ITE RULES

[BMW RACER]

Hey racers.

Here in Southern California we're think of doing some tweaking to out current ITE rules. I'm curious what other regions are using for rules in ITE.

If you could send me a link to your rules that would be great.

[email protected]

Thanks in advance.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Page 4.

http://www.ner.org/RR1/docs/2004%20narrc%20rules%20final.pdf

Weird class really. Effectively, you could run a Trans Am car with DOT tires. One of those deals where you could spend HUGE money and there will always the the threat of something showing up and blowing your doors off.

AB

[jhooten]

Southwest Division


Improved Touring E (ITE)

Cars eligible for ITE are production based cars with fenders and doors that are not currently eligible for any other SCCA club racing class.

Cars entered in ITE must meet minimum safety standards of the GCR and Improved Touring Category Specifications, including all items in Section 17, GCR and Section 10, ITCS. Suitability of any car for ITE is subject to the approval of the Chief Steward and Chief Scrutineer.

The maximum engine displacement for normally aspirated cars is 3,000 cc. Turbocharging or supercharging is allowed with a maximum displacement of 1,765 cc. Rotary engines are limited to two (2) rotors.

Link:
SWdiv Regional Classes (http://www.sowdivscca.org/rules.aspx)

[Joe Harlan]

http://www.oregonscca.com/roadrace/2005/2005ITE.doc


Oregon's ITE rules.

[Tom A]

San Francisco Region ITE rules are three lines:

ITE – Improved Touring E

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 General Competition Regulations.

As a catch-all class, I think this is an excellent way of doing things.

Tom

[x-ring]

RMDiv ITE rules:

ROCKY MOUNTAIN DIVISION
2004
IT EVERYTHING ELSE (ITE) RULES
Regional Only Class

ITE is designated as a regional only class. These are racing vehicles with fenders and doors that conform to present or past Pro Racing or Club Racing classes which meet the general regulations of Sections 17 and 18 of the GCR for IT and do not conform within the rules designated for Improved Touring Classes. All ITE cars must run on DOT approved tires and must display the class designation ITE.

or link to it at: http://coloradoscca.org/archives/RMDIV-iterules.doc

Not sure why it still reads 2004, there was no change for 2005.

***Edit: Reading Mr. Harris' post below jarred my memory. There was a change for 2005. RMDiv ITE is now broken into ITE-O and ITE-U for over and under some displacement cutoff (3.0l ?) and there is a multiplier for forced inducton (maybe 1.2?).

[charrbq]

I've seen everything in every region I've run in from Speed Cup Vipers to Trans Am Corvettes running Can Am motors. It really gets out of hand. What they've done in the SOWDIV (my old home) is limit ITE to 3 ltr. max engine size and conformation to the safety and vehicle prep of the ITCS. There have been some cases of grand-fathering in some previously prepared ITE cars that were modestly outside these rules, but my understanding is that will cease in 2006. Also, I understand the appearance will have to conform to the rules stated in the GCR in reference to paint, primer, damaged body work, etc. This is much needed, as some of the cars running in that class are rough, even on a good day.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Tom A@Nov 23 2005, 11:25 AM
San Francisco Region ITE rules are three lines:
As a catch-all class, I think this is an excellent way of doing things.

Tom

66480

Until you have a 600hp 3500lb Camaro running around with a 2000 lb rabbit and IT bolt in cages in both cars? Thats a poor way of doing things.

[dave parker]

http://www.wdcr-scca.org/marrs/2005_ITE.pdf

These are the ITE rules that the Washington DC Region uses.

cheers
"dangerous" dave parker
wdcr ITC->HP #97

[Tom A]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 23 2005, 01:37 PM
Until you have a 600hp 3500lb Camaro running around with a 2000 lb rabbit and IT bolt in cages in both cars? Thats a poor way of doing things.


How so? They will probably only see each other once or twice in the race, when the rabbit gets lapped. As long as everyone has a clue, the speed differential is a non-issue. Turning 20 seconds faster laps doesn't absolve the passing car the responsability of making a safe pass, nor does it preclude the slower car the necessity of watching the mirrors and leaving racing room.

BTW, I ran in ITE with SFR last month, as my G-cam and weight make my Rabbit illegal for ITB. I was classed with Mitsubishi EVOs, a couple of 911s, a 928, 350Z, second-gen RX7s and a Lexus.. I was completely outclassed, but I was out racing and having fun, which is the point of catch-all classes, isn't it?

Tom

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Tom A@Nov 23 2005, 02:21 PM
How so? They will probably only see each other once or twice in the race, when the rabbit gets lapped. As long as everyone has a clue, the speed differential is a non-issue. Turning 20 seconds faster laps doesn't absolve the passing car the responsability of making a safe pass, nor does it preclude the slower car the necessity of watching the mirrors and leaving racing room.

BTW, I ran in ITE with SFR last month, as my G-cam and weight make my Rabbit illegal for ITB. I was classed with Mitsubishi EVOs, a couple of 911s, a 928, 350Z, second-gen RX7s and a Lexus.. I was completely outclassed, but I was out racing and having fun, which is the point of catch-all classes, isn't it?

Tom

66502

Don't make a mistake in fornt of the big camaro. Sorry but some cars should not be raced together.

[WIZARD Racing]

ITE = IT Everything. If it doesn't fit into another IT class, it goes there. I could run my ITA car there too. Always a fun class to watch.

A few years ago I watched a full race Viper, stout Mustang, and a 2nd gen MR2 (turbo) battle at NHIS. The Viper was on pole and was closely persued by the Mustang, but the MR2 reeled them in and took off about 2/3 of the way through the race.
I've seen an ITE Porsche 944 turbo blow by GT1 cars at Watkins Glen too.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by WIZARD Racing@Dec 12 2005, 12:00 PM
... I've seen an ITE Porsche 944 turbo blow by GT1 cars at Watkins Glen too.

...which in some regions could run with a bolt-in Autopower rollcage. Riiight.

K

[ShelbyRacer]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 23 2005, 06:07 PM
Don't make a mistake in fornt of the big camaro. Sorry but some cars should not be raced together.


Regardless of what else is in ITE that day, you have to remember that most regions run ITE in Big Bore, so you can have a GT1 car come up on that little ITE guy too.

The other problem is look at the large variety of rules. I'm local to DC Region, so I'm stuck with some of the most restrictive rules anywhere. For my car, it was only ever Pro raced in a few series, mostly in SS type trim. But if I went to another car, I could do almost anything to it. I understand that the idea is to restrict the class to Pro-prepped ex-series cars to avoid the average backyard racer from getting in over his head prep-wise, but almost no one runs an ex-pro car in ITE any more.

It seems like here in the NE, ITE is not exploited, while on the west coast, it's more of a free-for-all. I'm not sure which is better.

[benspeed]

I was thinking of running my new ASA stock car which is about 2800 lbs and 430HP in ITE. Doesn't look like I'd be a great fit in a number of regions. SPO is, but I like to hang with my IT buds.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 01:05 PM
...which in some regions could run with a bolt-in Autopower rollcage. Riiight.

K

67986



The fact that we (the SCCA) still allows bolt-in cages, in this day and age, is beyond me. We've got to change our belts every 2 years (unless FIA approved), but you can have a T1 Viper V10 GTS @ 3560#, running around for another 2 years, w/ a bolt-in cage is totally absurd. But, I guess the showroom stock roll cage rules will go away in a year or so, when SSB gets rolled into T3, and I imagine that they'll just switch SSC to T4.

ITAC folks, any talk about eliminating the bolt-in cage allowance for IT cars?

On topic content - Catch-all classes like ITE always put cars w/ large speed differentials on the track at the same time. Not sure what can be done about it. I like the ITE-O / ITE-U deal that was mentioned above. I remember when I first started racing, one of the first races I ran, was an EMRA race w/ my ITA MR2. We were grouped w/ big-bore, and there was a guy w/ an ex-TransAm Mustang running. Try having that blow by you comming out on the banking at Pocono!!!

[jhooten]

In SWdiv the run group for regional Classes includes ITA/B/C/S/E, SRX7, AND SP. We have several Baby Grands in SP and they are fast, small, and hard to see sneaking up behind you. And on the other end of SP is a MKIV Supra at 3200 pounds and 600 hp. Then there is the ITE 911 who runs lap times with the Supra (no not mine the other one, the 600 hp one). All this on the track with the ITC cars.

No wonder there are so few ITC cars running here.

Having said that however, there are very few incidents in our group. And I can't remember the last full course yellow we have had.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 14 2005, 08:12 AM
The fact that we (the SCCA) still allows bolt-in cages, in this day and age, is beyond me. We've got to change our belts every 2 years (unless FIA approved), but you can have a T1 Viper V10 GTS @ 3560#, running around for another 2 years, w/ a bolt-in cage is totally absurd. But, I guess the showroom stock roll cage rules will go away in a year or so, when SSB gets rolled into T3, and I imagine that they'll just switch SSC to T4.

ITAC folks, any talk about eliminating the bolt-in cage allowance for IT cars?

68217


Bill, please take this as a serious question, but is this based on an engineering assessment that shows a bolted cage is structurally weaker than a welded. Keep in mind that the comparison should be made between minimum specs for both welded and bolted construction. I have a feeling a well built bolted cage will be far safer than a poorly designed welded cage and both could still meet SCCA specs. Throwing out bolted cages without some engineering analysis to prove the case is likely to cause a lot of ill will. Just look at the ongoing production fiasco.

[MMiskoe]

On topic content - Catch-all classes like ITE always put cars w/ large speed differentials on the track at the same time. Not sure what can be done about it. I like the ITE-O / ITE-U deal that was mentioned above. I remember when I first started racing, one of the first races I ran, was an EMRA race w/ my ITA MR2. We were grouped w/ big-bore, and there was a guy w/ an ex-TransAm Mustang running. Try having that blow by you comming out on the banking at Pocono!

Yes Bill, I remember that car well, he passed me in the same fashion at both Bridgehampton (about start/finish) and again at WGI on the back straight. Very interesting experience for a first ever race. Then my first ever SCCA race was ITS/ITE/AS. Qualifying was in pouring rain, race was under clear blue sky & dry track.

Any class w/o much rules structure will become a Can-Am series.

[Bill Miller]

Matt R.

Point of fact is, our tech inspectors should be determining if welded cages meet minimum safety requirements (from both a design and an installation perspective) before they issue a logbook for the car. I've also got an issue where it's deemed thta a welded in cage is required for one car, in the interest of safety, but not in another. Case in point, as off 1/1/08, all Touring cars will be required to have welded cages, and any car registered after 1/1/03 has to have one. IF SSC doesn't become T4, and nothing is changed w.r.t. the cage rules for SS, you'll have a case where ex-SSB cars (now in T3) will have welded cages, but the SSC cars will continue to be allowed to use bolt-in cages. How can you mandate it for one (T3) and not the other (SSC)? Would you want a bolt-in cage in an ITS E36 BMW that was capable of 130+ mph?

Matt M.

Yep, Rich passed me on plenty of occasions at Bridgehampton too (damn I miss that place!). I remember thinking how honkin' fast and cool that car was. His wife, Linda, had the other hot Mustang that she ran Time Trials with. Sadly, Linda lost her battle w/ cancer earlier this year. They used to live ~ 5 min. from me. Rich sold the house earlier this year, and I'm not sure where he moved to.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 14 2005, 11:30 AM
Matt R.

Point of fact is, our tech inspectors should be determining if welded cages meet minimum safety requirements (from both a design and an installation perspective) before they issue a logbook for the car. I've also got an issue where it's deemed thta a welded in cage is required for one car, in the interest of safety, but not in another. Case in point, as off 1/1/08, all Touring cars will be required to have welded cages, and any car registered after 1/1/03 has to have one. IF SSC doesn't become T4, and nothing is changed w.r.t. the cage rules for SS, you'll have a case where ex-SSB cars (now in T3) will have welded cages, but the SSC cars will continue to be allowed to use bolt-in cages. How can you mandate it for one (T3) and not the other (SSC)? Would you want a bolt-in cage in an ITS E36 BMW that was capable of 130+ mph?

Matt M.

Yep, Rich passed me on plenty of occasions at Bridgehampton too (damn I miss that place!). I remember thinking how honkin' fast and cool that car was. His wife, Linda, had the other hot Mustang that she ran Time Trials with. Sadly, Linda lost her battle w/ cancer earlier this year. They used to live ~ 5 min. from me. Rich sold the house earlier this year, and I'm not sure where he moved to.

68267


Bill, the only time I take issue with the differences in safety is when we start mixing safety levels in run groups.....Mix a trans-am car with an ITC 510...Now does the IT510 have enough cage ,fuel cell, firesystem,nascar bar requirement to be mixed with the car? 165mph compared to 105 mph at portland? Or as we do mixing a boltin cage 944T/ite car with same 510....944 likely gets to at least 148mph? If you take it from the prod page it should be the drivers own choice on safety?

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 14 2005, 01:30 PM
Matt R.

Point of fact is, our tech inspectors should be determining if welded cages meet minimum safety requirements (from both a design and an installation perspective) before they issue a logbook for the car. I've also got an issue where it's deemed thta a welded in cage is required for one car, in the interest of safety, but not in another. Case in point, as off 1/1/08, all Touring cars will be required to have welded cages, and any car registered after 1/1/03 has to have one. IF SSC doesn't become T4, and nothing is changed w.r.t. the cage rules for SS, you'll have a case where ex-SSB cars (now in T3) will have welded cages, but the SSC cars will continue to be allowed to use bolt-in cages. How can you mandate it for one (T3) and not the other (SSC)? Would you want a bolt-in cage in an ITS E36 BMW that was capable of 130+ mph?

68267


Bill, no offense to those of us that are tech inspectors, but many do not have the training/education/experience to judge what is "safe" and they certainly shouldn't be forced to accept the liability of making such a judgement. When someone has a seriuos incident would you want some lawyer going to his logbook and coming after the tech inspector that said the cage was safe. The inspector says it meets the descripiton in the GCR and stamps the cage, that puts the responsibility on SCCA to make sure the GCR is appropriate.

As for SS/Touring and that change I'll wait and see what shakes out for next year but yes I agree that in general the rules should be consistent within classes of similar cars.

But to answer your last question depending on how the bolt in cage was built for the E36 was built I would take it over a poorly built (but GCR legal) weld in. For instance my basic cage dates back to the days of bolt in only. I have done some work to it to improve safety that takes it beyond the minimum for a weld in cage. Is it as safe as if I started from scratch with a no expense spared weld in effort? No, is it safer than a bare minimum welded cage, probably. It would be interesting to see what the percentage of bolt in cages are for each IT class. I have a feeling that requiring a weld in cage would only add to the reduction in car counts seen in ITB and ITC.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 14 2005, 05:19 PM
Bill, the only time I take issue with the differences in safety is when we start mixing safety levels in run groups.....Mix a trans-am car with an ITC 510...Now does the IT510 have enough cage ,fuel cell, firesystem,nascar bar requirement to be mixed with the car? 165mph compared to 105 mph at portland? Or as we do mixing a boltin cage 944T/ite car with same 510....944 likely gets to at least 148mph? If you take it from the prod page it should be the drivers own choice on safety?

68283


Yeah Joe, but if you look at what's going on w/ cages in some of the older Prod cars, it seems that they're taking the choice away from the driver. And if you look at most of the endurance races, you've got GT3-Cup Porsches (running in ITE) out there w/ ITC 510s and Rabbits. Gets REALLY interesting at 3AM in the rain!

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 14 2005, 02:51 PM
Yeah Joe, but if you look at what's going on w/ cages in some of the older Prod cars, it seems that they're taking the choice away from the driver. And if you look at most of the endurance races, you've got GT3-Cup Porsches (running in ITE) out there w/ ITC 510s and Rabbits. Gets REALLY interesting at 3AM in the rain!

68293


Matt, as a tech inspector if you don't have enough experience to inspect cage welds and contruction then you should request someone that does. I don't expect every Tech official to know everything but, collectively the region should have enough people with the experience combined to cover all of our techical needs. The problem with our current system is that once a LB is issued and the cage is stamped it is very rarely ever looked at again. onc eyou have a number you could basicly cutout half the tubes and rebuild it without reinspection. Our rules require a little to much honor among thieves to self polic some issues.

Bill, I agree it happens way to much so what to do? 120% rule play here? Make so of the slowest car on the grid is 120% off the pace of the fastest car the whole class gets moved to a different rungroup for the weekend?

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 14 2005, 05:03 PM
Matt, as a tech inspector if you don't have enough experience to inspect cage welds and contruction then you should request someone that does. I don't expect every Tech official to know everything but, collectively the region should have enough people with the experience combined to cover all of our techical needs. The problem with our current system is that once a LB is issued and the cage is stamped it is very rarely ever looked at again. onc eyou have a number you could basicly cutout half the tubes and rebuild it without reinspection. Our rules require a little to much honor among thieves to self polic some issues.

68295


Inspecting weld quality and how it meets the minimum GCR requirements are one thing. Making a decision about the placement of reinforcing bars outside of the GCR spec is another. You didn't include anything about my statements of liability of the Tech inspector in your response. Maybe you haven't considered it but I can see a lawyer taking a tech inspector to the cleaners for requiring changes based on his personal judgements outside of the scope of the GCR. If that driver is then injured in a crash I don't think the family would have to look too far to find a lawyer willing to say "Driver X would have been fine if you hadn't made him move this bar, your rulebook doesn't even require it". And really the original statement was about the idea that bolt in cages are far inferior to a minimal weld in cage. Would you agree with that and if so has someone done the analysis to prove it?

As far as the LB being issued and the cage never re-examined, it does vary some region to region and official to official. One series I participate in does continuously review each car at each event to ensure nothing has been altered. But in general no, not much attention is given to it but at the same time is this really a problem? How many people are doing it and who are they really hurting? Not many and themself. We have bigger fish to fry before you start asking Tech to do complete cage reinspections at annual tech.

[Joe Harlan]

We have bigger fish to fry before you start asking Tech to do complete cage reinspections at annual tech

Really? What would that be pushing for seat belts every year? If we are not going to be concerned enough to check that our main piece of safety equipment is not safe then WTF do we go through tech for? SO somebody can tell me my LFT rear brake light is out? Tell what fish you have to fry? Matt you convince me more and more there is a BOD position in your future cause you tow the party line pretty darn good. Again Why require a GT1 car to have more safety than an ITC car if you are gonna mix them on the grid...Somebody afrad the 510 will kill somebody in a GT1 car?

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 14 2005, 05:50 PM
Really? What would that be pushing for seat belts every year? If we are not going to be concerned enough to check that our main piece of safety equipment is not safe then WTF do we go through tech for? SO somebody can tell me my LFT rear brake light is out? Tell what fish you have to fry? Matt you convince me more and more there is a BOD position in your future cause you tow the party line pretty darn good. Again Why require a GT1 car to have more safety than an ITC car if you are gonna mix them on the grid...Somebody afrad the 510 will kill somebody in a GT1 car?

68302


Joe, get a clue. You have NO idea what I think of the seatbelt rules but since you brought it up . . . my personal feelings is the change was one of the biggest sacks of **** handed down. It the result of a knee jerk lawyers reaction happening over the entire safety equipment industry after a few high profile incidents. The change was shoved through and we, the racers, end up paying the price. Hell, I have to throw out a perfectly good set of belts this winter that are still so knew the camlock isn't even broken in enough to easily snap together. So if you think I'm worried about one year limit on belts you must be smoking something pretty good. :023:

By bigger fish I mean, standardize the cage specs to provide a progression, or fix the classing structure, enforce the rules that are in place, improve participation, and generally restructure the decision making process/long term planning. Do you need me to go on?

But I've let you try and drag me into too much of an argument already trying to argue things I never stated. The original statement I have a problem with is forcing all bolt in cages out based on someone's gut feel? That would be as much of a mistake as the seatbelt rule. If you would like to argue that point fine. But I've already told you repeatedly I don't want a BOD/CRB seat. And I've also said the idea of GT1 and ITC on the same track is a bad idea. It doesn't happen in my area if it happens in yours then do something about. It's a much better use of your time that incorrectly assuming you know where I stand on things.

[cbuzzetti]

If you should not run ITE and ITC together then how does SCCA justify running GT1 and HP together? This is the accepted/normal grouping for Regionals in CalClub. I believe this grouping is not acceptable for Nats.

At WSIR in Cal. the timing differential is 16 seconds between GT1 and HP on a 1:30 second track. This track is known as the fastest track in the west. The differential for ITE/ITC is 11 seconds at the same track.
I would not consider driving most HP cars. They look unsafe to me.
By the way, CalClub needs to revise it's ITE rules and get our car counts back up.
My current ITE car does not have a cell so it is not legal for any class in CalClub but is legal for San Fran Region ITE.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by cbuzzetti@Dec 15 2005, 11:53 PM
If you should not run ITE and ITC together then how does SCCA justify running GT1 and HP together? This is the accepted/normal grouping for Regionals in CalClub. I believe this grouping is not acceptable for Nats.

At WSIR in Cal. the timing differential is 16 seconds between GT1 and HP on a 1:30 second track. This track is known as the fastest track in the west. The differential for ITE/ITC is 11 seconds at the same track.
I would not consider driving most HP cars. They look unsafe to me.
By the way, CalClub needs to revise it's ITE rules and get our car counts back up.
My current ITE car does not have a cell so it is not legal for any class in CalClub but is legal for San Fran Region ITE.

68434

Funny you should ask Charles I spoke with your past RE about this today also and he feels the same way. The small bore cars should be mixed Small bore and small bore. Even if it means radial tired cars and slick cars run together. I have listened to how radial tires and slicks tires don't mix and it screws up the racing but guess what. A coroners inquest messes up a race weekend. That's how I get to that point. There are better ways to get this done than we are doing it.

[cbuzzetti]

Unfortunately in our region we do not have enough racecars to split it up that way. We have 10-20 open wheel cars who think they should have separate run groups for small and big bore. Then we have SRF with their own group (12-18 cars) this does not meet the regional minumum most of the time. And then SM (20-30) who should be getting their own run group in 2006. We have the GT group (15-30) that includes ITE. The Pro7/Spec7 group of 20-25 cars. And the IT group that is now down to less than 20 cars (used to have SM). Oh yah forgot the Sports Racers (10-15). They want their own run group also. That is seven groups that must fit into five.

CalClub has proven in the past that we cannot handle more than 5 run groups in the Double Regional format. So one or more of these groups has to be combined with another.

The drivers were polled and concluded that most want 1 hour minimum of track time per day to justify spending the $$$ to race. That is a 15 min practice and 15 min qualify and 30 min race.

So now either track time has to be cut or the lesser subscribed groups have to combine for the greater good of all racing. Nobody wants to give up anything.
If we went based on numbers of entries only the sedans should get a larger portion of track time. That as we know will not happen.
Due to our low car counts we don't have many serious incidents. The fastest GT1 and the slowest HP are both heads up drivers who have raced together many times. The HP driver is over 80 years old. But he always knows when you are coming and always points you by.
There is a risk of death everytime we enter the track. I believe that most drivers know that and take what they consider a calculated risk. Nobody wants to get hurt or die but we have to accept that it can happen on track or even on the way to the track. If it feels too risky then go to VARA or whatever else suits your needs.
Defienetly do not reduce track time so that a few open wheelers feel safer. They are not the majority.

[dickita15]

combineing classes into race groups is the best way to make racer complain but here it the northeast we worry about wieght not speed or tire type. A 3500 lb T1 car and a bug eye scare the heck out of me.

here ITE runs with big bore and we don't let srf get away with running alone they run with small bore cars.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by dickita15@Dec 16 2005, 01:37 PM
combineing classes into race groups is the best way to make racer complain but here it the northeast we worry about wieght not speed or tire type. A 3500 lb T1 car and a bug eye scare the heck out of me.

here ITE runs with big bore and we don't let srf get away with running alone they run with small bore cars.

68503


I figure if spec wreckers can get 15 cars they should have their own group cause nobody wants to run with them. SM does not need a group. I would give thema split start at the most. The fit the IT group just fine and that frees a group for you to goof with. We have 7 run groups here in PDX but our races are held to 25mins most of the time. I think we should all dump practice sessions everynbosy thinks they have to qualify in them anyway so why not have 2 qualifying sessions. If you want practice get a test day. I agree weight is the biggest issue but combine weight and speed and we have a huge issue.

And BTW Charles if I bring the RS car to south are you running the class much? I need somebody to show me the way around buttonwillow. I would ask Norris but rumor has it he doesn't stick around long enough to get the line.

[jhooten]

With starting grids of 25-50 both SM and SRF get their own run groups here. And that ain't breaking my heart at all. Every bit of damage on my car was cause by SM drivers bashing their way though the field on those few rare occasions when the IT and SM groups were combined.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by jhooten@Dec 16 2005, 10:20 PM
With starting grids of 25-50 both SM and SRF get their own run groups here. And that ain't breaking my heart at all. Every bit of damage on my car was cause by SM drivers bashing their way though the field on those few rare occasions when the IT and SM groups were combined.

68563

Jerry I agree when there is room in the schedule but not at the expense of putting little cars in with GT1 cars. As far as cars banging their way thru we have rules for that and it's becoming more and more evident that the stewards need to be doing a better job on body contact.

[zracre]

Quote by cbuzzetti:
The Pro7/Spec7 group of 20-25 cars. And the IT group that is now down to less than 20 cars (used to have SM). Oh yah forgot the Sports Racers (10-15). They want their own run group also. That is seven groups that must fit into five.

put the sports racers ans SRF together then group the Pro7/SRX7 together with the small IT group...problem solved and similar cars on track...

[cbuzzetti]

Some how or another SRF has a stranglehold on the Board. They don't want to run with anyone and always seem to get their way.
The Sports Racers usually run with the open wheel guys. This seems to work but nobody likes it. If you split the group then it is very boring to watch. Only a couple of cars in each class.
Currently SM runs with IT and usually with a split start. Next year I believe that SM will get their own run group and Pro7 and Spec 7 will get melded back into IT.
CalClub was way behind on the SM growth. It was not well recieved in the Club. Their numbers are now close to 30 and warrant their own run group.
Joe: RS runs with the ITE/GT group so that allows up some crossover for the IT cars that want to run twice or if someone is sharing a car.
It has been gathering steam but has some weird rules.
I get to chase John when we both drive our ITS cars in RS. I don't see him for very long. We always welcome any new competitors to our club. Very friendly enviroment, and I would be happy to share any advice about track and setup.
What RS car do you have?

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by cbuzzetti@Dec 17 2005, 12:14 AM
Some how or another SRF has a stranglehold on the Board. They don't want to run with anyone and always seem to get their way.
The Sports Racers usually run with the open wheel guys. This seems to work but nobody likes it. If you split the group then it is very boring to watch. Only a couple of cars in each class.
Currently SM runs with IT and usually with a split start. Next year I believe that SM will get their own run group and Pro7 and Spec 7 will get melded back into IT.
CalClub was way behind on the SM growth. It was not well recieved in the Club. Their numbers are now close to 30 and warrant their own run group.
Joe: RS runs with the ITE/GT group so that allows up some crossover for the IT cars that want to run twice or if someone is sharing a car.
It has been gathering steam but has some weird rules.
I get to chase John when we both drive our ITS cars in RS. I don't see him for very long. We always welcome any new competitors to our club. Very friendly enviroment, and I would be happy to share any advice about track and setup.
What RS car do you have?

68570


LOl on the weird rules. You can blame Kirk for part of them and me for part of them. I would stilll like to have a crack at fixing a bunch of the little stuff with them. I bought the whole GTI Nissan 240sx team that John and Craig ran for in the 90's. I converted 1 car to an IT car which Darin now owns. I converted the other to a World Challenge Touring car which run in RS. I am hoping to come south this year and run a couple of races down there to support the RS concept.

One thing I will say is that nobody has a right to their own run group no matter the level of participation. We all pay the same entry fee and should share a reasonable level of risk vs reward. Just because I choose not to build a SM should not mean that I should have my level of fun ruined by being pushed into a unsafe situation.

[jhooten]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 17 2005, 05:27 AM
Jerry I agree when there is room in the schedule but not at the expense of putting little cars in with GT1 cars. As far as cars banging their way thru we have rules for that and it's becoming more and more evident that the stewards need to be doing a better job on body contact.

68567



Joe,
We run 7 rungroups. To do this one track session is sacrificed. The morning session is a 20 minute combined P&Q.

[itmanta]

I am just starting to run my ITE Volvo in conference in the Oregon region. Our run group ranges from GT1 to RS. It is a very fast run group. Right now with only one senior race under my belt in a new car I am turning high 1.27's to mid 1.28's. Before my first senior race I added significantly to my cage because of the mix of cars in the class and the speeds that are achieved. Now if someone wants to show up and run ITE in a spec miata or anything else, it is their responsibility to watch out for the safety of their car. Now i believe that stands true in any race class.