ITR Class Poll [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Knestis

12-05-2005, 12:24 AM

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 3 2005, 10:01 PM
... So I guess I need to take my 98 BMW Z3 and run it in another club. Since it doesn't fit in the SCCA.

It's a little early to play the "take my ball and go home" card, don't you think? Particularly if you read what I wrote, rather than what you wanted to hear...

There is NO question that something has to be done to meet the needs of a changing market and increasing performance envelopes of new cars. You are never going to find anyone who is more enthusiastic about that philosophy than I am, I don't think. (See three years worth of effort to make IT2 happen, conversations about MT2, and a thousand other bits of evidence.)

I just do NOT think that there is any chance of making the kind of meaningful change necessary to do this, simply by tacking another IT class on top of what - and with the same rules as - we currently have for the category. Further, mucking up the existing IT classes to allow a new one to be created just doesn't seem to be a good idea.

For example...

Most current Touring cars, if prepared to IT rules, will be too fast for ITS. However, a bunch of them will have turbos and/or AWD. In order to create an IT class for them, the blanket prohibition on those technologies in the IT category would have to be lifted. That's a pretty huge issue that someone needs to think through VERY carefully before making a decision, since it might then trickle down to the other classes. You think rules enforcement is a problem now? Wait until someone gets a Toyota MR2 Turbo listed in ITS, and diddles the brain a little...

Better perhaps that, if this class is going to include that groovy stuff, it not be called IT(anything). It would be to Touring as IT was originally to Showroom Stock, applying IT-type modifications to the new classes, so maybe it's Super Touring or something completely new. Maybe it's more like the Modified Touring concept, to poke it more firmly into the import performance niche - http://www.it2.evaluand.com/compare.php3

Maybe these cars are fast enough that it's just stupid to have the puny minimum cage rules and OE fuel tanks that we allow in IT. Maybe there are a LOT of things that we need to figure out. Maybe it's OK for me to say, "Not this plan, thanks" and not have someone get a pout on, thinking that I just want to send them to NASA.

K

Hotshoe

12-05-2005, 01:20 AM

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 5 2005, 04:24 AM
I just do NOT think that there is any chance of making the kind of meaningful change necessary to do this, simply by tacking another IT class on top of what - and with the same rules as - we currently have for the category. Further, mucking up the existing IT classes to allow a new one to be created just doesn't seem to be a good idea.
Maybe it's OK for me to say, "Not this plan, thanks" and not have someone get a pout on, thinking that I just want to send them to NASA.

K

67315

I'm a little bit to old for the School Boy Pout. And besides, you are the one that has the "No" .... not "Maybe" attitude with your statement that I commented on.

So, I have a can do attitude except for kissing some _ _ _ Yours included.

R

Joe Harlan

12-05-2005, 01:53 AM

Originally posted by hotshoe
K

... So I guess I need to take my 98 BMW Z3 and run it in another club. Since it doesn't fit in the SCCA.
67300

Based on presentation I would be ok with that.

I would like to see this car classed but it would not be the end of the world if it wasn't I don't believe the interest in these will be so great that they need large priority put on them. I do believe this is a car that with an SIR would fit into ITS and I would push for that except you don't seem like a person that would be willing to wait and work for it....BMW club maybe willing to let you have your way...enjoy B)

Andy Bettencourt

12-05-2005, 02:07 AM

Kirk,

What if you took the Turbo and AWD cars out of the equation? They really represent a small % of the classification. I don't see any issues in keeping the turbo/AWD issue at bay...besides, I am not convinced they are the right thing for Touring anyway...should the STi have won so soon in it's development?

Hmmmm.

AB

tnord

12-05-2005, 02:44 AM

I'm in favor of a class that includes newer and faster cars than are currently in ITS. i'm in favor of a class that would encourage current T cars to convert, and a level of prep somewhere between T and Prod.

i think that's the basic idea most of us agree upon. you guys who are smarter than me decide on the turbo/awd, v8, cage, fuel cell, and all other issues that i really have no place voicing my opinion on.

call it ITR, ST, MT, RT, whatever form of alphabet soup you want, but i think the level of prep should be limited to as close to IT as possible.

Joe Harlan

12-05-2005, 02:45 AM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 4 2005, 11:07 PM
Kirk,

What if you took the Turbo and AWD cars out of the equation? They really represent a small % of the classification. I don't see any issues in keeping the turbo/AWD issue at bay...besides, I am not convinced they are the right thing for Touring anyway...should the STi have won so soon in it's development?Hmmmm.

AB

67322

Nope.....and it still ticks me off....... So Andy what is your position on the use of SIR's?

Bill Miller

12-05-2005, 08:41 AM

Maybe one of the things that's muddying the waters here, is that it seems we've got a couple of agendas that are getting merged into one. The first one I see, is providing a place, w/in the structure of IT, to be able to race cars that are outside the performance envelope of ITS. The second one I see is to provide a place to race Touiring cars, once they're no longer eligible in Touring.

These things can be, but don't necessarily have to be one in the same. While I think we can probably use SIR technology in IT, do we really want to group cars that have 75-100 hp differentials, in the same class? For this to work, it would seem like you're going to be slowing down a bunch of T2 cars.

A lot of this would probably become a lot clearer, if we had any kind of idea about what kind of strategic direction Club Racing was headed in. I guess we'll never see this strategic plan that we've heard about for the past few years.

Maybe the solution is the creation of a new category, Regional Touring. Or better yet, you just change the rules to allow Touring cars to run forever in Regionals. I still think we need a class in IT for cars that make between 250 - 300 hp, but maybe we shouldn't necessarily talk aobut that class as a place for ex-T2/3 cars (that's not to say that some won't fit).

Knestis

12-05-2005, 09:54 AM

Sheesh. I was given exactly two choices in the poll - "yes" and "no" - and asked to pick one. Given the proposal as suggested, I didn't have "maybe." Do I think that the ideas discussed to date address issues necessary to...

*Class cars above the performance envelope of ITS
*Class "newer" cars and make attempts to accommodate T2 and T3 cars
*Generally be a step above ITS costs in terms of basic car costs and running costs

No. Do I think there are a bunch of new cars out there, currently not in a "real" class, that deserve a place to race? Yes. Even BMWs? Not even "maybe" - Yes.

Joe said it earlier: Classes are too valuable to not expect a new one to solve more than one problem for the Club.

K

Ron Earp

12-05-2005, 10:15 AM

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 5 2005, 01:54 PM
Sheesh. I was given exactly two choices in the poll - "yes" and "no" - and asked to pick one. Given the proposal as suggested, I didn't have "maybe." Do I think that the ideas discussed to date address issues necessary to...
No. Do I think there are a bunch of new cars out there, currently not in a "real" class, that deserve a place to race? Yes. Even BMWs? Not even "maybe" - Yes.

Joe said it earlier: Classes are too valuable to not expect a new one to solve more than one problem for the Club.

K

67330

The proposal I'm drafting right now will not include AWD and forced induction cars. The reason I do not plan to include them is that I think "ITR", or whatever it is, will take 5x as long to draft and plan if these cars are included. And then not pass through the ITAC or the CRB. I base this on the short time I've been on the IT forum and the amount of flak a turbo or AWD car receives - I just don't think there would be a way to satisfy everyone.

So, I plan to put what T2 and T3 cars I can into the ITR that I am drafting because there are PLENTLY of cars that are elligable for ITR that would draw interest to the class without worrying about forced induction and AWD cars. I think having 25-40 cars listed on the spec sheet will be possible, but not 100% sure yet.

Personally, I am starting to think to class forced induction and AWD cars one is going to have to go outside of IT to get it done, a new class/system. I'm not saying they couldn't fit in ITR (or whatever you want to call it under the IT system), it just to me seems really unlikely given how difficult the discussion even simply classing some higer performance, but otherwise perfectly normal, cars in IT is becoming.

Ron

Hotshoe

12-05-2005, 11:38 AM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan+Dec 5 2005, 05:53 AM-->
<!--QuoteBegin-hotshoe
K

... So I guess I need to take my 98 BMW Z3 and run it in another club. Since it doesn't fit in the SCCA.
67300

Based on presentation I would be ok with that.

I would like to see this car classed but it would not be the end of the world if it wasn't I don't believe the interest in these will be so great that they need large priority put on them. I do believe this is a car that with an SIR would fit into ITS and I would push for that except you don't seem like a person that would be willing to wait and work for it....
67321
[/b]

...Based on what presentation? Did you read my other posts? I'm willing to help the club for the benefit of the whole. But whenever you get treated like you are insignificant then it makes you wonder, how do you make a change? I would like to see an Improved Touring Class developed for cars that are to fast for ITS. But with all the whining going on here with the pessimist crusade the chances seem pretty bleak. Tunnel vision seems to be a common problem around here.

...This to me has been a short fall for quite a few years. Do we see any 90 thru 98 300ZXs in IT ? Or how about the 3rd gen RX7? And the list goes on. The reason we see declining numbers in IT is because we do not have enough cars classified. If you drive an aging 1st gen RX7 (also able to run vintage) or an antique "Z" car then you are right at home. But prospective members have a hard time relating to cars they don't even remember.

... Don't let the fog on your glasses, nor the pre conceived notion that everything is alright fool you. The club has been needing to do something for the past five years.

... All I want to do is inspire and help. My attitude is poor only with those that are resting on their past accomplishments. We all need to help. A suggestion to try something else is always better than just saying NO.

... So what about your presentation? I hope that a non member of the SCCA that has a car (like I mentioned) doesn't get discouraged by reading that. They need to know that some of us care. And they shouldn't have to "work" for it. We should INVITE them with something of interest to THEM! Not just US.

........Rick.........

racer_tim

12-05-2005, 12:01 PM

Bill, our ITE class is designed as a catch all for cars that don't fit into ITS-ITC, but we aslo have "Super Production" where anything goes, as long as you can make sound. We have Porsche 930 twin turbo's and wild Corvette's in that class.

We also have an ITX group which is a "dual entry" class, that if you have 2 drivers that want to run the car, one can race in our Group 5 (Regular ITS, ITA, ITB, ITC, small bore proction) and the other driver runs in Group 1 (RX7, ITX, ITE, T2, T3, SSB, SSC)

If your the same driver and you want to run in both classes, the 2nd entry is at a reduced fee. Additional track time for less $$$$$.

bldn10

12-05-2005, 12:07 PM

I am for it IF it will also include provisions to return ITS closer to the original class philosophy. That probably means moving the 325 up to ITR and squelching talk of open engine management systems, if not going back to basically stock ECUs. I have no interest in racing in a more expensive class so, otherwise, I wouldn't care one way or another. I think support for ITR would be enhanced by throwing such bones to the drivers who want to stay behind in ITS.

ITR as I understand it might end up as fast or faster than AS, T3, FP and possibly T2 and EP - is that something the powers that be in Topeka would go for?

Bill Miller

12-05-2005, 12:28 PM

Bill,

I don't think that how fast a class is, compared to other classes, in different categories, would make much of a difference. I'm pretty sure that AS is faster than EP, most places. That, and some of the ITS hotshoes are running at or near the EP record at many tracks.

Back to the discussion of using ITR as a place for ex-T2/3 cars. While most of the T3 cars will probably fit (AWD and FI notwithstanding), I'm not sure how, if the cars are in different T classes (i.e. T2/3), how they would fit in the same IT class. Sounds like a lot of weight for some (or a SIR), which means probably running slower than they did in T2.

Like I said, change the T rule to allow cars to run in Regionals as long as they want (or maybe limit it to 20 years since they were new). The other thing I find interesting, is the talk for finding a place for ex-T2/3 cars, w/ no mention of ex-T1 cars. Clearly, I can't see providing a place in IT for a Z06 Corvette. But I do find it interesting. There used to be a pretty even x-over from SS to IT. SSGT -> ITGT, SSA -> ITS, SSB -> ITA, SSC -> ITB, but that's pretty much gone by the boards. It's also interesting that SSA couldn't make numbers, but it looks like T3 will be fine (and that's pretty much what the ITA performance envelope was). Funny how things kinda come full circle.

Fastfred92

12-05-2005, 12:41 PM

I will admit that having been around club racing from the mid 80's on I have never seen a group so willing TO fight change. I know change affects everybody in different ways but as a group it has to be a good thing. I want to have the best car in my class and I dont want Johnny come lately to blow my doors off with the latest and greatest car but that is part of it in any form of racing. As a club we need to get new members and have opportunity for those new members to participate, as I said in a different post most young kids I see dream of owning or own new Subie Sti's, Evos, Civic Si, R32's etc. etc. The club racing side of things is light years behind the solo side with regards to new "cool" cars. We ( club racing ) need a place for entry level racers to come and play without excluding their cars, we need to embrace AWD, turbos, 17 and 18" wheels. Best I can tell this club and this forum have some very bright people ( exclude myself ) that given the task should be able to accept current technology and blend it in with the old school. Lets not continue to dumb down but find ways to advance, otherwise we will become a vintage race organization.

JeffYoung

12-05-2005, 01:03 PM

Fred, good post. IT can't be become Production, frozen in time in the late 80s and early 90s. If it does it will, well, become like Production.

High hp, AWD, Turbos, SMGs -- this is what cars are like now, and we (IT) need to deal with it.

Knestis

12-05-2005, 01:05 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 5 2005, 09:15 AM
The proposal I'm drafting right now will not include AWD and forced induction cars. ...

You are ABSOLUTELY right that you dramatically increase the chance that it will get considered, if you use that approach. That solves SOME of the looming problems. A year ago, I would have agreed that this would be enough but, with the turbo barn door has been opened and I'm afraid that we need to see if we can kill multiple birds with one stone.

It's going to be hard enough, with higher-performance cars, to get them effectively spec'd, without blowers and multiple gearboxes/diffs. (Remember that a few percentage points of "miss" are a bigger performance difference with a faster car.) So, the more pragmatic approach is better.

Look - I'm just reluctant to create new classes unless it has positive externalities to the program in general, rather than just to people who enter it. Is Spec Miata popular? Absolutely. Is it good for the longterm health of club racing? I don't think so but time will tell. I wouldn't have proposed IT2 if I didn't think it was good for both ITS and ITA, for potential growth of IT more generally, AND for people with those orphan cars.

I think that with some more work, we can come up with a bigger solution but - again - this is a problem that needs one.

Kirk (who wonders at what point he quit being a radical revolutary agitator and became one of the old guard)

EDIT for Fred - That's an interesting POV. I continue to be amazed at how, for the first time since the mid-80's, the inertia in IT has been undone and things are actually changing. Maybe it's the strategic thinking that makes it seem positive to me, even if there is still a commitment to the first principles of IT. I guess if the emphasis is on the latter, it can be interpreted as same old, same old.

Ron Earp

12-05-2005, 01:24 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 5 2005, 05:05 PM
You are ABSOLUTELY right that you dramatically increase the chance that it will get considered, if you use that approach. That solves SOME of the looming problems. A year ago, I would have agreed that this would be enough but, with the turbo barn door has been opened and I'm afraid that we need to see if we can kill multiple birds with one stone.

Kirk (who wonders at what point he quit being a radical revolutary agitator and became one of the old guard)

No joke Kirk, what happened???????? You've left the revolution and become The Man! Just kidding!

I hear what you are saying and three months ago I was on this board supporting AWD in ITS or IT period. But, given the amount of non-support the AWD cars received I can't imagine how much flak a EVO, WRX, Sti, etc. is going to receive.

I mean, I'd be willing to collect data on these cars too and try to include them. I see why we need to do it, in my opinion, but I don't know how. IT Turbo? ITX? Turbos allowed in other IT classes? My head spins.

Joe Harlan

12-05-2005, 01:31 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 5 2005, 10:24 AM
No joke Kirk, what happened???????? You've left the revolution and become The Man! Just kidding!

I hear what you are saying and three months ago I was on this board supporting AWD in ITS or IT period. But, given the amount of non-support the AWD cars received I can't imagine how much flak a EVO, WRX, Sti, etc. is going to receive.

I mean, I'd be willing to collect data on these cars too and try to include them. I see why we need to do it, in my opinion, but I don't know how. IT Turbo? ITX? Turbos allowed in other IT classes? My head spins.

67352

You bet your gonna get flak. There are those of us living the reality of racing cars that cost 35k to purchase and then convert to racing for another 35k only to have the AWDT cars have an advantage at almost everytrack we run on. 1st year the STI wins the top 2 spots in T2 looing out the back window. These cars are classed there are few kids that will ever spend that kind of money to race them. Ron I made the offer send the check I will build you a car capapble of a top 10 at the runoffs. The best thing to do for these cars is to class them against themselves. The raw numbers won't be there for the number of other makes you will drive away.

Fastfred92

12-05-2005, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 5 2005, 05:24 PM
I see why we need to do it, in my opinion, but I don't know how. IT Turbo? ITX? Turbos allowed in other IT classes? My head spins.

67352

I, for one, don't want to be outrun by a turbo AWD xyz,,,, nor do I want to build a turbo AWD xyz to prevent being outrun by one...... That being said I have won near 40 races of various types in my 20 plus years but I have lost ( anything but win ) a heck of a lot more than that. It will happen at some point and time so my theory is lets jump on it now, make it work long term, and have some control. This conversation could be about any class but IT has a bigger grassroots effect on most newbies and if we can make ITR or ITX lets lay the groundwork here and now. Excluding a drive type or engine limits that classes future growth, heck I think I will see ( 41 years old ) a time where diesel cars will club race here. Professional race groups have been able to apply formulas, restrictors and rules so that AWD and turbo / supercharged cars are included, we can too !

Ron Earp

12-05-2005, 01:50 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 5 2005, 05:31 PM
You bet your gonna get flak. There are those of us living the reality of racing cars that cost 35k to purchase and then convert to racing for another 35k only to have the AWDT cars have an advantage at almost everytrack we run on. 1st year the STI wins the top 2 spots in T2 looing out the back window. These cars are classed there are few kids that will ever spend that kind of money to race them. Ron I made the offer send the check I will build you a car capapble of a top 10 at the runoffs. The best thing to do for these cars is to class them against themselves. The raw numbers won't be there for the number of other makes you will drive away.

67355

Joe, we know your opinion, you don't want an ITR class as far as I can tell unless it fits a very narrow definition - which is fine for numerous reasons, some valid. As I mentioned, I'm not for classing the forced induction or AWD cars because fitting them in IT seems to be a nightmare. A few months ago I thought maybe AWD (non-turbos) could fit, but now I think in less optimistic terms - just trying to get a few newer race cars in IT that should be in IT but don't fit in S.

But then someone says "but if we're not going to think ahead and fit turbo/AWD cars in then we might as well not have an ITR". And "If we aren't going to class turbo AWD car then do nothing."

So what to do?

I've never seen so many people be against something they don't have to participate in - they can run where they are now. Anyhow, I'll carry on with the ITR proposal and when done send to the ITAC and CRB.

Thanks for the offer of building me a runoff car, but, I think I'm capable of doing it myself and will work toward that goal.

Ron

Fastfred92

12-05-2005, 01:56 PM

I am just saying if we are to build a new IT class ( I am fully supportive of ) lets build it so it can grow into the future ! Not a short term 5-10 year thing that will dwindle like I see SM doing, eventually. Carry on Mr. rlearp ! I think you are doing fine work here !!!!!!!

RacerBill

12-05-2005, 02:00 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 5 2005, 01:24 PM
No joke Kirk, what happened???????? You've left the revolution and become The Man! Just kidding!

I hear what you are saying and three months ago I was on this board supporting AWD in ITS or IT period. But, given the amount of non-support the AWD cars received I can't imagine how much flak a EVO, WRX, Sti, etc. is going to receive.

I mean, I'd be willing to collect data on these cars too and try to include them. I see why we need to do it, in my opinion, but I don't know how. IT Turbo? ITX? Turbos allowed in other IT classes? My head spins.

67352

I agree that we must make provisions for newer cars and technologies, especailly cars that the club has already let in the door. I also feel that any group of trackside lawyers that can come up with with language like "two total opeings" can find a way to make this happen.

One of the big issues that I think I hear this forum talking about is the fact that we have written rules that blanket a group of classes - Production, GT, Showroom Stock, Improved Touring for things like roll cages and fuel cells. I am not real keen on creating more classes (at least until I can open a trophy shop). but here's a suggestion. How about keeping ITS, ITA, ITB and ITC as they are (I don't include ITE since it means different things in different parts of the country), and then creating IT1, IT2... for the present T1, T2 and T3 cars? GCR could be then changed to referece ITA... in place of 'Improved Touring' where it pertains to fuel cells, roll cages, etc. The classes IT1, IT2...could then be added to the sections referencing 'Touring' cars. Other wording might also have to be modified (AWD).

Aside from adding two classes, the only other drawback that I see would be that cars would not be able to be reclassified from lets say ITS to IT2.

One other point concerning AWD and a 'possible advantage'. There are a lot of cars that have advantages over other cars for a number of reasons, i.e type of track (horsepower vs handling). I remember a GT race at Mid-Ohio a number of years ago. It was a rain race and the car the finished third OVERALL was a GT3 Shelby Charger. None if the Corvettes that he beat came back and demanded that front wheel drive be banned because it had an 'advantage'! I never complained about running in Solo 2 against Audi Quatros in my Toyota Van!

These are just my ideas for you consideration. I know that some holes will be shot in them. And that's ok. I'm too old and thick skinned to let it bother me too much. I am in IT because I love racing, and it's what I can afford and still have fun.

ITAC, thanks for all your hard work and putting up with all of us! :happy204:

Joe Harlan

12-05-2005, 02:03 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 5 2005, 10:50 AM
Dang Joe, we know your opinion, you don't want an ITR class as far as I can tell. For numerous reasons. Some valid. As I mentioned, I'm not for classing the forced induction or AWD cars because fitting them in IT seems to be a nightmare. A few months ago I thought maybe AWD (non-turbos) could fit, but now I think in less optimistic terms - just trying to get a few newer race cars in IT that should be in IT but don't fit in S.

But then someone says "but if we're not going to think ahead and fit turbo/AWD cars in then we might as well not have an ITR". And "If we aren't going to class turbo AWD car then do nothing."

So what to do?

I've never seen so many people be against something they don't have to participate in - they can run where they are now. Anyhow, I'll carry on with the ITR proposal and when done send to the ITAC and CRB.

Thanks for the offer of building me a runoff car, but, I think I'm capable of doing it myself and will work toward that goal.

Ron

67358

See Ron, you are wrong. We all participate anytime a new class or philosphy is added to this club. It takes up resources and dilutes competition any time you add another class. Tell me other than they couldn't catch a break in the old rules why we need Spec Miata? they are basicly ITA cars anyway. But now we have it alot of regions are being forced to give them their own run group which BTW is causing classes with smaller participation number to be combined in unsafe run groups causing the loss of drivers that aren't willing to drive an ITC car in a GT1 grid. Every choice we make has a cost as well as a gain.

Lastly you don't know what I want cause you have no idea. I believe if we want to really discuss using SIR's on some of the cars we are discussing thhey could be fit into ITS as is. Leaving room for other IDEA's. I also believe the time will come when we will either need a class above ITS but it may need a different twist. You have to understand just because you feel it's a good idea doesn't make it automaticly so. I believe the poll you started is going 60% against at this point. are you saying that's all FOG's? I don't think so. Notice before you take a whack at me that I race an old world challenge car with aero and 18" wheels and carbon foiber hoods ect. It looks like a freaking drift car. It runs a kind of catchall that is a region based class. IT's IT on steroids. I am all for new idea's and new cars I am just a realist on what it takes from our program to make it happen.

MMiskoe

12-05-2005, 02:14 PM

Cripe. Why is this such a hard question?

IT is the biggest regional class. It is pretty obvious that w/ the rules the way they are, it is a class that draws lots of different cars & people. Why because it can be approached slowly by the newbie, or jumped into w/ a full on program by those who are properly experienced/funded/motivated. As a result, there are big fields and close racing throughout those feilds.

It's also pretty obvious that there is a collection of cars out there that are too fast for ITS but people would consider racing them if there was a place for them.

It goes w/o saying that it needs to be carefully crafted, but do one thing at a time - develope the class based on the current structure. Once that is done & running well, then consider how to include AWD and forced induction. No different than what was done w/ Touring, the AWD & turbo things were never included in the first few years. Besides, the turbo's shouldnt be that hard to control, just expect that the boost will be unlimted and plan accordingly when setting weights, that's all they did in Touring.

Beisdes, if the class gets created and no one runs in it, it dies its own death. Look at SRX7. No hard feelings, it just didn't catch on. T1 & T2 almost didn't make it either.

Anything above ITS should have some additional safety requirements considered due to the speeds & weights of the cars talked about. Its not likely that requireing a welded cage w/ real door bars, a fire system and possibly a fuel cell is going to be considered a problem to anyone interested in building a real ITR car. This is however, contradictory to my first paragraph about IT being a class you can move into slowly, I recognize that.

Matt

Joe Harlan

12-05-2005, 02:25 PM

Originally posted by MMiskoe@Dec 5 2005, 11:14 AM
Cripe. Why is this such a hard question?

IT is the biggest regional class. It is pretty obvious that w/ the rules the way they are, it is a class that draws lots of different cars & people. Why because it can be approached slowly by the newbie, or jumped into w/ a full on program by those who are properly experienced/funded/motivated. As a result, there are big fields and close racing throughout those feilds.

It's also pretty obvious that there is a collection of cars out there that are too fast for ITS but people would consider racing them if there was a place for them.

It goes w/o saying that it needs to be carefully crafted, but do one thing at a time - develope the class based on the current structure. Once that is done & running well, then consider how to include AWD and forced induction. No different than what was done w/ Touring, the AWD & turbo things were never included in the first few years. Besides, the turbo's shouldnt be that hard to control, just expect that the boost will be unlimted and plan accordingly when setting weights, that's all they did in Touring.
Beisdes, if the class gets created and no one runs in it, it dies its own death. Look at SRX7. No hard feelings, it just didn't catch on. T1 & T2 almost didn't make it either.

Anything above ITS should have some additional safety requirements considered due to the speeds & weights of the cars talked about. Its not likely that requireing a welded cage w/ real door bars, a fire system and possibly a fuel cell is going to be considered a problem to anyone interested in building a real ITR car. This is however, contradictory to my first paragraph about IT being a class you can move into slowly, I recognize that.

Matt

67365

Matt, Agreed on most all points. Your facts on Touring are incorrect though.

Bill Miller

12-05-2005, 02:27 PM

Look at SRX7. No hard feelings, it just didn't catch on.

Matt,

I don't know where you get that impression from. I can't speak for the entire country, but SRX7 was a thriving class in the WDC Region. So much so, that they got their own run group, and would regularly start 40+ cars. I think SM did a lot to pull drivers out of SRX7.

AntonioGG

12-05-2005, 05:37 PM

This may be a dumb question...but why do you need to have "planned obsolescence" in touring and showroom stock? Maybe I understand why in showroom stock since after a while a 7 year old car (or is it 5? Or 10? I can't keep up) can't be expected to be showroom stock anymore...but since SS is going to be touring now, and touring has all sorts of adjustments, why not just create classes based on car potential and not the age? Call them all touring or improved touring and they become national or not based on participation numbers and not on what some sacred cow (i.e. manufacturers) say. This is an amateur racing club, not some organization to benefit manufacturers or pro sanctioning bodies after all. Let the old corvettes continue racing in T1 while allowing some aftermarke replacement parts if they can't get them anymore, let the subaru race in T2 (I thought it was one of the closest races with that f-body in 3rd..but what do I know...), put the 325 in T3, do what it takes to equalize all the cars and make a class national or not based on participation.

By the way, something that's kind of funny, ironic, or whatever...the argument to justify Motec ECU's without the "must fit in original box" rule because it's expensive to get it to fit in the stock box is funny. Now you got guys in SM citing IT as an example as to why we should also go open ECU (fast guys are already chipping and doing other stuff to their ECUs). If anything your rule should mandate use of the original motherboard. It SHOULD be hard and it SHOULD be expensive if you want to stuff a MOTEC or Autronic or whatever ECU into the stock box. Sorry, off my soap box now. :023:

AntonioGG

12-05-2005, 05:45 PM

Oh yeah, I forgot to add, for those of you that have a problem with SM getting its run group, etc. I think you need to be mad at the planned obsolescence problem. When you have a de facto car to have in a class (SSB) all of a sudden not be eligible, you have to expect a class like SM or neon challenge or whatever being born. If those cars had still been allowed in SS perhaps SM would not have been born. Look at the 99+ car s in SM, they were added to SM also because they are now loosing SS eligibility.

I think having cars become obsolete without a plan on what to do with those cars once they are inelligible is the problem. You cannot blame the ITAC guys or anyone else for trying to fix the situation, but I think it needs to be fixed at the root source.

Carry on....

Joe Harlan

12-05-2005, 07:05 PM

Originally posted by AntonioGG@Dec 5 2005, 02:37 PM
This may be a dumb question...but why do you need to have "planned obsolescence" in touring and showroom stock? Maybe I understand why in showroom stock since after a while a 7 year old car (or is it 5? Or 10? I can't keep up) can't be expected to be showroom stock anymore...but since SS is going to be touring now, and touring has all sorts of adjustments, why not just create classes based on car potential and not the age? Call them all touring or improved touring and they become national or not based on participation numbers and not on what some sacred cow (i.e. manufacturers) say. This is an amateur racing club, not some organization to benefit manufacturers or pro sanctioning bodies after all. Let the old corvettes continue racing in T1 while allowing some aftermarke replacement parts if they can't get them anymore, let the subaru race in T2 (I thought it was one of the closest races with that f-body in 3rd..but what do I know...), put the 325 in T3, do what it takes to equalize all the cars and make a class national or not based on participation.

By the way, something that's kind of funny, ironic, or whatever...the argument to justify Motec ECU's without the "must fit in original box" rule because it's expensive to get it to fit in the stock box is funny. Now you got guys in SM citing IT as an example as to why we should also go open ECU (fast guys are already chipping and doing other stuff to their ECUs). If anything your rule should mandate use of the original motherboard. It SHOULD be hard and it SHOULD be expensive if you want to stuff a MOTEC or Autronic or whatever ECU into the stock box. Sorry, off my soap box now. :023:

67382

Antonio the touring rules do not allow for overbore. SO it is thought that after 10 years new engines will be hard to find.

AntonioGG

12-05-2005, 07:23 PM

Joe, what I'm saying is they have to break some eggs to make this omelette. They will have to allow touring to overbore, or maybe just some cars, etc. They have to really rethink a lot of stuff. Piss a few people off today, ensure a healthy SCCA future. I've only been around a couple of years, but didn't Touring cars started somewhat controversially?

Any of you guys software or electrical engineers and familiar with fixing things with a patch on top of a patch? How long can you keep doing that until things just fall apart?

Ron Earp

12-05-2005, 08:06 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 5 2005, 06:03 PM
See Ron, you are wrong. We all participate anytime a new class or philosphy is added to this club.

Lastly you don't know what I want cause you have no idea.

You have to understand just because you feel it's a good idea doesn't make it automaticly so. I believe the poll you started is going 60% against at this point. are you saying that's all FOG's? I don't think so. Notice before you take a whack at me that I race an old world
67364

Joe, I do not think simply because I think it is a good idea that it is automatically so. Never said that. And, I'm not "taking a whack at you", simply indicating a view point.

I personally think it is a good idea to take some newer cars, non-forced induction cars, non-AWD cars, and class them in a performance class above S. I think a goodly number of people feel this is so as well. Therefore, I will continue along the road of gathering the data and submitting it to the proper places. There are a surprising number of cars that could fit into this proposed class.

What I don't know how to handle is forced induction cars, AWD cars, and the like. I'm starting to feel these fall outside of what can be accommodated in IT and to try and make them fit would require adopting some other items that I personally feel are outside of IT - such as SIRs. My opinion, no need to flame me up or list five reasons why I am wrong - it is an opinion and nothing else.

I trust in the ITAC and think they can manage the current dispairities in the various IT classes using weight and nothing else. I also think that the ITAC working with the board can get a new IT class started, a class above S in performance, that will class a large number of late model cars into IT and get new blood as well as newer cars in the mix.

I'll never have the knowledge that Kirk, you, and others have of IT since I haven't been around in the SCCA nearly as long as you fellows. But, by the same token I am younger and might be the fellow still racing IT once you guys are gone therefore, I'll continue to try and gather support for an IT class that I, and some others, want to race in.

Best
Ron

Joe Harlan

12-05-2005, 08:26 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 5 2005, 05:06 PM
Joe, I do not think simply because I think it is a good idea that it is automatically so. Never said that. And, I'm not "taking a whack at you", simply indicating a view point.

I personally think it is a good idea to take some newer cars, non-forced induction cars, non-AWD cars, and class them in a performance class above S. I think a goodly number of people feel this is so as well. Therefore, I will continue along the road of gathering the data and submitting it to the proper places. There are a surprising number of cars that could fit into this proposed class.

What I don't know how to handle is forced induction cars, AWD cars, and the like. I'm starting to feel these fall outside of what can be accommodated in IT and to try and make them fit would require adopting some other items that I personally feel are outside of IT - such as SIRs. My opinion, no need to flame me up or list five reasons why I am wrong - it is an opinion and nothing else.

I trust in the ITAC and think they can manage the current dispairities in the various IT classes using weight and nothing else. I also think that the ITAC working with the board can get a new IT class started, a class above S in performance, that will class a large number of late model cars into IT and get new blood as well as newer cars in the mix.

I'll never have the knowledge that Kirk, you, and others have of IT since I haven't been around in the SCCA nearly as long as you fellows. But, by the same token I am younger and might be the fellow still racing IT once you guys are gone therefore, I'll continue to try and gather support for an IT class that I, and some others, want to race in.

Best
Ron

67399

Yeah no problem Ron, Enough said from me. Your own poll would indicate that 60% aren't with it at this point. I not sure how old you think I am but I promise my age has nothing to do with the current facts of racing today.

Antonio, T2 is the second fastest growing nationalclass today. It will not likely ever see big regional number because of the cost of the donor cars that are classed there. It's not about cracking a few eggs it's about limited resources and how we best use them to get things done.

Anyway enough said from me on all of this you all have fun.

AntonioGG

12-05-2005, 08:40 PM

Joe, they're expensive because they are required to be new. What if you could race a 93 Supra Turbo in T2 competitively? Now it wouldn't be as expensive.

Where SCCA has screwed the pooch IMHO is in leaving some classes with old cars and not encouraging newer cars (production and IT) while having other classes with only new cars and no room anywhere for the cars that are no longer eligible (T and SS).

OK last you hear from me too, at least for a little while. :D I'm hungry...

Joe Harlan

12-05-2005, 09:11 PM

Originally posted by AntonioGG@Dec 5 2005, 05:40 PM
Joe, they're expensive because they are required to be new. What if you could race a 93 Supra Turbo in T2 competitively? Now it wouldn't be as expensive.

Where SCCA has screwed the pooch IMHO is in leaving some classes with old cars and not encouraging newer cars (production and IT) while having other classes with only new cars and no room anywhere for the cars that are no longer eligible (T and SS).

OK last you hear from me too, at least for a little while. :D I'm hungry...

67404

Antonio, Race on sunday sell on monday. That's what touring is about. The is the IT site so I am really done talking touring here. Lastly you have to have enough resources to control your classes and it is way to hard to do once you start allowing engines to be modifed.....Kinda like adding a motec to an E-36 nobody want s to share real numbers for real classification.

AntonioGG

12-05-2005, 09:15 PM

I only brought up touring b/c you guys did since you're trying to find a place for old T cars and/or unclassed cars faster than ITS. And like I mentioned before, this is an amateur club, not a place to sell cars. :023:

Regarding tech and resources...well, they don't do it now at every race anyway...you don't think they need to check SS and T cars anyway? What about IT cars?

OK I'm out. You guys have a good evening, sorry for stomping on your discussion I just wanted to bring out a couple of points.

Knestis

12-05-2005, 09:37 PM

Man - double ouch. Now I have to be reminded that Ron is younger than I am, too. :)

Any of you guys software or electrical engineers and familiar with fixing things with a patch on top of a patch? How long can you keep doing that until things just fall apart?

Excellent analogy. This is either the worst thing or the best thing about the SCCA rules-making process, depending how you look at it.

The downside is that the rulebook ends up being a patchwork of ad hoc (sorry, guys) bits of legislation, without any real strategy applied to making them. The current ITCS is nothing frankly but a bunch of changes, to changes, to changes of things that were changed, right after they were first written. Rules get changed literally word by word, or line by line if we're lucky and someone is feeling particularly enthusiastic.

Ironically, the UPSIDE of this situation is that it's hard for really big changes to get implemented so true obsolescence is tougher to stumble into. Set aside the weird dynamics of National classes for this conversation, with SS/Touring classifications, anything that's influenced by manufacturer involvement (coughmazdacough) and true competition adjustments (blech). NASA made wholesale changes to Honda Challenge once it got going, in an effort to take it nationwide, and alienated a bunch of people - including the guys who created it so it's actually, arguably GOOD for club racing to have a certain amount of resistance to change, in the name of continuity.

Now, it's equally aguable that there has to be some looking forward as well. I'm STILL waiting - along with a bunch of other people - for some evidence of the club racing "strategic plan" that has theoretically been in the works for months (years?) now.

This is why I'm so high on the ITAC's comprehensive re-examination of classificatiosn and specs. I just don't know if the culture of the club, predicated on years of tiny, selfish, member-driven rules revisions is capable of living with it.

K

Ron Earp

12-05-2005, 09:47 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 6 2005, 01:37 AM
Man - double ouch. Now I have to be reminded that Ron is younger than I am, too. :)

This is why I'm so high on the ITAC's comprehensive re-examination of classificatiosn and specs. I just don't know if the culture of the club, predicated on years of tiny, selfish, member-driven rules revisions is capable of living with it.

K

67413

Sorry Kirk, but I'm a scientist and using the available data that I had, posts from you and Joe recalling "back in the day" and referencing it to about the youngest possible age that one could have started SCCA club racing as a driver, this was the conclusion that I drew. Clearly there are other possible explanations, but the simplest explanation is generally the correct one: you guys are a couple of old farts! :D Now I do hope that you realize this is an attempt at humor and I'm just kidding!

I don't know "how it was back in the day" but I can tell you this - just from reading the IT forum and people commenting on how things were I can definitely say I really appreciate what the ITAC is doing and how they are going about their systematic process. And I hope the members as a whole can embrace it for the good of the community.

Ron

lateapex911

12-05-2005, 10:57 PM

Originally posted by AntonioGG@Dec 5 2005, 08:40 PM
Joe, they're expensive because they are required to be new. What if you could race a 93 Supra Turbo in T2 competitively? Now it wouldn't be as expensive.

Actually, in some cases, the need to be "stock" might be very difficult..and expensive, in terms of either money or time. Getting weird little parts needed to meet the letter of the law, might be dependent on unobtainum materials....

Where SCCA has screwed the pooch IMHO is in leaving some classes with old cars and not encouraging newer cars (production and IT) while having other classes with only new cars and no room anywhere for the cars that are no longer eligible (T and SS).

67404

Agreed, to some degree....

Bills point about the lack of a large scale strategic plan is most upsetting. I know that we on the ITAC discuss the "big picture" as it relates to IT and the classes around IT, when appropriate, but I haven't been privy to any "trickle down" plan that I am aware of, except for comments about this idea or that idea.

That said, I think the ability to "migrate" certain cars though the category structure is one concept that should be examined. True, ALL Touring cars won't need a place to go when their time is up, but it would be nice to have a home for them...it would be one less hurdle if a potential Touring buyer to knew that, when the time comes to sell, there could be a market for the car.

(I was talking to a SS guy at the ARRCs..a pretty dedicated SS guy, who is selling his SS car a year early before "It's worthless" as he put's it. Thats disenfranchised)

And having as many IT cars as possible be eligible to move into Prod would allow guys to migrate into National racing when they decided it was time is the other door that needs opening.

For what it's worth, I can see a class like ITR as having a place in ITs future. Does anyone remembr ITD??? My sketchy memory does. I don't think it was natioanlly recognized, but it existed. Long ago and far away...they just don't make cars that slow any more! There is no doubt that the automotive world is faster, and the generation driving the faster cars is too. Eliminating the cars eliminates the drivers. At some point, the club needs to bend to the potential "Customer", not the other way around.

True, we need to remember and learn from the mistakes of the past, but at the same time we can't let the fear freeze us.

IF there is sufficient demand, then the class should be configured.

Lets continue to hash this out...lots of good points here...I think the "sides" are closer than they think....

seckerich

12-05-2005, 11:36 PM

Money will always be spent on cars and racing--it is up to SCCA to give the customer what they want. There are so many great cars already built that are dead in their series (WC, GRAND AM, Touring) that would fit perfect in a faster IT class. It is expensive but the cost to run is no worse than my bill for slicks in production. It is not a huge jump in price from a 16 to 17 inch tire. Same people that make cheap wheels in 15's have good 17's as well. Same club that thinks a formula V must live forever (forgive me if you have one) wont let a new class with great car choices have a chance.

Turbo and AWD need a place to play but current regional tech is not equiped to handle them. Nothing short of mandated data recorders will work for turbo cars. AWD can be much easier to work in given a year to settle on a proper weight. Safety equipment is a white elephant as most have run touring with a cage requirement that in the past has been a joke. With 1.75 cages in most cars to build on, they will be as safe as anything running. Cars today get laughed at with less than 250 ponies from the factory so we need to move forward and give them a place to play. Forget trying to stuff 20 year old cars in a new formula--we have that now. If money is the big issue stay with the current class you are in, nobody is telling you to leave. If you want somewhere to run faster, more modern cars without spending $5000.00 per race like Grand Am or touring--jump in. Say the word and I will have my car on the rotary table tomorrow!! Count this as a big yes vote.

As for the dilution of the current classes--we have needed a thinning of the herd for some time now. When you need to beg 10 friends to run so you keep class numbers up they need to die. When I have to run in a group with 90+ cars and watch a group with 6-10 race by themselves it is a little crazy. Flame away.

MMiskoe

12-05-2005, 11:47 PM

Sorry for speaking w/o full backround on the touring forced induction part, but I was under the impression that they did look at where those cars would be w/ un-regulated boost & incorporated at least some of that in the classing.

SRX7 - It never made it in the northeast. I have yet to see one at a NER race. Certainly pales in comparison to SM, SRF etc. Didn't take off like those have. I was just trying to use it as an example. Perhaps there were other classes that didn't make it?

Fastfred92

12-06-2005, 10:27 AM

Originally posted by seckerich@Dec 6 2005, 03:36 AM

Turbo and AWD need a place to play

Count this as a big yes vote.

67428

I am with Steve on this one :023:

Z3_GoCar

12-06-2005, 10:52 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 10:15 AM
This is a poll to determine how many IT Forum members would be interested in an "ITR" class. For purposes of this poll the ITR class would:

*Class cars above the performance envelope of ITS

*Class "newer" cars and make attempts to accommodate T2 and T3 cars

*Generally be a step above ITS costs in terms of basic car costs and running costs

67270

I vote YES. I've got my new (to me) Z3 race car comming and want an IT class for the '97 2.8l. But I have to wonder how it'll be classed aginst cars that can potnetially make 300hp with IT mods. Given that the current motor(which I know is not IT legal) makes 270hp with M3 cams, an M50 intake kit, and tech II engine management. I'd say it'd probably be in the range of 250-260 hp max. BTW, everyone is talking about how expensive it'll be to campaign this car. But I'll wind up paying LESS than what it would have cost for a top 10 Spec Miata ~20K. You might ask how this came to be, and I'd say there's always a deal on a race car you just have to be patient and wait for the right one to come along.

James

cherokee

12-07-2005, 10:15 AM

I think that there should be a class for faster cars then ITS. Someone said something to the effect Remember ITD, nobody makes cars that slow anymore. You could say the same thing about about ITC, ITB, heck for all the classes if you try. From what I have seen SCCA is very slow to make big changes. Look at the GTL deal.

There are a point that I would like to comment on.

"unsafe run groups causing the loss of drivers that aren't willing to drive an ITC car in a GT1 grid"

We have this now, do you know what the difference between an ITE Viper and and ITC 510. Pretty darn scarry. I have been in an ITA car on the track at the same time as an ITE Panoz. I have even seen a 355 get together with a Festiva. IT is an unsafe race group depending on what ITE cars show up. ITE should be made a "real" class the next above ITS, and maybe one above that for very Big power cars, I like the comments that IT should look like Touring all the way down to the slowest SS class. Kind of like

T1 would feed to ITE
ITE would feed to a EP
EP would feed to GT1
and so on, or something to that effect.

The only place your car would get too old to run is in the Touring or SS classes.
Maybe I am making things too simple.

Joe Harlan

12-07-2005, 11:42 AM

Originally posted by cherokee@Dec 7 2005, 07:15 AM
I think that there should be a class for faster cars then ITS. Someone said something to the effect Remember ITD, nobody makes cars that slow anymore. You could say the same thing about about ITC, ITB, heck for all the classes if you try. From what I have seen SCCA is very slow to make big changes. Look at the GTL deal.

There are a point that I would like to comment on.

"unsafe run groups causing the loss of drivers that aren't willing to drive an ITC car in a GT1 grid"

We have this now, do you know what the difference between an ITE Viper and and ITC 510. Pretty darn scarry. I have been in an ITA car on the track at the same time as an ITE Panoz. I have even seen a 355 get together with a Festiva. IT is an unsafe race group depending on what ITE cars show up. ITE should be made a "real" class the next above ITS, and maybe one above that for very Big power cars, I like the comments that IT should look like Touring all the way down to the slowest SS class. Kind of like

T1 would feed to ITE
ITE would feed to a EP
EP would feed to GT1
and so on, or something to that effect.
The only place your car would get too old to run is in the Touring or SS classes.
Maybe I am making things too simple.

67501

Originally posted by harlan
We all participate anytime a new class or philosphy is added to this club. It takes up resources and dilutes competition any time you add another class. Tell me other than they couldn't catch a break in the old rules why we need Spec Miata? they are basicly ITA cars anyway. But now we have it alot of regions are being forced to give them their own run group which BTW is causing classes with smaller participation number to be combined in unsafe run groups causing the loss of drivers that aren't willing to drive an ITC car in a GT1 grid. Every choice we make has a cost as well as a gain.

Nice try Cherokee, Try use the sentence in context. Having sold the ITC510 because of this exact issue I can tell you I understand the difference. The point is when you add more classes you create more of these poor groupings.

Also understand, You will never bring a set of rules to ITE (having tried) ITE is now an established radial tired SP class that has decent particiption and will never be brought back to true IT spec.

cherokee

12-07-2005, 12:50 PM

I thaught that the point you where trying to make is that no one that is driving a car as fast as an ITC car will want to run with cars as fast as some of the cars suggested for a class above ITS. Sorry I miss understood. All I was pointing out that we have this now. Shooting down a class above ITS because it would make the run group unsafe is false I think. ITE will always be faster when you have a twin turbo 911 in there (as I did at my school). The cars in the suggested class above ITS I doubt would have cars of that type in it. I was using ITE as an example don't get hung up on the letter after IT.

I think all will admit that there is a problem or at least on coming over the hill. Short of making some pretty big changes to the IT classes, I do not see a fix for this.

Whatever change happens people are going to be unhappy, be it something like GT4-GT5 be it Z3 in SS, adding Touring classes, Limited prep, Spec Miata whatever people are going to think it is bad. But we have to do something. Or IT will turn vintage and even I don't think thats a good idea.

I realy think thats why we see the new touring classes they are too fast to fit in SS classes, I think we are seeing the same thing in IT, new hot trendy cars do not fit anywhere, even cars that are IT possible.

Joe Harlan

12-07-2005, 01:04 PM

Originally posted by cherokee@Dec 7 2005, 09:50 AM
I thaught that the point you where trying to make is that no one that is driving a car as fast as an ITC car will want to run with cars as fast as some of the cars suggested for a class above ITS. Sorry I miss understood. All I was pointing out that we have this now. Shooting down a class above ITS because it would make the run group unsafe is false I think. ITE will always be faster when you have a twin turbo 911 in there (as I did at my school). The cars in the suggested class above ITS I doubt would have cars of that type in it. I was using ITE as an example don't get hung up on the letter after IT.

I think all will admit that there is a problem or at least on coming over the hill. Short of making some pretty big changes to the IT classes, I do not see a fix for this.

Whatever change happens people are going to be unhappy, be it something like GT4-GT5 be it Z3 in SS, adding Touring classes, Limited prep, Spec Miata whatever people are going to think it is bad. But we have to do something. Or IT will turn vintage and even I don't think thats a good idea.

I realy think thats why we see the new touring classes they are too fast to fit in SS classes, I think we are seeing the same thing in IT, new hot trendy cars do not fit anywhere, even cars that are IT possible.

67516

Cherokee,
Lets start here first...ITE IS NOT AN IT CLASS, ITE WAS GIVEN THAN NAME AND NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN.....There is nothing IT about ITE other than the name.

Lets also say I am not against a new class above ITS. I am agaist making a mistake on what that class is. I am against adding a class when we still have room to fill our current classes with the current offerings of many of the car manufactures today and into the next 5 years. I am against folks saying there will be a natural bleed off from the touring classes and classes like grand am ect. Many of these classes are now prepared way beyond IT, Touring is a high dollar deal that will take at least 5 to 10 years to see the bleed of to a regional level, Next don't forget T1-T3 are national classes but they are also regional classes so for at least the next 10 years there is a place for these cars to fall into. I will be leading the charge to make declassed national touring car eligable for regional touring (with no adjustments) for at least 5 years beyond that. Back to work and enjoy the day.

Bill Miller

12-07-2005, 02:02 PM

I agree w/ Joe, the only thing 'IT' about ITE, is the name (and I guess the fact that they have to run on DOT tires). And I think it should stay that way. I've got no problem w/ catch-all classes like that, except when you get too many of them. An IT class above ITS is a good thing, and is probably an inevitability. There are just too many popular cars out there, that are outside the ITS envelope.

I will be leading the charge to make declassed national touring car eligable for regional touring (with no adjustments) for at least 5 years beyond that.

Gee Joe, where have I heard that before? ;) :P

cherokee

12-07-2005, 02:05 PM

I am just sitting here watching two servers format. I have a love/hate feeling about Citrix.

I thaught that ITE was kind of like SP. Cars that have an IT level of prep get put into ITE cars that have a prod level of prep go to SP.....if they don't fit anywhere else.
Am I missing the boat here?

So ITE while not a "real" IT class is an IT class, just like SP is. I could take my car that is ITB in every way put two side draft carbs, or FI on it and run ITE right. Put slicks and other prod stuff and run a blower and run in SP. Thats how I understand things.

I just don't think that there are that many cars out there that will fit in the A&S classes let alone B&C. Look what they had to do to the new beetle to get it to fit into C. It weighs more then a school bus, almost. Anybody seen one? I think it would be a cool IT car but I think it was a test bunny, see if we can toss weight at a car put it in a slow class and see if it sinks or swims.

What else are you going to do on a slow snowy day watching servers install 2003.

BTW Joe, what kind of car do you run.

Joe Harlan

12-07-2005, 02:19 PM

Originally posted by cherokee@Dec 7 2005, 11:05 AM
I am just sitting here watching two servers format. I have a love/hate feeling about Citrix.

I thaught that ITE was kind of like SP. Cars that have an IT level of prep get put into ITE cars that have a prod level of prep go to SP.....if they don't fit anywhere else.
Am I missing the boat here?

So ITE while not a "real" IT class is an IT class, just like SP is. I could take my car that is ITB in every way put two side draft carbs, or FI on it and run ITE right. Put slicks and other prod stuff and run a blower and run in SP. Thats how I understand things.

I just don't think that there are that many cars out there that will fit in the A&S classes let alone B&C. Look what they had to do to the new beetle to get it to fit into C. It weighs more then a school bus, almost. Anybody seen one? I think it would be a cool IT car but I think it was a test bunny, see if we can toss weight at a car put it in a slow class and see if it sinks or swims.

What else are you going to do on a slow snowy day watching servers install 2003.

BTW Joe, what kind of car do you run.

67527

What is the factory weight on a beetle. Maybe it can't get down to 2000 lbs. This is another reason that newer cars are gonna struggle with IT specs. Weight they are all getting heavier. A 2003 350z prepped to T2 specs can barely break 3300lbs with a 185lb driver. My guess is that the bug with big factory crash bumpers was heavy out of the box.

I stated a couple of pages ago what I drive. It's another class and another type of prep. what difference does that make?

JamesB

12-07-2005, 02:51 PM

I think the NB did get a little weight though. With a curb weight of 2712, and knowing that the back seats of the car alone weigh ~100lb, removing all the sound deadening, I figure you will likely have to add weight to it once you put it in IT trim.

Knestis

12-07-2005, 03:50 PM

Dangerous to let conversations about ITE muddy the water here. The rules vary dramatically around the country. I don't know for sure, for example, but I saw evidence at the ARRC that Atlanta has split it into two classes - presumably by displacement?

Joe's perspective is based on the fact that ITE is a huge stomping ground for PCA folks in the Northwest. At the last regional I went to up there - at Bremerton, and it has been 6-7 years ago - the Porsche classes were the biggest of the weekend. And some of those cars were outrageously powerful.

In other places, ITE cars really are "IT Everything," where things look more like the way ITR is being described here.

K

Bill Miller

12-07-2005, 05:51 PM

Like Kirk said, what gets to run in ITE depends on where you run. For the MARRS series, and the WDCR races at Summit Point, ANY non-T/non-SS forced induction car runs in ITE. So do any of the ex-WC/GAC cars. They also have SPU/O, as well as ASR. I've seen Frank Sanchez run his 'few more goodies than TransAm' Camaro in ASR, but I really don't know what the rules are. Seems like yet another catch-all class.

So, the assumption that ITE cars will have an 'IT-like' level of prep, is not valid, unless that's the way the ITE rules in your particular area are written.

Ron Earp

12-07-2005, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 7 2005, 07:50 PM
In other places, ITE cars really are "IT Everything," where things look more like the way ITR is being described here.
K

67536

Kirk, I hope that I, and others didn't describe ITR in a way that you think ITR will be an "IT Everything", or catch all for cars that don't fit into A,B,C,S. That is not the intent at all. ITR is for cars with performance above S but that can still fit the intent and letter of IT. So twin turbo 911s do not fit into ITR, but 300zs and S2000s would.

I'm hoping that your statement pasted above means that some ITE classes in the country are very "IT like" in that they correspond to all IT rules, aka, "IT Everything" as you write.

R

EAPCPA

12-07-2005, 07:07 PM

I am a new member and as soon as I can figure out all of the acronyms I will be able to give an intelligent opinion. I do know that for the good of the organization there needs to be a progression to entice new cars and new (younger) members to start racing. Now seems to be the time to work on this issue as I have a son and daughter who are almost driving age so by the time they are out of college the cars we race will be over 40 years old and the newer cars won't have a class to run in. With 300HP becoming common these days how else would you attract newbies in the future because they will want to run the cars they identify with. Of course on the flip side that could mean bolt on wings, fart can mufflers, neon lights, and body kits. ugh!!!

Hotshoe

12-07-2005, 10:18 PM

Originally posted by EAPCPA@Dec 7 2005, 11:07 PM
I am a new member and as soon as I can figure out all of the acronyms I will be able to give an intelligent opinion. With 300HP becoming common these days how else would you attract newbies in the future because they will want to run the cars they identify with.

67549

See Kirk.

... Maybe we should clean it up a little bit. The attitudes being used here can be confusing. So you say I'm pouting. What are you doing? Looks detrimental to me....... Oh, but you have done good things in the past.

...Sorry I forgot.

R

Knestis

12-07-2005, 11:13 PM

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 7 2005, 09:18 PM
See Kirk. ...
67554

Dang, man - I wish I knew what it was I did to become your personal whipping boy on this issue. All I did was share an opinion about ONE possible solution framework being discussed that, while I think is fine as far as it goes, doesn't take the bigger picture sufficiently into account to the degree that I'm willing to cast my lot on its side.

I didn't tell anyone it was just tought tiddlywinks, and they'd have to go home. Let me be as clear about this as possible:

YES, I THINK WE NEED A CLASS TO ACCOMMODATE CARS THAT, IF PREPARED TO IT RULES WOULD BE TOO FAST FOR THE CURRENT STATE OF ITS.

Including 2.8l BMW Z3s.

That suits your needs just fine, limiting ITR to NA, 2wd cars but it seems to me that, if we are going to pay the price of creating another class - and make no mistake, there will be impacts on the program as a whole - we should try to meet the needs of a bunch of other people who are going to be in the same boat you are in a couple of years. Why is that wrong? If the performance envelope is "faster than ITS," can't that include turbos, AWD cars, and a variety of other stuff?

Problem is, that can't be done within the framework of IT, so this new class should be created thinking beyond that frame, considering the needs of a greater number of people, and attempting to solve more problems for more people in the club than the proposal currently on the table.

It will NOT be easy but I think it's worth trying to do, if something is going to be done.

Of course, I also wish I understood what you were trying to say in that last post. You do know that you weren't quoting me, right?

I'm hoping that your statement pasted above means that some ITE classes in the country are very "IT like" in that they correspond to all IT rules, aka, "IT Everything" as you write.
You are right on, Ron - that's precisely what I meant. Some ITE rulesets put cars on the track that you'd very much recognize as "IT-like." Others - NWR included - goes hog-nuts, with fiberglass bodywork, tubular subframes, monstro brakes, etc., etc. I'm pretty sure that I know what you have in mind and, like I said, it makes complete sense in a less-than-macro way.

K

lateapex911

12-07-2005, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by EAPCPA@Dec 7 2005, 07:07 PM
I am a new member and as soon as I can figure out all of the acronyms I will be able to give an intelligent opinion. .....
67549

A first post always deserves a "Welcome"!

Your posts point is well taken.

Can we agree on one thing here guys?

IF it's called "IT_", it should respect the IT category rulebook, and merely be another set of spec lines.

From there, it's a matter of deciding:

-Does it fit the overall philosophy of IT?
-Is there a call for a class above ITS?
-Where will the cars to populate it come from?
-Will there be adequate cars to warrant the creation of a new class?
-Will it steal cars from other classes?

Depending on the answers to the above, some follow ups could be:
-If the desire is to give ex Touring cars a place to "upgrade" to after their run is up, will they fit the performance envelope?
-If the car count is potentially inadequate, do the parameters get opened to allow other configurations currently disallowed, such as: all wheel drive, turbocharged or supercharged, and other engine configurations-V8, etc.?

I will comment on philosophy-
20 years ago the automotive landscape was much different, and I think we need to look at the original philosophy in the light of today, not 20 years ago. "Inexpensive" means something much different now. I think the arguement that such a class is in conflict of the original "cheap to run" philosophy is a red herring. First...EVERY car that is classed won't be expensive OR cheap to prep and run. The class will, presumably, have cars that are expensive, and some that aren't. Besides, there are the lower classes that can maintain the "cheaper" and of things.

As has been pointed out, 20 years ago, a Corvette barely had 300Hp. Now sedans by the dozen boast that kind of power. Economy cars are over what ITS cars had! If the category is to flourish, there needs to be long term strategic thinking that recognizes this, as well as other factors in the changing landscape.

-So, my answer is YES, it fits the philosophy, in todays terms.
-And YES, there is certainly a call. We are turning down classification requests more frequently because they exceed the performance envelopes of the available classes.
-I think we could see a few fresh cars that have never been raced, a smattering of cars from the more enthusiastic racers in BMWCCA, PCA, et al., and if we set it up right, some Touring crossovers.
-YES, in some ares, there will be good support, but...in others it will remain thin, as it is today.
-YES, it will "steal" cars from other classes, but in small numbers. It will also help retain certain members who aspire to faster cars, or certain models that aren't currently classed, who would have gone elsewhere.

In the end, the net net, I think, is that it is worth the time to flesh it out.

Send those cards and letters!

Joe Harlan

12-07-2005, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Dec 7 2005, 08:22 PM
A first post always deserves a "Welcome"!

Your posts point is well taken.

Can we agree on one thing here guys?

IF it's called "IT_", it should respect the IT category rulebook, and merely be another set of spec lines.

From there, it's a matter of deciding:

-Does it fit the overall philosophy of IT?
-Is there a call for a class above ITS?
-Where will the cars to populate it come from?
-Will there be adequate cars to warrant the creation of a new class?
-Will it steal cars from other classes?

Depending on the answers to the above, some follow ups could be:
-If the desire is to give ex Touring cars a place to "upgrade" to after their run is up, will they fit the performance envelope?
-If the car count is potentially inadequate, do the parameters get opened to allow other configurations currently disallowed, such as: all wheel drive, turbocharged or supercharged, and other engine configurations-V8, etc.?
I will comment on philosophy-
20 years ago the automotive landscape was much different, and I think we need to look at the original philosophy in the light of today, not 20 years ago. "Inexpensive" means something much different now. I think the arguement that such a class is in conflict of the original "cheap to run" philosophy is a red herring. First...EVERY car that is classed won't be expensive OR cheap to prep and run. The class will, presumably, have cars that are expensive, and some that aren't. Besides, there are the lower classes that can maintain the "cheaper" and of things.

As has been pointed out, 20 years ago, a Corvette barely had 300Hp. Now sedans by the dozen boast that kind of power. Economy cars are over what ITS cars had! If the category is to flourish, there needs to be long term strategic thinking that recognizes this, as well as other factors in the changing landscape.

-So, my answer is YES, it fits the philosophy, in todays terms.
-And YES, there is certainly a call. We are turning down classification requests more frequently because they exceed the performance envelopes of the available classes.
-I think we could see a few fresh cars that have never been raced, a smattering of cars from the more enthusiastic racers in BMWCCA, PCA, et al., and if we set it up right, some Touring crossovers.
-YES, in some ares, there will be good support, but...in others it will remain thin, as it is today.
-YES, it will "steal" cars from other classes, but in small numbers. It will also help retain certain members who aspire to faster cars, or certain models that aren't currently classed, who would have gone elsewhere.

In the end, the net net, I think, is that it is worth the time to flesh it out.

Send those cards and letters!

67556

Can you publish that list of cars that have recently been requested and turned down. I think it would make for some interesting debate all by itself.

Hotshoe

12-08-2005, 01:26 AM

Originally posted by lateapex911@Dec 8 2005, 03:22 AM

In the end, the net net, I think, is that it is worth the time to flesh it out.

Send those cards and letters!

67556

Excellent Post Jake,

... Another thing that we in the SEDIV like to race in is the ECR series. This Series covers mostly IT cars. We also have the Pro IT. So , as you can see, a lot of us in the South East would like the class to be in the Improved Touring class.

... Reading some of the posts I get the feeling that IT philosophy might be the biggest stumbling block, Is that so hard to amend? Or can it be that you have a different stage of rules as the performance level increases? Like 8" wheels and a Fuel cell?

.... Rick

Ron Earp

12-08-2005, 08:25 AM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 5 2005, 06:03 PM
I believe the poll you started is going 60% against at this point. are you saying that's all FOG's? I don't think so. Notice before you take a whack at me that I race an old world challenge car with aero and 18" wheels and carbon foiber hoods ect. It looks like a freaking drift car. It runs a kind of catchall that is a region based class. IT's IT on steroids. I am all for new idea's and new cars I am just a realist on what it takes from our program to make it happen.

67364

Hmmm, seems like some of the readership is interested, at least at this day and hour. Poll now shows over 50% in favor at this point in time and I imagine some of the open minded FOGs made that happen. :)

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 8 2005, 03:13 AM
Problem is, that can't be done within the framework of IT, so this new class should be created thinking beyond that frame, considering the needs of a greater number of people, and attempting to solve more problems for more people in the club than the proposal currently on the table.

It will NOT be easy but I think it's worth trying to do, if something is going to be done.
67555

I can see where this has merit. I'm just a little "down" on the SCCA accepting change, and AWD/Turbo cars is a big change for SCCA think. I don't think IT should go that route at the moment, IMHO, but as you say, a new class might be needed to accommodate them.

The AWD part I really don't see a problem with. Weight and possibly tire size could be used to balance that.

On the forced induction side, I'd think you'd need to assume that boost is unlimited. And, all stock compressors, turbochargers and superchargers, must be used with no porting of blowers, and no clipping or altering of turbocharger turbine or compressor wheels, housings, etc. No overdriven blowers, all stock intercoolers and piping, etc.

Then, the big question will be, does one try and use a SIR? Seems like they could solve some problems with a class like this.

But still, IT needs an infusion of newer cars. If we created this new class, call it "Class X" that supports turbo/awd cars, then are you suggesting that we throw anything that is outside of ITS into "Class X"? 300z, S2000, 2.8L Z3? If we put all these cars, and others, into "Class X", then IT gets no new cars. Then, IT starts to look pretty sad as a racing class and stuck in the past.

This new class is not IT, as you said it does not fit into the framework of IT rules. Do you suggest changing the framework of IT rules to accommodate a new class? Whew, that sounds like a huge undertaking! Allowing forced induction cars and AWD could have ramifications for almost all classes, A,S for sure, not sure that there is a turbo/supercharged car slow enough for C/B (Geo Metro turbo maybe?).

I think I'm still for simply adding an proper IT class, an ITR, and classing some cars that need to be racing in IT but can't because they are outside of what S can handle. And there are a lot of those that don't require AWD of forced induction accomidations.

Ron

Andy Bettencourt

12-08-2005, 09:17 AM

Let's step back a little...

I don't think IT needs help right now. The classification are as strong as they have ever been and car counts are seemingly very high (on the East coast, VERY high). Any IT drivers lost to SM may soon gain them back with National prepped cars running Regional races.

So...why would the CRB/BoD consider an ITR class? I think it would be two-fold. First, there are cars that are in T2/T3 now that are all caged and ready to go...go where? Right now, Grand Am Cup. We lose. Second, there are cars in PCA and BMWCCA that could fit. That at least gives these enthusiasts an option. Tired of lapping days? Try an SCCA school and Regional.

To answer Joe's question, the Integra Type R, the S2000, the AWD Audi A4, and the N/A 300ZX are the only cars requested IIRC, for classification in ITS that have been denied recently.

I also don't think the 'class philosophy' issue gets trampled that much. You can still choose ITC or ITB and work your way up the money tree. Just because a top of the line E36 M3 in ITR might cost $40K, doesn;t mean it has to be your first IT car...but if you have one - and have the money - maybe SCCA should have a place for you now that the Touring cars are out-classed.

We may not need the class TODAY, but we will need something in the near future. I hear some clammoring for an IT Vision statement, yet people are afraid of this idea. Seems like some people want more of an 'operational' statement than something that may plan for the future.

AB

RacerBill

12-08-2005, 09:28 AM

Originally posted by seckerich@Dec 5 2005, 11:36 PM

As for the dilution of the current classes--we have needed a thinning of the herd for some time now. When you need to beg 10 friends to run so you keep class numbers up they need to die. When I have to run in a group with 90+ cars and watch a group with 6-10 race by themselves it is a little crazy. Flame away.

67428

:happy204: Well said, Steve! :happy204:

Banzai240

12-08-2005, 09:32 AM

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 8 2005, 03:13 AM
YES, I THINK WE NEED A CLASS TO ACCOMMODATE CARS THAT, IF PREPARED TO IT RULES WOULD BE TOO FAST FOR THE CURRENT STATE OF ITS.

Including 2.8l BMW Z3s.

67555

However... Doesn't the Z3 make about 225hp stock?? If that's the case, then with the appropriate SIR, it could EASILY, and I might add PERFECTLY, fit right into the framework of ITS today...

Think about it... It would be the cheapest of all the BMWs to build, because you wouldn't have to prep the motor at all... The SIR would restrict it to the stock HP levels, it's weight would be appropriate for the class, and all you'd have to do is add the safety/race gear...

Same could be true for the 300Z, etc...

Not all cars would work under this program, but MANY would...

Also, if it won't work under the "existing IT framework", (referring to AWD, Turbos, etc.), then this is NOT an IT matter...

There are rules in place for creating a new class... Start one in your region and garner support... That's what the SM guys did... If it's truely going to fly, then support will build, demand will be there, and you'll have the class...

I see a lot of fantasy talk here about running many of the cars mentioned, but, as has been mentioned, most have been tried before, or they are already racing in other classes...

As for some of these ideas, the CRB is supposedly already working on a class that many of these cars would fit into, and in fact, is basically designed for these types of cars... If they ever get it off the ground, then it would be redundant for some of these cars to end up in IT as well...

Until we utilize the existing IT class space now, this paper ITR eutopia is really just that... a fantasy. Like ITS, the higher you go, the more it costs, and the fewer people will come and play... You may disagree, but look across the class structures now... the higher the costs, the fewer there are participating... ESPECIALLY at a REGIONAL level...

I'm not saying another IT class isn't needed, or wouldn't work, but you are going to have to reign in the scope a bit if it is REALLY going to be viable... When you start mixing AWD, Turbos, etc... all in the same class, parity of any sort is a pipe-dream, and the $$$$$ required just to prepare a car are going to be prohibitive for many... And, who really wants to spend $35,000 on a car just to cut it up and bang the heck out of it in a REGIONAL ONLY class??? Especially after having spent another $10,000 or whatever it would cost to race prep the thing...

I still think we need to use the space we have to it's fullest extent, before we start trying to absorb Touring, etc...

Just my opinion...

Joe Harlan

12-08-2005, 09:50 AM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 8 2005, 06:17 AM
Let's step back a little...

I don't think IT needs help right now. The classification are as strong as they have ever been and car counts are seemingly very high (on the East coast, VERY high). Any IT drivers lost to SM may soon gain them back with National prepped cars running Regional races.

So...why would the CRB/BoD consider an ITR class? I think it would be two-fold. First, there are cars that are in T2/T3 now that are all caged and ready to go...go where? Right now, Grand Am Cup. We lose. Second, there are cars in PCA and BMWCCA that could fit. That at least gives these enthusiasts an option. Tired of lapping days? Try an SCCA school and Regional.

To answer Joe's question, the Integra Type R, the S2000, the AWD Audi A4, and the N/A 300ZX are the only cars requested IIRC, for classification in ITS that have been denied recently.

I also don't think the 'class philosophy' issue gets trampled that much. You can still choose ITC or ITB and work your way up the money tree. Just because a top of the line E36 M3 in ITR might cost $40K, doesn;t mean it has to be your first IT car...but if you have one - and have the money - maybe SCCA should have a place for you now that the Touring cars are out-classed.

We may not need the class TODAY, but we will need something in the near future. I hear some clammoring for an IT Vision statement, yet people are afraid of this idea. Seems like some people want more of an 'operational' statement than something that may plan for the future.

AB

67566

Thanks Andy, That's about what i figured. I believe since I have raced against many of them that the Type R could be restricted right in to ITS as I know the NA 300z could be. The S-2000 maybe but my guess is the demand is not high there at this point. The AWD deal is just an issue that is a hard one to deal with but at the right handicap could be given a place to race. I think controling the balance on a NA awd will be much easier than adding turbo/SC stuff.

The issue on the 300zx that I don't think anyone has considered when the classification has been asked for is that it can't get down to 2950 as far as I know. I discussed this car with Nissan yesterday and the feeling is that its a 3000lb car stripped. These cars were very heavy to start with. I actually think the 350z comes in lighter stock than the 300 but I will check that. I know the 350 even with IT allowance wont get under 3000lbs.

Ron Earp

12-08-2005, 09:52 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 01:32 PM
I'm not saying another IT class isn't needed, or wouldn't work, but you are going to have to reign in the scope a bit if it is REALLY going to be viable... When you start mixing AWD, Turbos, etc... all in the same class, parity of any sort is a pipe-dream, and the $$$$$ required just to prepare a car are going to be prohibitive for many... And, who really wants to spend $35,000 on a car just to cut it up and bang the heck out of it in a REGIONAL ONLY class??? Especially after having spent another $10,000 or whatever it would cost to race prep the thing...
I still think we need to use the space we have to it's fullest extent, before we start trying to absorb Touring, etc...

Just my opinion...

67570

Darin, I'm not really for mixing AWD/turbos in IT, just cars already mentioned that don't fit in S, but I'm sure you know that regarding my opinion. I'm hoping the ITR discussion doesn't get dragged that way or people reading the thread think that is what the goal is.

Question - If say a class like ITR is approved, do all regions have to adopt or offer it? Just wondering - if approved could regions like the SE what seem to want/need it have it, while regions like the NW that have smaller IT counts and don't want/need it don't have to have it.

Andy Bettencourt

12-08-2005, 09:59 AM

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 8 2005, 07:52 AM
Question - If say a class like ITR is approved, do all regions have to adopt or offer it? Just wondering - if approved could regions like the SE what seem to want/need it have it, while regions like the NW that have smaller IT counts and don't want/need it don't have to have it.

67572

I would say that is it is the rulebook as an official class, they have to offer it. However, any Region could develop an ITR class of their own and run it any time - aka ITRX-7, ITE, ITT, ITD, SPO, SPU, etc.

AB

Banzai240

12-08-2005, 11:27 AM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 8 2005, 01:59 PM
However, any Region could develop an ITR class of their own and run it any time - aka ITRX-7, ITE, ITT, ITD, SPO, SPU, etc.

AB

67573

And, in fact, that's how these "new" classes are suppose to come about... make the rules, show the interest, then submit them for National recognition...

cherokee

12-08-2005, 11:43 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 01:32 PM

As for some of these ideas, the CRB is supposedly already working on a class that many of these cars would fit into, and in fact, is basically designed for these types of cars... If they ever get it off the ground, then it would be redundant for some of these cars to end up in IT as well...

67570

I find this intresting. Another new class for Touring cars to go when they get too old. Perhaps I am reading it wrong but that sounds like what IT was to be for SS cars when they got too old. I would bet in 10-15 years IT will be sliding down hill and this new class that that is talked about will be it. I would be intrested in seeing what level of prep this new class has....I would bet it would be between prod and SS, kinda like IT is now. And I would bet money it will happen. Touring is too big for it not to happen.

If they are talking about making a new class outside of IT then the debate about thinning out the possible drivers is false. A new class comes then it will have drivers. And by looking at the Touring fields the class will be popular. Would you rather have a new class outside of IT or these cars put into IT somehow. If you say you want them outside of IT then I think you are going to limit what new cars are going into IT most new stuff will go into this "new" class for Touring cars when they get too old to run Touring anymore. I can see the FastTrack now. "does not fit into the intent of IT"

I realy think that for IT to remain fresh it needs these new cars IT rules where written 20something years ago, Chevy was still using Cross Fire Injection for goodness sake. Things have come a long long way. And IF IT is not going to change itself to reflect the stuff that is out on the market it will die. Slowly, kicking and screaming, like GT4 GT5.

Then again I am told I am a glass half empty kind of guy.

Joe Harlan

12-08-2005, 11:44 AM

If you want to gauge a new class your poll should ask the question.

Would you really build a car for a class above ITS.

Hotshoe

12-08-2005, 11:48 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 01:32 PM
And, who really wants to spend $35,000 on a car just to cut it up and bang the heck out of it in a REGIONAL ONLY class??? Especially after having spent another $10,000 or whatever it would cost to race prep the thing...

67570

...Where in the world do these prices come from?....

... I bought my BMW Z3 in California a year ago, with only 72k miles on it, for 10K

... I thought the purpose for this thread was to get a feeling for the acceptance of another Improved Touring Class. Please don't "Snow" us with inflated numbers

... Lets be real about this, Okay? Ten year old cars do not sell for retail in this region of the US

...Just my opinion,

Joe Harlan

12-08-2005, 12:20 PM

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 8 2005, 08:48 AM
...Where in the world do these prices come from?....

... I bought my BMW Z3 in California a year ago, with only 72k miles on it, for 10K

... I thought the purpose for this thread was to get a feeling for the acceptance of another Improved Touring Class. Please don't "Snow" us with inflated numbers

... Lets be real about this, Okay? Ten year old cars do not sell for retail in this region of the US

...Just my opinion,

67589

OK so lets use the 10k number for a donor. Add another 15k minimum to make it a reasonable mid packer. How many younger folks are gonna pop for the 10k donor? Spec Miata was hot when tubs were 2400 bucks and you could get to mid pack for 10k. NOw mid pack is 18k and the numbers are starting to drop. I can afford to build about any car I want for these classes but the average numbers say that it is not the case for most.

Again. If I understood the how to poll on this page I would ask the question.

Would you actually build a race car for a class above ITS?

Hotshoe

12-08-2005, 12:48 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 8 2005, 04:20 PM
Again. If I understood the how to poll on this page I would ask the question.

Would you actually build a race car for a class above ITS?

67594

.... Yes ...... Plus keep this in mind. When I built my RX7 it took me several seasons to get the car developed, spending a little as I went along.

... So remember, just to do the "basics" to a car so it will qualify for a class and pass tech should only costs about 7K or less (if you do some of the work yourself). Then you can improve on the car from there.

... Looking at the brighter side,

....Rick Thompson

Fastfred92

12-08-2005, 01:11 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 8 2005, 04:20 PM
Would you actually build a race car for a class above ITS?

67594

First off this "ITR" could have a full grid tomorrow with just e36 M3's from BMWCCA and 3.0 and 3.2 911's from PCA. I have raced both PCA and BMWCCA and there are plenty ( atleaset in the SE ) of these up and running that would like to participate in SCCA. Before you flame on about the 13/13 stuff I have seen as much contact in either BMW or PCA as I have Nationals, some guys won't come but plenty will.

People will build new cars for this class as well, these cars are fast and most racers like that idea of going faster.

cherokee

12-08-2005, 01:23 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 8 2005, 04:20 PM

Would you actually build a race car for a class above ITS?

67594

It would depend on if the car that I wanted to drive was in there. I pick my car for what it means to me, not for any other reason.

Bill Miller

12-08-2005, 02:14 PM

We may not need the class TODAY, but we will need something in the near future.

I don't know how much plainer and simpler it could be stated.

I hear some clammoring for an IT Vision statement, yet people are afraid of this idea. Seems like some people want more of an 'operational' statement than something that may plan for the future.

Andy,

I don't know if it's so much an 'IT Vision statement', but where IT fits in the overall Club Racing Strategic Plan that we've been hearing about for the last few years. People are asking about it, because we were told that it was comming.

I really don't see the point of creating a new class, that's outside the framework of IT, just to provide a place for these cars to race. If that's what your're looking to do, just extend the T2/T3 lifespan for another 10-20 years, at the Regional level. The other crazy stuff can run ITE/SPO/ASR.

I'm also not convinced that AWD and FI can't be made to fit w/in the IT framework. The whole "hey, the really rich guys will build a 'wet' car and a 'dry' car" is such a red herring. Sure, you may get a couple of guys that do this, but so what? As has been said many times, you can't stop people from spending money. And some guys love to be the big fish in the little pond. The SIR thing would seem to be the answer for the turbo cars.

Darin,

Why in the world would someone want to run their 250 hp car if it was choked down to 175hp? Sure, you can _make_ the cars fit in ITS. Hell, you can probably _make_ them fit in ITA. If you don't think so, I think the ITC NB is a good example of just how you can _make_ a car fit into a class it doesn't belong in. Point is, the cars will be neutered to the point that people won't be interested in running them. Be like running around w/ 1 or 2 of the plug wires pulled off, what the hell fun is that?

And here's a side thought about T2/T3. As the popularity grows, and more people build these cars, expect to see people asking for changes in the rules that will let them move the cars back and forth between Club Racing and World Challenge. The whole 'name association' thing is already there (Touring 2 / Touring 3, and World Challenge Touring). Think about it, as much as the cars cost to buy and prep, and w/ mfg. interest/support, it would be a natural evolution. Just remember, you heard it hear first!

Z3_GoCar

12-08-2005, 02:24 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 06:32 AM
However... Doesn't the Z3 make about 225hp stock?? If that's the case, then with the appropriate SIR, it could EASILY, and I might add PERFECTLY, fit right into the framework of ITS today...

67570

Nope 189hp in the 97-98 single vanos, 193hp in the special double vanos 99-00 2.8l. 225hp sounds like the 3.0l. The real problem is weight, a racing Z3 should weight less than 2900 lbs, way out of the ITS envelope if everyone's complaing about a 2.5l weighing 2850lbs being an over dog.

James

Bill Miller

12-08-2005, 02:36 PM

James,

Are those 97-98 single vanos cars 2.5s or 2.8s? IIRC, the E36 325is makes 189hp, stock. If the zingle vanos cars are 2.5s, it would seem logical that they be classed in ITS near (at?) the same weight (new weight, not the current 2850#) as the current E36 325. Am I missing something here?

Banzai240

12-08-2005, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 8 2005, 06:14 PM
Darin,

Why in the world would someone want to run their 250 hp car if it was choked down to 175hp?
67609

That's NOT what I said... I said your 225hp could be made to fit into ITS at 225hp... the restrictor would limit you to that hp...

250hp to 175 is not realistic... and is obviously not something we would consider...

Think about it for a moment... how much simpler could building an IT car be than to NOT have to do ANYTHING to the motor short of installing an SIR...

I'd take that over custom pistons, grey areas, etc... that it takes to make a front runner today...

"You're just not thinking fourth dimensionally..." ;)

Bill Miller

12-08-2005, 03:04 PM

Darin,

So what you're saying, is that there would be no hp gain from an 'IT tune', due to the SIR, so there would be no motivation to build the motor? Tell me how that doesn't aid the car in question ? Gee, spend $20k+ building a cage/suspension/motor, plus all that dyno time, etc. or just throw a cage and a suspension (and an SIR) into a car? Seems like an obvious choice.

Admittedly, I'm not up much on SIR technology. Just how proven is it, and how tight is the power band for a given SIR?

Fastfred92

12-08-2005, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 8 2005, 06:36 PM
James,

(new weight, not the current 2850#)
67613

Am I right in assuming the e36's are getting ready ( weight gain ) to get screwed again???

Know something Bill ??

Hotshoe

12-08-2005, 04:21 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 8 2005, 06:14 PM

I really don't see the point of creating a new class, that's outside the framework of IT, just to provide a place for these cars to race. If that's what your're looking to do, just extend the T2/T3 lifespan for another 10-20 years, at the Regional level.

67609

... Have you driven a T2 car? Its not much better than stock. Not very safe either. At least if it got classed in Improved Touring it could get some safety upgrades, especially a fuel cell.

... In the SE we had one T2 car eligible for a year end award out of the four that ran a race in 2005. So by those numbers, it doesn't look like to many drivers are interested in Touring. Going by what you said about crossing over to World Challenge Touring: An Improved Touring Car is a lot closer to their specs than a Stock/Touring2 car.

... Rick

Andy Bettencourt

12-08-2005, 04:23 PM

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 8 2005, 01:53 PM
Am I right in assuming the e36's are getting ready ( weight gain ) to get screwed again???

Know something Bill ??

67622

How were they screwed the first time? I guess the hundreds of words and explanations typed here are falling on deaf ears.

Wonderful. It makes it all worth it. :bash_1_:

AB

Banzai240

12-08-2005, 04:24 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 8 2005, 07:04 PM
Admittedly, I'm not up much on SIR technology. Just how proven is it, and how tight is the power band for a given SIR?

67618

From what we are being told... the engine does not even "see" the restrictor, until it hits the "stall" speed... the point at which it will simply not flow any more air...

Look at F3000, LMP cars, etc... These are used all over the place...

To give you an example... (this was an example given to me...)... A 750hp Corvette (not sure what class or organization....) breaths through a pair of 32mm SIR restrictors...

So, from the data we are being told, it's basically invisible until you hit the HP figure it's tuned for... Then... THAT'S it.... One of our CRB Liasons races his GT car with one and has spent much time on the dyno with them, as have others, and they are convinced that this is a good technology... Not suppose to affect drivability up to the top of the specified range, so you'll still have the torque, throttle-response, etc., that you had before...

As another example... If a car can make 200hp with a modified or stock ECU, but 215 or 225 is possible with a MOTEC, all in IT trim... and you specify an SIR to limit to 200hp... How much desire would you have to go spend the $$ on the MOTEC??? How much REQUIREMENT to do this to be competitive would there be??? ;)

This would be one way to classify cars in a fasion so as to keep their weights reasonable, yet keep them from being instant overdogs...

And... If an adjustment needs to be made to get the competitiveness correct... it's a simple, and inexpensive change to make...

There may be some cons... likely mostly philisophical, but overall, it's a good option, and perhaps better than strictly using weight as a balancing tool, at least at the upper end of the performance envelope...

Just an option...

Hope this explanation helps...

Banzai240

12-08-2005, 04:30 PM

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 8 2005, 08:21 PM
... Have you driven a T2 car? Its not much better than stock. Not very safe either. At least if it got classed in Improved Touring it could get some safety upgrades, especially a fuel cell.

... In the SE we had one T2 car eligible for a year end award out of the four that ran a race in 2005. ... Rick

67623

With all due respect... the Touring cage rules are the most recent, and have more stringent requirments that IT currently does... and they are allowed suspension mods in the form of a "trunk kit", etc... I doesn't sound here like you know what you are talking about concerning this class... especially if you've only see ONE T2 car...

Further, a T2 car of today already has a better suspension system than most IT cars, and with the trunk-kits, they are practically IT prepped already...

The biggest difference between the two classes is the fact that the Touring cars must remain street legal, emission-compliant, etc... They are every bit the race car that an IT car is...

Hotshoe

12-08-2005, 04:50 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 08:30 PM
With all due respect... the Touring cage rules are the most recent, and have more stringent requirments that IT currently does... and they are allowed suspension mods in the form of a "trunk kit", etc... I doesn't sound here like you know what you are talking about concerning this class... especially if you've only see ONE T2 car...

Further, a T2 car of today already has a better suspension system than most IT cars, and with the trunk-kits, they are practically IT prepped already...

The biggest difference between the two classes is the fact that the Touring cars must remain street legal, emission-compliant, etc... They are every bit the race car that an IT car is...

67627

....Do you own one? Well, I do own a T2 car. And the suspension isn't much more than stock on my spec line. And running a catalytic converter isn't my idea of smart especially if I need to pull off track in the grass in case of a red flag. No fuel cell, no adjustable spring height. I also have to run carpet (To help catch on fire). So don't blow hot air up my skirt, I've been working on my car hoping that maybe something like this will happen. I may not know everything about T2 but I think I'm more involved than you.

Banzai240

12-08-2005, 05:37 PM

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 8 2005, 08:50 PM
....Do you own one? Well, I do own a T2 car. And the suspension isn't much more than stock on my spec line. And running a catalytic converter isn't my idea of smart especially if I need to pull off track in the grass in case of a red flag. No fuel cell, no adjustable spring height. I also have to run carpet (To help catch on fire). So don't blow hot air up my skirt, I've been working on my car hoping that maybe something like this will happen. I may not know everything about T2 but I think I'm more involved than you.

67629

Exactly HOW many incidents are you aware of that have occured based on the items that you are concerned with???

Hotshoe

12-08-2005, 05:41 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 09:37 PM
Exactly HOW many incidents are you aware of that have occured based on the items that you are concerned with???

67635

Darin,

....It is so dry around here that a lot of times during the drivers meeting we are warned about where we pull off track.

Ron Earp

12-08-2005, 05:42 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 8 2005, 03:44 PM
If you want to gauge a new class your poll should ask the question.

Would you really build a car for a class above ITS.

67586

How would that tell us anything? Sort of like asking "Would you build an ITC car?" Well, people that are racing in other classes would say no, a few would say yes, and then someone would look at the poll results and say "LOOK! Not many would build one! See how many said they would not do it!"

Sort of like looking at the poll results now, which by the way indicate the majority is in favor of ITR, and saying "Look, everyone says it is great, we gotta have it!". And that isn't true either, even if the poll is favorable is just an indicator, nothing more.

R

Joe Harlan

12-08-2005, 05:43 PM

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 8 2005, 01:21 PM
... Have you driven a T2 car? Its not much better than stock. Not very safe either. At least if it got classed in Improved Touring it could get some safety upgrades, especially a fuel cell.

... In the SE we had one T2 car eligible for a year end award out of the four that ran a race in 2005. So by those numbers, it doesn't look like to many drivers are interested in Touring. Going by what you said about crossing over to World Challenge Touring: An Improved Touring Car is a lot closer to their specs than a Stock/Touring2 car.

... Rick

67623

Dude your making yourself look foolish. You have not got a clue about touring. T2 Biggest class at the runoffs. Cage requirements are higher than IT. Fuel cells optional like IT if I remember. YOu obviously have not even looked at the rules for touring. As I have said Touring is not going to be a big regional class because of cost ......Guess what that's the same reason that many people won't get up for the next level of IT. The only Big bore class in SCCA that is doing OK is GT1 and those numbers will head south when Trans-am croaks. You need to look at the broader part of the club not just the little market you belong to.

BTW, qualifications are 2 of the fastest 350z's built in the last 2 years at Mid-O this year and 300+ hours of testing in said cars. I am currently working with fuel safe to design a cell for these cars that works with all the factory OBDII stuff and have spent 25 hours on the dyno with these engines. If that's not enough just let me know I will send resume with references.

Ron, defining how many people would actually build a car is what needs to happen to even get started. Hell I am interested in blondes but if my wife catches me with one I am dead. Now if you asked me would I take a blonde over my with I would have to so no.
So the real question is would the cars actually be built.

Jake tried to use the number of cars turned down and that looks like not as many as it was supposed to sound like. Ask good questions of you want real answers and general questions if youwant to try to support a case.

Have a good day.

Matt Rowe

12-08-2005, 05:47 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 03:24 PM
So, from the data we are being told, it's basically invisible until you hit the HP figure it's tuned for... Then... THAT'S it.... One of our CRB Liasons races his GT car with one and has spent much time on the dyno with them, as have others, and they are convinced that this is a good technology... Not suppose to affect drivability up to the top of the specified range, so you'll still have the torque, throttle-response, etc., that you had before...

67625

Darin, the concept is interesting, but every application I have seen these used on has wide open engine prep rules. With our restrictive head, intake and cam rules I'm not sure we would end up with the parity you would expect. For example if torque is not effected up to the stall point of the SIR then a rotary will still be at a disadvantage to a inline 6 with the SIR to weight ratio. And because area under the curve is more important that peak power I think you will still see people spending money to get everything out of the motor they can at engine speeds below the effect of the SIR.

SIR's are worth looking into but no work has been done to determine if production level rules, much less IT rules will affect how well a SIR will work. It's a little premature to think there isn't some quirk out there that we have to plan for. Now, who wants to do some testing?

Banzai240

12-08-2005, 05:56 PM

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 8 2005, 09:41 PM
Darin,

....It is so dry around here that a lot of times during the drivers meeting we are warned about where we pull off track.

67637

OK... but how many times does it actually HAPPEN? We have grass fires here as well, but there is no correlation between them occurring, and the car having a cat...

Headers, overheated brakes (causing the car to drive off the corner and into the grass...), backfires, etc... ALL cause grass fires... And if your carpet catches fire, you likely have a problem sufficient that even without the carpet, you may be in trouble...

The point is that, while we do need to theorize to a point, we have to write rules to reality... Based on reality, I don't see any data that suggests that a T2 car is any less safe than an IT car, especially considering that MOST IT cars don't run fuel cells either... and, up until this season, haven't been required to run passenger side door protection, etc...

NOW, back to the topic at hand... If the cars fit the current IT structure, but need room at the top (i.e.: an ITR class), then that's fine... If you guys are thinking that IT is suddenly going to become an AWD and Turbo place to play, perhaps we're getting a little bit out of the scope of the class...

Joe Harlan

12-08-2005, 06:00 PM

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Dec 8 2005, 02:47 PM
Darin, the concept is interesting, but every application I have seen these used on has wide open engine prep rules. With our restrictive head, intake and cam rules I'm not sure we would end up with the parity you would expect. For example if torque is not effected up to the stall point of the SIR then a rotary will still be at a disadvantage to a inline 6 with the SIR to weight ratio. And because area under the curve is more important that peak power I think you will still see people spending money to get everything out of the motor they can at engine speeds below the effect of the SIR.

SIR's are worth looking into but no work has been done to determine if production level rules, much less IT rules will affect how well a SIR will work. It's a little premature to think there isn't some quirk out there that we have to plan for. Now, who wants to do some testing?

67640

Matt your kidding right? IMSA,CART,BTCC blah,blah.....This technology has been around for a way long time. Sure getting everything under the curve would be important that's racing. But limiting HP to a know quantity sure makings using somall amounts of weight more effective. If I here the rotary torque argument again I will prolly puke. What they don't make in torque they make a up in RPM and gearing. How many other IT cars can run gears in the 5:** range.

Http://www.raetech.com (http://Http://www.raetech.com) Go information on SIR's and how they work.

Hotshoe

12-08-2005, 06:32 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 09:56 PM
NOW, back to the topic at hand... If the cars fit the current IT structure, but need room at the top (i.e.: an ITR class), then that's fine...
67642

Darin,

... Thank You ...

Joe,

.... We are not talking about a National Class here.
.... And you are right about the T2 race at the Run Offs.... Best one of the event.

Joe Harlan

12-08-2005, 06:46 PM

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 8 2005, 03:32 PM
Darin,

... Thank You ...

Joe,

.... We are not talking about a National Class here.
.... And you are right about the T2 race at the Run Offs.... Best one of the event.

67646

We are talking about a National class here cause all I have been reading is how we need a place for these National cars. I gotta tell ya. They are national cause they cost lots of money and the factory and tire folks want to play there. I have read a lot of false information here. The idea that you will see any serious numbers from BMWCCA or PCA is just blowing smoke up people's skirts. Most all of those folks race for a different pleasure that does not include knocking mirrors off each other. Again if a class is needed I agree that it should be formed.

Matt Rowe

12-08-2005, 07:16 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 8 2005, 05:00 PM
Matt your kidding right? IMSA,CART,BTCC blah,blah.....This technology has been around for a way long time. Sure getting everything under the curve would be important that's racing. But limiting HP to a know quantity sure makings using somall amounts of weight more effective. If I here the rotary torque argument again I will prolly puke. What they don't make in torque they make a up in RPM and gearing. How many other IT cars can run gears in the 5:** range.

Http://www.raetech.com (http://Http://www.raetech.com) Go information on SIR's and how they work.

67643

IMSA, CART, BTCC, Blah, blah .... ALL are allowed way more in the way of engine modifications than a stock intake, stock head, sotck cam. In most cases those purpose built engine have been optimized SPECIFICALLY to maximize power using the SIR. Personally I don't care if the rotary torque argument makes you sick. Maybe you prefer a comparison between inline 6 and V6, variable valve timing vs conventional? Either way that is still never been an issue addressed by CART, IMSA or most of the other series. I would love to see some data from touring cars, that's at least close. But the fact remains that WE need testing within IT prep rules before anything can be done. Otherwise we are more than likely to end up with some unintended consequences.

The other point about power band is that no matter what you try with SIR's, people with money will still spend it on engine development to maximize the power band. So SIR's may be able to improve parity but they aren't going to magically keep people from spending money to gain every little advantage. And once power output is equalized, minor driveability and power band differneces are even more evident.

Jeez Joe, lighten up and read I'm all for more work being done on how they apply to IT. I just won't blindly accept that they are a magic device with no potential downside. Oh, and while I don't know everything I have worked with and designed to them before. If it was that easy we wouldn't consistently have been better in power output than most of the field. It's amazing what you can do when you control plenum size, runner length, port shape, etc. :blink:

Ron Earp

12-08-2005, 08:00 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 8 2005, 10:46 PM
We are talking about a National class here cause all I have been reading is how we need a place for these National cars. I gotta tell ya. They are national cause they cost lots of money and the factory and tire folks want to play there. I have read a lot of false information here. The idea that you will see any serious numbers from BMWCCA or PCA is just blowing smoke up people's skirts. Most all of those folks race for a different pleasure that does not include knocking mirrors off each other. Again if a class is needed I agree that it should be formed.

67647

Joe we have, for close to five pages on this thread and more pages on the other ITR thread, been discussing a REGIONAL IT class. Not a National Class. Simply because there are some T2 and T3 cars that would fit nicely in IT does not mean this class is national.

In fact, really, it is simply coincidence that some of the proposed ITR cars, such as a S2000 or 350z possibly, are T cars. If T didn't exist it wouldn't make any difference, we'd still need a class above S to class some cars, some of which happen to be things like six cylinder Z3s and S2000s, into IT because they fit nicely there.

It could be that in your area your local PCA and BMWCCA drivers would not try IT. But, where I live, they do it already and I know of drivers who regularly do it. Obviously it would be impossible to predict how many or which ones, but it makes no difference. There is enough interest from within the IT ranks to make the class viable. They'd just be icing on the cake with respect to SCCA membership and racing.

Ron

Joe Harlan

12-08-2005, 08:25 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 8 2005, 05:00 PM
Joe we have, for close to five pages on this thread and more pages on the other ITR thread, been discussing a REGIONAL IT class. Not a National Class. Simply because there are some T2 and T3 cars that would fit nicely in IT does not mean this class is national.

In fact, really, it is simply coincidence that some of the proposed ITR cars, such as a S2000 or 350z possibly, are T cars. If T didn't exist it wouldn't make any difference, we'd still need a class above S to class some cars, some of which happen to be things like six cylinder Z3s and S2000s, into IT because they fit nicely there.

It could be that in your area your local PCA and BMWCCA drivers would not try IT. But, where I live, they do it already and I know of drivers who regularly do it. Obviously it would be impossible to predict how many or which ones, but it makes no difference. There is enough interest from within the IT ranks to make the class viable.

Ron

67653

Ron can you point me to those participation numbers somewhere? I look at NC region results and didn't see them and ECR or SARRC don't show anything that jumps out.
Am I looking in the wrong place?

Ron Earp

12-08-2005, 08:47 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 9 2005, 12:25 AM
Ron can you point me to those participation numbers somewhere? I look at NC region results and didn't see them and ECR or SARRC don't show anything that jumps out.
Am I looking in the wrong place?

67658

Don't know where you are looking. You'd have to know the people to know if they are in the BMWCCA and SCCA, there isn't anything on the sites that says SCCA/BMWCCA member.

However, working from memory Marshall Lytle is one that recently ran in ITS here in the SE that I briefly met and there was one or two others as well, I want to say Wayne Burstein and John Coots. Not bad from a field of 13 cars to have three BMWCCA folks in there. I was unfortunately (shouldn't say that, at least I got some seat time!) racing SM most of last year since my ITS car was not complete/down. Actually, John Coots might be a NE racer only, might be confusing with Jerald Campbell who is a BMWCCA driver I think. There are some 944 cup cars that run NASA and IT, I'll find out.

I'd imagine having something open they could come to would draw a good number of them since there aren't that many BMWCCA and PCA races, or not as many as SCCA. It is sort of bad that the racing is diluted over three organizations, but I am sure there are some racers in there that don't want to have anything to do with the SCCA and possible contact. Plus, some others that probably feel they like racing their own kind instead of multiple types of cars. Wouldn't want the fabled BMW marquee soiled by a Mazda! Wait, that doesn't happen in ITS anyhow.......

Ron

Joe Harlan

12-08-2005, 09:14 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 8 2005, 05:47 PM
Don't know where you are looking. You'd have to know the people to know if they are in the BMWCCA and SCCA, there isn't anything on the sites that says SCCA/BMWCCA member.

However, working from memory Marshall Lytle is one that recently ran in ITS here in the SE that I briefly met and there was one or two others as well, I want to say Wayne Burstein and John Coots. Not bad from a field of 13 cars to have three BMWCCA folks in there. I was unfortunately (shouldn't say that, at least I got some seat time!) racing SM most of last year since my ITS car was not complete/down. Actually, John Coots might be a NE racer only, might be confusing with Jerald Campbell who is a BMWCCA driver I think. There are some 944 cup cars that run NASA and IT, I'll find out.

I'd imagine having something open they could come to would draw a good number of them since there aren't that many BMWCCA and PCA races, or not as many as SCCA. It is sort of bad that the racing is diluted over three organizations, but I am sure there are some racers in there that don't want to have anything to do with the SCCA and possible contact. Plus, some others that probably feel they like racing their own kind instead of multiple types of cars. Wouldn't want the fabled BMW marquee soiled by a Mazda! Wait, that doesn't happen in ITS anyhow.......

Ron

67661

Well Ron, Come on man. It is not rocket science for me to figure a PCA guy would be driving a Porsche and a BMWCCA guy would be driving a bimmer. I do not find any results that show a Porsche or a BMW listed in an ITE or some other class like that. I do find a lot of results from your region and your division on the web. It would seem that they must be incomplete cause I don't find several of the experts on this sight having much in the way of races. Now before everyone rus to check my results I took most of this year off but I was at a race track at least 15 race weekends plus a month at the runoffs I do have a few years under my belt.

Rick what do you have for a T2 car?

Andy Bettencourt

12-08-2005, 09:20 PM

Who is in? (http://cgi.ebay.com/ebaymotors/95-Nissan-300zx-Race-Car_W0QQitemZ4596471332QQcategoryZ98064QQrdZ1QQcmd ZViewItem)

Ron Earp

12-08-2005, 09:32 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 9 2005, 01:14 AM
Well Ron, Come on man. It is not rocket science for me to figure a PCA guy would be driving a Porsche and a BMWCCA guy would be driving a bimmer. I do not find any results that show a Porsche or a BMW listed in an ITE or some other class like that. I do find a lot of results from your region and your division on the web.
Rick what do you have for a T2 car?

67663

I'm uncertain as to what you mean. I've listed some drivers for whom I'm under the impression are BMWCCA drivers who drove their BMWCCA BMW 3 series cars in ITS at our SAARC MARS challenge and other races. It was written up in the Regional BMW Club magazine as well indicating the drivers liked it and placed well against the "SCCA Big Dogs" as it was put by the writer. Not sure what else you wish from me, contact them yourself if you would like to ask them if they'll build an ITR car.

Besides, what difference does it make to this entire thread of should there or do we want an ITR class? I think I'll concentrate on fleshing out the spreadsheet and collecting data for that part of it and writing the proposal. It appears all the useful information was obtained regarding ITR within the first three pages of the original ITR thread. The rest has been mainly you attempting to be fairly argumentive toward most of the posters on the thread over ITR or any other side discussion that starts - like BMWCCA or PCA drivers possibly driving in IT.

Maybe you have a proposal or an idea in mind on how to class new cars in IT that have performance capabilities above S cars? All I (and some others) wish to do is drive some 5-12 year old sports cars in IT. How is that much different than when IT started way back in the 80s with then seven year old cars? It just so happens that modern cars that are 5-12 years old have a hell of a lot more performance than cars "back in the day", but certainly they can be accomidated for (those pesky AWD/turbo cars are a problem with possibly no IT solution). If you've got a proposal then I wouldn't mind hearing it, maybe trying to help out with working on it.

Ron

Joe Harlan

12-08-2005, 09:41 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 8 2005, 06:32 PM
I'm uncertain as to what you mean. I've listed some drivers for whom I'm under the impression are BMWCCA drivers who drove their BMWCCA BMW 3 series cars in ITS at our SAARC MARS challenge and other races. It was written up in the Regional BMW Club magazine as well indicating the drivers liked it and placed well against the "SCCA Big Dogs" as it was put by the writer. Not sure what else you wish from me, contact them yourself if you would like to ask them if they'll build an ITR car.

Besides, what difference does it make to this entire thread of should there or do we want an ITR class? I think I'll concentrate on fleshing out the spreadsheet and collecting data for that part of it and writing the proposal. It appears all the useful information was obtained regarding ITR within the first three pages of the original ITR thread. The rest has been mainly you attempting to be fairly argumentive toward most of the posters on the thread over ITR or any other side discussion that starts - like BMWCCA or PCA drivers possibly driving in IT.

Maybe you have a proposal or an idea in mind on how to class new cars in IT that have performance capabilities above S cars? All I (and some others) wish to do is drive some 5-12 year old sports cars in IT. How is that much different than when IT started way back in the 80s with then seven year old cars? It just so happens that modern cars that are 5-12 years old have a hell of a lot more performance than cars "back in the day", but certainly they can be accomidated for (those pesky AWD/turbo cars are a problem with possibly no IT solution). If you've got a proposal then I wouldn't mind hearing it, maybe trying to help out with working on it.

Ron

67666

Believe me Ron you have seen and will see more of my proposal than you know over the next 5 years. What gets me is when people say things as fact and have no data to back up those facts.What happens is a false need is created by false facts. Then when it comes time to deliver nobody home. You end up with a class that isn't gonna field cars. The question I asked was will people actually build them. What is the 5 to 12 year old car you wish to race.

Nice car Andy 3200lbs with driver 245HP on its best day where does that fit? I am thinking that's a click below the current E36.

Andy Bettencourt

12-08-2005, 09:50 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 8 2005, 07:41 PM

Nice car Andy 3200lbs with driver 245HP on its best day where does that fit? I am thinking that's a click below the current E36.

67667

Are you saying this car can only gain 23hp over stock with 3L of V6 and all the IT mods?

I would think between 265 and 275 would be possible...

AB

Ron Earp

12-08-2005, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 9 2005, 01:41 AM
. What is the 5 to 12 year old car you wish to race.

67667

Oh, let's see. Quick and short list without thinking hard:

E36 M3
Porsche 968
S2000s (gotta wait a year)
80s 911s
300z
Supra NA

And there are many more.

Ron

Hotshoe

12-08-2005, 09:59 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 9 2005, 01:14 AM
Rick what do you have for a T2 car?

67663

Joe,

... I have a 98 BMW Z3. I ran only one SCCA event with this season, a Rally. I now have it torn apart and am installing a new clutch.

... I also ran 17 IT7 races plus the ARRC, 10 races in SM, 7 ECR races as Co-Driver, 1Pro IT , and ran the 13hr @VIR with only 1 Co-Driver

... One point I would like to make. I feel safer racing my IT7 car than any of the other cars because of the added safety features allowed in IT, and I have them all and then some. I even put inertia switches on my fuel pumps.

... That is why I would like to see this class happen. The level of prep is more "Race" oriented than Touring. I guess that is where "Improved Touring" comes from.

... Thus: IT... Race/Ready

Joe Harlan

12-08-2005, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 8 2005, 06:50 PM
Are you saying this car can only gain 23hp over stock with 3L of V6 and all the IT mods?

I would think between 265 and 275 would be possible...

AB

67669

No Andy, I was not stating that and you know me well enough to know that I could give you exect numbers on that package. If you limit that car to 245hp where does it fit?

Rick, There were some many Z3's built for T2 I had forgotten it was even classed. So you represented how crappy the touring rules from driving a T2 car in a rally once...WOW that's a big leap. Lets say this. The Touring rules allow all the safety stuff of IT including a passanger side crash protecion and window removal....(which BTW is how it got sole for IT) again a big leap from actual facts.

So ron what your saying is you have not formulated a plan for a car you would build this is still just a concept.

Andy i have Emailed the guy with the 300 to see about a buyit now price. I may just go pick it up just in case it ever does get to ITS.. B)

Ron Earp

12-08-2005, 10:31 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 9 2005, 02:23 AM
So ron what your saying is you have not formulated a plan for a car you would build this is still just a concept.
67674

Oh no! I have a plan and stated car, you'll need to simply look back through the threads. These are just other cars in ITR and interesting cars, the one I'm thinking about isn't listed.. No, I have a plan. We're up to 28 cars on the spreadsheet now and I think a few more a certainly possible - with NO overlap with ITS at the moment. It could get larger if some "problem childs" are choosen to be extracted from S into R.

Oh yeah, for the front drivers:

Taurus SHO - this would be a really cool one, sweet motor
Integra RSX-R

Ron

Hotshoe

12-08-2005, 10:48 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 9 2005, 02:23 AM
Rick, There were some many Z3's built for T2 I had forgotten it was even classed. So you represented how crappy the touring rules from driving a T2 car in a rally once...WOW that's a big leap. Lets say this. The Touring rules allow all the safety stuff of IT including a passanger side crash protecion and window removal.

67674

Joe
.
.....So now you are trying to insult me. Good thing I consider the source. I have had harsher things said by better folks (that can spell).

..... Don't forget to add that in Touring you have to keep the passenger seat, carpet and all that flammable stuff. My car is classed so poorly that the sway bar that is on the spec line for my car is not even available nor made.

..... Must be Snowing ...... LOL

Joe Harlan

12-08-2005, 11:03 PM

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 8 2005, 07:48 PM
Joe
.
.....So now you are trying to insult me. Good thing I consider the source. I have had harsher things said by better folks (that can spell).

..... Don't forget to add that in Touring you have to keep the passenger seat, carpet and all that flammable stuff. My car is classed so poorly that the sway bar that is on the spec line for my car is not even available nor made.

..... Must be Snowing ...... LOL

67676

If I was worried about spelling I would just not even bother. Insult you No, Point out that your argument is not from any real facts. Yep...

So you got me I spell like a 3rd grader big deal. I have tried not to be insulting and sometimes typing just makes it sound that way in your own head. Maybe there is something to that. If the thing is such a terrible T2 car why did you buy it?

Hotshoe

12-08-2005, 11:08 PM

Originally posted by cherokee@Dec 8 2005, 05:23 PM
It would depend on if the car that I wanted to drive was in there. I pick my car for what it means to me, not for any other reason.

67605

.... Ditto ....

...Plus it is not such a bad car. It is just classed wrong.... get it

Hotshoe

12-08-2005, 11:24 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 9 2005, 03:03 AM
Point out that your argument is not from any real facts. Yep...

67677

Fact,

....Are there any cars out there that are to fast for ITS.... YES

.... Since IT was established 20 years ago, do we need to upgrade it ... YES

.... Is this thread trying to help come up with a solution ... YES

.... Since some people are "know it alls" are they trying to help .... NO

.... What does this thread pertain to..... ITR Class Poll

.... Who Started it.... Ron

.... Do some people loose their objectivity .... YES... Then they try to "Muddy the water" and degrade others without being provoked.

..... Need I say more?

Joe Harlan

12-08-2005, 11:39 PM

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 8 2005, 08:24 PM
...Plus it is not such a bad car. It is just classed wrong.... get it
..... Need I say more?

67679

Haha...All that from a car you have never raced and a set of rules you have never read....

OK I am done I will send my ideas and thoughts to the correct place instead of a question that will never provide a real set of facts.

Ya'all have fun

Hotshoe

12-08-2005, 11:56 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 9 2005, 03:39 AM
Haha...All that from a car you have never raced and a set of rules you have never read....

67680

Joe,

... I'm not quite sure why you persist. You have been given facts.

... I have not run my BMW much this year because I wanted to run my SM some so I could run in a few National races this coming year. Plus, given all the other events that I entered (0ver 30), I didn't have time.

... So I guess if you don't drive your car a lot then you don't know Jack?

... But if you work on one you do......

... What do we do when the 10 years is up? Park it? I hope not.

... Hope we do have fun.......

Fastfred92

12-09-2005, 12:41 AM

Man its late and you guys are HARSH ! Ron, proceed with this, maybe SE could do something on a trial basis??? I just hope that we move into the 21st century in IT, we just got 15" frecking inch wheels when they are becoming obsolete in the real world. By the time IT gets 17" or 18" you need to buy tires from the time machine. I know turbo / supercharged or AWD is a tough sale but I hope some future provisions could be made...

Joe, send some of that rain from the northwest over to the southeast, we could use it

lateapex911

12-09-2005, 12:44 AM

Some random, just got home from work reactions and thoughts....

> I hear Joe, he's being realistic...how many cars will REALLY show up?? And I think I know Ron, and he will be responsible for a few that WILL show up. And I think Rick does what he says he will...

So thats ...um....3?

> The comment about the BMWCCA and PCA guys is VERY interesting. I did see some crossover E36s at the ARRC. In this area (the NE), the BMW (i think) and Porsche (definately) club series have limited number of events, so I can see that there would be guys who would love to race more. Again, regional differences could be drastic.

> And again, the money issue is a non starter in my book, I am always surprised about how much money people are willing to throw away racing. And not just in the build of the car, but in the recurring expenses. A new set of tires every event is pretty common. I think if the class is tempting that the money will be spent.

It is, however, up to us to see that there are diminishing returns whenever possible in the rules writing and car classification areas.

> I am a little concerned about the potential "overuse" of the SIR technology. I like to think of it as a way to "trim" the class...but I wouldn't like to see it try to make cars fit in ways that would affect the cars personality and character. And remember, one of the strengths that gets mentioned every time the E36 is mentioned is it's torque.....and choking a car down so it "fits" a class with an SIR won't affect that, so the car might still not be a good "fit". That said, there are probably certain cars that COULD be made to work in ITS with a SIR, but some that couldn't.

> And while I mentioned earlier that refusals to class cars were happening more and more frequently, I guess my point wasn't that it concerned (only?) four models, but that we HATE to refuse classifications for cool cars, LOL. Especially if those cars could go race elsewhere.

Banzai240

12-09-2005, 02:39 AM

300ZX @ 245hp...

I'd say with a proper SIR to limit the output to 245hp, some adders for the additional torque of the bigger V6 and the excellent brakes (not that they would make much of a difference at this weight...)...

3250lbs or so for ITS... I could see that working... The torque makes me nervous, but otherwise, I think it would work...

As for the rest of this... You guys need to all get a grip...

We've made some of the BIGGEST updates/changes to the IT Infrastructure in the past two years than have EVER been made since it's inception...

We've fixed rules, made additional allowances, completely altered the way cars are classified (for the better, I might add...)... put cars in the CORRECT classes at reasonable weights... and have fixed MANY of the issues that people were having with the IT classes....

NOW, I hear talk of IT "needing" to embrace 18" wheels or Turbos or AWD, etc...

Sounds a lot like working off of people's fear to me...

Look, let's get real here... The SCCA over the course of a SINGLE season, has already implemented a National level T3/4 program... They didn't do it for something that "would" be needed 10 years down the line... they had a need today, and they did it...

The point being that if, and when there is a need, there is usually a solution not far behind...

While it may seem like it would be cool and trendy, etc., for IT to open things up... there is a basic class here that has always WORKED, JUST THE WAY IT IS... We've worked VERY hard to try to preserve that, while still making updates that would bolster the class, WITHOUT killing it's concept...

In fact, many of the adjustments we've proposed, and that the CRB is hopefully going to approve this next week, will correct some things that were seen by some as "killing" the competitiveness of certain classes... Let's call it getting rid of the "car of the month" club...

I'm the first person to stand up and say that the SCCA NEEDS... MUST HAVE... a "World Challenge" style class in it's structure to accomodate the new trends... I envision it as something that might use rules similiar to the WC rules of the late 90's or early 2000/2001 or so... A little more than IT prep on the motors, Limited prep on the suspensions... spec sized brake packages, wings, Plus sized wheels, wider widths, stock trannies, and maybe even wings... IT on steroids, if you will...

I DON'T, however, think that we need to start talking about making IT this class... NOT any more than I think that it should be called "D-Production", etc... It's NOT IT, and it's NOT Production... It's entirely new...

And, in fact (much more a "fact" than some of the claims I'm reading here...), this class is in the works by a focus committee, or at least was the last I heard... which was about a month ago...

THIS is the place where many of these cars are going to end up... I'm guessing that even the ITS E36 would prefer to be in a class like this, what with all the Turner stuff available and all the money these guys like to spend...

The bottom line is that IT as a structure WORKS... JUST AS IT IS... We have more excitement about this class now than it's seen in 20 years... (and yes, I was around then... barely... ;) ) We have cars classed that are as recent as 2000, and more on the way... Overall, this is a very exciting time to be in IT...

So, think really hard about some of these speculations you are making here... We can all envision what "might" happen if we implement this or that, but history has a funny way of showing us what will happen in the future, and like ITGT turning into AS... so would likely be the way of ITR and "Club Challenge"... etc...

At some point, the "potential" for some of these cars will exceed their equipment, and you'll have to make a decision as to whether or not to allow things that would otherwise be considered very un-IT-Like... That's the point where you no longer are maintaining the "spirit" of the IT philosophy, and that is the point where you should realize that a new direction... a new class structure, might be in order...

If I wasn't so busy working with IT, I'd volunteer to take over the Club Challenge/D-Prod class implementation task myself, because no one wants to see that happen, and happen CORRECTLY, more than me...

Joe Harlan

12-09-2005, 02:47 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240+Dec 8 2005, 11:39 PM-->
300ZX @ 245hp...

I'd say with a proper SIR to limit the output to 245hp, some adders for the additional torque of the bigger V6 and the excellent brakes (not that they would make much of a difference at this weight...)...

3250lbs or so for ITS... I could see that working... The torque makes me nervous, but otherwise, I think it would work...[/b]

So what does the Torque to weight number do here? Seriously curious I am thinking of making an offer on that car that Andy posted.

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 11:39 PM
If I wasn't so busy working with IT, I'd volunteer to take over the Club Challenge/D-Prod class implementation task myself, because no one wants to see that happen, and happen CORRECTLY, more than me...

67686

Well maybe one person considering my car is already built..... B)

Bill Miller

12-09-2005, 08:03 AM

Darin,

The problem is, a place for ex-T2/T3 cars won't be needed "10 years down the road". In fact, you've got cars comming out of T2/T3 now, that have no place to race. Just because T3 was just created, doesn't mean that all the T3 cars will get to run there for the next 10 years. I've said this before, when a car is classed in SS, the IT classification should be done at the same time. The same could be said for T2/T3, were there a place to put them in IT.

I agree, what you and the rest of the ITAC have done for IT, is a major improvement (no pun intended) for the category. I for one, think it was a major shot in the arm, and in a way, I'm somewhat sorry that I sold my IT car (and may buy another one). But having to choke a 300zx to 245 hp _and_ spec it @ 3250#, is a pretty strong case for having a class above ITS. Assuming that the target performance ratio for ITS is 15#/hp (loosely based on 3000#/200hp), what would an appropriate ITR performance ratio be? Is 12#/hp enough (3000#/250)? Should it be 11#/hp (300#/~275hp)? Hell, should it be 10:1?? Pick a target, and start looking at what cars fit. If the wieghts are reasonable, that would seem to drive the ratio. I just don't see limiting the hp _and_ having the car way significantly on the North side of 3000# as making much sense, just to stuff the car into ITS.

Banzai240

12-09-2005, 08:55 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 9 2005, 12:03 PM
But having to choke a 300zx to 245 hp _and_ spec it @ 3250#, is a pretty strong case for having a class above ITS. ... I just don't see limiting the hp _and_ having the car way significantly on the North side of 3000# as making much sense, just to stuff the car into ITS.

67691

BUT... That's EXACTLY what has to be done to the E36 to make it fit ITS... and no one but the E36 driver's seem to have a problem with that...

Let's not forget either, that the 300ZX makes 225hp stock, so you aren't "choking it down"... you are limiting it's POTENTIAL improvement... AND, getting it to 3000lbs might not be possible with IT prep... (might be, I really don't know, but the thing is a pig to start with...) @3000lbs, the car is definately a class above...

Please don't mis-understand... I'm actually one of the supporters of a class above (ITR is NOT my favorite name for it, however... doesn't flow logically for me... since "R" comes before "S"... I'm in favor of ITU, because it sounds more like GTU, which sounds way KOOLER and "U" is after "S" ;) )...

...but we have to be careful because at some point the potential of these cars will exceed their ability to remain save "with limited modifications" currently allowed in IT. And... we are quickly talking about stomping all over the other stated "Intent" of IT, which states that "This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, INEXPENSIVE cars to be eligible." In fact, you might as well read the entire "Intent" section, because much of what has been discussed about this stomps all over the entire paragraph...

So, when someone suggests cars like the 300ZX, which are basically plentiful and realitively inexpensive to buy these days... then sure... it's worth considering...

Some of the other cars mentioned, however, don't fit the stated Intent of the class, so you have to ask yourself 'is it my desire to change the Intent of IT?'??? THAT is what would have to be done to fit some of these cars you guys are mentioning.....

A Mustang V8 for example... It's IT Potential would exceed it's ability to safely race, because the brakes are crap on these cars... Camaros/Firebirds are the same way... History has shown this, and we now no longer have "ITGT", but "AS" instead, and look how much different that class is now... There are a BUNCH of Mustangs in T2, and you are right... they don't have many options on "where to go"... Same goes for several other cars...

But again, as you guys have discussed, you quickly get out of an IT philosophy when you start imagining grouping these cars into a class, because you now are talking about 17 and 18" wheels, all kinds of various tire/wheel widths (we've already had an issue with the Z3, because it's Touring tire/wheel combo was bigger than the allowed IT combo, so these guys have to buy all new wheels when making the transition...)...

Do we open IT up? Do we open it up just for the new class level? Do you allow things in "ITR" that you don't allow in the other IT classes??? Is it still "IT" when you do that???

When you put together the data, and really look at what you'd have to do to make this work, I think you start getting into areas that are very "un-ITish" in nature, and there is a stong group of members who like IT just the way it is (and for that matter, a pretty good populous that likes it the way it WAS...)

In discussing this with the CRB a few months ago (yes guys... this ISN'T an original idea that you've just now come up with ;) )... it quickly became obvious that many...MANY of these cars from Touring, etc., would fit, and in fact, be targeted towards, a new type of class, like the "Club Challenge" class I've mentioned previously... A class with a more modern concept of what "Improving" a "Touring" car means. Not sure we need two interpretations of that...

I need to get to work, but I'll stop for now with this... The ITAC is continuing to discuss this option, and will continue to do so. We are committed, however, with preserving the Intent and the Integrity of Improved Touring. I'm not sure as a group, any recommendations that would require altering the Intent of IT would be approved, so to do this (make an ITR class), would require that the cars that go there would have to fit the stated Intent of IT.

Bill Miller

12-09-2005, 09:40 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 9 2005, 08:55 AM
BUT... That's EXACTLY what has to be done to the E36 to make it fit ITS... and no one but the E36 driver's seem to have a problem with that...

Let's not forget either, that the 300ZX makes 225hp stock, so you aren't "choking it down"... you are limiting it's POTENTIAL improvement... AND, getting it to 3000lbs might not be possible with IT prep... (might be, I really don't know, but the thing is a pig to start with...) @3000lbs, the car is definately a class above...

Please don't mis-understand... I'm actually one of the supporters of a class above (ITR is NOT my favorite name for it, however... doesn't flow logically for me... since "R" comes before "S"... I'm in favor of ITU, because it sounds more like GTU, which sounds way KOOLER and "U" is after "S" ;) )...

...but we have to be careful because at some point the potential of these cars will exceed their ability to remain save "with limited modifications" currently allowed in IT. And... we are quickly talking about stomping all over the other stated "Intent" of IT, which states that "This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, INEXPENSIVE cars to be eligible." In fact, you might as well read the entire "Intent" section, because much of what has been discussed about this stomps all over the entire paragraph...

So, when someone suggests cars like the 300ZX, which are basically plentiful and realitively inexpensive to buy these days... then sure... it's worth considering...

Some of the other cars mentioned, however, don't fit the stated Intent of the class, so you have to ask yourself 'is it my desire to change the Intent of IT?'??? THAT is what would have to be done to fit some of these cars you guys are mentioning.....

A Mustang V8 for example... It's IT Potential would exceed it's ability to safely race, because the brakes are crap on these cars... Camaros/Firebirds are the same way... History has shown this, and we now no longer have "ITGT", but "AS" instead, and look how much different that class is now... There are a BUNCH of Mustangs in T2, and you are right... they don't have many options on "where to go"... Same goes for several other cars...

But again, as you guys have discussed, you quickly get out of an IT philosophy when you start imagining grouping these cars into a class, because you now are talking about 17 and 18" wheels, all kinds of various tire/wheel widths (we've already had an issue with the Z3, because it's Touring tire/wheel combo was bigger than the allowed IT combo, so these guys have to buy all new wheels when making the transition...)...

Do we open IT up? Do we open it up just for the new class level? Do you allow things in "ITR" that you don't allow in the other IT classes??? Is it still "IT" when you do that???

When you put together the data, and really look at what you'd have to do to make this work, I think you start getting into areas that are very "un-ITish" in nature, and there is a stong group of members who like IT just the way it is (and for that matter, a pretty good populous that likes it the way it WAS...)

In discussing this with the CRB a few months ago (yes guys... this ISN'T an original idea that you've just now come up with ;) )... it quickly became obvious that many...MANY of these cars from Touring, etc., would fit, and in fact, be targeted towards, a new type of class, like the "Club Challenge" class I've mentioned previously... A class with a more modern concept of what "Improving" a "Touring" car means. Not sure we need two interpretations of that...

I need to get to work, but I'll stop for now with this... The ITAC is continuing to discuss this option, and will continue to do so. We are committed, however, with preserving the Intent and the Integrity of Improved Touring. I'm not sure as a group, any recommendations that would require altering the Intent of IT would be approved, so to do this (make an ITR class), would require that the cars that go there would have to fit the stated Intent of IT.

67697

Darin,

What the hell are you doing up so early??? And why are you reading this site at 5AM??? :blink: ;)

Your comments about the E36 325 are just more support that it doesn't belong in ITS. If you go w/ an 11:1 or 12:1 performance ratio for ITR, then the E36 comes in at ~2475# - 2700# (assuming 225hp). I imagine that car would be a hoot to drive at 2700#, and I don't know if it can get to 2475# w/ IT prep!

WHEN (not IF) a class above ITS is created, it has to be done in such a manner as to not create the same situation that existed in ITS 2-3 years ago. You don't want to have such a wide range of performance that would not have anyone interested in building 1/2 - 2/3 of the cars. It may not be possible to fit them all in just one class. This would seem to be the case, if you've already got two seperate Touring classes that you're looking to as a source of cars.

I don't really have a problem w/ the ITR name. I could see the following structure for IT in 5 years:

ITGT - 9:1 or 10:1 performance ratio
ITR - ~12:1 performance ratio
ITS - 15:1 performance ratio (I think that's what it is now)
ITA - whatever it is now
ITB - ditto
ITC (I hope) - ditto

BTW, your 'alphabetical logic' doesn't really apply. GTO was faster than GTU. ;)

As far as the Mustang brakes go, they seem to be adequate for T2 (I know there will be plenty of Mustang drivers that will probably dispute this B) ). But maybe, just maybe, IT can take a page from the Prod book (don't shoot me, just hear me out). What I mean by that is, look at the whole limited-prep concept. The theory is, you can class higher output cars in the same class as lower output cars, by limiting what the higher output cars can do. Why wouldn't the same concept work in IT? I know that things are already pretty limited there, but I think it might work. As a staw man, how about taking the Touring rules, and letting people gut the interiors and put a header/no-cat exhaust on, nothing more, and see where they would fall in IT?

And you're right Darin, the idea of expanding IT isn't new. I remember talking about a need to increase the granularity level a couple of years ago, when Kirk first floated the IT2 concept. My point was, it didn't really matter where the new class went, just that we needed more buckets to put the cars in. You have to admit, we're well on our way to that now. The current classes have been pretty well realigned, and all we need is another bucket at the top.

Joe Harlan

12-09-2005, 09:57 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 9 2005, 06:40 AM
Darin,

Your comments about the E36 325 are just more support that it doesn't belong in ITS.

67701

But Bill is it really about running the car in a free mode or is it about the quality of the race? I know for most of my customers they race IT because of the closeness of the racing not necessarily the speed of the cars. I have said to many people over the years that the most fun I have ever had racing was in an ITC Datsun. Not becasue of the speed but really because of the race. If these cars could be limited to a number then the racing could be close. The E36 with a minor restrictor fits the ITS model just fine and if you opened up the performance to a class above mayactually hurt the level of participation from those cars. I believe what makes those cars popular (in some cases) is that they are currently easy to drive and prep to a front running level in te current class. That allows to average driver a better shot at the front. Anyway many good idea's

Bill Miller

12-09-2005, 10:40 AM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 9 2005, 09:57 AM
But Bill is it really about running the car in a free mode or is it about the quality of the race? I know for most of my customers they race IT because of the closeness of the racing not necessarily the speed of the cars. I have said to many people over the years that the most fun I have ever had racing was in an ITC Datsun. Not becasue of the speed but really because of the race. If these cars could be limited to a number then the racing could be close. The E36 with a minor restrictor fits the ITS model just fine and if you opened up the performance to a class above mayactually hurt the level of participation from those cars. I believe what makes those cars popular (in some cases) is that they are currently easy to drive and prep to a front running level in te current class. That allows to average driver a better shot at the front. Anyway many good idea's

67704

Joe,

I'm not sure if you're talking about the current restrictor or not. If you are, I'm not sure how you can say that the car fits in ITS w/ that restrictor. The conversation here, over the past several months, seem to indicate the opposite. And just look at what you said. You've got less than max-prepped cars, w/ avg. drivers, running at the front. This is in front of other good drivers w/ top-prepped cars. The only thing that is going to hurt the participation levels of the E36 cars, is people not racing them because they're no longer ringers. You want to run at the front, you better bring your A game. That means both the driver and the car. Who was that guy that came here a short while back? He was running a junk-yard motor w/ minimal prep (no header, etc. IIRC), and he was winning races. Not an insult, but I doubt he's the next Mark Donahue. Move the cars up a class, cut the weight to 2700# (or there abouts), and put similar cars in the class. Oh, and there's a reason that there's good competition at the pointy end of the performance spectrum, class-wise, it's because people want to go fast. Ask most drivers out there, given the choice close racing in ITC vs. close racing in ITS, what would they choose, budgets notwithstanding?

Oh, and what are you doing up so early?

Banzai240

12-09-2005, 10:54 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller+Dec 9 2005, 01:40 PM-->

BTW, your 'alphabetical logic' doesn't really apply. GTO was faster than GTU. ;)

[/b]

We'll save GTO for the big V8 cars! ITU - IT-Upper End... :P

<!--QuoteBegin-Bill Miller@Dec 9 2005, 01:40 PM
But maybe, just maybe, IT can take a page from the Prod book (don't shoot me, just hear me out). What I mean by that is, look at the whole limited-prep concept. The theory is, you can class higher output cars in the same class as lower output cars, by limiting what the higher output cars can do. Why wouldn't the same concept work in IT?
67701

(to self... take a DEEP BREATH... count to 10... one... two... three... ten)

My basic reason is this... it would NO LONGER BE IT if we did that...

And, by the way... make NO mistake... It's Production that took some pages from the IT book to make "Limited Prep" happen... (i.e.: "IT prepped cyl heads"... IT suspension prep..., etc...) And now they are taking things full circle and DORKING that all up so they are back where they started... (i.e.: creating models that never existed... mixing prep... LP motors with Full-Prep suspension... YUK!)

I'm of the opinion that IT doesn't need to take anything from Prod... we're doing fine all on our own...

If we create an IT class above ITS, then it needs to be in the IT-Philosophy. If you start making additional allowances, they you no longer have an IT class...

I think we can accomodate things like larger wheels/tires, but I don't see us making brake allowances, etc... That's just beyond the scope of this class...

I'm curious about something else... WHY would you favor special allowances to limit potential, over simply applying an SIR to the car and limiting output that way??? The SIR is MUCH cheaper to implement, and is MUCH easier to adjust/revert/etc. than special cam allowances, or brake allowances, etc...

Joe Harlan

12-09-2005, 10:57 AM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 9 2005, 07:40 AM
Joe,

I'm not sure if you're talking about the current restrictor or not. If you are, I'm not sure how you can say that the car fits in ITS w/ that restrictor. The conversation here, over the past several months, seem to indicate the opposite. And just look at what you said. You've got less than max-prepped cars, w/ avg. drivers, running at the front. This is in front of other good drivers w/ top-prepped cars. The only thing that is going to hurt the participation levels of the E36 cars, is people not racing them because they're no longer ringers. You want to run at the front, you better bring your A game. That means both the driver and the car. Who was that guy that came here a short while back? He was running a junk-yard motor w/ minimal prep (no header, etc. IIRC), and he was winning races. Not an insult, but I doubt he's the next Mark Donahue. Move the cars up a class, cut the weight to 2700# (or there abouts), and put similar cars in the class. Oh, and there's a reason that there's good competition at the pointy end of the performance spectrum, class-wise, it's because people want to go fast. Ask most drivers out there, given the choice close racing in ITC vs. close racing in ITS, what would they choose, budgets notwithstanding?

Oh, and what are you doing up so early?

67712

5 hrs of sleep is all we need on the west coast. As to the restrictor your right I am not talking about what we are currently using. I also agree we a re all speed junkies. I said the most fun racing. The reality from a raw speed deal my 125 shifter is probably the biggest thrill of all. But since most of us have given budgets to work with. I think you find that people want competition...SM and T2 are good examples of this. I look at the proposal and again have to say IF we only get 1 more class added and the cars that will be coming are T2 and T3 cars. Right now in T2 you need 350 to 450 hp to be at the front. The cars we are talking about for IT* are in the 230 to 290 range unrestricted. So it looks like you will be restricting something in 5 years to fir them into the next level. Why not look at minor restrictions to fit these Big Tweeners into our existin class limit performance(which limits cost and prep levels) allow a few more of the average into the top side of the middle rather than the bottom side of the class. I really see that looking down the road the cars that may come are gonna be real factory hotrods and need to be handled in a different way. Restrictors can work and W/P indexs can work. T2 is proof of that. 6.0 liter LS2 engine competeing against 2.5 liter turbos shows it can work. The funny thing is the 2.5 liter is the one that needs restricted right now.

Knestis

12-09-2005, 12:37 PM

Note that the T3 Mustangs can update brakes, and all Touring Mustangs are allowed brake duct kits.

I'm trying to get more up-to-date with the T rules...

K

Joe Harlan

12-09-2005, 12:59 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 9 2005, 09:37 AM
Note that the T3 Mustangs can update brakes, and all Touring Mustangs are allowed brake duct kits.

I'm trying to get more up-to-date with the T rules...

K

67731

You Know K, The more I look the T classes the more I am not sure they fit the IT structure any way. These cars are classed and adjusted on the thing you hate the most. "ONTRACK PERFORMANCE" How else could you explain a 4.6 liter mustang in T3?

At first my thought were T3 and other more current models into ITS. ITR could be made up of mostly newer 3.5 liter and up stuff. Problem with that is you can't just classify a touring car into its IT classed based on where it is classed in touring. I can't see a 4.6 liter Mustang with IT mods being put into ITS but I could see a Z4 and a few others with proper restrictors being moved there.

I know that people aren't big on restrictors but when IT was born we didn't have FI as the major source if engine management. A single inlet restrictor could be the best way to balance new tech stuff with old tech stuff with out a complete redo of the IT philosophy.

Oh and welcome to the touring rules.....All we ask is that you enjoy the koolaide before you read to much into them... B)

Fastfred92

12-09-2005, 01:36 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 9 2005, 12:55 PM
In discussing this with the CRB a few months ago (yes guys... this ISN'T an original idea that you've just now come up with ;) )... it quickly became obvious that many...MANY of these cars from Touring, etc., would fit, and in fact, be targeted towards, a new type of class, like the "Club Challenge" class I've mentioned previously... A class with a more modern concept of what "Improving" a "Touring" car means. Not sure we need two interpretations of that...

67697

Darin,

Keep us posted with any news you hear about "D prod" or "Club Challenge" as it seems like it would be a big hit with plenty of possible cars from GAmCup and WC etc. NASA has a similar class with their touring cars and it seems to do well, especially on the left coast. I still feel we need a class above ITS but maybe Club Challenge is the answer to the really high tech stuff i.e. turbos 4wd Audis etc... I still think we could find enough 300zx, S2000, 328i, Z3 guys to fill a class above S

Banzai240

12-09-2005, 02:09 PM

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 9 2005, 05:36 PM
I still think we could find enough 300zx, S2000, 328i, Z3 guys to fill a class above S

67736

I don't disagree... and don't think that it would be unreasonable to do so... I just think that some here need to be more realistic of the scope the class would have...

Stay tuned...

Bill Miller

12-09-2005, 03:19 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 9 2005, 10:54 AM
We'll save GTO for the big V8 cars! ITU - IT-Upper End... :P
(to self... take a DEEP BREATH... count to 10... one... two... three... ten)

My basic reason is this... it would NO LONGER BE IT if we did that...

And, by the way... make NO mistake... It's Production that took some pages from the IT book to make "Limited Prep" happen... (i.e.: "IT prepped cyl heads"... IT suspension prep..., etc...) And now they are taking things full circle and DORKING that all up so they are back where they started... (i.e.: creating models that never existed... mixing prep... LP motors with Full-Prep suspension... YUK!)

I'm of the opinion that IT doesn't need to take anything from Prod... we're doing fine all on our own...

If we create an IT class above ITS, then it needs to be in the IT-Philosophy. If you start making additional allowances, they you no longer have an IT class...

I think we can accomodate things like larger wheels/tires, but I don't see us making brake allowances, etc... That's just beyond the scope of this class...

I'm curious about something else... WHY would you favor special allowances to limit potential, over simply applying an SIR to the car and limiting output that way??? The SIR is MUCH cheaper to implement, and is MUCH easier to adjust/revert/etc. than special cam allowances, or brake allowances, etc...

67716

And just how would it no longer be IT? Just because all the cars don't prep to the same level? How's that any different than throwing a SIR at them? As far as Prod limited-prep, the only nod to IT was the cylinder head prep. There's nothing remotely close to IT about l-p Prod suspension prep. And are the allowances you're talking about the ones that are listed in the TCS? I'll admit that I haven't read through all the spec lines, but are those exceptions pretty much limited to inlet restrictors and trunk kits? I don't recall seeing anything where there's a special cam allowance. I also don't see where I supported special allowances.

Knestis

12-09-2005, 03:26 PM

I will undoubtedly be VERY sorry that I said this at some point in the future but perhaps the place for this new Class X IS INDEED within the LP Production framework?

Gawd - I feel icky just thinking that.

Think about it: If we are talking about jacking things all over the place, why not REALLY jack it up? How much fun would that e36 be in LP Prod form? Would the additional cost be a disincentive for someone already commiting to that kind of car?

K

Joe Harlan

12-09-2005, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 9 2005, 12:26 PM
I will undoubtedly be VERY sorry that I said this at some point in the future but perhaps the place for this new Class X IS INDEED within the LP Production framework?

Gawd - I feel icky just thinking that.

Think about it: If we are talking about jacking things all over the place, why not REALLY jack it up? How much fun would that e36 be in LP Prod form? Would the additional cost be a disincentive for someone already commiting to that kind of car?

K

67744

It's funny but it really looks the the scope of a rules set can only really handle about 3 to 4 sets of classes before they run into issues keeping the philosophy and control the same all the way through.

Bill yes SIR's would be a change in philosophy for IT but it would be the smallest change and would reflect the technologhy of today much better. Most of not all new cars that could be classed into IT have a single throttle body controling air flow for the EFI. This makes for one pretty easy and common place to adjust new cars into the class. The issue we face now is there is no way to speed up cars like a 510,240,early rabbits ect. without seriously blowing the philosophy of the class by giving compression, cams, ect. These are clearly big deals.

Hotshoe

12-09-2005, 03:53 PM

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 9 2005, 05:36 PM
I still think we could find enough 300zx, S2000, 328i, Z3 guys to fill a class above S

67736

..Fred, Andy, Jake, Ron, Steve, and Jeff

... Contact me if I can be of any help. I will be more than glad to. Some people just need to be weaned. As for me I'm going to go drink some Koolaide.

...Rick Thompson

JeffYoung

12-09-2005, 04:27 PM

Amen. To me, not allowing in a class to account for the 200+ hp cars that have hit the street since 1995 is the death of IT. If we want IT to look like a production (a frigging MGA won a production class this year for chrissakes), then we freeze it, and do nothing. If we want IT to reflect the real world of cars as it existed five years ago, then we must update and allow in cars that don't fit in ITS.

It's that simple. What is there not to get? And why are people arguing against a class that I think most ITS drivers would be interested in? I'll still keep my ITS car (I couldn't sell it anyway), but the thought of running a 5-8 year old sports car with 240 hp stock in IT prep sounds very appealing.

So, like Ron says, we'll put the proposal together and send it to the guys who actually seem interested in the future of IT (the ITAC) and go from the there. While I promised myself that I'd try to more polite on these boards, I will simply say that for the naysayers who think that an ITR that includes 250 hp cars with "bad brakes" -- don't race in the class.

Jeff

Banzai240

12-09-2005, 04:35 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller+Dec 9 2005, 07:19 PM-->
There's nothing remotely close to IT about l-p Prod suspension prep.
[/b]

You left off the end of that sentance... Here, I'll fill it in:

...ANY MORE.

If you look at the original LP concept, it involved 240Zs with essentially IT suspensions and LP motors... It's changed a LOT since then... mostly because the classification of the 240Z and cars simliarly classified became too much of a threat...

You were there, Bill, you know all of this... ;)

<!--QuoteBegin-Bill Miller@Dec 9 2005, 07:19 PM
And are the allowances you're talking about the ones that are listed in the TCS? .... are those exceptions pretty much limited to inlet restrictors and trunk kits?
67743

Bill... all of my statements were not directed at you, but to answer your questions... Look at the shock allowances for some of these... (RR shocks on the Viper, etc...) The wheel size allowances as well... mostly in terms of widths... Look at compression numbers verses stock... I'm sure Joe could fill you in more...

Again, I'm not saying a class above ITS is a bad idea, just that it needs to be kept in the scope of the current IT rules... When you suggest that these cars could prep to a "different level", then you are stepping outside the scope of IT...

Bill Miller

12-09-2005, 06:04 PM

Darin,

I didn't pay much attention to the 1st wave of l-p EP cars, but when the l-p FP-HP cars came in, they already had alternate control arms, reinforced pickup points, modified/substituted knuckles, etc. But, I agree, they're doing their damnedest to dork it all up. That Spridget deal is going to kill HP. They're going to be right back where they were 5 years ago.

As I said, I haven't looked at the trunk kits for all the cars, but we're talking about T2/T3 cars, not T1 Vipers.

Fastfred92

12-09-2005, 06:10 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 9 2005, 08:35 PM

IfAgain, I'm not saying a class above ITS is a bad idea, just that it needs to be kept in the scope of the current IT rules... When you suggest that these cars could prep to a "different level", then you are stepping outside the scope of IT...

67753

Sounds reasonable to me Darin, I dont think anybody would advocate prep beyond what current IT allows other than restrictions or larger wheels for the ITR cars, heck i am in favor of eliminating the current wheel rule and going to something like open rule or a plus 2 or whatever rule. I have some help from Hankook and they will see a time when even 15" tires are not profitable to make anymore. Your average new grocery getter nowadays has 17x7.5 or 8's. Also a idea of a limited motor ( kinda like prod but not ) might work, the 300z for example might not be allowed any IT engine prep and would confirm to a SS type rule as opposed to a restrictor plate or SIR ??

Joe Harlan

12-09-2005, 06:16 PM

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 9 2005, 03:04 PM
Darin,

I didn't pay much attention to the 1st wave of l-p EP cars, but when the l-p FP-HP cars came in, they already had alternate control arms, reinforced pickup points, modified/substituted knuckles, etc. But, I agree, they're doing their damnedest to dork it all up. That Spridget deal is going to kill HP. They're going to be right back where they were 5 years ago.

As I said, I haven't looked at the trunk kits for all the cars, but we're talking about T2/T3 cars, not T1 Vipers.

67759

Bill the only thing that is an open rule in Touring is LSD's for all car's and Shocks are open. Wheel widths are speced as are tire sizes. Every alternate part has to be approved and we all know how long that process takes. I have looked hard at theis and I don't see a direct if its classed here it should be classed overthere kind of deal. But hey I have now been branded a naysayer for voicing an alternate oppinion and whacked fer me pur spellin so what would I know...

When the early EP/LP cars were classed the original group were IT cars on steriods.....12:1 engines and basic IT everything else. Because like a lot of things SCCA a plan was rolled out before it was complete we ended up with another failing program and BS set of rules....Wow wonder why I say a class above would be cool but be cautious on how it is started? Those that are unwilling to look at the mistakes of the past...blah,blah The wrong tweek to the balance of the existing stuff with a rule to create new could bleed downward, That's ok if positive and could screw the pooch if done wrong.

Bill Miller

12-09-2005, 06:46 PM

Joe, the way I read it is that you can change the shocks, but you can't use coilovers (even sleeves).

JeffYoung

12-09-2005, 06:46 PM

So Joe, what is your proposal? Putting aside SIRs, what should the class above ITS look like?

Banzai240

12-09-2005, 06:47 PM

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 9 2005, 10:10 PM
Sounds reasonable to me Darin, I dont think anybody would advocate prep beyond what current IT allows other than restrictions or larger wheels for the ITR cars, heck i am in favor of eliminating the current wheel rule and going to something like open rule or a plus 2 or whatever rule.

Some on the ITAC tried to make this happen, but we could only get support for the wheel rules we have now... For some reason, there was a lot of resistance to just allowing a "Plus 2" across the board, and don't even start to mention the current 6" minimum in ITB and C...

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 9 2005, 10:10 PM
Also a idea of a limited motor ( kinda like prod but not ) might work, the 300z for example might not be allowed any IT engine prep and would confirm to a SS type rule as opposed to a restrictor plate or SIR ??

67760

But think about what you are saying... we would then have MULTIPLE prep levels in the same class... That's the dork job that Production has right now... Only they have more than just two levels!

I can understand the concept of suggesting that some cars not be allowed to make certain mods, etc., but that just confuses the issue in my opinion... AND, the end result is that the overall output is limited... That's NO different than what happens with an SIR, only the SIR is 1) cheaper, 2) MUCH easier to make adjustments too, and 3) MUCH easier to estimate the effect on the motor... AND, it let's ALL cars be built to the same rules. They can optimize to get every bit of the allowed HP, or maybe try to enhance the torque curve, etc., but, due to the limited HP potential, competition should remain balanced...

It's simple math this way... the whole "and engine is just an air-pump" deal...

AND..... you don't really have to alter any IT philosophy to get it done...

As parameters for this mystical class... if it were to happen, the wheel rules would certainly have to be such as to encompass the new breed of cars. Other than that, and the use of SIRs if needed, I don't see the rules needing to be much different inorder to get a viable class, so long as the scope of the class doesn't expand out into cars that have traditionally been difficult to put one's figure on as far as potential goes...

Banzai240

12-09-2005, 06:52 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Dec 9 2005, 10:46 PM
So Joe, what is your proposal? Putting aside SIRs, what should the class above ITS look like?

67766

Maybe this would be a start??

Acura RSX Type-S 2002
Acura Integra 97-99 190
Alfa Romeo Milano 3.0L (87-89) 183
BMW 325i/is (2 & 4door) (92-95) 189
BMW M Coupe 98-99
BMW M3 95-99
BMW 328ci/i 1999
BMW Z3 2.8L 97-98
Ford Mustang V6 1999+ 190
Honda Prelude SH & non-SH (97-98) 195
Honda Prelude V-Tech 190
Honda S2000 2000
Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L 16V 185
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 86-88
Nissan Maxima 89-94 175
Nissan Maxima 95-99 (A32B)
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 225
Porsche Boxter S 2000
Porsche 968 1995
Toyota Supra 1998
Toyota Supra 95-97
Toyota Supra (86 1/2-87) 200

Some are already in ITS, but at pretty heavy weights... Others may be able to fit into ITS with an SIR at a lighter weight, but I'm not sure how widespread I'd suggest the use of these be until there is some water under the bridge and they've been proven to work as expected...

The target numbers would have to be such that it would accomodate a fairly wide range of outputs, because the range seems to be a lot broader once you start getting to this level...

I've asked before for people to put together a list... This was part of my attempt at it...

Joe Harlan

12-09-2005, 07:58 PM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 9 2005, 03:52 PM
Maybe this would be a start??

Acura RSX Type-S 2002
Acura Integra 97-99 190
Alfa Romeo Milano 3.0L (87-89) 183
BMW 325i/is (2 & 4door) (92-95) 189
BMW M Coupe 98-99
BMW M3 95-99
BMW 328ci/i 1999
BMW Z3 2.8L 97-98
Ford Mustang V6 1999+ 190
Honda Prelude SH & non-SH (97-98) 195
Honda Prelude V-Tech 190
Honda S2000 2000
Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L 16V 185
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 86-88
Nissan Maxima 89-94 175
Nissan Maxima 95-99 (A32B)
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 225
Porsche Boxter S 2000
Porsche 968 1995
Toyota Supra 1998
Toyota Supra 95-97
Toyota Supra (86 1/2-87) 200
Some are already in ITS, but at pretty heavy weights... Others may be able to fit into ITS with an SIR at a lighter weight, but I'm not sure how widespread I'd suggest the use of these be until there is some water under the bridge and they've been proven to work as expected...

The target numbers would have to be such that it would accomodate a fairly wide range of outputs, because the range seems to be a lot broader once you start getting to this level...

I've asked before for people to put together a list... This was part of my attempt at it...

67769

Darin, Nice list now were is the class above ITS?..... B) I don't see a single car there that couldn't and shouldn't be considered for ITS with a restrictor Some of them because they can't get down to weight may fit today. Now The Boxter S and the 968 are not likely to get big numbers for an IT class and Maybe the S2000 would have to be restricted more than we would like but who knows?

JeffYoung

12-09-2005, 08:15 PM

You're kidding right? A simple restrictor is going to make a Boxster S run similar lap times to a Second Gen RX7? What about brakes, aero, wheels, suspension sophistication, 6-speeds, and all the other things that have made cars from the last 10 years that much more competent than cars from the 80s and early 90s?

I don't get it Joe. Why are you so adamant about trying to shoehorn these cars in S?

Ron Earp

12-09-2005, 08:36 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 9 2005, 11:58 PM
Darin, Nice list now were is the class above ITS?..... B) I don't see a single car there that couldn't and shouldn't be considered for ITS with a restrictor Some of them because they can't get down to weight may fit today.
67775

Nine pages to get to this - you want to stuff all those cars in S? Some can go, for sure, but I've got a list of "R" cars that includes a few of the higher performing cars from this list, as well as others.

What would be the point of putting those cars in S? So a car with 240 hp STOCK can run with a 30 year old Z car (which I incidentally own 1/2 of one and like)? Why would you want them in S? And, why would anyone interested in these cars want to retrict their horsepower output, dumb them down, so they'll run as fast as S cars? What would the point be of building one of these cars if they'll simply run as fast as a 30 year old Z car?

These, and a whole lot more than just the cars on this list, cars have more potential than any S cars in S now. They clearly fit into a class above S. So why dumb them down to fit in S?

Joe Harlan

12-09-2005, 09:01 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 9 2005, 05:36 PM
Nine pages to get to this - you want to stuff all those cars in S? Some can go, for sure, but I've got a list of "R" cars that includes a few of the higher performing cars from this list, as well as others.

What would be the point of putting those cars in S? So a car with 240 hp STOCK can run with a 30 year old Z car (which I incidentally own 1/2 of one and like)? Why would you want them in S? And, why would anyone interested in these cars want to retrict their horsepower output, dumb them down, so they'll run as fast as S cars? What would the point be of building one of these cars if they'll simply run as fast as a 30 year old Z car?

These, and a whole lot more than just the cars on this list, cars have more potential than any S cars in S now. They clearly fit into a class above S. So why dumb them down to fit in S?

67777

Look Ron, It's not a big deal that you don't agree. The thing that you all are not considering is most of these cars are very heavy from the factory and are not gonna get light enough to take advantage of all that HP. 2845 for the Z3 listed here 189HP 209ftlbs of torque...... even if you ran that car wide open it's still not gonna beat a current E36.....I am doing the research on these cars for P/W

Consider this 2003 350z 287hp stock will make 330HP in IT trim where are you gonna put that car if you fill up your next class with car that index very close to the current S class. You guys are looking at your little corner of the world If I remember correct there are 8 divisions in SCCA with loads of regions. How many cars is it gonna take to fill up 9 divisions for 1 class? 10,20 cars per division just to have any competition? What about the number of folks that get pulled out of S under your plan. Does than not thin the competition in S? I am interested in racing not parading. Oh and BTW note the smiley at the end of the sentence. You need to lighten up dude.

Jeff, To start with the Boxter is not and never will be an IT car it does not even come close to the intent of IT....If you are OK with blowing the intent out or the philosophy then why not use an SIR?

JeffYoung

12-09-2005, 09:18 PM

And Joe, there you have it. When you say a Boxster never is and never will meet the intent of IT is where you and I just will never agree, and frankly, I'm right. IT's faster classes are NO LONGER (as they may have been in the 80s and even the 90s) a place for $2500 race cars. Any ITS car is going to cost you upwards of $20k to build if you want to run anywhere but the back, and yes I know you can buy a built car for less but that is a different story as you know.

Let me put it this way: Why is a Boxster S not T an IT car when a 944s is? A 944s cost an ungodly amount of money when new, and after 10-15 years, still will cost as much as $10k for a good example. Hell, a 325i probably cost, in 1993 dollars, close to what a base Boxster costs now. In a few years, early Boxsters will be in the teens (if not already) and then they are perfect candidates for IT.

Things change. Cars get faster. The Boxster S is the RX7 or the Supra or the 944 or the 300zx of the 21st Century. Without it, IT of 2015 is just like Production of 2005. Dead and withering.

P.S. -- I have no intent of buying, owning or racing a Boxster.

P.S.S. -- your posts a while back about the TR8 being "expensive" are just flat out wrong, as it is probably one of the cheapest motors to build for IT (Rover V8 parts are everywhere), and you can find $50 body panels off of any of the nearly 100,000 TR7s built.

P.S.S.S. -- if you don't run in IT, and have no interest in ITR, why are you fighting this one so hard?

Ron Earp

12-09-2005, 09:52 PM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 10 2005, 01:01 AM
Look Ron, It's not a big deal that you don't agree. The thing that you all are not considering is most of these cars are very heavy from the factory and are not gonna get light enough to take advantage of all that HP. 2845 for the Z3 listed here 189HP 209ftlbs of torque...... even if you ran that car wide open it's still not gonna beat a current E36.....I am doing the research on these cars for P/W

67779

Joe, if you are doing research on weights, then you surely know they are not as high as you think they are.

968 with 240 hp stock? Right at 3145lbs stock WITH electric seats and sunroof. Some are lighter without. In race trim it'll make a low weight (it is,after all, a 944 chassis) with 240 stock hp. It'll run rings around S cars.

80s 911s - 2800-3000lbs stock, ~190hp depending. Surely will fit in ITR and performance will exceed ITS.

Boxsters - around 2900lbs stock with 217hp stock on early models. Doesn't fit in ITR? Why not?

Nissan 300zs - these are porky around 3450-3575lbs in stock street trim. But, if you've driven one you know there is a lot to lose in weight here - electronic climate control, full power seats, and lots of luxury. I bet there is 50lbs of carpet and sound deading alone.

I'm interested in racing and not parading too. I'm interested in racing modern automobiles that have performance a notch above what we've got now. And I'm not biased to "just newer cars" - look at the crap I own, drive, and work on - Jensen, Z, TR8, etc. I'm interested in IT not becoming a jalopy race, as some corner workers now refer to it, despite my own cars. And finally, I'm interested in getting people attracted to IT racing with cars they can identify with.

Ron

Joe Harlan

12-09-2005, 09:58 PM

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 9 2005, 06:52 PM
Joe, if you are doing research on weights, then you surely know they are not as high as you think they are.

968 with 240 hp stock? Right at 3145lbs stock WITH electric seats and sunroof. Some are lighter without. In race trim it'll make a low weight (it is,after all, a 944 chassis) with 240 stock hp. It'll run rings around S cars.

80s 911s - 2800-3000lbs stock, ~190hp depending. Surely will fit in ITR and performance will exceed ITS.

Boxsters - around 2900lbs stock with 217hp stock on early models. Doesn't fit in ITR? Why not?

Nissan 300zs - these are porky around 3450-3575lbs in stock street trim. But, if you've driven one you know there is a lot to lose in weight here - electronic climate control, full power seats, and lots of luxury. I bet there is 50lbs of carpet and sound deading alone.

I'm interested in racing and not parading too. I'm interested in racing modern automobiles that have performance a notch above what we've got now. I'm interested in IT not becoming a jalopy race, as some corner workers now refer to it. And I'm interested in getting people attracted to IT racing with cars they can identify with.

Ron

67784

I am sure you are Jeff, Lets see they have been classed in T2 since they were new and there are a total of 4 of them running T2 in the country....Yep thats a barn burner..You guys may as well give up trying to change my mind. Enjoy the day.

P.S. -- I have no intent of buying, owning or racing a Boxster.

As i said before.

As far as my comments on the TR8 When you start finishing races and getting the other 5 secs out of the car the program will be way different.

As far as my racing in IT goes...Um I think building 8 IT cars and at least 20+ engines and maintaining 14 to 15 cars locally allows me the room to talk IT. So that dog don't hunt either bud. I understand things get faster but I also understand we have the ability to race a 6.0 liter Caddy/GTO against a 3.5 liter 350z today and do it well. Your right this aint the 70's were have greater technology to control the things we couldn't before.

JeffYoung

12-09-2005, 10:04 PM

Hmm..maybe because no one really cares about T2 on the regional level, which as best I can tell has far higher participation levels than national racing.

You're right Joe, we need to stop wasting time on this. You see ITR as something completely different than me.

Banzai240

12-09-2005, 10:07 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Dec 10 2005, 01:18 AM
Without it, IT of 2015 is just like Production of 2005. Dead and withering.

67780

Guys... GIVE ME A BREAK! The meladrama is getting a little thick...

The fast 240Zs are of 1970 vintage, and they are still being raced... competitively... IT isn't going anywhere anytime soon... not in 5 years, 10 years, or even 15 years... so let's stop with the chicken little routines...

To answer Joe's question above... Many of those cars are NOT in ITS, and wouldn't be, without a restrictor that actually works... At this point, we don't know if we have access to one that does. Using the current classification structure for ITS, the 300ZX, for example, would need to weight about 3500lbs without adders... As has been discussed with the BMW in ITS, we need to reign IN the performance envelope of ITS some, in order to better equate the whole class... Keep in mind when you guys keep looking at the envelope for this class... the BMW is NOT the target for the class... It's TOO FAST. So you need to look at the 240Z and the RX-7 and equate them to those...

Now, as for whoever mentioned the 944S... again, give me a break... The car is EXACTLY like a 944, with the exception of making 188 stock hp... Before you go running off screaming "That's what the BMW makes..."... sure it does... BUT, the 944S doesn't have the IT prepped output potential that the E36 does... and, incidently, the 944S looks like a decent classification on paper, using real numbers and estimates...

Cars the the Integra Type-R, etc., make a LOT of factory HP... They just don't fit into the ITAC's vision of ITS without some major weight or some restriction... And, based on the number of cars that really have to work to be a competitive package in ITS now, I'm not sure it's wise to keep stacking the top of the deck like this... We don't really need another BMW situation, or too many more cars that are right on the top edge of the class... It would work against what we've already done in the class (or that's coming down the line soon...)

There is a good case for building an ITU class on paper. Through that process, some cars may turn out to look like better S cars... If that's the case, then fine... I'm not sure a class full of restricted cars is the way to go, but I suppose it is an option... I'd like to think that restrictors would only be used as a last resort, especially since they are not part of the classification process, and they were NOT part of the original PCA proposal...

Don't get me wrong, I'm not against using them, but I'm not sure I agree that it's a good practice to just use them to compensate for poor classification structure... I think we can group many of these cars based on weight and leave the engines open... Then again, if there was a concrete way to limit the ultimate potential, that has an attractive side... especially in a classification scheme based on wt/hp potential...

Joe Harlan

12-09-2005, 10:14 PM

968 with 240 hp stock? Right at 3145lbs stock WITH electric seats and sunroof. Some are lighter without. In race trim it'll make a low weight (it is,after all, a 944 chassis) with 240 stock hp. It'll run rings around S cars.

80s 911s - 2800-3000lbs stock, ~190hp depending. Surely will fit in ITR and performance will exceed ITS.

Again Ron, not everybody has your money, How many people do you really think are gonna show up to race IT in a 968? How many 911's do you really think will go out and bang fenders in an IT class? Not enough to make a class that how many. The reality is most PCA folks race for social purposes and a little spirited fun they do not want to take the chance of actually messing up those cars the cross over will be minimal at best. Hell NASA will run any car any where are they getting the PCA cross over? I doubt it.

I have driven many a 300ZX curb weight is 3086 and that's about as light as your gonna get now add a 200lb driver to it. Did youforget that 1.75 inch cage that has to go in there? The car has 75lbs of brakes on it. They are just heavy period.

Darin, I am nnot looking at the E36 when making these comparisons. One thing to consider is that alot of these new Vtec type engines ect. are not gonna see the gains that the early stuff will.

Knestis

12-09-2005, 10:14 PM

I've been following along but trying to avoid getting cast on either of sides of the trenchline on this - mostly because it has expanded to four fronts, two insurrections, one well-organized resistance, and a smoldering guerilla war - but also because I am really of the opinion that something DOES need to be done here.

However, for completely academic purposes...

** At what point is a rule set changed enough that it's no longer "Improved Touring?"

** Is it necessary that a new class to address the policy issues Ron opened with be called "Improved Touring?" What if it creates additional problems - organizational, philosophical, or cultural - by doing so? Is it worth the cost?

** To what degree are the benefits of a new class balanced against the inevitable down-sides? What ARE some of the potential unanticipated outcomes of the addition of Class X?

How about setting free some of the preconceived notions for the sake of brainstorming what this class SHOULD be, if it could be anything it wanted? Don't hem anyone in at this point by having to address the IT wheel rules or anything else.

What would it look like?

I understand the logic - and it's good logic - of not trying to create a whole new category, instead "simply" creating a new class within IT. However, there might be sufficient smaller issues that need to be resolved, that trying to put it under the IT tent might be counterproductive - giving people too many things to worry about.

K

JeffYoung

12-09-2005, 10:17 PM

Darin, sorry, no break. Not trying to be rude, but in ITS we have front running cars that are 30+ years old (240z), 20 years old (RX7) and 10 years old (325). We need new blood. Zs are getting parked here in the SEDiv. People are not racing them because of the 325, and because they are high maintenance. You need to keep new brake parts on them. You have to adjust drums before every race. Valve springs may last a season.

IT is, I agree, healthy now. But if you don't start putting cars in the class that 20 and 30 year olds actually recognize, it's not going to stay that way. A 30 year old guy who's been successful and done well and wants to go race a car he was fond of when he was 15 can't race a Supra or a 300zx in IT. That's silly in my view.

Why is this so hard to understand? We need to class newer cars. Newer cars are faster than those presently in S. We need a new class above S.

Is it that hard to see? I really do not understand the resistance to this.

JeffYoung

12-09-2005, 10:21 PM

As far as my comments on the TR8 When you start finishing races and getting the other 5 secs out of the car the program will be way different.

Joe, you don't know TR8s, and you don't apparently know Z cars either. The brakes are the brakes. That's not where the time is.

As far as my racing in IT goes...Um I think building 8 IT cars and at least 20+ engines and maintaining 14 to 15 cars locally allows me the room to talk IT. So that dog don't hunt either bud. I understand things get faster but I also understand we have the ability to race a 6.0 liter Caddy/GTO against a 3.5 liter 350z today and do it well. Your right this aint the 70's were have greater technology to control the things we couldn't before.

Ok, you build cars for people. Do you race them?

Yes, you can choke of the Caddy and lighten up the 350z in PRO competition. But in club racing is that what you want?

Again, we see ITR differently. You make your proposal, if you have the desire to do so. We'll make ours -- and it will be made because we WANT to race in an ITR class.

JeffYoung

12-09-2005, 10:28 PM

Joe, car counts in the SEDiv and the NEDiv are much higher than where you are located, plus we have NASA, EMRA, PCA and BMWCCA. The main thing keeping 911s and 968s and 944s out of SCCA in the SEDiv right now is not money, is not fender banging, it is COMPETITIVENESS. NASA runs a 944 Cup that includes 944 Turbos and 968s and they had a 30 car field at Roebling in September. 30 cars. I talked to some of those guys and they would love to run SCCA if they thought hey had a chance.

The BMW guys are starting to think that way too with the weight correction that is coming. You overstate the "social" side of PCA/BMWCAA. Those guys do race, and would race SCCA. They don't, but not for the reasons you suggest.

Your 300zx example is interesting. Let's put it this way - in 10 years or so, it is going to be hard to class ANY car at less than 3000 lbs given higher stock curb weights that won't allow the car to reach lower weight. Again, it really seems to me that you want to freeze ITS as it stands now and restrict incoming cars with an SIR. I see no reason to do that as it is an artificial attempt to ignore the performance capabilities of the average street car of 2005.

********

Again Ron, not everybody has your money, How many people do you really think are gonna show up to race IT in a 968? How many 911's do you really think will go out and bang fenders in an IT class? Not enough to make a class that how many. The reality is most PCA folks race for social purposes and a little spirited fun they do not want to take the chance of actually messing up those cars the cross over will be minimal at best. Hell NASA will run any car any where are they getting the PCA cross over? I doubt it.

I have driven many a 300ZX curb weight is 3086 and that's about as light as your gonna get now add a 200lb driver to it. Did youforget that 1.75 inch cage that has to go in there? The car has 75lbs of brakes on it. They are just heavy period.
Darin, I am nnot looking at the E36 when making these comparisons. One thing to consider is that alot of these new Vtec type engines ect. are not gonna see the gains that the early stuff will.

Joe Harlan

12-09-2005, 10:36 PM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Dec 9 2005, 07:21 PM
As far as my comments on the TR8 When you start finishing races and getting the other 5 secs out of the car the program will be way different.

Joe, you don't know TR8s, and you don't apparently know Z cars either. The brakes are the brakes. That's not where the time is.

As far as my racing in IT goes...Um I think building 8 IT cars and at least 20+ engines and maintaining 14 to 15 cars locally allows me the room to talk IT. So that dog don't hunt either bud. I understand things get faster but I also understand we have the ability to race a 6.0 liter Caddy/GTO against a 3.5 liter 350z today and do it well. Your right this aint the 70's were have greater technology to control the things we couldn't before.

Ok, you build cars for people. Do you race them?

Yes, you can choke of the Caddy and lighten up the 350z in PRO competition. But in club racing is that what you want?

Again, we see ITR differently. You make your proposal, if you have the desire to do so. We'll make ours -- and it will be made because we WANT to race in an ITR class.

67794

Jeff, Have I raced them? Yes in about every configuration you can think of. I build competitive engines for them custom exhausts and custom brake cooling systems for them, I spend at least 6 to 10 test days in them and I can at will get right down or very close to the track record with any of my customer cars. You have a lot of sack sasying I know knothing of Z brakes. Yes you have to maintain them every session and you have to have good stuff on the all the time. that is the cost of racing and it is the cost of racing any car at the top. I actually tried to offer a little help with your 260 when you guys first started running but it seems you all have way more experience than I could ever come up with. Not a big deal but you really should know I have been a sucessful race shop for 10 years now.

As far as the Caddy/350 deal goes its club racing and we have been racing them against each other for several years now. (see statement about olooking outside your own world) the 350z class weight is 3268 with driver and we can't get the even with a light driver given IT prep we could get another 75lbs out. Newer cars are being built very stout to meet crash standards so minimums weights are going up based on that fact.

JeffYoung

12-09-2005, 10:38 PM

These are good questions. Here's my personal opinion, probably not unexpected. Would like to hear others. I agree these questions should shape the debate.

** At what point is a rule set changed enough that it's no longer "Improved Touring?"

JMY -- a while back, we talked about what constitued ITness. I think we boiled it down to 4-5 or core categories. Very limited engine prep (stock cams, pistons, induction), free suspension within the confines of the stock mounting points, and no alteration to bodywork. ITR should fit those categories.

** Is it necessary that a new class to address the policy issues Ron opened with be called "Improved Touring?" What if it creates additional problems - organizational, philosophical, or cultural - by doing so? Is it worth the cost?

JMY - I say absolutely a new class is needed. Very soon, IT will not "reflect" the car world as it existed five years previous, and it needs to. Those are the types of cars that IT should be attracting, and that new members should be building. Not TR8s, not Jensen-Healeys, not 240zs, not Volvo 142s, not BMW 2002s.

Kirk, what additional problems do you see? Putting aside AWD and forced induction.

** To what degree are the benefits of a new class balanced against the inevitable down-sides? What ARE some of the potential unanticipated outcomes of the addition of Class X?

JMY-- I don't see the downside other than cost. ITR will cost. It may draw some cars off of S as well, but A survives as a "tweener" class between S and B and in fact is perhaps the healthiest of the IT classes right now.

What would it look like?

JMY -- I think ITR should "look" like the car world from 5-20 years previous. By 2007 or 2008 when and if this comes on line, this means 250 hp is standard on a street car, as are 16, 17 and 18 inch wheels, four wheel disc brakes, 6-speed transmissions and sophisticated suspensions.

Wasn't that always the point of IT anyway, putting aside $$$$? To take readily available 5 year and older cars and make them race cars? Readily available cars in 2008 will have 250 hp V6s and six speed transmission etc.

To me, it is that simple, although I'm interested in hearing how others respond. I just don't see why some think you can't have ITR and at the same time keep ITS, A, B and even C with little or no impact on them.

JeffYoung

12-09-2005, 10:42 PM

Joe, I have "sack" when someone starts talking about a car that I've spent a lot of time building, improving and finishing races with. I remember your help on the 260 and it was, and still is appreciated, but the personal stuff started with you. Remember that.

Enough of this publicly, I'll send you a PM.

Hotshoe

12-09-2005, 11:22 PM

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 5 2005, 04:24 AM
It's a little early to play the "take my ball and go home" card, don't you think?

67315

..... Nine pages later, and still no compromise. Makes me feel like we are lobbying for a House Bill. Huh Jeff. I guess "taking our ball and going home" would have saved a lot of wasted time with these pessimists.

....Fact is ..... The purpose of this thread is to gather numbers as to whether or not people would support a class ( ITR ) Not gather propaganda. Guess that goes in line with the X in Christmas thing.

.... I'm glad it doesn't snow here. Visibility is much better.

.... I'll admit I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, but, I know when to quit wasting my time.

.... Don't let these guys get to you Jeff, you're better than that.

instigator

12-09-2005, 11:42 PM

Well I have not said much. I do support the creation of this class. I did read on other post of dead classes ITD. maybe the cure is ower current ITC cars are actually ITD cars, our ITB cars are ITC cars, our ITA cars are ITB, our ITS cars are ITA cars, and we currently don't have modern ITS cars. Alot of valid points have been stated, and alot of knowledge,experience, and respected members have spoken. I think the answer may be in a new class or correcting current standards of performance and reviving a lost class for modern standards. I do think we need to create a place in current IT for modern exhuast feumes( current up coming car models).

Kurt Jackson
IT7 #59 and #00

Joe Harlan

12-09-2005, 11:49 PM

Originally posted by instigator@Dec 9 2005, 08:42 PM
Well I have not said much. I do support the creation of this class. I did read on other post of dead classes ITD. maybe the cure is ower current ITC cars are actually ITD cars, our ITB cars are ITC cars, our ITA cars are ITB, our ITS cars are ITA cars, and we currently don't have modern ITS cars. Alot of valid points have been stated, and alot of knowledge,experience, and respected members have spoken. I think the answer may be in a new class or correcting current standards of performance and reviving a lost class for modern standards. I do think we need to create a place in current IT for modern exhuast feumes( current up coming car models).

Kurt Jackson
IT7 #59 and #00

67803

Kurt, I am gonna ask a question. Why do you race IT7? This is a very serious question and no disrespect is meant by it.

instigator

12-10-2005, 12:03 AM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 10 2005, 03:49 AM
Kurt, I am gonna ask a question. Why do you race IT7? This is a very serious question and no disrespect is meant by it.

67804

It was the first afordable car I could buy at current finaces. I will continue to race in it . the cars are very reliable and parts are still readly avalible. compitition is usally very close.

Kurt Jackson
IT7 #59&00

Z3_GoCar

12-10-2005, 12:10 AM

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 9 2005, 03:52 PM
Maybe this would be a start??

Acura RSX Type-S 2002
Acura Integra 97-99 190
Alfa Romeo Milano 3.0L (87-89) 183
BMW 325i/is (2 & 4door) (92-95) 189
BMW M Coupe 98-99
BMW M3 95-99
BMW 328ci/i 1999
BMW Z3 2.8L 97-98
Ford Mustang V6 1999+ 190
Honda Prelude SH & non-SH (97-98) 195
Honda Prelude V-Tech 190
Honda S2000 2000
Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L 16V 185
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 86-88
Nissan Maxima 89-94 175
Nissan Maxima 95-99 (A32B)
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 225
Porsche Boxter S 2000
Porsche 968 1995
Toyota Supra 1998
Toyota Supra 95-97
Toyota Supra (86 1/2-87) 200
Some are already in ITS, but at pretty heavy weights... Others may be able to fit into ITS with an SIR at a lighter weight, but I'm not sure how widespread I'd suggest the use of these be until there is some water under the bridge and they've been proven to work as expected...

67769

Hey Darin,

Let me help with some of those numbers from R&T comparisons

James

Make: Model: Year: Hp: Tq:
Acura RSX Type-R 2002
Acura Integra 97-99 190
Alfa-Romeo Milano 3.0L 87-89 183
BMW 325i/is(2/4door) 92-95 189
BMW M Coupe/Roadster 98-00 240 236
BMW M3(e-36) 95-99 240 236
BMW 328ci/i(e-36) 95-99 190 207
BMW Z3 2.8L 97-98 189 203
BMW Z3 2.5L (2.3) 99-00 170 181
Ford Mustang V6 1999+ 190
Honda Prelude(SH & non) 97-98 195
Honda Prelude(V-Tech) 190
Honda S2000 2000 240 153
Mercedes-Benz 190E, 2.3L 16V 185
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 86-88
Nissan Maxima 89-94 175
Nissan Maxima(A32B) 95-99
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 225
Porsche Boxter S 2000 201 181
Porsche 968 1995
Toyota Supra 1998
Toyota Supra 95-97
Toyota Supra 86 1/2-87 200

Joe Harlan

12-10-2005, 12:23 AM

Originally posted by instigator@Dec 9 2005, 09:03 PM
It was the first afordable car I could buy at current finaces. I will continue to race in it . the cars are very reliable and parts are still readly avalible. compitition is usally very close.
Kurt Jackson
IT7 #59&00

67805

So again respectfully, Why not ITA?

instigator

12-10-2005, 12:43 AM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 10 2005, 04:23 AM
So again respectfully, Why not ITA?

67807

Well due to the tire rule for this year in IT7 here in the south east I will race one of the cars in ITA and see if I can give ricky some company in ITA. BTW l don't think the ITA,IT7 dirt needs to be brought up in this pole. No disrespect implied.
I belive this pole is about cars to be introdced in our selection or varites of cars to have place to compete.(help create new interest, members,and more competitors)

Joe Harlan

12-10-2005, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by instigator@Dec 9 2005, 09:43 PM
Well due to the tire rule for this year in IT7 here in the south east I will race one of the cars in ITA and see if I can give ricky some company in ITA. BTW l don't think the ITA,IT7 dirt needs to be brought up in this pole. No disrespect implied.
I belive this pole is about cars to be introdced in our selection or varites of cars to have place to compete.(help create new interest, members,and more competitors)

67808

Well I guess I must not be aware of the dirt you refer? I do consider it relevant. I am trying to understand why when there is a class that a car fits it would be raced somewhere else. Not rying to stir anything up.

I have always felt that had the Miata been classed properly in the begining it we would not have seen the outgrowth of another class. Anyway thanks for answering what you did.

JeffYoung

12-10-2005, 01:15 AM

Joe, what brought IT7 about in my view was the belief after the 2nd Gen CRX Si was classed that the 7 could not longer be competitive in A. There are some very well developed and well driven 7s in the SEDiv that belie that contention, but I agree with Jake and Andy that the raw numbers would indicate the 7 can't run with the CRX, or now (even more so) the Integras and the 240sx.

So, the 7 drivers got together and started their own class because they felt there were enough of them to have fun, and competitive racing, between only RX7s.

I'm interested why you think the Miata was misclassed? Although it took a while, SM run close to the ITA track records here in teh SEDiv. With full IT prep, I think the car can be a near over-dog in ITA although it has some straight line issues that Andy B. is correct in pointing out.

In fact, an ITA Miata has won the SEDiv ITA championship at least once in teh last few years.

Joe Harlan

12-10-2005, 01:27 AM

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Dec 9 2005, 10:15 PM
Joe, what brought IT7 about in my view was the belief after the 2nd Gen CRX Si was classed that the 7 could not longer be competitive in A. There are some very well developed and well driven 7s in the SEDiv that belie that contention, but I agree with Jake and Andy that the raw numbers would indicate the 7 can't run with the CRX, or now (even more so) the Integras and the 240sx.

So, the 7 drivers got together and started their own class because they felt there were enough of them to have fun, and competitive racing, between only RX7s.

I'm interested why you think the Miata was misclassed? Although it took a while, SM run close to the ITA track records here in teh SEDiv. With full IT prep, I think the car can be a near over-dog in ITA although it has some straight line issues that Andy B. is correct in pointing out.

In fact, an ITA Miata has won the SEDiv ITA championship at least once in teh last few years.

67811

Well I think I may not have said that correct. I think there was afeeling it was misclassed and the cars did not catch on until the prices bottomed out. I agree on the IT7 deal and that is why I have always felt the RX7 and the MR2 should have been the cars to balance the class to. I say should have because I think the cat is way to far out of the bag for that although I do feel a really serious well driven effort could get very close to the front. I think the Miata is well classed now with both cars in ITA and I think the neons are a great fit also. The question is really for my own information. Out here we have like 100 classes and nobody actually races anybody other than maybe SRF or SM.

Ron Earp

12-10-2005, 08:50 AM

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 10 2005, 02:14 AM
Again Ron, not everybody has your money, How many people do you really think are gonna show up to race IT in a 968? How many 911's do you really think will go out and bang fenders in an IT class? Not enough to make a class that how many. The reality is most PCA folks race for social purposes and a little spirited fun they do not want to take the chance of actually messing up those cars the cross over will be minimal at best. Hell NASA will run any car any where are they getting the PCA cross over? I doubt it.

67790

Joe, "my money", from what I can tell, appears to be about mid-pack as far as SCCA racers go - 20ft enclosed trailer, 2wd pickup truck, no fancy rig or paddock kit. My cars - the 260z cost $5000, the Jensen Healey cost $1700 and build out about another $12k or so. FYI, you can get Porsche 968s from around $7k-13k today if you like, some 911s (one right now on Autotrader for $9.9k) for less - this without hunting. BMW 325i donors are not a lot different than this in price. And, given I've shopped for 968s/911/928s before, I know I can find one in the $5-$7k range that would be suitable for a race car, and, that I can afford. I would submit your own customers have far more race money than I do since they pay you for your services. We do our own work except in extreme situations, we don't have money to pay folks to build or maintain our cars.

There are SCCA IT racers with far more money than I, at least here in the SE, and that is fine. ITU/ITR does not have to be accesssable to every IT racer, just as S is not accessable to every IT racer. Even so, I think it'll be reasonable accessable, particularily if we quit talking about Porsche cars and consider some of the import/domestic ITU/ITR cars. Like FWD and on a budget? A Taurus SHO (3380 curb, full up, it'll make a good race weight, $1,500 right now on Ebay) and is extremely affordable.

We've got a couple of 911s now that just came to the 13 hour to "bang fenders". NASA 944 Cup, as someone pointed out, in the SE has huge car fields and they will come race SCCA, as I mentioned earlier. You're right, a few folks won't ever do it, but we, the SCCA, could pick up some NASA, PCA, and BMWCCA members with a ITR/ITU class to fit their cars. And we have enough members with interest, at least in the SE and NE, that will race in a ITU/ITR class.

I wish to see the SCCA IT racing grow, grow with the progression of technology/cars, and I think the way to do it is to include some modern sports cars into our fields.

Ron

PS - Kirk, what part do I get to be in? The insurrection, the resistance, or the guerilla war?

Knestis

12-10-2005, 09:36 AM

Thanks, Jeff. More...

JMY -- a while back, we talked about what constitued ITness. I think we boiled it down to 4-5 or core categories. Very limited engine prep (stock cams, pistons, induction), free suspension within the confines of the stock mounting points, and no alteration to bodywork. ITR should fit those categories.

KK - good point of reference. That list was a good one but my take was what "should" be the core elements of IT. That was in the context of removing side glass, marker lights, and washer bottles, as I recall. How do those five bedrock standards translate into detail, though, in Class X? Where will the details be forced to differ from the current IT category detail assumptions (e.g., wheel diameters?

JMY - I say absolutely a new class is needed. Very soon, IT will not "reflect" the car world as it existed five years previous, and it needs to. Those are the types of cars that IT should be attracting, and that new members should be building. Not TR8s, not Jensen-Healeys, not 240zs, not Volvo 142s, not BMW 2002s. Kirk, what additional problems do you see? Putting aside AWD and forced induction.

KK - more and more, I'm understanding that the real question eventually might become not, "Do we need another class above ITS?" (answer I think is "yes"), but instead, "What changes to the IT CATEGORY are politically viable, that might be necessary to make a new class above S possible?" The biggest challenge is going to be potential "negative externalities" to the existing classes, resulting either directly or as an unanticipated outcome of Class X. It's pretty clear that some of the concerns voiced here come out of (appropriate) expectation that, if Class X cars get something different than current IT allowances, that people in other classes will quickly come to expect the same thing.

For example (and I pick this because it won't likely happen), if the "ITR" cars are allowed rear wings, as part of the vision to make them appeal to the M3 demographic that I see at Tarheel club days (who already have wings), then "wings" become a de facto part of the detail definition of "Improved Touring-ness." It will be essentially impossible at that point to prevent rules creep in the four, old-school IT classes, once that new technology gains a toehold.

JMY-- I don't see the downside other than cost. ITR will cost. It may draw some cars off of S as well, but A survives as a "tweener" class between S and B and in fact is perhaps the healthiest of the IT classes right now.

KK - it's not a small thing that new classes siphon cars out of old ones. As classes proliferate, scheduling gets harder, newcomers get increasingly confused, and (I think) the program suffers overall due to more classes with fewer participants in each. (That's a statement of philosophy, which evidence suggests is out of the mainstream, wherein it SEEMS like many participants would rather be more competitive against fewer cars.) The primary downside is the impact on the stability of the existing IT classes. Stability is a positive spin on "nothing changes," which is obviously the problem you are arguing, but the trick is balancing progress with not alienating a lot of people.

JMY -- I think ITR should "look" like the car world from 5-20 years previous. By 2007 or 2008 when and if this comes on line, this means 250 hp is standard on a street car, as are 16, 17 and 18 inch wheels, four wheel disc brakes, 6-speed transmissions and sophisticated suspensions.

KK - this is where we get to the nugget of the deal. This proposal is about potentially redefining the IT category for a time that is very different than the one in which it was originally created, even if it is being done to accomplish essentially the same goals. This makes the conversation MUCH more complex than just adding another class above S.

K

PS - Ron is the classic centrist reactionary, sort of an early Peronist.

Ron Earp

12-10-2005, 11:52 AM

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 10 2005, 01:36 PM

JMY - I say absolutely a new class is needed. Very soon, IT will not "reflect" the car world as it existed five years previous, and it needs to. Those are the types of cars that IT should be attracting, and that new members should be building. Not TR8s, not Jensen-Healeys, not 240zs, not Volvo 142s, not BMW 2002s. Kirk, what additional problems do you see? Putting aside AWD and forced induction.

[b]KK - more and more, I'm understanding that the real question eventually might become not, "Do we need another class above ITS?" (answer I think is "yes"), but instead, "What changes to the IT CATEGORY are politically viable, that might be necessary to make a new class above S possible?" The biggest challenge is going to be potential "negative externalities" to the existing classes, resulting either directly or as an unanticipated outcome of Class X. It's pretty clear that some of the concerns voiced here come out of (appropriate) expectation that, if Class X cars get something different than current IT allowances, that people in other classes will quickly come to expect the same thing.

PS - Ron is the classic centrist reactionary, sort of an early Peronist.

67818

Whew. Had to look that one up and consult. Early Peronist I'd have to disagree with; I feel I'm definitely more accommodating and open than that. Maybe my sense of urgency and responsiveness to the issue has a tendency to cast me as a lighthearted fascist?

I don't feel that IT "Class X" should get any other allowances beyond what is in the IT rules charter. There will be impacts on the existing classes for sure though. I'd certainly think that people will move up a class to race more modern machinery. But, isn't that the natural progression of things? As they move up the slower IT classes will probably become less populated and may need to be consolidated. I know this only addresses what IT needs right now, but that turbo/AWD etc. road is going to be a tough one to hoe in IT, and as mentioned, maybe that needs to be outside of IT.

Things cannot remain in static and locked in time forever. Heck, it is going to be hard in coming years to even find cars slow enough to class in C, maybe B, and a lot of it might have to do with weight. There might be some cars slow enough, at 115hp and 3000 lbs, but folks probably won't wish to have a 3000lb car driving around with their 1800lb XYZ.

Ron

bldn10

12-10-2005, 12:00 PM

I raised this point many pages ago but got no response so let me state it a different way. I personally do not intend to go ITR - I'm spending all I want to now - so my interest is in what effect ITR would have on ITS. What do you think? Would it be good for ITS?

zracre

12-10-2005, 12:15 PM

Originally posted by bldn10@Dec 10 2005, 12:00 PM
I raised this point many pages ago but got no response so let me state it a different way. I personally do not intend to go ITR - I'm spending all I want to now - so my interest is in what effect ITR would have on ITS. What do you think? Would it be good for ITS?

67824

I think that all depends on the status of the 325 E36 changes...My belief is if they allow that car unrestricted in ITR some people would migrate slowly until more ITR cars are built...If allowances are made to lighten up existing ITS cars it would just hurt the class and IT in general. Many people are in ITS as it is the fastest class (big fish little pond) and if you make a bigger faster class, the spenders will go there to be top dog. I would like to see a class for these to run with similar mods but it should be outside the IT scope. The lap times of ITS cars vs. Speed Touring cars are not all that far off...but fast enough to need more safety equipment. There are currently plenty of classes that allow the stuff we are talking about now (ITE SPO SPU etc) and those classes are not that full and sometimes contain cars that hurt us in the IT ranks (straightaway fast corner '78 Impala). I think we should leave it the way it is now and let people build them in enough numbers to warrant a new class....my .02 cents

Bill Miller

12-10-2005, 11:14 PM

redefining the IT category for a time that is very different than the one in which it was originally created,

Kirk,

You were around when IT started. IT today has little if any resemeblence to the IT of 20 years ago. It has followed the classic SCCA rules creep model. But more importantly, the state of automotive technology is so much more advanced than it was 20 or 25 years ago. When was the last time that an IT-compatible car was produced w/ a carb??

Trying to flesh out ITR would be a lot easier if the IT classification process was public knowledge. Pick a performance ratio, and just start running cars through the process. I think a pretty viable list would fall out, in pretty short order. As would cars that probably wouldn't fit. Making special allowances, is something that should not even be considered, with the possible exception of limiting what can be done (i.e. limited-prep IT).

Ron Earp

12-11-2005, 08:52 AM

Originally posted by bldn10@Dec 10 2005, 04:00 PM
I raised this point many pages ago but got no response so let me state it a different way. I personally do not intend to go ITR - I'm spending all I want to now - so my interest is in what effect ITR would have on ITS. What do you think? Would it be good for ITS?

67824

I don't think anyone can give you a clear answer on that question. And, I think "good" is a relative term.

I would imagine you'll have some people leave S for R. Some must race in the highest category of a series. Some would want to race some of the cars that would become available. But, there would also be some upgrade effect as well. When S drivers in a region moved their car might be up for sale, bringing a new person into S or bringing someone up from A,B, or C.

Certainly, it seems to me it'd have an effect on the community as a whole. Although I think the effect would be more limited to S and A classes. And as for for "good or bad", well, naturally as a proponent of ITU/ITR I think it is good. The interested racers would be able to race a car they wish to race, and, that is good.

If we make some new classes to accommodate progress and new technology there will certainly be changes in how IT classes are populated right now. But, I think that is good - it means IT is adapting and changing and not remaining stagnant or stuck in the 70s/80s and hopefully, won't end up resemblng a production field.

Knestis

12-11-2005, 09:47 AM

This is evidence that I am either (a) willing to look at both sides of this issue, or (B) mad, but I can see a "real" ITR being good for the longterm health of ITS - if one result were to lower the mean perfomance of S.

There are a lot of those tweener cars that, if added, would potentially upset the ITA applecart. (That's the NEW ITA, not the pre-IT2 ITA.) The last couple Si Civics come to mind. If the top of S went to R, it could be pulled down to make more room for those cars, at reasonable weights.

K

PS - Bill probably knows what I think about the net result of IT rules creep.

Bill Miller

12-11-2005, 11:18 AM

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 11 2005, 09:47 AM

PS - Bill probably knows what I think about the net result of IT rules creep.

67860

I'll take a wild guess

BLEH! :D

zracre

12-11-2005, 02:22 PM

Alot of talk of rules creep (a known issue) but no talk of performance creep...IOW, many people are willing to spend money on cars that are considered average to class then people start pulling the potential out if them. Greg, you put together a car that could hang with the top guys at the ARRC in a car many would say needs too much development awesome job!!! but can you imagine if the aftermarket support was there for the stock SR20DE like there is for the B series or even D series honda? When lots of time and development (and good driving) goes into any effort you are going to have a higher performance envelope...SM cars are in the 2:39's at Sebring...a good a time there is 2:36...I like racing a Honda as the aftermarket support is there and they are stone reliable....call me lazy but im more into the driving than working on them...dont get me wrong i love to build my cars but I dont want to have to hunt around alot to be top dog...I have been known to build and race some funky cars, but if you are there to win, go with the most current potential.

JeffYoung

12-12-2005, 08:06 AM

Stayed away from the Board for a few days, things were getting a bit out of hand (on my side). Sorry guys.

Kirk, good points. My additional thoughts below.

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 10 2005, 01:36 PM

Thanks, Jeff. More...

JMY -- a while back, we talked about what constitued ITness. I think we boiled it down to 4-5 or core categories. Very limited engine prep (stock cams, pistons, induction), free suspension within the confines of the stock mounting points, and no alteration to bodywork. ITR should fit those categories.

KK - good point of reference. That list was a good one but my take was what "should" be the core elements of IT. That was in the context of removing side glass, marker lights, and washer bottles, as I recall. How do those five bedrock standards translate into detail, though, in Class X? Where will the details be forced to differ from the current IT category detail assumptions (e.g., wheel diameters?

JMY2: Other than a few (in fact, possibly one and that is wheel diameter) change to reflect the reality of 2000+ cars, I would envision ITR's rules to be exactly the same as IT. I do think that, at some point though, we will need to deal with forced induction and AWD.

JMY - I say absolutely a new class is needed. Very soon, IT will not "reflect" the car world as it existed five years previous, and it needs to. Those are the types of cars that IT should be attracting, and that new members should be building. Not TR8s, not Jensen-Healeys, not 240zs, not Volvo 142s, not BMW 2002s. Kirk, what additional problems do you see? Putting aside AWD and forced induction.

KK - more and more, I'm understanding that the real question eventually might become not, "Do we need another class above ITS?" (answer I think is "yes"), but instead, "What changes to the IT CATEGORY are politically viable, that might be necessary to make a new class above S possible?" The biggest challenge is going to be potential "negative externalities" to the existing classes, resulting either directly or as an unanticipated outcome of Class X. It's pretty clear that some of the concerns voiced here come out of (appropriate) expectation that, if Class X cars get something different than current IT allowances, that people in other classes will quickly come to expect the same thing.

For example (and I pick this because it won't likely happen), if the "ITR" cars are allowed rear wings, as part of the vision to make them appeal to the M3 demographic that I see at Tarheel club days (who already have wings), then "wings" become a de facto part of the detail definition of "Improved Touring-ness." It will be essentially impossible at that point to prevent rules creep in the four, old-school IT classes, once that new technology gains a toehold.

JMY2: Good point -- obviously any changes made to the IT rules to accomodate ITR cars need to be carefully thought out. However, I still don't see any reason to change anything about the ITCS other than wheel diameter in order to set up ITR.

JMY-- I don't see the downside other than cost. ITR will cost. It may draw some cars off of S as well, but A survives as a "tweener" class between S and B and in fact is perhaps the healthiest of the IT classes right now.

KK - it's not a small thing that new classes siphon cars out of old ones. As classes proliferate, scheduling gets harder, newcomers get increasingly confused, and (I think) the program suffers overall due to more classes with fewer participants in each. (That's a statement of philosophy, which evidence suggests is out of the mainstream, wherein it SEEMS like many participants would rather be more competitive against fewer cars.) The primary downside is the impact on the stability of the existing IT classes. Stability is a positive spin on "nothing changes," which is obviously the problem you are arguing, but the trick is balancing progress with not alienating a lot of people.

JMY2: I agree. However, I also think the following:

a. A has survived between S and B and is probably the healthiest of the IT classes. In thinking it through this weekend, I actually think S may be healthier if you remove the guys who run it because it is the fastest of the IT classes. If you allow the class to focus on Z cars, Integra GSRs, RX7s and 944s, and let the guys who love those cars run them without worrying about the $50k Bimmer, etc. you might see more Integras, the parked Z cars might come back, the 944s might come over from NASA 944 Cup etc.

b. On class dilution, I think we have lost ITD. I frankly think (and I am not advocating the delisting of any car or the "death" of any class) that ITC will not be with us for long (simply because no one is building ITC cars). B is healthy for now, but in 10 years, it will be hard to classify a car in B I think. So, as the performance parameters of street cars shift upwards, so too does the IT classing system but without any real dilution as the same body of cars will fit into essentially the same three classes.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the ITS-ITA-ITB of today will probably be ITR-ITS-ITA in 10 years. B will exist but will have low car counts (like C now). C will exist but only when someone (rarely) brings an old C car out.

JMY -- I think ITR should "look" like the car world from 5-20 years previous. By 2007 or 2008 when and if this comes on line, this means 250 hp is standard on a street car, as are 16, 17 and 18 inch wheels, four wheel disc brakes, 6-speed transmissions and sophisticated suspensions.

KK - this is where we get to the nugget of the deal. This proposal is about potentially redefining the IT category for a time that is very different than the one in which it was originally created, even if it is being done to accomplish essentially the same goals. This makes the conversation MUCH more complex than just adding another class above S.

JMY2: Yes, I agree this is the core of it. I guess where I differ is I believe that, other than the AWD/forced induction problem, the only real change needed to the ITCS to allow for ITR is larger wheel diameters. Kirk, am I missing somehting? Are there other things that will need to change?

K

PS - Ron is the classic centrist reactionary, sort of an early Peronist.

67818