for ITR, some kind of power limiter will be needed. Otherwise, you&#39;re going to create another version of what ITS is today.

I honestly don&#39;t know what you do w/ the T2 cars. Even w/ ITR, I don&#39;t think they fit. What&#39;s a good target wt/hp ratio for ITR? Are folks going to want to race T2 cars in IT, and turn slower lap times than they did in T2?

What&#39;s stock HP on an RX8? 350Z? Z4 3.0? &#39;03 Mach I? E36 M3? &#39;04 CTSv?

66148

Right now the track record at PIR is 3.5 seconds quicker than the ITS record. Now also consider that the ITS records are still held by Z&#39;s so if a really prepped and driven E36 was introduced I think the ITS record woould get within a second and a half. Remember T2 still has carpets ect. and our Z&#39;s in T2 can&#39;t get to minimum. So the Z in T2 is 3370 at the finish of a race. 3370 and 300hp do the math.

[Bill Miller]

Well Joe, looks like you&#39;re at a 11.2 wt/hp ratio, and Andy is at a 9.5 wt/hp ratio (w/ his RX8 example). What&#39;s the current ITS target wt/hp ratio? If you look at an E36 325 @ 2850#, and assume 205 whp, that&#39;s a 13.9 wt/hp ratio. And IIRC, that&#39;s well better than anything else in ITS. I thought the target was closer to 14.5.

What&#39;s a good target for ITS? 13.0? 12.0? 11.0? <10.0?

/edit/ I know the E36 numbers are whp and the RX8/350Z numbers are chp, so those ratios will be a bit higher, depending on the level of driveline loss.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 21 2005, 10:58 AM
Well Joe, looks like you&#39;re at a 11.2 wt/hp ratio, and Andy is at a 9.5 wt/hp ratio (w/ his RX8 example). What&#39;s the current ITS target wt/hp ratio? If you look at an E36 325 @ 2850#, and assume 205 whp, that&#39;s a 13.9 wt/hp ratio. And IIRC, that&#39;s well better than anything else in ITS. I thought the target was closer to 14.5.

What&#39;s a good target for ITS? 13.0? 12.0? 11.0? <10.0?

/edit/ I know the E36 numbers are whp and the RX8/350Z numbers are chp, so those ratios will be a bit higher, depending on the level of driveline loss.

66158

Oh bill I agree. I am saying the T2 cars need a place(maybe I think they are way expensive and most will be junked out after the 10 year limit. Second its the 300zx I am speaking of. I don&#39;t have the specs but it does not get close to a 350z to be shoved up to IT(*) whatever.

[Knestis]

I get a little twitchy when we get close to different specs for different cars, or making a given make/model eligible in more than one class. If you care about my health, you&#39;ll stop doing those things. :)

It strikes me, if it&#39;s worth anything at all, that we are essentially talking about Grand Am Cup cars here.

http://www.grandamerican.com/CONTENT/Docs/...emode=bookmarks (http://www.grandamerican.com/CONTENT/Docs/PDF/Rules/Grand-Am/2006/GAC_Rules.pdf#pagemode=bookmarks)

K

[Bill Miller]

Actually Kirk, those look like T2/T3 cars to me! :023:

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 21 2005, 08:28 PM
Actually Kirk, those look like T2/T3 cars to me! :023:

66195

Bill,

...I like your answer. Along with Andy and Jake, a glass that is half full will be looked apon more favorably. Please count me in when the need for support is sent out. Now is the time to start this, like Andy said. This can happen by 2007 with the right attitude, and in good health....

[lateapex911]

Well, if you guys really want it, send a request to classify the car you desire to build. Be prepared for the "Doesn&#39;t fit the bla bla baa " response...but also send in a seperate letter requesting a class above ITS to run the car you want to build in, and as a home for T3 etc, cars.

I think the idea is basically sound, and is what will be needed down the road, but IT is still not the CRBs favorite child, and I imagine they are not inclined to add classes friviously ...err, I mean IT classes friviously, LOL.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 22 2005, 03:24 AM
I think the idea is basically sound, and is what will be needed down the road, but IT is still not the CRBs favorite child, and I imagine they are not inclined to add classes friviously ...err, I mean IT classes friviously, LOL.

66243



Why because IT takes away from "serious" racing that we should be doing? Like racing 35 year old Formula Vs? Or Vintage Formula Fords? Or T classes where we have to have basically a new car to rag out? Or our Spridget with 14:1 compression that needs a rebuild every third race?

CRB needs to pull head from sand and look around at a race - IT generates lots of cash although not as much as it used to, I think, due to SM. I suppose SM is a board favorite now huh?

R

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 22 2005, 01:37 PM

CRB needs to pull head from sand and look around at a race - IT generates lots of cash although not as much as it used to, I think, due to SM. I suppose SM is a board favorite now huh?

R

66273


Ron,

.... I think the old saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" comes to mind. So maybe if we make some noise we will get some help. Spec Miata got a lot of help because of the amount of participation, so when they made some noise it was big.

.... Even though there isn&#39;t a lot of cars already built that will run ITR I know that if the class is implemented the cars will come. I know a lot of guys that run ITS that will jump up just because they prefer to run the faster of the Improved Touring classes.

.... Rick

[seckerich]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 22 2005, 08:22 AM
Ron,

.... I think the old saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" comes to mind. So maybe if we make some noise we will get some help. Spec Miata got a lot of help because of the amount of participation, so when they made some noise it was big.

.... Even though there isn&#39;t a lot of cars already built that will run ITR I know that if the class is implemented the cars will come. I know a lot of guys that run ITS that will jump up just because they prefer to run the faster of the Improved Touring classes.

.... Rick

66276

I see an RX8 in the future!!! Go ITR. :happy204:

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 22 2005, 07:22 AM
Ron,

.... I think the old saying "the squeaky wheel gets the grease" comes to mind.
.... Rick

66276




This is SCCA.....I am not sure this rule works.....I think every part of the club squeeks a lot.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think BECAUSE this class is Regional Only (RO), it will see less resistance from the PTB. Seriously, they know that the T2/T3 cars need a place to go and I think we are right at the front end of this curve. The cars are just coming out of their 5-year shell and we may just be ready!

AB

[Knestis]

...which reminds me that one strategy toward the ITR end would be to draft a set of rules and get regions to adopt them individually. The trick would then be having the ITAC strike while the iron was hot - between some initial excitement and growth, and the inevitable local diddling with rules that would make NER ITR different than NCR ITR.

Hmm.

K

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 22 2005, 09:05 PM
... The trick would then be having the ITAC strike while the iron was hot - between some initial excitement and growth, and the inevitable local diddling with rules that would make NER ITR different than NCR ITR.

66354

Hmmmm Is right....... I like the way you think How about a "Push to Pass" button. LOL

NCR Member

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 22 2005, 09:43 PM
Hmmmm Is right....... I like the way you think How about a "Push to Pass" button. LOL

NCR Member

66361


I&#39;ve written my letter urging adoption of any ITR proposals. Later this week I&#39;m going to write an ITR proposal. I don&#39;t have any experience doing it, but I&#39;ll make a spreadsheet with suggested cars, weights, stock hp, and what I think you can get out of a car. With some of the cars I have good experience and think I can predict well (Mustangs, 968, M3) others (such as a 80-81 Porsche 928, 80s 911, Supra), I&#39;ve not a lot of experience and will be shooting in the dark. But, one must try. Beats the hell out of sitting around here and debating if we should have an ITR or not, or if the board will pass it.

Ron

[JeffYoung]

Because we are masochists, Ron and I have a 1982 Porsche 928 five speed sitting in a barn waiting to be built for ITR.

This could be fun for 2007. Real fun. Like Kirk said, these are close to Grand Am Cup specs. It would be really neat to see the IT crowd put on shows in that type of car.

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 23 2005, 01:00 AM
Beats sitting around here and debating if we should have an ITR or not, or if the board will pass it.
Ron

66392


Ron,

... I&#39;m on your side, but remember, haste makes waste. I&#39;m thinking that if we use the forum to get members interested, get them involved, then the more people we will have to make a move towards making a new class.

... Taking into consideration what Andy, Jake, and Kirk have said. The more letters we can get the better. So please count me in. Just let me know what I can do to help.

... I see that Steve is ready to make the jump up from ITS. Sure would be fun to compete against him in the same class. (even though I have had a few "run ins" with him already ...lol ) And you and Jeff in a Porsche would be fun to compete against also. So it looks like we have three cars so far, without even asking for a show of hands.

... Ready ......That is what the R stands for and I am R

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 15 2005, 06:56 PM
I&#39;ll build one of the above for the class, promise.
65447


Like I said, make an ITR and you&#39;ll have at least one car under construction within hours of passing! :P A 928. I REALLY like pain and suffering. Jeff just likes suffering, but I like both. Since I won&#39;t build a ITS Lotus Esprit for my punishment this is the NEXT best thing, man, am I looking forward to it. Arbeit macht frei.

You are right Rick, too fast and we&#39;d be off track. But, if this comes on in 2007 there is a good amount of time to get it right. I can see Z3s, M Coupes, 928s, 911, Mustangs, Zs, Supras, M3s, and lots of, hate to use the term, but "real" performance cars racing on the track. It&#39;d be fantastic. S,A, and the rest would still exist I&#39;m sure.

R won&#39;t change me racing my JH in 06, or probably you racing the 7 and SM in 06 either, but the class would be very welcome in 07 I think.

Heck, I just looking forward to having a rookie year in 06 with my car. Which, if I am to do, I must get out in the garage and work on to have a shot! Motor extraction must occur tomorrow on the JH so I need to start preparing for that joyful task.

R

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 23 2005, 03:23 AM
Like I said, make an ITR and you&#39;ll have at least one car under construction within hours of passing! :P

66410


...And I am already working on mine. 98 BMW Z3 2.8 drop top. And Steve will chip in a Rotary Rocket RX8.

... Any others?

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 23 2005, 03:29 AM
...And I am already working on mine. 98 BMW Z3 2.8 drop top. And Steve will chip in a Rotary Rocket RX8.

66412


Damn! Rick&#39;s got the jump on everyone! Jeff, get out the horse and hitch her up - we got to pull the 928 out of the barn!!!!!

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 23 2005, 03:36 AM
Jeff, get out the horse and hitch her up - we got to pull the 928 out of the barn!!!!!

66416


... Now that is what I call enthusiasm .... just what every club needs. That is what we all need, to "hitch up". ..... . That&#39;s what I like about you Ron.

....Hope some of it rubs off on me

[lateapex911]

928???

What HP did that come with? (NOT the S4 version, LOL) What can it make all prepped up

RX-8??? Whoa ...not quite 5 yrs old yet....

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 23 2005, 04:42 AM
928???

What HP did that come with? (NOT the S4 version, LOL) What can it make all prepped up

RX-8??? Whoa ...not quite 5 yrs old yet....

66424



Jake, calm down, I know it sounds heinous but it was only 218 stock. And it was heavy. I read R&T back in the 80s too and thought it the end all be all, but, 25 years layer, well, it ain&#39;t much. Prepped with a good exhaust (it came with shortie tubular headers) I think it&#39;d be in the neighborhood of 250-260 fwhp for a well done one, still below, (IMHO) a naturally aspirated Supra or 300z. I&#39;ll let you know with dyno plots when we get them!

The S4s is a lot better, but, given what has happened in performance cars in the last 5-10 years isn&#39;t anything to write home about anymore. My truck will smoke one in the quarter, so, it ain&#39;t 1992 anymore.

[lateapex911]

I know it was fairly anemic from the factory, but the eighties were just coming out of the dark ages emissions wise, so I am curious about what the motor can make .."uncorked". Shoud be easy to find out..we can always check with the PCA guys.

They were heavy! I was at Callaway in the Indy car days, and they had a twin turbo version...it smoked!

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 23 2005, 07:02 AM
I know it was fairly anemic from the factory, but the eighties were just coming out of the dark ages emissions wise, so I am curious about what the motor can make .."uncorked". Shoud be easy to find out..we can always check with the PCA guys.

They were heavy! I was at Callaway in the Indy car days, and they had a twin turbo version...it smoked!

66437


Our local alignment man knows 928 engines very well and builds them, hence that helps in our selection! He recently had an S4s engine on the stand they were putting a positive displacement blower on and it ended up turning 618hp at the wheels on a fairly modest amount of boost.

Thing about the cars is they look cool. Requirement one for a race car.

Ron

[tnord]

list of cars that could work:

Acura
ITR
RSX
TSX (in a couple years)

Audi
A4 (first gen)

BMW
3 series (E36 & E46 variants)
Z3 roadster and coupe

Chevrolet:
possibly some V6 camaro variant

Dodge
the SRT4 might work here, but might be too quick

Ford
maybe some v6 mustangs

Honda
S2000 would be a great car here

Lexus
IS300
old GS300&#39;s???

Mazda
6
Mazdaspeed protege and miata are possibilities

Mitsubishi
second gen eclipse

Nissan
NA Z32 300ZX
350Z is probably too quick

Porsche
all sorts of 911&#39;s
would some 944&#39;s work here?

Toyota
NA Supra
turbo 2nd gen MR2
MRS??

there are plenty of cars that could work here, although i do understand the club&#39;s hesitance to try and regulate boosted cars at the regional level. either way, it&#39;s a class that can only grow in terms of potential cars that fit.

[Jay_Taylor]

wouldn&#39;t a early to mid 80s mustang 5.0 fit well..
stock i think they were around 205-215 HP and 3200lb and there suspension is not the greatest..
I have an 86 GT parked out side my house collecting dust,birds,rats ect, that i would build for a ITR car if I was allowed..

[Andy Bettencourt]

Mustangs scare me a little. The power potential of a V8 is a tough thing to nail down. Plus there were so many versions, deciding how to bunch them would be a real pain. Anyway, chew on this:

1979: 134hp - 302ci
1980: 119hp - debored 302 (255ci)
1981: Same
1982: 157hp - 5.0HO intro
1983: 175hp - Holly 4bbl on 5.0
1984: 165hp - new TBI
1985: 210hp - hydraulic lifters
1986: 210hp
1987: 225hp - EFI
1988: SAME
1989: SAME
1990: SAME
1991: SAME
1992: SAME
1993: 200hp - change in SAE rating method, Cobra 235hp

Body style change
1994: 225hp / 245hp for Cobra
1995: SAME
1996: 225hp / 305hp for Cobra (modular 4.6)

Shall I continue? Holy shizzle!

AB

[Jay_Taylor]

The big limiting factor with the mustang is the suspension sucks:)
but honestly the heads are what keep the HP level corked..and in IT you can mess around with the heads to much, at least not enough to make a diffrence on the 5.0 motor.

but all and all this looks like a real intresting mix of cars.
Oh the SVO mustang would also be a fun addition for this class


BTW also if your going to add turbo cars into the mix the WRX would be a good add for this class as there are a tone of them out there
plus the older Toyota All Trac..whine not made in great numbers..still a fun car:)

[JLawton]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 25 2005, 01:04 PM
1987: 225hp - EFI
1988: SAME
1989: SAME
1990: SAME
1991: SAME
1992: SAME

66644


The late 80&#39;s Mustangs were known to have inflated HP numbers from Ford. I think they would be a great car for IT. Very cheap to buy (and very beat on.....).

As Jay said, the suspension sucks, along with the brakes. Hmmmm, not a good combination for a high horsepower car :119:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by JLawton@Nov 25 2005, 02:50 PM
The late 80&#39;s Mustangs were known to have inflated HP numbers from Ford. I think they would be a great car for IT. Very cheap to buy (and very beat on.....).

As Jay said, the suspension sucks, along with the brakes. Hmmmm, not a good combination for a high horsepower car :119:

66652


Or a racecar.

[tnord]

ITAC -- whuddya think?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by tnord@Nov 25 2005, 05:17 PM
ITAC -- whuddya think?

66664


About what, specifically? ITR or a certain car?

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 25 2005, 08:10 PM
Or a racecar.

66654


Fellows,

I&#39;ve fooled with Mustangs and Ford V8s all of my adult life, starting at 15 years old. These cars below in ITR for sure - if a 300z and naturally aspirated Supra does then certainly the old 5L mill does. The E7 head castings on the motors til 95 suck and it&#39;ll hold down power. So will the intake which has long folded runners for torque peak at about 3000 RPM. I&#39;ll bet some Benjamins that a well prepped 87-95 5L motor won&#39;t make as much power as a well done Z motor or Supra, all of which people accept.

The SN95 body that came in in 1994 brought with it rear discs, but it also bought more weight. The 84-94 models are essentially the same bar engine changes and have rear drums as well as a poor suspension.

If 911s, Supras, Zs, S2000 and lots of others work in ITR then so will this car. And, it&#39;ll attract a good number of racers because of what it is. And no, before someone says it "Race it in AS" there are a lot of reasons not too:

*AS cars are expensive to build. I&#39;ve seen people here write they are not expensive, but they have not built one nor have they looked at the rules for AS. "But you can buy an AS sedan for $20k" Yeah, you can always buy race cars for PENNIES on the dollar.

*AS does not have a lot of competition in some areas and many people, like me, prefer more competition to run/race/learn from.

They&#39;ll fit fine.

R

[tnord]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 25 2005, 05:19 PM
About what, specifically? ITR or a certain car?

66665



ITR feasability mainly. what cars would work, what needs to be done to make it happen, if there&#39;s anything the average guy can do to help, or if it&#39;ll just happen whenever the BOD/CRB/ITAC decides they want it.

IT needs some rejuvination. the last round of shuffling cars around and changing rules were absolutely fantastic in my opinion. adding ITR for newer cars only helps ensure the success and longevity of the IT idea.

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by tnord@Nov 25 2005, 10:57 PM
ITR feasability mainly. what cars would work, what needs to be done to make it happen, if there&#39;s anything the average guy can do to help, or if it&#39;ll just happen whenever the BOD/CRB/ITAC decides they want it.

IT needs some rejuvination. the last round of shuffling cars around and changing rules were absolutely fantastic in my opinion. adding ITR for newer cars only helps ensure the success and longevity of the IT idea.

66672


This is a club that is really mostly member run....but the members who run it have to do so in framework that&#39;s been in place a long time.

They need to hear from you. Your comments about the "new" direction IT is heading in are great and much appreciated by the ITAC members, I am sure. (Well I do at least, LOL).

I think you can do two things.

1- Write a ltter to the CRB telling them you like the recent direction that IT has taken and you support the ITACs moves. If you want suggest that you support the current proposal before them, which is more of the same, that would be even better.

2- Write a letter requesting the addition of a car, or cars that you would like to race that don&#39;t fit the current structure, and as a secind part of the letter, request an additional class to house this level of car.

It won&#39;t happen overnight guys, and it surely won&#39;t happen if it isn&#39;t needed. This club should not be about adding classes without due diligence.

Never be afraid to write a letter voicing an opinion. Your buddies in charge need to read them.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 25 2005, 06:04 PM
Mustangs scare me a little. The power potential of a V8 is a tough thing to nail down. Plus there were so many versions, deciding how to bunch them would be a real pain. Anyway, chew on
66644



Andy, there were not really that many versions and they should not scare you. Chew on this:

Factory Five spec series uses 5.0L ford V8s, exhaust is free, no balancing, 0.030" overbore, compression to within 0.20 of stock, all OEM valves, pistons, intake, stock cam, NO porting, stock tranny, stock brakes, pads are free, etc. Spec weight is 2450lbs with driver.

These cars recently raced at VIR and the best of the best turned a 2:11. Chet Whittel in the Orange ITS BMW has turned a 2:13 at VIR.

So, same engine and suspension and drivetrain, although engine in slightly less (cmopression 0.5 bump, port matching) than ITR trim, but probably at 900lbs less than an ITR Mustang.

You don&#39;t need to be afraid. I can supply incredibly detailed specs of every year if needed, as can a number of websites and other Mustang enthusiasts.

Basically if one sticks with the "normal" Mustangs and ignores the Cobra/SVO models then you have an 87-93 5.0L at 225hp with rear drums, and a 94-95 5.0L at 215hp with rear discs but higher weight. 86 5.0L is an odd man out and would not be used due to air metering systems that sucked, 1985 5.0L is a gem since it was carbed and the first roller cam motor, but rare (I had a notch back one of these). 83-84 would not be as competitive as other years but could be classed if wanted. So, you have:

85 5.0L Fox
87-93 5.0L Fox
94-95 5.0L SN95

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ron,

Excellent info. Would you combine any of those on a spec line in order to make building easy? Geez, they could almost all go on the same line...that would allow nice, easy engine swaps as well as give everyone disc brakes...

225hp stock...would make for a good 2850lb racecar...racing against a 3000lb E36 M3 and a 3050lb RX-8...would they come out?

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by tnord@Nov 25 2005, 09:57 PM
ITR feasability mainly. what cars would work, what needs to be done to make it happen, if there&#39;s anything the average guy can do to help, or if it&#39;ll just happen whenever the BOD/CRB/ITAC decides they want it.

IT needs some rejuvination. the last round of shuffling cars around and changing rules were absolutely fantastic in my opinion. adding ITR for newer cars only helps ensure the success and longevity of the IT idea.

66672


That&#39;s kinda what this thread is all about, isn&#39;t it?

I don&#39;t think IT needs rejuvination as a whole. S and A are solid. B is decent. C is all but dead in most areas with pockets of life.

A class above S is a great place for T2 and T3 cars coming out of SS. It could add to Regional car counts as there isn&#39;t much SS racing. I will float the idea to the CRB OFFICIALLY on Monday night, show them Darin&#39;s work to date - and get an approval to move forward with a proposal in 2006 for addition in 2007.

I think it can be done.

AB

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 26 2005, 03:27 PM
Ron,

Excellent info. Would you combine any of those on a spec line in order to make building easy? Geez, they could almost all go on the same line...that would allow nice, easy engine swaps as well as give everyone disc brakes...

225hp stock...would make for a good 2850lb racecar...racing against a 3000lb E36 M3 and a 3050lb RX-8...would they come out?

AB

66688


I think you&#39;d have their weight too light Andy. And I&#39;m not sure about having them all on one line.

97-93 are the lighter ones for sure, but I&#39;d class them in around 3000lbs to start with. That peak hp and peak torque doesn&#39;t win races, the area under the curve does, and a 5.0L V8 has a lot of torque area under the curve.

The 94-95 have a little less peak hp but still the same torque curve and disc brakes, give them a little bit more weight.

Both will respond equally well to the usual - headers, compression, exhaust tuning, elimination of mech fan, pullies, extra cooling, etc.. Both use Ford EEC-IV engine control that, with all the programmers for 5.0
L Ford&#39;s out there, will make Motec not incrediblly useful.

It&#39;d be better to class them heavy and give them a weight break a year from now or whenever. We know what happens when you class them too light and try to add weight - a la E36 325.

Yes, they would come out and race. Despite being committed to building a ITR car with Jeff I&#39;d put one of these together and so would two other racers I know that love Ford stuff. So, you&#39;d get three at least and a bet a lot more than just three since they are cheap and plentiful. There would be no comparison in price between, say, a naturally aspirated Supra build and a 1990 5.0L Mustang build.

I&#39;m a ford nut, yes, but I&#39;m objective and like anything. For the Mustangs I&#39;ve owned an 80 I6 (fast with work!), 85 5.0L, 86 SVO (really fast on lotsa boost), 90 5.0L LX, and 95 5.0L GT, as well as a 91 Mercury Cougar 5.0L with a blower. I&#39;ve messed with a few.

Ron

[Marcus Miller]

:023:

Yep!
This class fits nicely between the calsses where most of the pony cars are runing here on the west coast, CMC and American Iron. ( http://www.camaromustangchallenge.com & http://americanironracing.com/ )

Marcus


Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 26 2005, 08:27 AM
Ron,

Excellent info. Would you combine any of those on a spec line in order to make building easy? Geez, they could almost all go on the same line...that would allow nice, easy engine swaps as well as give everyone disc brakes...

225hp stock...would make for a good 2850lb racecar...racing against a 3000lb E36 M3 and a 3050lb RX-8...would they come out?

AB

66688

[Jay_Taylor]

Sounds like the Mustang 5.0 would be a good fit, also maybe the 305 camaro..just for some Ford Vs Chevy stuff.
BTW I think the 86 guys should be allowed to convert to later model injection..
just cause i got an 86 5.0 and would build it for this class:)

BTW how hard would it be to get Fi cars classed here and Fi AWD cars..
I think the Subaru and EVO might like to play..

[Andy Bettencourt]

Even if we assume a 30% gain in IT trim, they shouldn&#39;t weigh more than 2950. Remember, we don&#39;t want to create an overdog but we also want everything to work within the framework of the process...plus I want people to build them!

(When I talk about weight, I am using a totally hypothetical target power to weight ratio of 10.0/1 in order to figure out what could fit.)

AB

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Jay_Taylor@Nov 26 2005, 05:18 PM
Sounds like the Mustang 5.0 would be a good fit, also maybe the 305 camaro..just for some Ford Vs Chevy stuff.
BTW I think the 86 guys should be allowed to convert to later model injection..
just cause i got an 86 5.0 and would build it for this class:)

BTW how hard would it be to get Fi cars classed here and Fi AWD cars..
I think the Subaru and EVO might like to play..

66696

86s should be on the same spec line as 87-93, so, you could update. Will also be imporant for 88s that retained speed density too.

Definitely class the 305 Camaro, but the problem is (for the racer, not the rules) availability. Most all Firechickens and Camaros you saw on the street were 350 4 Autos, about 90% of the time. But, the 305 did a lot of duty as listed here:

http://www.thirdgen.org/newdesign/tech/techdb.shtml

Just not it huge numbers since GM dealers went to 350s Autos too much.

Subarus and EVOs are going to a problem in SCCA land due to turbos and no way to monitor what people do with them. Might be easier to get AWDs in R without turbos, then work on turbo cars for the future.

R

[tnord]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 26 2005, 10:30 AM
That&#39;s kinda what this thread is all about, isn&#39;t it?

I don&#39;t think IT needs rejuvination as a whole. S and A are solid. B is decent. C is all but dead in most areas with pockets of life.

A class above S is a great place for T2 and T3 cars coming out of SS. It could add to Regional car counts as there isn&#39;t much SS racing. I will float the idea to the CRB OFFICIALLY on Monday night, show them Darin&#39;s work to date - and get an approval to move forward with a proposal in 2006 for addition in 2007.

I think it can be done.

AB

66689


absolutely that&#39;s what this thread is about, i was just trying to keep the discussion moving forward, as i think the potential of the idea is too good to let die.

i agree that A and S are doing well (in large part to the changes over the last 2 years), and also agree that B and C are dying out in part due to the age of the cars. it&#39;s logical that at some point the same will happen to A, so in order to keep the whole idea of IT going strong a newer class needs to be implemented. i&#39;m sure you don&#39;t need me to tell you this though. :unsure:

thank you for all your efforts on the ITAC and SMAC, i think you&#39;re doing a fantastic job. please keep us informed on this issue. :023:

[charrbq]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 26 2005, 03:30 PM
That&#39;s kinda what this thread is all about, isn&#39;t it?

I don&#39;t think IT needs rejuvination as a whole. S and A are solid. B is decent. C is all but dead in most areas with pockets of life.

A class above S is a great place for T2 and T3 cars coming out of SS. It could add to Regional car counts as there isn&#39;t much SS racing. I will float the idea to the CRB OFFICIALLY on Monday night, show them Darin&#39;s work to date - and get an approval to move forward with a proposal in 2006 for addition in 2007.

I think it can be done.

AB

66689

Andy,
For someone in your position to say that a particular class is all but dead is an insult to those of us who build and enjoy racing in that class. Basing your comments on what you&#39;ve seen or heard only demonstrates your need to broaden you base of information.

[lateapex911]

I would say that Andy might have been a tad overstated, but, ITC is weaker in car counts, from what I can see, than I would like.

I don&#39;t consider it dead, but......I wish it were stronger.

(The ARRC race was great, and in the NE we have about 3-6 car ITC fields normally)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by charrbq@Nov 26 2005, 03:04 PM
Andy,
For someone in your position to say that a particular class is all but dead is an insult to those of us who build and enjoy racing in that class. Basing your comments on what you&#39;ve seen or heard only demonstrates your need to broaden you base of information.

66704


Chris,

I am glad you got defensive. It shows your passion. But not many people share that passion with you. Car counts in ITC are only a fraction of what they are in the rest of the category. The issue is that there isn&#39;t much we can do to revive it. Very few cars can be placed INTO ITC - and certainly none without earth-shattering controversy.

I am pretty sure that I could provide you with ITC subsciption numbers that, if it were a National class, would get it booted from National competition due to lack of entrants. Let&#39;s use your own Division for example. ITC had less than 1 car start per race this year (.46). You ran unopposed in 2 races and had only 1 challenger in 1 race. The other 8+ races saw no ITC cars. In 2004, 7 of the 9 races had no ITC cars and the other 2 had only 1. We do need to infuse something into ITC, but how? What do you suggest?

Don&#39;t take it as an insult - take it as a fact that something must be done soon...or, as some have suggested via letters, combine ITB and ITC with weight changes to make room for a class above ITS - IF the CRB doesn&#39;t want to add a class. Some even call ITB and ITC the VINTAGE classes of IT - ones for old, outdated cars where the structure never changes...heck, if the donor cars and parts supply would never dry up, I would call that a success! :023:

The ITAC has the same love for ITC as it does for any of the classes. We have just started getting letters requesting special allowances for cars based on lack of availability of stock replacement parts - and the issue only will continue to grow.

Help me understand where I can tap into this pool of information I am missing for ITC. You must find most of your ITC competition from outside your Region but I can&#39;t find it. Maybe we can all learn how to develop and foster the class in our own Regions. If we act locally, we can effect globally. I am willing to help, because the class needs it.

AB

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 26 2005, 08:27 AM
Ron,

Excellent info. Would you combine any of those on a spec line in order to make building easy? Geez, they could almost all go on the same line...that would allow nice, easy engine swaps as well as give everyone disc brakes...

225hp stock...would make for a good 2850lb racecar...racing against a 3000lb E36 M3 and a 3050lb RX-8...would they come out?

AB

66688


and 189hp stock would come in where? 2600-2700lbs?

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Nov 26 2005, 05:17 PM
and 189hp stock would come in where? 2600-2700lbs?

James

66710


No other info given - it would be more like 2400...

AB

[robits325is]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 26 2005, 09:34 PM
No other info given - it would be more like 2400...

AB

66713


Funny, the E-36 325i has 189hp and it was recommended at 2,700lbs in post #2

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by robits325is@Nov 26 2005, 11:22 PM
Funny, the E-36 325i has 189hp and it was recommended at 2,700lbs in post #2

66717

Boy, you guys just don&#39;t let up, huh? You should have that restrictor plate surgically removed from your...

I qualified my hypothetical in post 100. I&#39;ll let you look for it.

This is all pie in the sky. I didn&#39;t want to start comparing cars unless I had a constant performance target - so I made one up and published it. :bash_1_:

Fitting cars with over 50 stock hp difference is going to result in vastly different weights.

AB

[Jay_Taylor]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 26 2005, 09:31 PM

Fitting cars with over 50 stock hp difference is going to result in vastly different weights.

AB

66719


And some very interesting racing

[charrbq]

Andy,
First, you assume that my region/division is SOWDIV...it is not. I changed it to SEDIV last year for just the reason you stated...competition. SOWDIV has become a hotbead for SM. True, ITC isn&#39;t strong there, but it used to be. For that matter, IT used to be strong, but no longer is. The mass of entries go to SRF and SM. At one time, I lead a campaign among the stewards and the racing regions to give IT restricted regionals so that the entries and income for the regions would increase. The group has now fallen flat due to the march to SM. Next year will probably be the last for two day regionals as SM goes national.
For me, any race I go to, outside of a one-off, is a six hr tow...minimum. It&#39;s not just ITC, but all IT classes are stronger elsewhere than in SOWDIV. If I were to use your numbers to figure the strength of IT in general as national classes, based on one division&#39;s participation, then it wouldn&#39;t remain national. In fact, probably the only classes remaining national would be SM, SRF, and maybe a couple of others. Please don&#39;t use a portion of the information to validify the whole arguement.
Since you chose to use national racing as an example, the same had been said for HP a few years ago, but it now flurishes. GT5 was weakening due to costs, and it was merged with GT4 to strengthen it. Instead it put the final sword between the shoulder blades for the class. If you want to destroy ITC, as you have declared it dying, then combine it with ITB...that should do the job.
Please don&#39;t compare IT participation to national racing, that&#39;s not the entent of our leadership. And please don&#39;t declare a class as dying. I&#39;m sure if you raced in the class, you wouldn&#39;t have written what you did.

[dickita15]

Chris. no offence but you are a little defensive here. You must admit that participation in ITC is lower than than the other IT classes. One of the reasons IT racing is so cool is lots of competition.
I would think that compared to other IT classes one would have to admit that ITC has some problems. Do you have a suggested solution or do you think the lower car counts are not a problem.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Chris,

My point is that ITC numbers are low, very low across the country save for a few hot pockets. That is essentially what I wrote in my first post that got you upset.

I don&#39;t run Nationals - only Regionals - for now.

It seems you have been part of some sort of solution in the past and I congratulate you for it. As far as saying what I said about ITC, it wouldn&#39;t change if I ran ITC...but then again I wouldn&#39;t run in a class with nobody else to drive against. In SeDiv, you may have a lot of competition (couldn&#39;t find you on MYLAPS) in ITC, but that is the exception, not the rule.

Nobody is trying to kill ITC, it&#39;s a Nationwide observation that car counts are dangerously low.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

A Division that only puts on 9-11 Regional races? I don&#39;t think the issue is w/ ITC cars, but w/ cars in general. I&#39;ll have to go count, but how many Regionals are there in the NEDiv or the SEDiv? I think the MARRS series alone, had 10 races this years (granted, 2 were out of Region, and one was out of Division).

I&#39;ve said this before, and I&#39;ll say it again, the amount of ITC-eligible cars (that anyone would be interested in racing), that have been produced in the last 20 years, are few and far between. Look what you guys had to do to get a &#39;new&#39; car in ITC. You had to saddle a 2.0 8v x-flow FWD car w/ a boat-load of weight.

The entire performance envelope of available cars has gone up, on a pretty consistent basis. The fact that we&#39;re even discussing ITR pretty much comfirms that. Look at the candidate cars being suggested, most are <20 years old.

ITC may not have high participation numbers throughout the country, but there sure do seem to be quite a few up and down the East coast. Go look at the ARRC &#39;05 forum, people were speculating that the ITC race was going to be one of, if not the best race going. And while it may not have enough numbers, currently, to maintain National status (were it so classified), that&#39;s something that&#39;s not germane to the discussion at hand. To pull that out makes it look like you&#39;re reaching for justification of your comments.

I&#39;m not trying to pick a fight, but I agree w/ Chris, ITAC members shouldn&#39;t be talking about &#39;dying&#39; [sic] IT classes. If anything, they should be talking about how to revitalize them.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 27 2005, 09:02 AM
Andy,

I&#39;m not trying to pick a fight, but I agree w/ Chris, ITAC members shouldn&#39;t be talking about &#39;dying&#39; [sic] IT classes. If anything, they should be talking about how to revitalize them.

66736

Don&#39;t you have to identify something as dying before you feel the need to revitalize it? Seriously.

Bill,

What is with the big uproar about the FACT that ITC has dangerously low car counts? I would love to revitalize ITC - we have tried with the NB...I stated in my above post that we would welcome suggestions...I would also bet that there are more people interested in building someting for the new IT® than there are running ITC NOW. What do we do if the CRB doesn&#39;t want to add a whole new class?

I just don&#39;t see this as a personal attack, just as a thing we need to deal with. I haven&#39;t seen ANY suggestions from anyone. If the squeeky wheels don&#39;t thnk there is a problem, so be it...just make sure we are all looking at the whole playground, not just our own sandbox.

AB

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 27 2005, 02:15 PM
Don&#39;t you have to identify something as dying before you feel the need to revitalize it? Seriously.

Bill,

What is with the big uproar about the FACT that ITC has dangerously low car counts? I would love to revitalize ITC - we have tried with the NB

66737


At the risk of getting flamed, ITC is a dwindling class I think. I know a couple of ITC drivers in the SE and respect them, a couple post here. But I think they realize that interest in the C cars is dropping off even though C in the SE is one of the strongest C classes in the country.

I think that adding an ITR class will further reduce interest in C, but maybe that is the way it should be? New cars need to be classed to keep IT viable for the future. When that happens there will be a natural interest in the new classes. And, a "hand me down" affect will start when folks from S sell to move to R, A to S, B to A, etc. since the cars will be less expensive due to demand and preceived interest/value.

I would think that some C drivers will wish to move up to a faster class in some cases, although I&#39;m sure some folks will choose to remain where they are.

Just looks like to me that over time C could become so small that combining it with B would be a good move. Not sure if that is even viable since I have not looked at C/B cars and performance. But, if C really gets low on car counts with the introduction of an ITR class it wouldn&#39;t make sense to continue the series for one or two racers.

[JLawton]

I "think" that IT is very strong in the Northeast. That being said, ITC counts are very low compared to the others. I think combing B and C is a great idea. I&#39;m not sure you would be able to take off enough weight to get them in line with the ITB cars however. What else could be done to get them in line??

Of course, there is a ITC Honda up here that can kick the crap out of 3/4 of the ITB field with his car as is!! :023:

The point I was trying to make with the Mustangs is they are cheap to buy, large after market support and very attractive to the younger crowd (and to some of us older guys!!)

Yup, make ITBC and ITR. :lol:

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 26 2005, 03:30 PM
That&#39;s kinda what this thread is all about, isn&#39;t it?
A class above S is a great place for T2 and T3 cars coming out of SS. It could add to Regional car counts as there isn&#39;t much SS racing. I will float the idea to the CRB OFFICIALLY on Monday night, show them Darin&#39;s work to date - and get an approval to move forward with a proposal in 2006 for addition in 2007.

I think it can be done.

AB

66689


Andy,

...I for one applaud your efforts. I enjoy club racing and feel good about the future of Improved Touring. Without people like you and Jake challenging us and asking us, no one would be provoked to participate.

...Sometimes things get said that ruffle a few feathers. But we should always consider the source. You can ruffle my feathers anytime Andy because I know that trust goes further than any word took out of context. We have butted heads and You have proven yourself to me and a lot of others.

....Please .... Keep up the good work.... :happy204:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 27 2005, 02:12 PM
Andy,

...I for one applaud your efforts. I enjoy club racing and feel good about the future of Improved Touring. Without people like you and Jake challenging us and asking us, no one would be provoked to participate.

...Sometimes things get said that ruffle a few feathers. But we should always consider the source. You can ruffle my feathers anytime Andy because I know that trust goes further than any word took out of context. We have butted heads and You have proven yourself to me and a lot of others.

....Please .... Keep up the good work.... :happy204:

66750


Much appreciated Rick. Now I just need to endear myself to you enough to get the formula for that RED paint you have... :D

[charrbq]

After extensive research, it has been determined that the combination of ITB/ITC classes could be achieved favorably provided the current B cars ran 5" rims, 100lbs. ballast, and a mother-in-law in the rear seat.

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 27 2005, 07:58 PM
Much appreciated Rick. Now I just need to endear myself to you enough to get the formula for that RED paint you have... :D

66751


Andy,

... 1998 Dodge Viper Red. PPG: B/C-C/C

... I plan on using the same color on my 98 BMW Z3. It is already red but it has to much orange in it. The Viper red is the brightest true red color I have found. Porsche red is close but it still shows up orange under florescent light.

... Just as a joke.... IT....Red ? .... LOL

... Like I read a few posts back .... Cars classed by color.... Interesting :unsure:

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by charrbq@Nov 27 2005, 04:22 PM
After extensive research, it has been determined that the combination of ITB/ITC classes could be achieved favorably provided the current B cars ran 5" rims, 100lbs. ballast, and a mother-in-law in the rear seat.

66752


Well, at least the Volvos, Golfs and yes, even the Accord/Preludes have room for the standard all knowing Mother In Law in the back.

Seriously, the ITAC DOES discuss ITC, and IS aware that there are some strong but albeit small pockets of activity, but that they are not as common as we would like.

It is VERY hard to populate the class...cars are just hard to come across that share the combination needed to actually show up. We can class a Kia Rio, but how many will actually show up?? (And the Rio might be too fast, LOL)

ITR is to ITC like ITS was to ITD a few years ago. It isn&#39;t going to hasten the end of the class, but it does provide an option. I seriously doubt that there are guys who are in ITC, and will jump if ITR is offered...but will stay in C if it is not. They are too far apart. It&#39;s regional racing, and ITC will be on the list and will have races if there are cars that show up.

[Bill Miller]

I think that adding an ITR class will further reduce interest in C, but maybe that is the way it should be?

Ron,

I&#39;m not sure how you get from A to B (no pun intended) on that one. I honestly don&#39;t think it will have much impact, if any at all. I certainly don&#39;t see guys that are running ITC cars, going out and building ITR cars.

[Knestis]

I was going to build a New Beetle for ITC but since the class is slated for death, I&#39;m going to start searching for mid-80s Mustang donor cars. I&#39;ll be driving around the NC countryside if anyone needs me.

K

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 27 2005, 09:32 PM
Ron,

I&#39;m not sure how you get from A to B (no pun intended) on that one. I honestly don&#39;t think it will have much impact, if any at all. I certainly don&#39;t see guys that are running ITC cars, going out and building ITR cars.

66760


Maybe I mis-wrote. What I was trying to say was that IF R came in, then some S drivers would go to R. Some would sell their S cars for not too much cash, thus maybe enticing some A drivers to S. Then, some A drivers might sell their cars thus enticing some B drivers to A - and so forth.

What I was trying to get at, for net result, is that C drivers might move up further reducing the class count.

I agree, I don&#39;t think many C drivers will go to R that is for sure! BUT WAIT - look at Kirk&#39;s post - he&#39;s going R and will set a trend!!!! :lol: Kirk, I bet you can&#39;t drive one mile and NOT find a good 5.0L donor car - especially in the Gboro/Burlington region where I grew up - every redneck (self included) is issued one at the DMV at age 16.

R

[Joe Harlan]

I think any talk of kiling ITC is very premature. ITC could be revived with one good classification. ITC is the lowest cost entry level class is SCCA so lets just can the dying crap. As far as a class for V/8 camaros and mustangs go there is one, Its called AS which started out as a good idea and haded for to much money land in a big hurry. The problem with applying IT specs to V\8 stuff is that everything in the cars your talking about was marginally enough for a spirited street car let alone the stress of a racing car. So in short order the requests for big brakes ect. will be coming down the pipeline. Go easy on the ITR deal think it out completely and look to the past to see the mistakes that were made there so we don&#39;t make them all over again.

[lateapex911]

Good point Joe...

Let&#39;s start with a listing of those mistakes.

Now, I should research AS much more thoroughly, but....

The class is pretty fast, and the motors put out some HP. THe rules seem to have evolved into a " start with a chassis, but everything else is new and trick" state.

THe diffs are racing diffs, the brakes, the transmissions and on and on are racing items...

I assume, it has been allowed, all to be more "economical" as the stock parts just weren&#39;t up to the rigors of racing.

So, what mistakes were made, and how can the rules and classifications avoid them?

(Would it be prudent, for example, to set a cap on allowable HP? Such as the use of SIRs? If the cars can&#39;t acheive 150MPH, they won&#39;t have to brake from that speed, and the stock rotors and calipers should be adequate, and so on...)

Thoughts??

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 27 2005, 10:43 PM
I think any talk of kiling ITC is very premature. ITC could be revived with one good classification. ITC is the lowest cost entry level class is SCCA so lets just can the dying crap. As far as a class for V/8 camaros and mustangs go there is one, Its called AS which started out as a good idea and haded for to much money land in a big hurry. The problem with applying IT specs to V\8 stuff is that everything in the cars your talking about was marginally enough for a spirited street car let alone the stress of a racing car. So in short order the requests for big brakes ect. will be coming down the pipeline. Go easy on the ITR deal think it out completely and look to the past to see the mistakes that were made there so we don&#39;t make them all over again.

66766


I&#39;m not talking about C being dead, and won&#39;t, if folks will quit talking about AS. AS is not affordable like IT and the biggest problem I see with AS is there just isn&#39;t that much competition. IT is affordable as you like (S to C, R maybe) and has a lot of competition for the most part.

Besides, the cars fit into IT just fine based on power, weight, etc. just as the other proposed cars do. Their point of controversy is a V8, which most folks know is no big deal IF they know the V8s in question. If they don&#39;t and are used to racing 4 pots then they&#39;ll cry foul without understanding the motor and limitations.

I agree to go easy, class once, and class correctly, but they can be fit into the class. I am new so it would be nice to list some past mistakes (not putting you on the spot, just want to learn) so a newbie knows where some things went wrong.

Thanks,
Ron

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 27 2005, 04:11 PM
I&#39;m not talking about C being dead, and won&#39;t, if folks will quit talking about AS. AS is not affordable like IT and the biggest problem I see with AS is there just isn&#39;t that much competition. IT is affordable as you like (S to C, R maybe) and has a lot of competition for the most part.

Besides, the cars fit into IT just fine based on power, weight, etc. just as the other proposed cars do. Their point of controversy is a V8, which most folks know is no big deal IF they know the V8s in question. If they don&#39;t and are used to racing 4 pots then they&#39;ll cry foul without understanding the motor and limitations.

I agree to go easy, class once, and class correctly, but they can be fit into the class. I am new so it would be nice to list some past mistakes (not putting you on the spot, just want to learn) so a newbie knows where some things went wrong.

Thanks,
Ron

66770

Ron as a guy that has more 2nd and 3rd gen F-body experience than I care to talk about. I would suggest that you have not spent any time behind the wheel of a car that in IT trim will make around 300HP weight about 3200lbs and try to stop on 10 inch brakes. I kid you not. The first brake fire I ever had was an F-body on a track day. ITGT was the original place this idea first started then morphed into AS because of all of those other things. Sorry but I would have a hardtime getting all over those old v/8 cars with no brakes.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 27 2005, 11:24 PM
I would suggest that you have not spent any time behind the wheel of a car that in IT trim will make around 300HP weight about 3200lbs
66771


You are correct, at least not in a race car in race conditions. I&#39;ve been in plently more powerful at less weight but not racing them, and racing is a whole different ball game.

I disagree with your power figures, at least for the Ford 302 with E7 castings in IT trim unless there is some cheating going on. Don&#39;t know much about chevy motors to be honest, but I don&#39;t think the 350/5.7L F body should be classed so that would help some on too much power from the "pony" cars.

Weight may or may not be 3200 lbs, but as mentioned numerous times on this forum from the ITAC members - one data point should not be used to de-class, change, alter, or not class a car. Hate you had a brake fire, I&#39;ve had a car fire too and that ain&#39;t no fun!!!!!!

R

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 27 2005, 04:51 PM
You are correct, at least not in a race car in race conditions. I&#39;ve been in plently more powerful at less weight but not racing them, and racing is a whole different ball game.

I disagree with your power figures, at least for the Ford 302 with E7 castings in IT trim unless there is some cheating going on. Don&#39;t know much about chevy motors to be honest, but I don&#39;t think the 350/5.7L F body should be classed so that would help some on too much power from the "pony" cars.

Weight may or may not be 3200 lbs, but as mentioned numerous times on this forum from the ITAC members - one data point should not be used to de-class, change, alter, or not class a car. Hate you had a brake fire, I&#39;ve had a car fire too and that ain&#39;t no fun!!!!!!

R

66772

Ron, you can trust the fact that we could get to 300HP in IT trim and be legal. It would not even be a stretch as far as I am concerned. If we can get to 195HP out of an inline 6 at 2400 CCs I don&#39;t think 100 more out of double the displacement is gonna be even a challenge.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ok, let&#39;s not turn this into, "ITC is dead, how do we kill it off..."

ITC has little to no participation is most areas. It has pockets of popularity, especially in areas where rust has been kept at bay and the supply of donor cars and parts are at least feasible.

The ITAC DOES NOT want to kill off any class, lets get that straight. We have been, and continue to be, open to any cars or ideas that will get more drivers to ITC. Bring them on. I would write up a whole line of reasons why it is a shrinking class but there are people on this site that will take it personally. Ain&#39;t gonna do it.

The thread is about ITR. It is a good concept that I think will be popular and steal drivers from BMWCCA, PCA and NASA when it gets rolling. What cars are viable will be debated and proposed over 2006.

It&#39;s all good.

AB

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 27 2005, 11:58 PM
Ron, you can trust the fact that we could get to 300HP in IT trim and be legal. It would not even be a stretch as far as I am concerned. If we can get to 195HP out of an inline 6 at 2400 CCs I don&#39;t think 100 more out of double the displacement is gonna be even a challenge.

66773



I can agree to disagree. I&#39;m talking Ford 5.0L motors here using the stock intake manifolds, 50/55mm MAF, 50mm TB, E7TE castings with no themactor/air injection milled out that blocks the exhaust port since it is more than 1" into the head, stock 1.78" and 1.46" valves, no funny business, .445" lift at 1.6 stock rocker ratio, and 9.5:1 compression. Remember, that folded runner design is about 20" long and is all about torque and has a small cross section. We can&#39;t change any of that. You&#39;ll get torque, for sure, but power ain&#39;t gonna be 300 rwhp or close to it. Unfortunately, I can&#39;t prove that with dyno results since no Mustanger will build a motor with IT constrictions and none of the several I&#39;ve owned have I done anything so silly either!

You can get 195rwhp, and more, from an inline 6, but that inline six has a lot more breathing capability than we&#39;re ever going to see on a legal 5.0L.

Okay, I won&#39;t talk about pony cars anymore, the ITR concept is a lot more important than just a few cars. 2006 will be a good year to firm it up, whilst I race some JH steel in ITS, and see how that turns out.

R

PS-Got a new avatar just on the 300 rwhp in IT trim 5.0L Mustang concept.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 27 2005, 05:13 PM
I can agree to disagree. I&#39;m talking Ford 5.0L motors here using the stock intake manifolds, 50/55mm MAF, 50mm TB, E7TE castings with no themactor/air injection milled out that blocks the exhaust port since it is more than 1" into the head, stock 1.78" and 1.46" valves, no funny business, .445" lift at 1.6 stock rocker ratio, and 9.5:1 compression. Remember, that folded runner design is about 20" long and is all about torque and has a small cross section. We can&#39;t change any of that. You&#39;ll get torque, for sure, but power ain&#39;t gonna be 300 rwhp or close to it. Unfortunately, I can&#39;t prove that with dyno results since no Mustanger will build a motor with IT constrictions and none of the several I&#39;ve owned have I done anything so silly either!

You can get 195rwhp, and more, from an inline 6, but that inline six has a lot more breathing capability than we&#39;re ever going to see on a legal 5.0L.

Okay, I won&#39;t talk about pony cars anymore, the ITR concept is a lot more important than just a few cars. 2006 will be a good year to firm it up, whilst I race some JH steel in ITS, and see how that turns out.

R

PS-Got a new avatar just on the 300 rwhp in IT trim 5.0L Mustang concept.

66775


Sorry Ron, I don&#39;t speak RWHP and if I was using that I would have said so. 300HP at the flywheel is doable even on that engine. I didn&#39;t say it would be cheap but under the light of todays rules nothing is. As much as it pains me to say it I ave a bit of experience with that Fod product also. The intake maybe silly but those cars have some very desirable combustion chambers and I believe there is a lot of gain in a proper exhaust system. The crap part again is the poor brakes on those cars. The reason it would make a good ITS car is because it would go like hell down the straight and use 240z&#39;s for brakes at the end.

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 28 2005, 12:11 AM

The thread is about ITR. It is a good concept that I think will be popular and steal drivers from BMWCCA, PCA and NASA when it gets rolling. What cars are viable will be debated and proposed over 2006.

It&#39;s all good.

AB

66774


... Ditto ... :OLA:

[Bill Miller]

AS is not affordable like IT

Ron,

That&#39;s just not correct. I ran through this analysis before (maybe even in this thread!). You can buy a top AS car for the same, or less, than a top ITS car. Andy, you guys had Nick&#39;s RX7 for sale, how much were you asking? There are a couple of E36 cars in the classifieds for $22k+. Look in the new Sports Car, you can buy just about any AS car out there for <$25k, and have a lot to pick from in the $15k - $20k range (and even less, if you want a Regional car). And do you honestly think ITR is going to be even the same as ITS, much less cheaper? Based on the cars we&#39;ve been talking about, $30k - $40k cars are going to be the norm.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You can spend $30K on just about anything. It just depends on how you want to build it, what level of parts you want to use, how long you want your motor to last, how many spares you need...etc.

Other than the cost of the donor, I bet prep costs don&#39;t have to vary that much across the classes. Heck, you can spend $5K on a Spec Miata motor without blinking an eye.

I wonder how much more an E36 M3 would be than a no-holds-barred 325is? Betting it&#39;s just the initial outlay...and high mile M3&#39;s abound...

Shoot, here is a perfect donor.... (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1995-BMW-M3-great-car-w-no-sunroof_W0QQitemZ4593877860QQcategoryZ6131QQrdZ1QQ cmdZViewItem)



AB

[Marcus Miller]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 27 2005, 09:13 PM
Ron,

That&#39;s just not correct. I ran through this analysis before (maybe even in this thread!). You can buy a top AS car for the same, or less, than a top ITS car. Andy, you guys had Nick&#39;s RX7 for sale, how much were you asking? There are a couple of E36 cars in the classifieds for $22k+. Look in the new Sports Car, you can buy just about any AS car out there for <$25k, and have a lot to pick from in the $15k - $20k range (and even less, if you want a Regional car). And do you honestly think ITR is going to be even the same as ITS, much less cheaper? Based on the cars we&#39;ve been talking about, $30k - $40k cars are going to be the norm.

66789


That&#39;s just build cost though.. AS cars are stupid money to maintain and eat parts like americans love fast food. to run up front at least...

how much is an ITS bimmer motor? 6K? I had a quote for a topline AS motor and it had another digit in it...

Marcus

[Marcus Miller]

As to ITC being dead?
That&#39;s big yes on the west coast.

It sucks, since that is a great entry level class, cost and speed wise.
What can we classify that will run with a mid 80&#39;s Civic, and early 80&#39;s VW&#39;s and 70&#39;s Datsun&#39;s that has appeal to a newbie racer?

Marcus

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 28 2005, 12:27 AM
You can spend $30K on just about anything. It just depends on how you want to build it, what level of parts you want to use, how long you want your motor to last, how many spares you need...etc.

Other than the cost of the donor, I bet prep costs don&#39;t have to vary that much across the classes. Heck, you can spend $5K on a Spec Miata motor without blinking an eye.

I wonder how much more an E36 M3 would be than a no-holds-barred 325is? Betting it&#39;s just the initial outlay...and high mile M3&#39;s abound...

Shoot, here is a perfect donor.... (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/1995-BMW-M3-great-car-w-no-sunroof_W0QQitemZ4593877860QQcategoryZ6131QQrdZ1QQ cmdZViewItem)
AB

66790


Andy,

I know you can spend $30k on anything, if you want to. Hell, an ITB A2 VW Golf, from a well known VW prep shop, was over $20k, a few years ago. What I said was, was that $30k - $40k cars would be the norm in ITR. And as far as that E36 M3 goes, that&#39;s great, $10k for a donor car w/ almost 140k miles on it. That&#39;s probably at least twice what you&#39;d pay for a similar vintage E36 325is. But back to the M3, what would it take to build that into a proper IT car?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 27 2005, 11:39 PM
Andy,

I know you can spend $30k on anything, if you want to. Hell, an ITB A2 VW Golf, from a well known VW prep shop, was over $20k, a few years ago. What I said was, was that $30k - $40k cars would be the norm in ITR. And as far as that E36 M3 goes, that&#39;s great, $10k for a donor car w/ almost 140k miles on it. That&#39;s probably at least twice what you&#39;d pay for a similar vintage E36 325is. But back to the M3, what would it take to build that into a proper IT car?

66793


The same as an ITS E36 325is plus the $5K premium you describe above....right?

AB

[lateapex911]

An ITS E36 motor??? I seem to recall 12K as the price advertised here on a banner ad.

I would love to do a 911 for ITS...except it would be a dog because we classed it without a chance, LOL, and it would cost buuuuucks...911 motors are pricey, no matter how you cut it. So build costs are not totally class dependent...they can very from model to model.

Sunbelt will be happy to build whatever you want...and of course, if 40 over pistons are on your wish list...and they aren&#39;t made by your manufacturer, they will "come up" with something....as long as you "come up" with the $!$$$!!

On the Mustang, there are options to spend money....but it might not be required to get a 99% build.

I think that, from certain angles, a Mustang could be an inexpensive build...but the power must be managed right from the start. It is a car that would require more than the usual amount of research. Ron, you seem to have this great IT think/build tank going on down there....maybe you could build one to IT specs, then do some dyno work, let us know the ins and outs so we can class it at the right weight?? Or with the right SIR???

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 28 2005, 04:56 AM
AB

66795


... Doesn&#39;t that man know that he shouldn&#39;t be running with those scissors in his hand?

..... What could it mean? ..... Is it a sign?.... Is something or someone going to get cut?

.... Just couldn&#39;t help myself..... Stirr, Stirr ..... LOL :D

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Marcus Miller@Nov 28 2005, 12:29 AM
That&#39;s just build cost though.. AS cars are stupid money to maintain and eat parts like americans love fast food. to run up front at least...

how much is an ITS bimmer motor? 6K? I had a quote for a topline AS motor and it had another digit in it...

Marcus

66791


Marcus,

Are you saying $60,000 for an AS motor??? Also, I&#39;d be willing to bet that a top BimmerWorld or Turner E36 ITS motor is more than $6k. Hell, you&#39;ll spend that on a Sunbelt SM motor.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 28 2005, 12:56 AM
The same as an ITS E36 325is plus the $5K premium you describe above....right?

AB

66795


I think that may be a bit of a stretch. The big assumption there, is that nothing would cost more to build on that M3. I don&#39;t know if that&#39;s valid.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 28 2005, 07:41 AM
I think that may be a bit of a stretch. The big assumption there, is that nothing would cost more to build on that M3. I don&#39;t know if that&#39;s valid.

66807


I thought about it a little more last night.

- Wheels would be more (probably 17&#39;s allowed)

But I would think most stuff like motor work and suspension pieces etc would be the same seeing as how its the same platform with the same rules.

Your point is well taken however. I wouldn&#39;t want to write a check for a IT-prep Boxer - although I know of one in Grand Am cup prep for a song...

AB

[Ron Earp]

An ITR BMW is going to cost more than an ITR Mustang, for sure. Ford parts/rebuilds vs. BMW parts rebuild - I&#39;ve owned both and BMW parts cost a ton more. Ditto some of these other "exotics" that fit in ITR such as 928s, 911s, Supras, etc. They aren&#39;t going to be cheap to build, no way, no how.

But, you know what? If you don&#39;t want to play in ITR you don&#39;t have to. The point is that it will be out there for those that wish to jump in and give it a go.

These T cars that come into R are not cheap cars. Z3s are not cheap shells, and neither are E36 M3s, Supras, Boxers, 911s, and the rest. They aren&#39;t horribly expensive in my opinion, but they aren&#39;t $2k shell cheap like SM.

As far as debating Mustangs for ITR and expense/running costs, if it doesn&#39;t look right to you let the other guy build one. If the car is a dog and catches on fire, eats brakes, can&#39;t handle, and can&#39;t race well then so be it - the ITAC doesnt guarantee that the car you pick will be competitive. And nobody forces you to build it.

I&#39;d love to build an ITR Mustang for some data, but Jeff has me committed to a 928 if that works out. Maybe he can be persuaded.....The stable down here is full with lots of projects sitting around, that is certain!!! And this "off-season" seems really short now!!!!

Ron

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 28 2005, 06:30 AM
If the car is a dog and catches on fire, eats brakes, can&#39;t handle, and can&#39;t race well then so be it - the ITAC doesnt guarantee that the car you pick will be competitive. And nobody forces you to build it.


Ron

66809



Ron, I admire the selfishness of that thought. Fact is some cars are not sports cars and sticking a pig with lipstick in the middle of a group can actually screw up more good racing than the car count will help. At 200 bucks an entry I am getting more picky about guys blowing motors and loosing brakes and generally being in the way than I used to be. It looks like you have several nice handling cars in your stable. How would you feel about the driver that slams in to the side of the Jenson cause the brakes were gone and the car wouldn&#39;t turn?

[x-ring]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 28 2005, 05:35 AM
Marcus,

Are you saying $60,000 for an AS motor???


66806


Bill, I bet he meant $16K, and that&#39;s about what I&#39;ve heard too.

BTW, what is the ITBHC? I&#39;m guessing it the Improved Touring B Hubberbucket Committee? :119: :119:

[charrbq]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 27 2005, 10:43 PM
I think any talk of kiling ITC is very premature. ITC could be revived with one good classification. ITC is the lowest cost entry level class is SCCA so lets just can the dying crap. As far as a class for V/8 camaros and mustangs go there is one, Its called AS which started out as a good idea and haded for to much money land in a big hurry. The problem with applying IT specs to V\8 stuff is that everything in the cars your talking about was marginally enough for a spirited street car let alone the stress of a racing car. So in short order the requests for big brakes ect. will be coming down the pipeline. Go easy on the ITR deal think it out completely and look to the past to see the mistakes that were made there so we don&#39;t make them all over again.

66766

Thank you, Joe. I was going to bring up this example, but you beat me to it. In the early &#39;90s, when AS was created, it was in response to the impending death of SSGT. The cars were prepared to IT specs, complete with stock glass, passenger seat, and limited engine mods. They even ran in the, now defunct, IT Festival in Topeka. After a couple of years of building and crashing, the drivers of said Mustangs, Camaros, etc. went complaining to the Comp Board that they needed some help getting these behemoths to whoa up and corner. Under the IT prep rules, they were plane unsafe. The board took and look, scratched their communal head and chewed on their giant cigar and gave them what they wanted...plus made them a national class. Because what they wanted was beyond the scope of IT preparation.
If we fail to learn from the past, then we are doomed to repeat it.

[zracre]

We already have ITGT down here in the SEDIV, and no one wants to run it...2 to 3 car fields...been that way for years...the amount of money it takes to run an ITGT car would be similar with as because of all the brakes you would go thru...and the ensuing bodywork when they fail. I really dislike running with them as they are rockets down the straights, then park for the corners...frustrating enough with ITS cars in the mix too...

[Knestis]

We REALLY need to remember that there is NO upper limit on spending, imposed by rules, classifications, or detail specs. The trick is to look at the point where diminishing returns kicks in, line-item by line-item, to make sensible comparisons.

At some point for example, throwing new tires at a car stops realizing a proportional return in lap times. For an ITC car, that threshold is reached WAY earlier than it is for an ITS car, or would be for an ITR car. This makes them "cheaper" to run but does NOT keep someone from spending a bazillion dollars on detail preparation, entry fees, engineering support, dyno time, on-track coaching, springs/bars/dampers, and goodies like Stack dashboards.

K

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 28 2005, 02:30 PM
Ron, I admire the selfishness of that thought. Fact is some cars are not sports cars and sticking a pig with lipstick in the middle of a group can actually screw up more good racing than the car count will help. At 200 bucks an entry I am getting more picky about guys blowing motors and loosing brakes and generally being in the way than I used to be. It looks like you have several nice handling cars in your stable. How would you feel about the driver that slams in to the side of the Jenson cause the brakes were gone and the car wouldn&#39;t turn?

66811


Joe, I am not selfish and generally am referred to by others as open minded and fairly level headed. You are absolutely convinced that a Mustang can&#39;t race, period. You have much more experience than I do on a race track, that is for certain, and I respect that experience. But, I still disagree with you and it&#39;ll probably remain just that, a disagreement, because neither of us can produce data that will 100% validate our stances.

I suggest that a 94-95 Mustang, which I&#39;ve repeatedly mentioned should be classed, can race in ITR. I don&#39;t know at what weight because a lb/hp target has not been nailed down. But the car has 11" vented rotors in the front and 10" rotors in the rear. I would imagine, with careful IT prep and attention to detail, that the car could successfully race at some weight around 3000lbs. I don&#39;t see that this is incredibly different from a BMW at 2850lbs, soon to be 3000 lbs, with slightly larger rotors. Yes, the calipers are different but the 94-95 Ford calipers are very good when you compare them to a Z car, TR8, JH, or many other solid disc 70s/80s cars.

There are other ITS cars that get by with the same swept area per ton braking capacity as a Mustang. Jeff&#39;s TR8 is one such example, that when compared via weight vs. swept area it is the same as a Mustang (Mustang at 3000 lbs, TR8 at 2610 lbs: TR8 is 52 lbs per swept square inch, Mustang is 53 lbs per swept square inch - front comparison only, Mustang has far superior rears).

But, the TR8 races pretty well, brakes when it should, and doesn&#39;t slam into cars on the track, knock on wood. Power to weight of a TR8 vs. a Mustang is yet to be determined, but if Jeff and I have done our work the TR8 will be pushing impressive numbers next dyno trip. Clearly, I cannot 100% state that an ITR Mustang will not experience brake fade and I would not suggest it will race or brake like a BMW. But, I think it has a chance to race decently with the other ITR iron proposed. Besides, ITR could end up a class that, due to reasons you are concerned about, runs with its&#39; own on track so that 2240 lbs JHs and other light cars don&#39;t get punted. Remember, this is ITR and we&#39;re comparing these cars to other potential ITR cars, not the lightest car in ITS.

In any event, the class is over one year away and I&#39;d prefer to concentrate discussion on other ITR cars. A pony car is just one of many that need to be there to make a viable class. Incidentally, since you definitely don&#39;t like the idea of a Mustang in ITR, what are your feelings on a Porsche 928?

Ron

[JeffYoung]

I actually find the point on this thread that V8 race cars with marginal to ok brakes are dangerous to be somewhat funny, as I race one. I&#39;ve managed to make it nearly 2 and 1/2 seasons without hitting anyone, and in fact have finished races with faded/nearly gone brakes (as have a lot of Z drivers). After a lot of hard work on the brakes, which are tiny, I think I&#39;ve got the problems with them mostly licked.

Here&#39;s the deal -- YOU ADJUST and you improve the car. If you don&#39;t adjust and you hit someone, it is the driver&#39;s fault, not the car. Case in point: Spec Miata (or Spank My Rodders as I like to call them, and I own half of two of the little toy cars). Great brakes. Great handling. Lotsa banging. Why? DRIVERS.

If we create an ITR class and DO NOT allow in Stanks and Fireheroes and Bitchin&#39; Marrows, then we are making a huge, huge mistake. That is the one area of Cardom that the SCCA should mine vociferously and has not. AS ain&#39;t it. It&#39;s a nice class, strong in some areas, but the prep level is in my view way above IT. Most guys with Stanks and Chickenhawks aren&#39;t going to spend money on Jericho transmissions and such.

[charrbq]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Nov 28 2005, 08:35 PM
I actually find the point on this thread that V8 race cars with marginal to ok brakes are dangerous to be somewhat funny, as I race one. I&#39;ve managed to make it nearly 2 and 1/2 seasons without hitting anyone, and in fact have finished races with faded/nearly gone brakes (as have a lot of Z drivers). After a lot of hard work on the brakes, which are tiny, I think I&#39;ve got the problems with them mostly licked.

Here&#39;s the deal -- YOU ADJUST and you improve the car. If you don&#39;t adjust and you hit someone, it is the driver&#39;s fault, not the car. Case in point: Spec Miata (or Spank My Rodders as I like to call them, and I own half of two of the little toy cars). Great brakes. Great handling. Lotsa banging. Why? DRIVERS.

If we create an ITR class and DO NOT allow in Stanks and Fireheroes and Bitchin&#39; Marrows, then we are making a huge, huge mistake. That is the one area of Cardom that the SCCA should mine vociferously and has not. AS ain&#39;t it. It&#39;s a nice class, strong in some areas, but the prep level is in my view way above IT. Most guys with Stanks and Chickenhawks aren&#39;t going to spend money on Jericho transmissions and such.

66852

Wow, I&#39;m not sure if I agree with you or not. Do you supply a glossary wtih your posts? hehe

[lateapex911]

I am inclined to agree...a good driver either deals with his cars weaknesses, by adjusting for them in either a mechanical way or with a different technique, ie: braking earlier, or...

Chooses another weapon as he feels the car isn&#39;t going to get the job done.

Going in, the specs will be there...if a driver makes the choice to outdrive the capabilities of his car, then he will be spending time with the principal.

This is car racing...real man stuff...we should NOT "dumb it down" by not allowing (by refusing to class) people to race interesting, character filled,....although imperfect cars. And we SHOULD hold them to high driving standards...but that&#39;s fodder for another thread...

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 29 2005, 01:47 AM
This is car racing...real man stuff...we should NOT "dumb it down" by not allowing (by refusing to class) people to race interesting, character filled,....although imperfect cars. And we SHOULD hold them to high driving standards...but that&#39;s fodder for another thread...

66886


100% agree with that. I&#39;ve driven Jeff&#39;s car on track on a couple of occasions. A SM, or any other good braking car, it ain&#39;t. It goes like stink in a straight line, corners pretty well, but braking, well, the technique for braking is, shall we say, a lot different than any other race car I&#39;ve driven. One thinks ahead about braking, brakes, and then the car thinks about braking, and then brakes a little bit. Planning ahead is important and I daresay the car requires a higher level of skill to drive rapidly, which I don&#39;t yet possess but Jeff does. It is still great racing and the car is still competitive, just a vastly different experience to drive than most.

R

[tnord]

please please please please please get off of this hangup of V8 screaming chickens and rustangs as the dealbreaker of ITR.

there are sooooo many potential good cars that could be built for the class RIGHT NOW (well, for 2007 at least) that it really doesn&#39;t matter if the 8pot stuff is allowed in, the T2/T3 cars needs a place to go.

the 97-98 and 00-01 integra type r come to mind. as i know official requests for classifications have been filed, but the car has yet to be classed. reason being is that to fit it in ITS it has to run at a weight that requires many hundreds of lbs to be added. run it in ITR, and now you&#39;ll get crossover entries from cars already built for NASA&#39;s sucessful Honda Challenge series.

the E36 BMW could even be bumped up to ITR at a lighter weight (opening a window for other cars to be competitive in that group), the E46 could be run as well, with cars already built in BMWCCA. even more exciting to me would be the possibility of an E30 M3.

the S2000 is just dying for a place to race, what a sweet race car that would be.

i&#39;m sure there are some aircooled porsche 911&#39;s that could be in here, and are already built in PCA.

take a gander at what the grid could look like, V8 american grunt (if allowed) vs German precision vs japanese technological wizardry. sounds like a dang neat class to me.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by tnord@Nov 29 2005, 04:54 AM
please please please please please get off of this hangup of V8 screaming chickens and rustangs as the dealbreaker of ITR.

take a gander at what the grid could look like, V8 american grunt (if allowed) vs German precision vs japanese technological wizardry. sounds like a dang neat class to me.

66898



I agree with you. The class is a long way off and there are some good cars to be classed. I&#39;d like to see the V8 cars classed because I know it&#39;d bring some new SCCA blood into the fold and I think that needs to happen. But it should not and will not be a deal breaker. I can see getting a lot of new people through "Type R" (you know, I make a funny noise and laugh everytime I say that. Just kills me, need to put it on my Lightning with a big 6" coffee can muffler) cars etc. Having PCA, BMW, and NASA people back (or maybe for the first time) in the SCCA would be great for the club.

Ron

[Bill Miller]

Ron,

Don&#39;t resign yourself to it being &#39;a long way off&#39;. I believe Andy said he would put a formal request in, to have it added for the &#39;07 season. That&#39;s only a year away, and a lot of work will need to be done to make it happen. We all know how quickly the SCCA reacts to anything (unless of course, you have a 40+ y/o British Prod car :unsure: )

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 29 2005, 03:06 PM
Ron,

Don&#39;t resign yourself to it being &#39;a long way off&#39;. I believe Andy said he would put a formal request in, to have it added for the &#39;07 season. That&#39;s only a year away, and a lot of work will need to be done to make it happen. We all know how quickly the SCCA reacts to anything (unless of course, you have a 40+ y/o British Prod car :unsure: )

66927


Agreed. I&#39;ve written two requests on ITR myself and have encouraged others to do the same. I suppose I think of it as a long way off given all that I have to do this coming year in racing, but I&#39;m sure in "SCCA Time" it is basically minutes away!

And I thought it was just me that "felt" a slant in the SCCA toward Prod and Brit cars. I just didn&#39;t say one since I&#39;ve got a Brit car, but man, seems that if it is British, old as hell, only 10 people in 100 can ID it correctly, then the SCCA is all over it.

I watched the Prod runoffs on Speed Channel Sunday afternoon. Think it was G, can&#39;t remember. Wife came in, said what the hell is that, a bunch of jalopies racing around the track, is that what you do? Well, sort of......which is why we need ITR!!!!!!

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 28 2005, 06:47 PM
I am inclined to agree...a good driver either deals with his cars weaknesses, by adjusting for them in either a mechanical way or with a different technique, ie: braking earlier, or...

Jake, Unfortunately this is not case most of the time. As drivers we all tend to oversdrive the brakes most of the time. Usinf the good driver argument to sell an ida doesn&#39;t float. You drive an RX7 so I know you know what limited brakes mean. I also know that in your car if your not breaking a rotor from time to time your not going as fast as the car can

Going in, the specs will be there...if a driver makes the choice to outdrive the capabilities of his car, then he will be spending time with the principal.
We both know this is not the case and has by itself ruined some realy good race cars over the years.


This is car racing...real man stuff...we should NOT "dumb it down" by not allowing (by refusing to class) people to race interesting, character filled,....although imperfect cars. And we SHOULD hold them to high driving standards...but that&#39;s fodder for another thread...

66886


Jake, this issue is not all cars are gonna make good racecars. Just because somebody may want to race a specific car does not mean the rest of the club should sacrifice their own weekends so junk box B can have a place to blowup engines and burn up brake ect.

Ron I didn&#39;t mean to call you selfish. I was trying to say that way of thinking is selfish. Good racing is a class where cars get things done in a similar way. poor racing is when they are so different that body contact becomes part of every weekend. Some cars need a higher level of prep than IT can offer. I have spent loads of time in F-body cars over the years. I would love to race the old trans-am I still have out behind my shop. There just aren&#39;t enough people with the same interest and the cars are just too heavy to get it done without large than factory brakes. As afr as the TR8 goes at the value of that car I doubt very seriously I would be willing to push that car to the limits of anything so arguing that you can keep brakes under it is not a good one. RUnning the brakes off a 1000 dollar F-body or mustang is going to be far less offensive to the wallet than trying to find a donor for a true TR8.

[Marcus Miller]

Originally posted by x-ring@Nov 28 2005, 08:17 AM
Bill, I bet he meant $16K, and that&#39;s about what I&#39;ve heard too.

BTW, what is the ITBHC? I&#39;m guessing it the Improved Touring B Hubberbucket Committee? :119: :119:

66813



Thanks Ty- that was it.


Marcus

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 30 2005, 02:53 PM
. There just aren&#39;t enough people with the same interest and the cars are just too heavy to get it done without large than factory brakes. As afr as the TR8 goes at the value of that car I doubt very seriously I would be willing to push that car to the limits of anything so arguing that you can keep brakes under it is not a good one. RUnning the brakes off a 1000 dollar F-body or mustang is going to be far less offensive to the wallet than trying to find a donor for a true TR8.

67038


Joe, I think you are mis-informed about TR8s and might have some ideas about ITR that sort of differ from most racers I know.

The TR8 is not an expensive car. True TR8 donors are not hard to find, in fact, right now there is one sitting outside the gas station on the NW corner of the Merck company site in West Point. It runs, they want $5k. These are fairly uncommon cars, but our local British repair shop, Flying Circus, has a shell out back and $500 will take it home for you - all intact, just no motor, top, or tranny. It is a TR8s, not a TR7.

Besides, a TR8 is an ITS car and compared to the BMWs in ITS, and other cars, is actually quite cheap. Notwithstanding the fact we&#39;re talking about ITR, and in ITR none of the cars will be as cheap as a TR8. Other ITS cars? S2000s, you might score one in the $8k - $16k range, depending on wrecked or not. BMW Z3s? Maybe in the $6k to $15k range, depending on wreckage. 911s? 928s? Supras? ITR is not going to be a cheap class due to the nature of the cars that people want to race in it. If ITR isn&#39;t for you, then that is okay since ITS, ITA, ITB, and ITC exist.

As far as the TR8 keeping brakes underneath it, just because you aren&#39;t willing to push the car doesn&#39;t mean I or Jeff isn&#39;t willing to drive the wheels off of it. It is a race car and is 100% disposable. Jeff drives the damn thing as hard as he possibly can and the brakes still stay on the car. We&#39;ve worked hard to make the brakes last on the car and getting that to happen involved a lot of trial, error (mostly!), and development (what it was when it was all done). It weighs what it weighs, its brakes are puny, and, they do last - at least last well enough not to cause the dire problems you predict.

Ron

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 1 2005, 08:35 AM
Joe, I think you are mis-informed about TR8s and might have some ideas about ITR that sort of differ from most racers I know.

The TR8 is not an expensive car. True TR8 donors are not hard to find, in fact, right now there is one sitting outside the gas station on the NW corner of the Merck company site in West Point. It runs, they want $5k. These are fairly uncommon cars, but our local British repair shop, Flying Circus, has a shell out back and $500 will take it home for you - all intact, just no motor, top, or tranny. It is a TR8s, not a TR7.

Besides, a TR8 is an ITS car and compared to the BMWs in ITS, and other cars, is actually quite cheap. Notwithstanding the fact we&#39;re talking about ITR, and in ITR none of the cars will be as cheap as a TR8. Other ITS cars? S2000s, you might score one in the $8k - $16k range, depending on wrecked or not. BMW Z3s? Maybe in the $6k to $15k range, depending on wreckage. 911s? 928s? Supras? ITR is not going to be a cheap class due to the nature of the cars that people want to race in it. If ITR isn&#39;t for you, then that is okay since ITS, ITA, ITB, and ITC exist.

As far as the TR8 keeping brakes underneath it, just because you aren&#39;t willing to push the car doesn&#39;t mean I or Jeff isn&#39;t willing to drive the wheels off of it. It is a race car and is 100% disposable. Jeff drives the damn thing as hard as he possibly can and the brakes still stay on the car. We&#39;ve worked hard to make the brakes last on the car and getting that to happen involved a lot of trial, error (mostly!), and development (what it was when it was all done). It weighs what it weighs, its brakes are puny, and, they do last - at least last well enough not to cause the dire problems you predict.

Ron

67109

Ron, I don&#39;t have a lot of time this morning to get into this. I have no idea how long you or Jeff have been racing so I am working fom little information here. Little background on me. Automotive tech since 1981 raced bikes from the time a I was old enough to get on them. Worked in British/Euro shop for more years than I care to mention. I have owned and operated a racing prep business for 12 years now. I must have enough background to get it when it comes to cars. WHile the TR8 may not be rare in the collecter world, parts are not the same as a 20 dollar fender for a rabbit. I have driven everything from a ITC datsun to a GT1 Camaro and I&#39;ll tell you that unless somebody else is paying all the bills and doing all the work you drive them different. I know the brakes on a TR8 well enough to know if you aren&#39;t going through them every other weekend you aren&#39;t driving the car to the max it can be driven. (sorry not trying to be rude) F-bodies and old mustangs make good DE cars but don&#39;t make good IT level racecars. Please note SSA ,ITGT, ITSS and all the classes that have been tried before for these kinda of cars no longer exist. Since getting new classes started nationally is a difficult task with very limited chance of success I would hate to see the effort wasted on cars that have already failed the task more than once.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 1 2005, 04:55 PM
Ron, I don&#39;t have a lot of time this morning to get into this. I have no idea how long you or Jeff have been racing so I am working fom little information here. Little background on me. Automotive tech since 1981 raced bikes from the time a I was old enough to get on them. Worked in British/Euro shop for more years than I care to mention. I have owned and operated a racing prep business for 12 years now. I must have enough background to get it when it comes to cars. WHile the TR8 may not be rare in the collecter world, parts are not the same as a 20 dollar fender for a rabbit. I have driven everything from a ITC datsun to a GT1 Camaro and I&#39;ll tell you that unless somebody else is paying all the bills and doing all the work you drive them different. I know the brakes on a TR8 well enough to know if you aren&#39;t going through them every other weekend you aren&#39;t driving the car to the max it can be driven. (sorry not trying to be rude) F-bodies and old mustangs make good DE cars but don&#39;t make good IT level racecars. Please note SSA ,ITGT, ITSS and all the classes that have been tried before for these kinda of cars no longer exist. Since getting new classes started nationally is a difficult task with very limited chance of success I would hate to see the effort wasted on cars that have already failed the task more than once.

67116


Joe, if you have a look at my posts you&#39;ll figure out I&#39;ve not been racing long. I&#39;m brand new here, the FNG. Says so under Hell Frozen Over. You&#39;ll also find that I like to do things that others don&#39;t do. How many others around here are missing enough marbles to build a Jensen Healey?

Like I said earlier, I respect your opinion due to experience but disagree with you, and as stated earlier, I don&#39;t believe that either of us will be able to present 100% solid data to prove our opinions.

I might be wrong (don&#39;t have old GCRs lying about, I&#39;m new), but I don&#39;t think SSA, ITGT, and ITSS classed late model (94 and up) Mustangs with large discs upfront and discs all around, but instead classed the old Fox bodies and old F bodies, both of which are marginal at best.

As far as the TR8 goes, I don&#39;t think I mentioned how often or when the brakes must be replaced, just that they will last a race, driven hard and placing well, without wrecking other cars on the track. They need a lot of attention, for sure, but it is possible. Bring your ITS car out and race with it this year and see.

In any event, ITR is a class that will take shape over the coming year and there are a lot of bigger fish to fry beyond "should pony cars be in ITR". I think the class will not be to your liking at all because a lot of the cars that people want to race in ITR are heavy, have more power than ITS cars, and are going to be very hard on brakes. But, I suppose it&#39;ll be up to the entrants in ITR if they want to play that game or not. It is simply up to the SCCA/ITAC to make the playground available if there is enough interest.

I have to say, despite disagreeing I enjoy the interaction over IT racing. You, and everyone else on the board are a great group of people and I like the fact so many people are passionate about their racing and care to make sure the racing keeps on keeping on.

Best,
Ron

[Matt Rowe]

Ron,

While the 94 era mustangs may not have been tried before in IT, I do know people running the current generation in T2 can&#39;t keep brakes on the thing to last through a race. In particualr the guy (multiple SSC national champion) I talked to was replacing CALIPERS multiple times in multiple race weekends. Also, AS is just spent the last year approving a major change to the brake packages allowed specifically because all the cars were having to spend major money constantly replacing stock components. You&#39;ll forgive some of us for doubting their brakes if the latest and greatest model can&#39;t even hack it in a supposedly lower stress class and let&#39;s not even talk about AS.

But you are right that pony cars are a small part of the ITR concept. I&#39;m still not convinced that any of the cars on the table will meet the "low-cost" concept of IT. I would think the best thing to do at this stage is to work with the ITAC to put together a performance envelope for the class, and then start a formal listing of planned cars including:

Stock HP
Predicted HP
Stock Weight
Target class weight
Production #&#39;s (IT cars are supposed to be readily available)
Typical current market price for a donor (just to prove the class won&#39;t cost $80,000 to build a car)

[tnord]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Dec 2 2005, 12:55 PM

But you are right that pony cars are a small part of the ITR concept. I&#39;m still not convinced that any of the cars on the table will meet the "low-cost" concept of IT. I would think the best thing to do at this stage is to work with the ITAC to put together a performance envelope for the class, and then start a formal listing of planned cars including:

Stock HP
Predicted HP
Stock Weight
Target class weight
Production #&#39;s (IT cars are supposed to be readily available)
Typical current market price for a donor (just to prove the class won&#39;t cost $80,000 to build a car)

67210


i was talking with an ITA driver about this very issue, the following was my response:

ITA friend Jim:
When it comes to IT, the phrase "given the money" is the key. IT is built on the concept of minimal expense. Even though cars that compete in Production, SS and Touring will eventually become too old to race in those categories doesn&#39;t mean they&#39;ll be affordable to race in IT. As it is, some of the ITS cars (ignore ITE for the moment) like the E36 bmw&#39;s are pushing the bounds of reasonable expense for the IT class.

I don&#39;t have a problem creating a class for the older nationals cars to compete, but I don&#39;t think IT is the place to make it happen.

Me:
(8:21 AM 11/29/2005) tnord: well, remember i come from the land of 30,000 dollar miata&#39;s that in the first year of the class could be built for about $7000. so perhaps i&#39;m a bit jaded on what cars &#39;should&#39; cost to build. and don&#39;t think that that same 30,000 can&#39;t just as easily be spent on an ITA car. complete turn-key newly built E36 ITS cars i&#39;ve heard of costing upwards of 80,000. i&#39;m sure you could spend that on some cars that i think would fit well into ITR (all the BMW&#39;s and porsche&#39;s).
the point is for any given class you can spend any amount of money you please for the most part. racing is however affordable as the class the driver chooses to participate in. ITC/ITB/ITA/ITS/SM/FV/F500 and probably a couple other classes would surely be cheaper to race in than the proposed ITR, but nobody is forcing anyone&#39;s hand.

these T2/T3 cars really need a place to go on a regional basis, as i really don&#39;t think topeka will create yet another (remember SM was just added) national class after their eligibility is used up.

i know it may not fit into the purpose and intent of IT racing as focused on minimal expenditures, but it really doesn&#39;t matter. SM&#39;s purpose and intent reads:

"The Spec Miata (SM) class is intended to provide the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition. It is intended to encourage low cost, entry level, production car based competition."

man are we a long way from that. bottom line is that i likely won&#39;t race in ITR for a good number of years, but i think it would be good for the club, so i&#39;m all for it.

[Bill Miller]

Even though cars that compete in Production, SS and Touring will eventually become too old to race in those categories

Now THAT is funny!!!! :happy204: :lol:

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by tnord@Dec 2 2005, 02:47 PM
bottom line is that i likely won&#39;t race in ITR for a good number of years, but i think it would be good for the club, so i&#39;m all for it.

67219


Is it really good for the club if everyone says it&#39;s a great concept that I may race in a good number of years? The idea is to get new people involved and if the class is too expensive how many new people are willing to spend $80k to try racing? The reality is for that kind of investment you are likely going to draw far more people who already race existing classes. Which isn&#39;t really good for the club.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Dec 2 2005, 03:31 PM
Is it really good for the club if everyone says it&#39;s a great concept that I may race in a good number of years? The idea is to get new people involved and if the class is too expensive how many new people are willing to spend $80k to try racing? The reality is for that kind of investment you are likely going to draw far more people who already race existing classes. Which isn&#39;t really good for the club.

67228


Let&#39;s stop using $80K. That is rediculous.

This may not pull 20-somethings to IT but it will pull baby-booming PCA and BMWCCA members over that don&#39;t need to change much on thier cars to start running with SCCA...

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 2 2005, 04:44 PM
Let&#39;s stop using $80K. That is rediculous.

This may not pull 20-somethings to IT but it will pull baby-booming PCA and BMWCCA members over that don&#39;t need to change much on thier cars to start running with SCCA...

67229


Andy, 5 years ago most people said $50K and more for an ITS car was out of the question.

And I&#39;m not convinced the PCA guys are willing to run SCCA races when there is a greater fear of wadding up the car getting caught in someone else&#39;s mistake. Also, trying to pull in 50 and 60 year olds doesn&#39;t contribute to the long term future of the club as much as finding better ways to appeal to the 30 and 40 something crowd. Really, we want to make everyone feel welcome, but should we really create a class that is geared towards such an high end budget? If a new class is going to be created it should be done with enough due diligence to make sure that it has a chance to survive.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Dec 2 2005, 05:16 PM
Andy, 5 years ago most people said $50K and more for an ITS car was out of the question.

And I&#39;m not convinced the PCA guys are willing to run SCCA races when there is a greater fear of wadding up the car getting caught in someone else&#39;s mistake. Also, trying to pull in 50 and 60 year olds doesn&#39;t contribute to the long term future of the club as much as finding better ways to appeal to the 30 and 40 something crowd. Really, we want to make everyone feel welcome, but should we really create a class that is geared towards such an high end budget? If a new class is going to be created it should be done with enough due diligence to make sure that it has a chance to survive.

67238

Matt, now your stalking the right area. See I see an IT class similar to Kirks ITs concept as a way to draw a new crowd to IT racing. Keep the suspension and engine concepts but have the wheel and aero rules reflect a bit of today. Make it a 2.0 to 3.5 liter class and use new/old technology to control competition. Weight and engineered single inlet restrictors no motec&#39;s. This concept will grow way faster than a new class for more 20 year old big engined tanks.
Classes are limted please don&#39;t waste them.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 3 2005, 02:59 AM
Matt, now your stalking the right area. See I see an IT class similar to Kirks ITs concept as a way to draw a new crowd to IT racing. Keep the suspension and engine concepts but have the wheel and aero rules reflect a bit of today. Make it a 2.0 to 3.5 liter class and use new/old technology to control competition. Weight and engineered single inlet restrictors no motec&#39;s. This concept will grow way faster than a new class for more 20 year old big engined tanks.
Classes are limted please don&#39;t waste them.

67244



I can defintely see where that sort of class could possibly grow, but it won&#39;t be an ITR type class. Maybe a new thread needs to be started on such a thing.

I&#39;m still compling data in a spreadsheet for the ITR class using all the potential cars listed here and am gettings weights, etc. for a proposal. I like the idea of this "new" class that is similar to Kirk&#39;s etc., but ITR it ain&#39;t.

R

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 07:35 AM
I can defintely see where that sort of class could possibly grow, but it won&#39;t be an ITR type class. Maybe a new thread needs to be started on such a thing.

I&#39;m still compling data in a spreadsheet for the ITR class using all the potential cars listed here and am gettings weights, etc. for a proposal. I like the idea of this "new" class that is similar to Kirk&#39;s etc., but ITR it ain&#39;t.

R

67258


Well Ron, Maybe I missed it. What do you see as an ITR class?

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Dec 3 2005, 12:16 AM
Really, we want to make everyone feel welcome, but should we really create a class that is geared towards such an high end budget?
67238


Joe, the reason I wrote that is this statement that Matt made above that you agreed with. I think everyone was in agreement ITR would be more expensive than ITS because of the nature of the cars being classed. Priced a naturally asprirated late model Supra (I&#39;m also compliing average prices on my spreadsheet for cost of donors)? Z3? Integra RSX-R? S2000?

The cars, by their "late model" nature or desirability are more expensive than the current crop of S cars. At least, that is what it looks like from where I am standing.

It seems to reason that a class above S, that offers potentially more performance than S, using "newer" cars than S, is going to cost more then ITS. And, as such, would not fit with Matt&#39;s statement.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 09:18 AM
Joe, the reason I wrote that is this statement that Matt made above that you agreed with. I think everyone was in agreement ITR would be more expensive than ITS because of the nature of the cars being classed. Priced a naturally asprirated late model Supra (I&#39;m also compliing average prices on my spreadsheet for cost of donors)? Z3? Integra RSX-R? S2000?

The cars, by their "late model" nature or desirability are more expensive than the current crop of S cars. At least, that is what it looks like from where I am standing.

It seems to reason that a class above S, that offers potentially more performance than S, using "newer" cars than S, is going to cost more then ITS. And, as such, would not fit with Matt&#39;s statement.

67267


Ron since you are doing the lef work I recommend you consider the following as part of your research:
17.1.4. IMPROVED TOURING CATEGORY
These specifications are part of the SCCA General Competition Rules (GCR)
and all automobiles shall conform with GCR Section 17., Automobiles.
A. PURPOSE
Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with
the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications,
suitable for racing competition. To that end, cars will be models, as offered
for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer’s
specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules.


This is why IT has always maintained good numbers. One only needs to look at the one expensive model that by itself did not fit this statement cost ITS numbers all over the country. I am all for a new class I just would rather see a class that will hit big numbers rather than pockets of cars around the country. If you believe the desire to race the V/8 carsw you are looking at are there then bring the ITR concept to your region and see what happens.

I also am not sure how to take you new avatar.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 3 2005, 04:34 PM
If you believe the desire to race the V/8 carsw you are looking at are there then bring the ITR concept to your region and see what happens.

I also am not sure how to take you new avatar.

67268


Joe, as I&#39;ve said I think on two posts - "ITR has a long way to go and has bigger fish to fry than are pony (read V8) cars included or not." Personally, I do not think at this time we must have V8s to have an ITR class. I&#39;ve mentioned it&#39;d be nice, but that is the end of it and I won&#39;t bring it up again. ITR can exist without V8s.

This thread is about ITR - a class ABOVE ITS in performance. It will cost more than ITS. No way around it, it will be a more expensive IT class than ITS, period.

ITC = $
ITB = $ to $$
ITA = $$ to $$$
ITS = $$$ to $$$$
ITR = $$$$ at least

I hear what you are saying about a "class for the masses" and a low cost class. But if you consider ITS expensive now then ITR will not be a cheaper class. If your intent is to develop a class along these lines then I suggest you start a new thread about that.

I know what the CGR says about IT racing and intent. I also know what the GCR says about SM too. Both are intended for low cost cars with limited modifications. But low cost is all relative and dependant on a huge number of factors, so much so that IMHO, including such a statement is next to useless. Dang sure didn&#39;t help SM and didn&#39;t do much to reign in S. And, incidentally, ITR might be a nice place for the BMW to play if that is the "one expensive model" you cite.

If ITR is to have performance above ITS but not cost more than ITS, then what sorts of cars are you going to populate ITR with?

R

[tnord]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 3 2005, 11:34 AM
Ron since you are doing the lef work I recommend you consider the following as part of your research:
17.1.4. IMPROVED TOURING CATEGORY
These specifications are part of the SCCA General Competition Rules (GCR)
and all automobiles shall conform with GCR Section 17., Automobiles.
A. PURPOSE
Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with
the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications,
suitable for racing competition. To that end, cars will be models, as offered
for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer’s
specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules.
This is why IT has always maintained good numbers. One only needs to look at the one expensive model that by itself did not fit this statement cost ITS numbers all over the country. I am all for a new class I just would rather see a class that will hit big numbers rather than pockets of cars around the country. If you believe the desire to race the V/8 carsw you are looking at are there then bring the ITR concept to your region and see what happens.

I also am not sure how to take you new avatar.

67268


the low cost statement is rather irrelevant if you ask me. please tell me how ITE fits into this.

are you assuming that donor cars will always be expensive? some of the cars that fit into the class are certainly expensive at the moment, but 5 years from now what will they be like? just because donors might be to pricey to buy right now, it doesn&#39;t mean they will forever be that way. even now, NA Z32 300ZX&#39;s can be had for 5 grand or less (i sold my old one for 6500 5 years ago), wrecked S2000&#39;s for less than 10 grand, a built S2000 for NASA H1 for 18,000 if i remember correctly, there&#39;s a former Grand-Am Integra Type R in GRM for $22 i believe, and other NASA H2 cars for far less. remember that freshly built SM&#39;s can cost you 25-30 g&#39;s.

i don&#39;t think those of us who are proponents of the ITR class think the most growth will come from building new cars. Get a couple PCA guys, BMWCCA guys, a couple NASA guys, and most importantly, have a place for current SCCA members with obsolete T2/T3 cars to race, and you&#39;ve got a solid entry list.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 10:06 AM
Joe, as I&#39;ve said I think on two posts - "ITR has a long way to go and has bigger fish to fry than are pony (read V8) cars included or not." Personally, I do not think at this time we must have V8s to have an ITR class. I&#39;ve mentioned it&#39;d be nice, but that is the end of it and I won&#39;t bring it up again. ITR can exist without V8s.

This thread is about ITR - a class ABOVE ITS in performance. It will cost more than ITS. No way around it, it will be a more expensive IT class than ITS, period.

ITC = $
ITB = $ to $$
ITA = $$ to $$$
ITS = $$$ to $$$$
ITR = $$$$ at least

I hear what you are saying about a "class for the masses" and a low cost class. But if you consider ITS expensive now then ITR will not be a cheaper class. If your intent is to develop a class along these lines then I suggest you start a new thread about that.

I know what the CGR says about IT racing and intent. I also know what the GCR says about SM too. Both are intended for low cost cars with limited modifications. But low cost is all relative and dependant on a huge number of factors, so much so that IMHO, including such a statement is next to useless. Dang sure didn&#39;t help SM and didn&#39;t do much to reign in S. And, incidentally, ITR might be a nice place for the BMW to play if that is the "one expensive model" you cite.

If ITR is to have performance above ITS but not cost more than ITS, then what sorts of cars are you going to populate ITR with?

R

67269



Ron, I will wait for your list. I am not sure we are as far apart as you think. I think you don&#39;t like to be challenged on your reasoning. IT must maintain the entry level approach or it will die the same death prod and others have before it. I said 3 years ago that SM would be right where it is today and you will start to see the decline soon. The adhoc did the right thing and will catch those cars falling out of SM into IT and help that will help the numbers for ITA. If I have offended you that was not my intent my passion is racing cars not parading them and unfortunately every new class we make dilutes the level of competition in this club. SO I do kick back at new classes that on paper have little chance of serious racing.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by tnord@Dec 3 2005, 10:18 AM
the low cost statement is rather irrelevant if you ask me. please tell me how ITE fits into this.

are you assuming that donor cars will always be expensive? some of the cars that fit into the class are certainly expensive at the moment, but 5 years from now what will they be like? just because donors might be to pricey to buy right now, it doesn&#39;t mean they will forever be that way. even now, NA Z32 300ZX&#39;s can be had for 5 grand or less (i sold my old one for 6500 5 years ago), wrecked S2000&#39;s for less than 10 grand, a built S2000 for NASA H1 for 18,000 if i remember correctly, there&#39;s a former Grand-Am Integra Type R in GRM for $22 i believe, and other NASA H2 cars for far less. remember that freshly built SM&#39;s can cost you 25-30 g&#39;s.

i don&#39;t think those of us who are proponents of the ITR class think the most growth will come from building new cars. Get a couple PCA guys, BMWCCA guys, a couple NASA guys, and most importantly, have a place for current SCCA members with obsolete T2/T3 cars to race, and you&#39;ve got a solid entry list.

67271


ITE is not an IT based class so don&#39;t trot out that old nag.

PCA guys are not interested in banging fenders with IT cars. I work for several of them they like the 13/13 rule.

Touring cars are not really gonna make up enough for quite some time and the NAZ32 and S2000 could be moved into ITS tomorrow with the correct restriction system.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 3 2005, 05:18 PM
Ron, I will wait for your list. I am not sure we are as far apart as you think. I think you don&#39;t like to be challenged on your reasoning. SO I do kick back at new classes that on paper have little chance of serious racing.

67272


They may not be far apart, I would imagine not since the cars on the spreadsheet now are all from eariler in the thread plus some others I&#39;ve found.

As far as being challenged, that is fine. Naturally, I&#39;m going to defend my position as would anyone else. I&#39;m afraid that I perceived your interest in the "low cost highly populated" class as a non-logical fit with ITR. I construed your post about interest in that class as non-sequitur with ITR because I think it is safe to say that if ITR is above S in performance then it is probably going to cost more than S.

I completely agree with you on ITE - it isn&#39;t really a class, just a catch all to allow some folks some track time. In the SE it you "won" ITE it might mean you beat the other ITE racer that shows up, or, he didn&#39;t show.

R

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 10:53 AM
They may not be far apart, I would imagine not since the cars on the spreadsheet now are all from eariler in the thread plus some others I&#39;ve found.

As far as being challenged, that is fine. Naturally, I&#39;m going to defend my position as would anyone else. I&#39;m afraid that I perceived your interest in the "low cost highly populated" class as a non-logical fit with ITR. I construed your post about interest in that class as non-sequitur with ITR because I think it is safe to say that if ITR is above S in performance then it is probably going to cost more than S.

I completely agree with you on ITE - it isn&#39;t really a class, just a catch all to allow some folks some track time. In the SE it you "won" ITE it might mean you beat the other ITE racer that shows up, or, he didn&#39;t show.

R

67274


Something to consider when thinking the T2 folks will be coming over to ITR. Right now I have spent as much on wheels for one car as some good ITA cars cost. 18x10&#39;s are going to be the norm in a short time. How do you propose dealing with this issue. PCA folks are already running on these sizes for cars that would fit that envelope. How would you deal with that? I understand that ITR would be higher dollars and that&#39;s what I am saying. Why would anyone want to spend 60 to 80k tobuild a regional only car. Touring I agree will never be a big regional class because of the cost of purchaing and building them. Don&#39;t let IT get to big for its customer.

And Ron I will be very happy to start construction on your 2006 T2 Zcar if you are ready to start spending some silly money.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 3 2005, 06:54 PM
18x10&#39;s are going to be the norm in a short time. How do you propose dealing with this issue. PCA folks are already running on these sizes for cars that would fit that envelope. How would you deal with that?

67277


I don&#39;t know.

Jeff Young just called me and provided a lot of nice background history for me on IT. One thing I&#39;m worried about and he and I discussed is what will happen to IT?

There are family sedans now, legal for IT classification, that have more hp stock than any ITS car. The current crop of interesting cars on the market are mostly turbocharged. AWD is common. Horsepower is up there. Current family sedans are at 260hp (Honda Accord). It is hard to buy something less than 200hp now days. Wheels are big, as you mentioned, but hp is big, and fortunately newer car designs have good brakes these days.

There are a lot of interesting cars out now that will be great race cars. G35, 350z, Infiniti Coupe (350z), WRX, STi, Evo, 330i, etc. but some of these cars have more power than current ITR candidates not to mention technology the SCCA doesn&#39;t embrace for obvious reasons.

But what about IT? What will happen to it if we can&#39;t, in five years or even now, class some of these newer cars? Drive around in increasingly older IT cars? I&#39;ll be over 40 then and I might be attracted to some of the cars, but I don&#39;t know about 30 somethings that don&#39;t identify with RX7s, Z cars, and the like.

You had a good point about ITA with SMs I didn&#39;t consider even though I&#39;ve mentioned it myself. I think you are right that ITA will grow a lot as folks get out of SM and into something more controlled with respect to rules and costs.

R

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 12:22 PM
I don&#39;t know.

Jeff Young just called me and provided a lot of nice background history for me on IT. One thing I&#39;m worried about and he and I discussed is what will happen to IT?

There are family sedans now, legal for IT classification, that have more hp stock than any ITS car. The current crop of interesting cars on the market are mostly turbocharged. AWD is common. Horsepower is up there. Current family sedans are at 260hp (Honda Accord). It is hard to buy something less than 200hp now days. Wheels are big, as you mentioned, but hp is big, and fortunately newer car designs have good brakes these days.

There are a lot of interesting cars out now that will be great race cars. G35, 350z, Infiniti Coupe (350z), WRX, STi, Evo, 330i, etc. but some of these cars have more power than current ITR candidates not to mention technology the SCCA doesn&#39;t embrace for obvious reasons.

But what about IT? What will happen to it if we can&#39;t, in five years or even now, class some of these newer cars? Drive around in increasingly older IT cars? I&#39;ll be over 40 then and I might be attracted to some of the cars, but I don&#39;t know about 30 somethings that don&#39;t identify with RX7s, Z cars, and the like.

You had a good point about ITA with SMs I didn&#39;t consider even though I&#39;ve mentioned it myself. I think you are right that ITA will grow a lot as folks get out of SM and into something more controlled with respect to rules and costs.

R

67279



Ah but you open a new can O worms when you mention all those other cars. A lot of the Touring cars will be claspped out and used up by the time they finisht their job in nationals. But there are also a lot of cars being built that would be fine for IT. I can tell you that deal with the boosted cars under the touring rules is a nightmare already, ad IT allowances and the only people that will want them will be the guys buying them. I have always said that turbos and AWD need to be put in a class against each other.

As far as the next group of cars coming to IT it will be the Mini,the Mazda 3 and others like those. The Spec V Nissan, We nee to get in front of the engineered SIR for these cars and you could control the number of tweeners you have to deal with.

[Bill Miller]

Just got done watching the T2 race. Some really aggressive driving, but some amazing racing. I don&#39;t know how anyone could watch that and not get excited about it. Hemmingson&#39;s save after he got tapped, was one of the best ones I&#39;ve ever seen.

Making a place for these guys to run, after their tenure in T2, seems to be a great idea. But from what I saw, I have to agree w/ Joe, these cars are going to be pretty used up by then. But that&#39;s not to say that someone won&#39;t build new ones!

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 3 2005, 08:56 PM
Making a place for these guys to run, after their tenure in T2, seems to be a great idea. But from what I saw, I have to agree w/ Joe, these cars are going to be pretty used up by then. But that&#39;s not to say that someone won&#39;t build new ones!

67286


However, they can run in T2 for TEN YEARS... I&#39;m not sure what the draw to IT would be, given the choice... These cars are already fairly "racey" in Touring trim, and they have the benefit of being a National class...

Perhaps in five years or so there may be people who want to race a 2005 Nissan 350Z in IT, but they&#39;d likely be LESS restricted going to Touring even then...

We&#39;ve made some strides, but I just don&#39;t see things changing THAT rapidly so as to allow things like 18" wheels, etc... like they do in Touring...

Also, if the new "production" class (D-Prod, Street Touring, whatever...) ever gets off the ground, it will be a natural draw for the cars in question... Heck, if I had an E36, that&#39;s where I&#39;d even take it!

IF they implement the class correctly...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Used-schmoozed. Who is going to put an IT effort together out of a SS car with the same motor, shocks and suspension? Nobody who wants to run at the front. These pieces will have to be new...hell, all of that and more are going into transforming our Miata from SM to ITA...and it was all new 12 months ago.

I, for one, will build an IT RX-8. SHould be plenty of ex-T2/R3 or GAC cars around.

AB

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 07:22 PM
I don&#39;t know.


but some of these cars have more power than current ITR candidates not to mention technology the SCCA doesn&#39;t embrace for obvious reasons.


67279


One of the problems with our club right now, still run by a old british sports car mentality, lets hate horsepower, german cars, turbos, etc. Every 18 year old now wants a Evo or Sti, not a MG.

In this day and age no obvious reasons should exsist to prohibit modern cars and technology

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 5 2005, 08:53 AM
One of the problems with our club right now, still run by a old british sports car mentality, lets hate horsepower, german cars, turbos, etc. Every 18 year old now wants a Evo or Sti, not a MG.

In this day and age no obvious reasons should exsist to prohibit modern cars and technology

67335



Fred, Production classes maybe but your statment is far from the current truth. Give that stuff a rest. T2 has STI&#39;s and EVo&#39;s along with the SR4T neon. I don&#39;t know how much more current you want. The cars are now classed for 10 years and by then they will be clapped out or we will have other classes for them to fit. But crying the queen has control has no place in this issue.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 5 2005, 04:38 PM
But crying the queen has control has no place in this issue.

67342


Especially for IT! That&#39;s just a silly statement in general... outside of Production, that is... :blink:

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 5 2005, 04:49 PM
outside of Production, that is... :blink:

67345



:P I get it ;)

God save the Queen

[irace1]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 5 2005, 04:38 PM
Fred, Production classes maybe but your statment is far from the current truth. Give that stuff a rest. T2 has STI&#39;s and EVo&#39;s along with the SR4T neon. I don&#39;t know how much more current you want. The cars are now classed for 10 years and by then they will be clapped out or we will have other classes for them to fit. But crying the queen has control has no place in this issue.

67342


You are making a joke right? That is why my clapped out? 13 year old E36 WC car has no where to run except in ITE with Vipers and Vettes and NASA. That is why NASA exists - they gave a home to a lot of displaced race cars - Honda Challenge, USTCC, GTS Challenge, etc., should I go on(?) Modern real race cars that have no competitive home in SCCA. ...and oh yeah, no National recognition for IT at all.

At least I can focus on the GTS Challenge in &#39;06 and go to the NASA Nationals in September.

[zracre]

Originally posted by irace1@Dec 11 2005, 11:02 PM
You are making a joke right? That is why my clapped out? 13 year old E36 WC car has no where to run except in ITE with Vipers and Vettes and NASA. That is why NASA exists - they gave a home to a lot of displaced race cars - Honda Challenge, USTCC, GTS Challenge, etc., should I go on(?) Modern real race cars that have no competitive home in SCCA. ...and oh yeah, no National recognition for IT at all.

At least I can focus on the GTS Challenge in &#39;06 and go to the NASA Nationals in September.

67906


and race in the GTS challenge it is for you!!! IT is a stepping stone for many...many people in IT cant afford a clapped out 13 year old race car like your BMW...or could afford to feed it...completely not the IDEA of IT...If somebody wants to follow the ranks in NASA, good for them and go for it!! :happy204: If someone wants to follow the ranks in SCCA they go T1, T2 etc and win a national championship. IT is a place to race inexpensive (relative to your budget) cars currently available and should remain that way. there is another thread on ITR that goes into detail as well. NASA is a good thing for people local to their races and have a "displaced" race car. IT is for anyone to race as long as they follow the rules...its what you make it.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by zracre@Dec 11 2005, 08:16 PM
and race in the GTS challenge it is for you!!! IT is a stepping stone for many...many people in IT cant afford a clapped out 13 year old race car like your BMW...or could afford to feed it...completely not the IDEA of IT...If somebody wants to follow the ranks in NASA, good for them and go for it!! :happy204: If someone wants to follow the ranks in SCCA they go T1, T2 etc and win a national championship. IT is a place to race inexpensive (relative to your budget) cars currently available and should remain that way. there is another thread on ITR that goes into detail as well. NASA is a good thing for people local to their races and have a "displaced" race car. IT is for anyone to race as long as they follow the rules...its what you make it.

67910

Thanks Evan you beat me to it.....I find it funny when people think they can use my words to paint me into a corner. CalClub Oregon Region and NW region all offer RS I took a big part in reshaping the rules just for the kind of cars you are talking about on a regional level. Oh and BTW This is what I drive....An old clapped out pro car.[attachmentid=222]
Oh and I do this cause I enjoy it...If I want a national championship I will build a 350z for T2 and win one. Have a nice day........and please try again.

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by irace1@Dec 11 2005, 08:02 PM
You are making a joke right? That is why my clapped out? 13 year old E36 WC car has no where to run except in ITE with Vipers and Vettes and NASA. That is why NASA exists - they gave a home to a lot of displaced race cars - Honda Challenge, USTCC, GTS Challenge, etc., should I go on(?) Modern real race cars that have no competitive home in SCCA. ...and oh yeah, no National recognition for IT at all.

At least I can focus on the GTS Challenge in &#39;06 and go to the NASA Nationals in September.

67906


I understand perfectly. I&#39;m purchasing a Z3 that&#39;s not classed currently in anything other than ITE, where I&#39;ll be outclassed by the same. I&#39;ll try to implement ITR locally. Are you interested in comming South? BTW, our current ITE runs fuel cells because they run with GT, this is another reason for me to work for ITR in Calclub as I don&#39;t want to replace my stock tank with a fuel cell.

James

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Dec 11 2005, 08:46 PM
I understand perfectly. I&#39;m purchasing a Z3 that&#39;s not classed currently in anything other than ITE, where I&#39;ll be outclassed by the same. I&#39;ll try to implement ITR locally. Are you interested in comming South? BTW, our current ITE runs fuel cells because they run with GT, this is another reason for me to work for ITR in Calclub as I don&#39;t want to replace my stock tank with a fuel cell.

James

67917

Don&#39;t be shocked if you get a class with more speed that you don&#39;t end up with a rule requiring fuel cells in some or all cars....Back to one of the reasons SSGT became AS and AS got stiffer cage and fuel cell requirements....OOPs I promised Not to bring any more real facts to this thread... :rolleyes:

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 11 2005, 08:53 PM
Don&#39;t be shocked if you get a class with more speed that you don&#39;t end up with a rule requiring fuel cells in some or all cars....Back to one of the reasons SSGT became AS and AS got stiffer cage and fuel cell requirements....OOPs I promised Not to bring any more real facts to this thread... :rolleyes:

67918


The reason fuel cells were implemented was because ITE was combined with tube frame GT cars. The ruling was based on the tube frame car spearing the stock fuel tank. ITE was combine with GT beacuse the ITC/D guy&#39;s were nervous about running with 500hp vettes not 260hp Z3&#39;s.

James

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Dec 11 2005, 09:23 PM
The reason fuel cells were implemented was because ITE was combined with tube frame GT cars. The ruling was based on the tube frame car spearing the stock fuel tank. ITE was combine with GT beacuse the ITC/D guy&#39;s were nervous about running with 500hp vettes not 260hp Z3&#39;s.

James

67922

Actually James I was consulted by one of your old RE&#39;s on this when I was working on the ITE stuff for this region. The fuel cell requirement in Calclub came when guys started building WCGT replicas except the were using SP type engines in them. your comp comittee was nervous about having car going those kinds of speeds on only IT safety stuff. I belive your ITE class also has an upgrade to its cage rules based on level of speed and prep also. There are no restrictions in SCCA about running radial Gas tank cars with Tube framed GT1 stuff. I could offer you an e-mail adress to the past RE I worked with on this if you need it.

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 11 2005, 09:31 PM
Actually James I was consulted by one of your old RE&#39;s on this when I was working on the ITE stuff for this region. The fuel cell requirement in Calclub came when guys started building WCGT replicas except the were using SP type engines in them. your comp comittee was nervous about having car going those kinds of speeds on only IT safety stuff. I belive your ITE class also has an upgrade to its cage rules based on level of speed and prep also. There are no restrictions in SCCA about running radial Gas tank cars with Tube framed GT1 stuff. I could offer you an e-mail adress to the past RE I worked with on this if you need it.

67923


I know who you talked to. I recieved that info from the calclub message board at:
Calclub, raceneely 10/22/05 (http://www.calclub.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=14&t=1530&st=30)

CBUZZ, Norris


As you may remember Im quite intimate with the ITE Rules. The Comp Committee wrote the current version in 2000 when I was Chairman from 98&#39;-03&#39;. We worked closely with the 8 or 9 drivers of the class at the time. I also think today they could be altered to open it up......

Uncle Joe is not the only one with concerns on spending and at the time we wrote the rules the climate was to at least try to keep costs down. Over / Under was mentioned by JW Hall as an option when the class grew or shrunk eventually in the future (as classes do) to appeal to the membership.

To clarify the Fuel Cell issue here is what happened. When CSCC invented ITE it was running in the ITA & ITS run group at times. Eventually the cars outgrew that group and we put them in with GT. When Colorado ( Now Topeka) got wind that the cars were in the GT group, "Patsy", I believe her name was, said, "Get Fuel Cells in the cars by the following year". We followed their directions to get sanctions through for our races. It was quite a task getting IT guys to actually be safe and run fuel cells but we got every driver to comply. Tech was begged not to turn away cars on inspection and to notate in the log books if they came back and raced in ITE to comply within 2 races. However W/C cars with logged races could run W/O Fuel Cells.

The Theory behind Fuel Celling a car that is in a GT group was/is quite simple. 70% of GT cars are homemade Tube structures and not Factory "Tub" Cars with built in Crush Zones like the entire IT group is comprised of. I realize that WC cars all have very safe gas tanks from the factory blah blah blah, but, ITE has cars older than 5 years running in it unlike W/C. These older cars do not have the upgraded engineering that the newer cars do.

Example: A side impact between Porterfields GT-1 car and an average ITE car would produce a much different impact and ensuing fire than any two 3 series BMW&#39;s in a side impact. A GT car may be fiberglass on the outside but underneath it looks like a porcupine with many points of attachment. Colorado had it right then and in my opinion it should stand today.

If ITE ran only with ITE cars then thats fine but it does not down here in CSCC.The fact that the Honda Cup cars are allowed to run in the GT group with no Fuel Cells does not mean it&#39;s a good idea, it only means that someone is very very stupid and not manning their ruling position correctly or paying close attention.

Tom Neely


This is where I found my information.

James

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Dec 11 2005, 09:48 PM
I know who you talked to. I recieved that info from the calclub message board at:
Calclub, raceneely 10/22/05 (http://www.calclub.com/forums/index.php?act=ST&f=14&t=1530&st=30)
This is where I found my information.

James

67926

Again James we are both right it&#39;s just a new twist on a problem I helped with several years ago. If you look at the old rules set, peobably last year you will see that fuel cells were needed in certain car competing in ITE. Thise cars were built beyond what was considered IT safety specs....Just like AS wound up and for my money I will bet if and when ITR gets hammered out it will have fuel cells and different cage rules for some cars.

[Z3_GoCar]

Alright so back to the topic, what can I do to make ITR happen at least in my region? What should I use for a power to weight model? How are ITS/A/B/C set up in this respect? What kind of adders get added in? I don&#39;t expect it to be an exact formula but rather some general kind-of-sort-of-touchy-feely kind of range. How do you determine motor potential with IT prep? How do you arrive at wieghts? Does anyone have a spread sheet they&#39;d like to share? Or should I make one myself from the current GCR&#39;s?

James

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Dec 12 2005, 02:07 AM
Alright so back to the topic, what can I do to make ITR happen at least in my region? What should I use for a power to weight model? How are ITS/A/B/C set up in this respect? What kind of adders get added in? I don&#39;t expect it to be an exact formula but rather some general kind-of-sort-of-touchy-feely kind of range. How do you determine motor potential with IT prep? How do you arrive at wieghts? Does anyone have a spread sheet they&#39;d like to share? Or should I make one myself from the current GCR&#39;s?

James

67932


Hi James,

Jeff, I, and a couple of others in the SE are working on a spreadsheet right now that we hope to have done Jan 1st. We&#39;re also going to try and use it locally to have a regional ITR because we&#39;ve got enough interest at the local level. Once done, we&#39;ll share it, or, we&#39;ll pass it around so you can add cars to it. None of us are front drivers so adding all the various VTEC, Type R, alphabet soup for Hondas/Nissans/ etc. is not our bag but the cars have to be there. I&#39;m just not the man for those cars.

Don&#39;t waste your time trying to develop a mathematical model from current data. I tried to do the same about 6-8 months ago using S data but it doesn&#39;t fit a very nice model. Model on hp/weight and you&#39;ll find a lot of cars our all over the map giving your multiterm curve an R squared value of far less than 0.95. In general I remember a lot of 0.8s and a curve that ran through a lot of points but was useless at prediction. Once the ITAC/CRB makes the weight adjustments for a lot of cars I bet it&#39;ll work a little better, but due to so many variables involved I don&#39;t think it&#39;ll ever model that well.

Nice to see someone else willing to work to maybe do a regional class and get ITU started at that level. I am still going to submit the proposal to the ITAC but I&#39;m not sure I expect a whole lot out of it. Some are still concerned about AWD/forced induction cars and our proposal does nothing with them. I can see where the SCCA needs to think about them or do something with them, but putting them in IT would be a struggle and I chose to avoid the issue.

Ron

[Andy Bettencourt]

I would respectfully suggest that everyone hold off on Regional versions of ITR. It will ultimately end up harming it&#39;s chances of getting added as a class.

What happens is that a few Regions will adopt it, but some others will tweak it. Then you will IT7, Spec 7 and RX-7&#39;s prepared to ITA rules...

Let&#39;s see what we can do first. If it falls flat on it&#39;s face and has no hope, then go for it...but a little patience could go a long way here.

AB

[Knestis]

Andy said what I was thinking as I worked my way down from the top of this new page. Take that good advice.

However, the symbolic interactionist in me notes that the language he uses illustrates that he understands that regions will indeed push incrementally beyond the "off-the-shelf" IT ruleset. This amounts to more recognition that the "policy damping" effect of a big, hard-to-steer organization is valuable in combating rules creep.

I&#39;ll bet you a fiver that any regional effort at IT(whatever) could NOT happen without the IT ruleset being bent - or broken outright. IF, however, you could actually make this class happen at a regional level without busting the mold - and NCR SCCA would be a place that is saturated enough with racers, TT&#39;ers, and HPDE folks that it MIGHT - it would in fact be another way of making it work nationally.

Change ONE rule though, and it&#39;s DOA.

K

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 09:55 AM

Change ONE rule though, and it&#39;s DOA.

K

67943


I understand what both of your are saying and I think you both offer good advice and are correct. But, I&#39;ll say - I do not plan on changing a single thing which is why AWD and forced induction were left out. It is to be an IT class, with IT rules, simply using a few other cars that will on average have more horsepower than S, and on average, be a little heavier than S.

The goal is to create a class that will, on average, be a little faster around the track but just like C/B and A/S do, have a little overlap. That is, the fastest A cars are overlapping S times somewhat, and the same will be here, in that the fastest S cars will overlap in this class as well.

Not a single rule will be changed and I don&#39;t think it needs to be. There are plenty of fantastic cars that can be inducted into IT but simply fall outside of current class structure. And, some in IT we can move (BMW 325, 80s Supra which is classed at an incredible weight) into ITR.

Ron

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ron,

I wish it were as simple as you might think. You will NEED a process with defined parameters. You will need a list of cars that are eligible.

What weights are you going to allow people to run? How are you going to tell people their 350Z (or insert car here) doesn&#39;t fit your new class if you can&#39;t define it within reason? What width wheels are you going to allow? What if you allow 9" and the CRB wants 8" in a year? 10"? 7"?

What if you allow V8 POny&#39;s and the CRB says no when it takes defines it&#39;s parameters...???

I think the best thing to do is start a web page ala IT2 and get the groundswell moving. If you want to head up the grassroots effort to push it for 2007, I suggest that being a conduit to the ITAC would be a good idea.

Having seen some of this before, there will be some very unhappy people when the rubber hits the road if a splintered effort is undertaken.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Andy and Kirk have absolutely nailed this one. If ITR is driven from the Regional level up, it will definately not make it. Hell, look at what it took to get a single set of SM rules implemented (and we&#39;ve still ended up w/ SSM). The temptation to dork it up will be high, not to mention that the "Hey, it&#39;s something that the people in our Region want" mentality will be hard to fight. For ITR (or whatever the hell it ends up being called) to have any chance at being an extension of IT, it needs to be implemented from the top down, as a strategic initiative.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 12 2005, 10:22 AM
Ron,

I wish it were as simple as you might think. You will NEED a process with defined parameters. You will need a list of cars that are eligible.
67949


I suppose ignorance is a good thing sometimes. If I weren&#39;t ignorant of how hard this is going to be or what little chance it has of happening, then I might stop now.

I&#39;ll just simply do the best I can with the car data, try to do a good job estimating weights and power, and at first iteration try to come up with something reasonable. I don&#39;t have experience that a lot here have, but I&#39;m not an idiot and neither are the others helping. A scientist, a lawyer, and a car shop owner all drew up a plan for ITU.......

Anyhow, I&#39;m humble and if the plan goes X distance, and the CRB says "throw that out" well, I&#39;m not so damn hardheaded that I&#39;d say no. I&#39;d say throw that out and let&#39;s get on the road to making this thing work. 80% of what you ask for is better than 0% of what you ask for.

I&#39;ll be a conduit for the ITAC, where do I sign up. Is that anything like a lightning rod?

Ron

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 12 2005, 12:42 PM
I would respectfully suggest that everyone hold off on Regional versions of ITR.

Let&#39;s see what we can do first. If it falls flat on it&#39;s face and has no hope, then go for it...but a little patience could go a long way here.

AB

67938


Andy,

...Is there anything we can do? Like sending in letters asking to class some of the cars that will not fit in ITS because they are to fast. In hopes it might reinforce the fact that there are people out here that have an interest in racing these cars in IT.

... Just a suggestion

... Rick

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 12 2005, 08:39 AM
I suppose ignorance is a good thing sometimes. If I weren&#39;t ignorant of how hard this is going to be or what little chance it has of happening, then I might stop now.

Don&#39;t stop, just understand that if you can&#39;t undo something, it could hurt - real bad. One example is a rule that someone builds to (that costs them real $$$) in your Region and they end up having to throw it out. There are real decisions that have to be made here that will require you to draw a line in the sand (wheels, weights, car eligibility).


Anyhow, I&#39;m humble and if the plan goes X distance, and the CRB says "throw that out" well, I&#39;m not so damn hardheaded that I&#39;d say no. I&#39;d say throw that out and let&#39;s get on the road to making this thing work. 80% of what you ask for is better than 0% of what you ask for.

See above. It&#39;s not you I am worried about...it&#39;s the locals that drink the cool-aid, spend good money for it and then find out that flavor is no longer available when/if the SCCA opens it&#39;s own bar.


I&#39;ll be a conduit for the ITAC, where do I sign up. Is that anything like a lightning rod?

You are wise beyond your years Grasshopper.

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 12 2005, 08:43 AM
Andy,

...Is there anything we can do? Like sending in letters asking to class some of the cars that will not fit in ITS because they are to fast. In hopes it might reinforce the fact that there are people out here that have an interest in racing these cars in IT.

... Just a suggestion

... Rick

67958


Absolutely Rick. There are a few types of letters I think would carry weight.

1. "I have a XXX and would like to build it for IT. Currently, I realize it is outside the paramters if ITS but should a class above materialize, I would be in."

2. "I think a class above ITS is needed for the growth and overall health of IT as a category (individual explanation as to why would be great)"

Or a combination of the two...I think the CRB needs to know there will be cars and drivers ready to build/buy when/if it hits. It will also be important to know where these people are coming from - if it Rob&#39;s Peter to pay Paul...not soooo great but for a guy like you who is outside of the GCR now (in IT7), it would be a success IMHO.

Any letters with just a request - and no idea/reasoning/benefit are of little use.

AB

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 12 2005, 02:55 PM

...I think the CRB needs to know

AB

67963


Andy,

... For those of us that are to sorry to find it, or don&#39;t know where to look, could you give us the address for the CRB?

... Thanks..... Rick

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 12 2005, 09:28 AM
Andy,

... For those of us that are to sorry to find it, or don&#39;t know where to look, could you give us the address for the CRB?

... Thanks..... Rick

67970


[email protected]

All your Boards and Committees (http://www.scca.com/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=00123D-C286160&x=080|070&~=)

AB

[Knestis]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 12 2005, 09:06 AM
I understand what both of your are saying and I think you both offer good advice and are correct. But, I&#39;ll say - I do not plan on changing a single thing ...

Quick test:

As NCR ITR program chair, you are approached by the chapter president of BMWCCA who assures you that there are 20 well-heeled M3 owners with cars built and ready to commit to running ITR the first year of its existence. However, they would like to be able to run in BMWCCA Prepared specs, and are even willing to take a 200# weight handicap, over that prescribed by your planning, to do so. Remembering that they are all rich, what is your immediate reaction?

:D

K

EDIT - I had to check. These would be e36 M3&#39;s running in I Prepared.

[JeffYoung]

Answer: NO.

[Knestis]

...and the RE has told you that the class won&#39;t be allowed in a run group until 20 drivers have signed a letter of intent to run? :o

K

[JeffYoung]

Again, no. The intent I envision behind ITR is that it is IT for newer, faster cars. Bringing in cars from BMWCCA and PCA is just something that I hope happens. I HOPE that a BMWCCA guy -- who presently looks at the ITCS and only sees what, four or five BMWs (and low performance ones at that) classified -- finally has a place to run his M3 or M Coupe or 330 or 6 series IF he is willing to play within IT&#39;s rules. Same with Porsches.

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 12 2005, 02:55 PM
There are a few types of letters I think would carry weight.

1. "I have a XXX and would like to build it for IT. Currently, I realize it is outside the paramters if ITS but should a class above materialize, I would be in."

2. "I think a class above ITS is needed for the growth and overall health of IT as a category (individual explanation as to why would be great)"

Or a combination of the two...I think the CRB needs to know there will be cars and drivers ready to build/buy when/if it hits. It will also be important to know where these people are coming from - if it Rob&#39;s Peter to pay Paul...not soooo great but for a guy like you who is outside of the GCR now (in IT7), it would be a success IMHO.

Any letters with just a request - and no idea/reasoning/benefit are of little use.

AB

67963


Thanks Andy,

... And these letters can be sent to: [email protected]

[Hotshoe]

... So, those of you that are interested, please take a few minutes and write to the Club Racing Board.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 12:54 PM
Quick test:

As NCR ITR program chair, you are approached by the chapter president of BMWCCA who assures you that there are 20 well-heeled M3 owners with cars built and ready to commit to running ITR the first year of its existence. However, they would like to be able to run in BMWCCA Prepared specs, and are even willing to take a 200# weight handicap, over that prescribed by your planning, to do so. Remembering that they are all rich, what is your immediate reaction?

:D

K

EDIT - I had to check. These would be e36 M3&#39;s running in I Prepared.

67982


You politely tell them that the SCCA doesn&#39;t structure their rules around those of other organizations. You can also remind him (or her) that the precedent exists for running cars prepared to SCCA IT rules, in BMWCCA classes (e.g. ITS E36 runs in JP).

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 12 2005, 01:45 PM
You politely tell them that the SCCA doesn&#39;t structure their rules around those of other organizations. You can also remind him (or her) that the precedent exists for running cars prepared to SCCA IT rules, in BMWCCA classes (e.g. ITS E36 runs in JP).

67999


And you also politely remind him to remind his BMWCCA drivers who race in IT events to kindly put a restrictor on, take those hot cams out of their cars, remove the subframe braces, the larger throttle body, and comply to IT rules.

K, NO. If we get 20, good, if we don&#39;t, well, we don&#39;t. It is an IT class and will remain IT structure 100%. I think that when the PCA/BMW groups notice we&#39;ve got a class for a lot of their cars they&#39;ll come play. Some still view SCCA as being a serious playground for racing and a step above what they do.

R

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 01:07 PM
...and the RE has told you that the class won&#39;t be allowed in a run group until 20 drivers have signed a letter of intent to run? :o

K

67987


I&#39;ll say sorry, we&#39;re not letting them run. But then I&#39;ll politely point out that we keep running open wheel Formula Vees in their own group when two cars show up, thus delaying the entire field many, many, many hours of the course of a double weekend. So we can all watch two formula vees race each other. True - happened at CMP about six or seven weeks ago.

R

[Knestis]

So far, everyone&#39;s passed the quiz. Good job!

Now for the final...

It&#39;s 2008 and ITR has caught fire in NC Region. It&#39;s growing in popularity and 20 M3 owners, forced out of their racing program by a shift in emphasis to drifting events by BMWCCA, now form the core of the entries.

Ron has a periodically fast 928 built, but he&#39;s fighting ongoing FI challenges, resulting from removal of pollution control hardware. Jeff is running a 1981 V12 Jaguar XJS in old Tullius Gr44 colors, that has everyone covered on the straights but goes through brakes like the driver changes underwear...

Sorry.

Anyway, 20 of 22 entrants decide that it&#39;s time to apply some democracy and vote to make Raleigh-based BMW technical guru and frontrunning M3 entrant Erich von Schwartzenwald ITR chair. He is elected on the strength of his goal to "give the cams back" to the M3s, that are visibly down on power to the Porsche and Jag entries.

Now what?

I wish that there were someone who could speak from firsthand experience about the Porschefication of ITE in NW Region SCCA. The region got to the point where they pretty much had to give the PCA entrants whatever they wanted, because they made up the bulk of any regional event entry. Or at least, that&#39;s what i saw from the outside.

K

EDIT - Didja have the Jag on the list yet? :)

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 02:23 PM
So far, everyone&#39;s passed the quiz. Good job!

Now for the final...

Ron has a periodically fast 928 built, but he&#39;s fighting ongoing FI challenges, resulting from removal of pollution control hardware. Jeff is running a 1981 V12 Jaguar XJS in old Tullius Gr44 colors, that has everyone covered on the straights but goes through brakes like the driver changes underwear...

Now what?[/i]

EDIT - Didja have the Jag on the list yet? :)

68002


Dang, I&#39;ll have to think on the final a bit. But, I did learn something new - so drivers wear underwear? Man, I was wondering what I was doing wrong, my laundry bill was more than my engine service!

R

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 11:23 AM

I wish that there were someone who could speak from firsthand experience about the Porschefication of ITE in NW Region SCCA. The region got to the point where they pretty much had to give the PCA entrants whatever they wanted, because they made up the bulk of any regional event entry. Or at least, that&#39;s what i saw from the outside.

K

EDIT - Didja have the Jag on the list yet? :)

68002


And now there numbers are dropping in Oregon/NWR and their run group has been put in the IT run group. We now have Turbo 944&#39;s and 600hp camaro&#39;s battling through ITC 510&#39;s and rabbits. All to give SM it&#39;s own run group. Our regional group H has been turned into A_Z soup because another class has been added to the schedule. The High speed stuff has pushed most of the regular IT competition over to another club because they don&#39;t want to run with them.

[JeffYoung]

Kurt, you&#39;re an easy prof man!

We beat down that sucker.

Seriously, the answer has to be: no. It&#39;s not that different really from those who ask for weight breaks in IT -- barring a correction of an incorrect weight or a "uniform" reorganization based on a formula (sorry Darin) the Jag still dominates the M3s down the straights and then parks it in the corners. That, to me, is most attractive part of IT in teh first place. Different cars, different strengths.

Which makes the initial classification process so important, as Andy mentioned elsewhere on another thread. BUT, fortunately, we have had Andy, Jake, Darin, et. al. come up with a fairly workable formula that should be applied to ITR cars when classification happens (if it happens). If some guys want to come in and muck it up with cams, etc. it is the duty of the entire IT community to say no.

Also, your vision of Ron and Jeff in ITR is weirdly prophetic......I hope we have more sense than that, but of course I&#39;m the one salivating at $4000 928s on ebay.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 02:23 PM
So far, everyone&#39;s passed the quiz. Good job!

Now for the final...

It&#39;s 2008 and ITR has caught fire in NC Region. It&#39;s growing in popularity and 20 M3 owners, forced out of their racing program by a shift in emphasis to drifting events by BMWCCA, now form the core of the entries.

Ron has a periodically fast 928 built, but he&#39;s fighting ongoing FI challenges, resulting from removal of pollution control hardware. Jeff is running a 1981 V12 Jaguar XJS in old Tullius Gr44 colors, that has everyone covered on the straights but goes through brakes like the driver changes underwear...

Sorry.

Anyway, 20 of 22 entrants decide that it&#39;s time to apply some democracy and vote to make Raleigh-based BMW technical guru and frontrunning M3 entrant Erich von Schwartzenwald ITR chair. He is elected on the strength of his goal to "give the cams back" to the M3s, that are visibly down on power to the Porsche and Jag entries.

Now what?

I wish that there were someone who could speak from firsthand experience about the Porschefication of ITE in NW Region SCCA. The region got to the point where they pretty much had to give the PCA entrants whatever they wanted, because they made up the bulk of any regional event entry. Or at least, that&#39;s what i saw from the outside.

K

EDIT - Didja have the Jag on the list yet? :)

68002



Damn Kirk, I&#39;ve had open-book exams that were harder than that.* That answer is very easy. The ITCS specify what is and is not allowed. Alternate camshafts are not allowed, and are really inconsistent w/ the IT category philosophy. You are welcome to request an adjustment from Topeka, but keep in mind that competition adjustments are not allowed in IT. However, if you read the clause on new car classifications, you will see that performance, relative to other cars in the class, will be reviewed after the 2nd, 3rd, and 4th year of classification. Based on this review, the car can possibly be moved to another class, or receive some sort of PCA. Being as the M3 has only been classified for one year, it is not currently eligible for any reclassification/adjustment. In addition, Regions are not allowed to alter the rules for any Nationally-recognized classification.

You do have the option of running in ITE though, with the guys that didn&#39;t want to take their cams out.



*I&#39;ve had more than my fair share of open-book exams that were murder!!! It was simply used to illlustrate a point, and give a nod to Kirk&#39;s former life as a teacher.

[Knestis]

Oooh - "A" for effort and classroom participation, Bill but you missed big points not reading the questions completely. :)

The scenario was that NCR SCCA insituted ITR as a regional-only class. Topeka has no bearing on the subject. Ron&#39;s prototype ITR rules might reference the ITCS but there&#39;s no big SCCA stick to enforce that first principle. If the locals decide that they want cams, they get cams. All they have to do is lobby their regional gurus, who typically let entrants guide the direction of regional-only classes.

And Jeff - this wasn&#39;t a Yes/No question. In the last scenario, the regional ITR chair lost what control he might have had the instant Erich was voted in. Just like you might be successful lobbying to get ITR started, a different set of voices - louder voices, potentially, since they already have cars built - can successfully lobby for changes beyond the original vision of The Creators.

This has happened time and again in this and other clubs. The RS class that Darin and Joe are so familiar with has changed a lot since 20 years ago when Steve Taylor and a couple of us sat down with beers in hand to come up with the first rules. There were about 10 of them, as I recall. The "S" originally stood for "sedan"...

K

[JeffYoung]

Kirk, I understood the question, just didn&#39;t articulate the response as well as I should have.

If one group of IT drivers stands up and asks for a change to the IT rules that negatively impacts EVERYONE (i.e. allowing cams), then all IT drivers/classes should move to stop that effort.

Will they be successful? I don&#39;t know. But that is how it is, in my limited experience, dealt with within the SCCA.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 04:42 PM
The scenario was that NCR SCCA insituted ITR as a regional-only class. Topeka has no bearing on the subject. Ron&#39;s prototype ITR rules might reference the ITCS but there&#39;s no big SCCA stick to enforce that first principle. If the locals decide that they want cams, they get cams. All they have to do is lobby their regional gurus, who typically let entrants guide the direction of regional-only classes.

68015


Kirk, this is a good point. But, I think it underscores the need to make it a real IT class and subject to SCCA rules, not just a regional class. I&#39;m hoping ITU DOES NOT start as a regional only and can instead be accepted by the ITAC and CRB, but if not, I and some others who have written and emailed, will certainly try for at least regional status. And then we&#39;ll have to deal with what you have projected.

Even if we start regional and convert quickly we could avoid your scenario - I think it&#39;ll take the BMW boys longer than a year to gain control and elect with Erich von Schwartzenwald.

PS-No, I we can&#39;t put the XJS in IT - all IT cars must have a manual transmission per IT spec and the XJS was not offered in the US in this configuration. Darn it.

[Bill Miller]

The scenario was that NCR SCCA insituted ITR as a regional-only class

Actually Kirk, you didn&#39;t say that. What you said was "NCR ITR Program Chair". While I can see where you could interpret that as meaning that it was a NCR-only program, there&#39;s nothing in the original question that explicitly states that. Probably not valid of me to assume that we had already put the bottom-up scenario to bed, but your question was somewhat vague in that respect.

However, given that it&#39;s a NCR-only gig, what I would assume would have been in the original class charter, was that it was going to be an extension of IT, w/ the goal of having ITR Nationally recogonized. Given that, I think my response was accurate and valid. Even though it was a NCR-only program, you could still wave the National ITCS at them, and use it as justification for your position. A &#39;not consistent with category philosophy&#39; if you will.

[Knestis]

Oh, great - another one of those kids who&#39;s going to blame the test. :D

I knew what I meant!

K

[lateapex911]

Kirk&#39;s point is EXTREMELY valid...

Even when a program such as this starts out with great intentions, and has a solid group of supporters behind it, it can still run off the tracks for any number of circumstances...Ron has health/family/job issues and steps away for a year, and Jeff gets an awesome position in a killer law firm that has offices a half hour from a great track...AND the main partner is getting old, but has one of those XJ220s that needs exercise....so he moves away too, leaving the program in someone elses hands...

Next thing you know, the guys with the vision and the backbone are gone, and the program is corrupted.

The key is the National acceptance. And I think the key to that is recognizing a real need.

THAT is where the public comes in...cards and letters, as Rick suggests. IF there is demand, the ITAC will tackle it. Ron&#39;s vision is great, and I think that if the process is respected, it could see the light of day, sooner than some long time observers might think.