Beat me, hurt me - I think I'll go run NASA PT

[Knestis]

Seriously.

Actually reading the radio rule (thanks for that, Geo) has spun me completely off of my axis.

Someone needs to open Word and write a new rulebook for IT, with a clear statement of intentions and resolution of all of the inconsistent, silly stuff that's in that book. No more of this piddling around the edges crap, with words added or deleted. New. Say what's allowed in as few words as possible, do NOT list specific prohibitions against things, and don't elaborate with ill-considered extra words.

I absolutely hate that I'm actually beginning to sympathize with the "that's stupid, I just decided it meant..." crowd. It creates all kinds of headaches and contributes to the legality laziness of IT racers, tech folks, and stewards, that the simplest thing to do is just ignore the "stuff that doesn't matter." I adhere to the "broken windows" theory of sociology - that ignoring the breaking of little laws (like throwing rocks through windows of vacant buildings), creates an environment that encourages the breaking of bigger laws. And I think the same thing applies to us racers.

But damn, people. There's a lot of stupid stuff in that book, even if I try really hard to think critically and be legal. It's like being a parent - which I have studiously avoided - trying to be consistent, reasonable, and fair when there is NO way to avoid being a hypocrite, fibber, or jerk every once in a while.

K

[dickita15]

Ok sir, step away from the rulebook. NOW.

Refocus, get you priorities right. Watch some in car. Remember why this is fun.

SCCA is the second largest bureaucracy in the free world.

[Geo]

Kirk,

If I knew that was going to shock you like this I wouldn't have said anything.

But you're right, that rule and a few others could use some cleaning up.

[Greg Amy]

Actually reading the radio rule (thanks for that, Geo) has spun me completely off of my axis.[/b]
"Radio rule"? Did I miss a debate somewhere? - GA

[R2 Racing]

"Radio rule"? Did I miss a debate somewhere? - GA
[/b]

Yea, I was wondering too. Please enlighten the less enlightened. :D

[Knestis]

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7265 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7265)

K

[bldn10]

I agree w/ you, Kirk, on a general review and re-write of the GCR. Indeed, every time I speak to Bryan or Jeremy, Terry Ozment, or our Division stewards about "the rules" I suggest that we ask for volunteers to form a committee to start doing just that. It would be a long-term process for sure but we have plenty of lawyers and other qualified people in the Club to clean up what is now a cut and paste job that is full of inconsistencies and downright mysteries. Are ya'll aware that there are in fact 2 IT ECU rules? EFI cars can "alter or replace" the ECU while carbed ones can only alter it - was this intended?

[JohnRW]

Kirk - have you thoroughly read the NASA CCR and Enduro supplement ? There is enough 'silliness' there to send you screaming back to the warm, enveloping arms of the GCR.

(posters - please withold all the 'you just don't like NASA' posts...I have a license and race with THEM, too...but some of their rulebook is just odd.

[Bill Miller]

Kirk - have you thoroughly read the NASA CCR and Enduro supplement ? There is enough 'silliness' there to send you screaming back to the warm, enveloping arms of the GCR.

(posters - please withold all the 'you just don't like NASA' posts...I have a license and race with THEM, too...but some of their rulebook is just odd.
[/b]


Uh John, I think Kirk was being a tad facetious. :birra:

[Knestis]

Yeah, but ONLY a tad...

And John, you ain't seen nothing yet. Wait until the Pro Touring classes are integrated into the E(whatever) classes. There are already cases popping out where a Honda Challenge or other spec car gets put in E2, but when run through the PT "computer," ends up in a class that crosses over to E3. Or vice-versa.

Maybe I'm getting spoilt with all of the good stuff going on recently but it just seems a shame to cave in to "it could be worse" as defense of stuff that is just plain goofy.

K

[Matt Rowe]

I agree w/ you, Kirk, on a general review and re-write of the GCR. Indeed, every time I speak to Bryan or Jeremy, Terry Ozment, or our Division stewards about "the rules" I suggest that we ask for volunteers to form a committee to start doing just that. It would be a long-term process for sure but we have plenty of lawyers and other qualified people in the Club to clean up what is now a cut and paste job that is full of inconsistencies and downright mysteries. Are ya'll aware that there are in fact 2 IT ECU rules? EFI cars can "alter or replace" the ECU while carbed ones can only alter it - was this intended?
[/b]

Bill,

The idea does make a certain amount of sense but the reprecussions could be ugly. I doubt you could put together a complete set of logical rules that wouldn't make at LEAST 10 percent of current IT cars illegal for some trivial reason or another. Things like the spherical bushing rule, oversize piston rule, etc... are vague enough now that if you clairfy it someone will get caught out.

Still, maybe the best thing to do is put together a committee and have them work on a class philosophy. similar to IT but better suited to include more modern cars (higher hp, awd, turbo, etc). That philosophy should make it possible for most IT cars to be welcome into the new set of classes as well. Then start to work on the rulebook that accomdates the old and the new. In the end it would probably be the death of the current IT but would spawn a whole new class that would embrace a lot of the cars we currently argue about.

Oh wait, never mind I hear someone already did this and it ws called IT2 or comething like that. :D

[pgipson]

plenty of lawyers and other qualified people [/b]

definition of above statement (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxymoron)

[bldn10]

Matt, perhaps the place to start is to form the committee to review proposed rule changes, clarifications, technical bulletins, etc. just to make sure the language actually implements what the intent is and does not set up some inconsistency elsewhere. How many times have things come out in Fastrack that engendered much debate on meaning and implication on other rules?

Like it or not, the fact is that lawyers deal every day w/ statutes, rules, contracts, etc. and are more likely to write a clear rule than the average layperson. The important thing is for the draftsmanship function to be objective and separate from the rulemaking function. I.e tell the comm. what you want to accomplish and it will write a rule that will do it while minimizing unintended consequences.

[turboICE]

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=7265 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=7265)

K
[/b]
Ok - there has to be some place in club racing where I can build a race car to be competitively prepped and be able to look at every aspect of the car and know for sure whether it is legal or not!!! Oh yeah bracket racing down at the drag strip.

[pgipson]

bracket racing down at the drag strip[/b]

Would that be with, or without the brake delay? :birra:

[turboICE]

Either way - I would know if it was legal or not in my bracket. I didn't say it lacked the need to make choices but I don't recall ever having issues with clarity around legality! But then again I got bored with it after 1 season.

[Renaultfool]

OK, let's see; SCCA about 55,000 members, NHRA about 400,000 members. SCCA about $250 entry fees, NHRA about $30 entry fees. Where is this going? There are other folks out there also having fun.

I like the curvy road stuff, so I am sticking around. We need to rethink our club and bring the costs back under control. Why do we continue to support SCCAPro?

If you haven't taken a good look at the new NASA rules, you should. Not a bad way to write them as they will include a lot of the young tuner types that have no interest in our 1970's rule book and petty squables.

[turboICE]

NHRA about $30 entry fees.
[/b]And a real chance for going for an actual pot and spectators. When I did it, I definitely didn't stress out over the cost of it - I could go for the night and it cost less than a date and there were girls there that weren't another driver's wife.

[ggnagy]

Ok - there has to be some place in club racing where I can build a race car to be competitively prepped and be able to look at every aspect of the car and know for sure whether it is legal or not!!! Oh yeah bracket racing down at the drag strip.
[/b]


The tow for You would really blow, but the Grand Bayou race series folk down at No Problem in LA use bracket racing. Ya don't even have to worry how many points a Yellow racing stripe gets you or if it is legal for your model and year of car (there, I poked fun at NASA and SCCA)

[gran racing]

We need to rethink our club and bring the costs back under control. Why do we continue to support SCCAPro?[/b]

I totally agree!!!!

“Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition.”

What is the definition of low cost for IT? Yes, you can run any car on the track as long as it meets the minimum safety requirements. Blah, blah, blah. It is too bad that IT is getting so expensive to be competitive. I say “getting” because there are more and more very high prepped ($$$$) cars are appearing in IT.

While I do not care for the PT rule set, NASA is at least attempting to provide a lower cost choice for people to race and be competitive. For that, I do commend the organization.

[RSTPerformance]

Just another point of view to look at, not necessaraly my opinion, but certainly a view I would look at when thinking about IT (SCCA) and its good/bad status and/or future.

Why has IT become so expensive to win??? Because arguably it is the best series for Road Racing in the US with exception to possibly the Speed Touring and GT series.. and possibly the Rolex series.

Why do I say this? look at actual class participation numbers and the competitiveness in those classes, its amaizing considering the veriety of years, makes and model cars. Also look at the real value of what you are getting... you are getting REAL racing just like someone spending millions in some other series that has FAR FAR less competition.

For whatever reason over the last decade IT has grown leaps and bounds and attracted wealthy "investors" who are willing to pay the extra buck to win because they feel that this IS the best series where they can actualy "race" wheel to wheel. I think that everyone here on this site as well as those who don't read "ImprovedTouring.com" but are part of making IT what it is, should be proud of what they "created."

I will also say though that I agree it is a bit of a bummer that it is getting so expensive, but unfortunatly it costs lots of money to push the edge, and the more rules we add sometimes the more expensive it will get... and remember you don't need some $6,000 IT motor to win, that gives you what? a few hp... and driving can certainly compensate for that!!!

Good Luck...

Raymond Blethen

[gran racing]

Because arguably it is the best series for Road Racing in the US with exception to possibly the Speed Touring and GT series.. and possibly the Rolex series. [/b]

Let’s say I agree with this statement (not that I’m biased). Should it be? If so, it seems to contradict the original philosophy of IT, no?

I do think there could be a happy medium between IT and what NASA is trying to accomplish. How cool is it that a person could run a car with a stock engine AND have a shot of winning their class? REAL grassroots racing! Maybe SCCA needs to add a Po' Man class? I don’t know.

Ray, I agree with you that having the best car isn’t everything. Too many people skimp out on developing their skills and think spending cash on a car is automatically make them fast.

[turboICE]

If someone is spending a lot of money and not running up front why should anyone care - its their disposed of wealth.

If someone is spending a lot of money up front, but the driving is still what is more important in getting there - then maybe they are getting there by their driving - again its their wealth that was disposed of.

Given a competitor of equal driving ability how much are you going to spend on car prep to make your driving ability provide a better result than your competitors?

I doubt that there is someplace that you can run up front that costs less in car prep than IT does or many would be there instead of here. Heck running upfront in a 125 shifter can run a lot more than running up front in ITA.

Any region where PT does become popular (as in IT car count entry levels) is going to cost a lot more to run up front than it does in IT, at least in the PTD and above ranks. Which will likely result in a quick reversal in the popularity.

As expensive as it seems to run up front in IT, where is an example of road racing where it costs less to run up front.

[wbp]

I think the good thing about racing Improved Touring is the choice it presents. Spend a lot of money to have a chance to win ITS, or spend a relative little and have a chance to win ITC. Gareth Rebstock has won the ARRC five times in ITC and he doesn't spend much money. Visa Silegren, who finished one foot off Gareth's bumper in 2005 doesn't (and will not) spend lots of money. Both do spend time working on their car. Both can drive. And you get to choose, with ITA and ITB in between in speed and money.

[Jake]

The point is: PTE, G, F, etc. To run in these classes you can't do much to your car. I had a quick look through the rules, and my MR2 w/o a header and a stock junkyard motor appears to fit nicely into PTF. So a chance to be competitive and even run at Nationals at Mid Ohio in a car that cost less to build than most IT racers put into their engines? Sounds pretty freaking good to me.

[RSTPerformance]

Jake-

Just my observation in the racing world would be that even in NASA if you want to win then you are still going to have to spend $900.00 a weekend on tires, have all brand new parts that work perfectly right down to every suspension bushing as well as new/rebuilt shocks/struts for every race, etc. etc. etc.

Oh and to rebuild a "stock," "junkyard" motor probably costs as much crazy money as a rebuilt fully prepped IT motor that I could never afford... If you don't believe me look at the cost of a new SM motor, that is stock from mazda, then rebuilt by "the best" tuner. Oh and don't forget no matter how much molney you have that tuner tunes 20 motors and will still give the "sponsored car" the best motor in the bunch.

and on side note... If NASA doesn't cost as much as described above to go win the national championship then I have to wonder is anyone is pushing the limits and to me if they are not then it probably wouldn't be worth as much to me to win thier national championship over a regional championship here in SCCA in the Northeast. (Worth meaning, the achievment I would get from the lower challenge in the NASA championship). This statement DOES NOT say that NASA is less of a challenge, I have not been to an event to see what they have brought to "the table," It is simply my opinion based on what everyone that supports NASA seems to say.

Raymond "unfortunatly everyone is richer than I am so no matter wher I play they have an advantage... Looks like I will have to use my talent behind the wheel to go kick some..." Blethen

[Knestis]

Harsh reality review: There is no way to regulate spending in racing except for a claim rule. I don't remember seeing that in the PT regs but NASA DOES use one in other classes, like the new Spec Focus, where the race organizers can buy your engine from you for a portion of what a new crate motor costs from Ford.

It might seem like affordable racing right now - because there's no competition driving up quality, YET - but the PT category could turn into a massively expensive proposition - assuming that enough people car and you want to run up front. A $50K PTF car is pretty much always going to have an edge over a $3000 one, driven with the same skill. And don't for a minute think that it's not possible to build one. It might be EASIER to spend big dough, in fact, since there are an infinite number of possible formulae that one could use to get there.

K

[Jake]

(I know I'm on the wrong board to try to make my point but here goes...)

1. Unlike IT, the PT rules inherently penalize you for spending money on your car.

2. If you do want to make your car go faster, the PT rules allow you cheaper ways to do it than IT. For instance, for much less than the price (and points) of a IT build, I can drop a set of cams in my car now.

3. PT attempts to class stock older cars competitively. Put some tires and brake pads on and you can race! Think of it this way, pretend that instead of building up your ITB cars, you could have raced them in ITC if you didn't do X,Y, or Z on them.

4. PT allows you to run what you want to build, not based on some arbitrary class structure. When was the last time you saw a Honda in a magazine with 14" wheels? And a rear wing puts you in SPO??!

While not an asset for people with cars optimized to the IT rules, PT will make amateur racing more more accessible, affordable, and attractive to people wanting to get into the sport. You don't have to convince me that people who spend more and, in general take winning more seriously, will still have an advantage - I know this. But this is a HUGE move in the right direction.

[Bill Miller]

PT reminds me of EMRA's ST category, except gone horribly wrong. EMRA somewhat embraces the concept of modifying your car beyond what SCCA IT allows (to the point of allowing aftermarket turbos, etc.). They use a concept of 'exceptions. Certain things count as exceptions, and depending on the number of exceptions you have, you can move up 1 or more classes. But it's no where near what NASA has done w/ the PT category. I think that once PT gets ramped up, and really gets going, people are going to find that it's a policing and enforcing nightmare. To me, they way they've set it up, it's probably actually going to encourage cheating. Way too many things are allowed (pretty much ANYTHING is allowed), and plenty of them are really easy to hide.

I think one of the reasons that the EMRA model works for them, is because they're a small, regional group, that's pretty laid back. If NASA is going to do this Nationally, and have people compete for National Championships, the ante is going to go way up.

[charrbq]

I occasionally crew for a couple of guys who have had some really notable success in HP over the last twenty some odd years, and they occasssionally crew for me in IT. They used to say that IT was just a bunch of guys running old, illegal, beat up cars, that enjoyed smashing into one another during a race. For a while, for the most part, at least in Texas, they were right.
Recently, I showed them the IT rule book, gave them a couple of brands of cars now kicking butt in each of the classes, and quoted some dollar figures for those cars. They changed their minds. They now don't understand why anyone would want to race in a class so full of confusion and expense.
I suppose that one of the reasons I don't go to GP is the need for constant maintenance on drive train to be competitive. Currently, the rules allow me to add the proper safety equipment to my ITC car to be able to run GP, just really slow.
I don't plan on it, I like the concept behind IT, but not what it's becoming. The limits on Production are more in accordance with my banker than some ambiquous, confusing rules that are attempting to plug the dyke after the flood or reinforce the levee where there's only a dry creek.

2 cents

[ShelbyRacer]

A coupla things :)

#1- when I suggested a rewrite about a year ago, I was crucified much more intensely than this... :dead_horse:

#2- the "cost" of SCCA races (entry fees) has little to do with ANYTHING related to National or the decisions made there. Entry fees are set by the prevailing costs, and sanction fees are a VERY small part of that.

#3- car prep cost CANNOT be controlled by rules. It is simply an application of basic economics. The more at stake, the more will be spent to achieve a goal. Prep costs will climb directly in proportion to participation levels. The only way to control costs is to make a truely "spec" car where every single part is sealed and threadlocked and wearable parts are distributed at the beginning of the weekend... The ECU rule is a PRIME expample of this- make it fit into a stock box to restrict things from going off the deep end, and now it costs twice as much to implement a mod that is essentially required to have a "fully-prepped" car.

And again I'll use the analogy of the rulebook being like a house with 50 additions. Sooner or later it comes to the point that you just need to tear down and start fresh.

Oh, and when they start taking volunteers for the rewrite, I'll be at the front of the line.

[Bill Miller]

I occasionally crew for a couple of guys who have had some really notable success in HP over the last twenty some odd years, and they occasssionally crew for me in IT. They used to say that IT was just a bunch of guys running old, illegal, beat up cars, that enjoyed smashing into one another during a race. For a while, for the most part, at least in Texas, they were right.
Recently, I showed them the IT rule book, gave them a couple of brands of cars now kicking butt in each of the classes, and quoted some dollar figures for those cars. They changed their minds. They now don't understand why anyone would want to race in a class so full of confusion and expense.
I suppose that one of the reasons I don't go to GP is the need for constant maintenance on drive train to be competitive. Currently, the rules allow me to add the proper safety equipment to my ITC car to be able to run GP, just really slow.
I don't plan on it, I like the concept behind IT, but not what it's becoming. The limits on Production are more in accordance with my banker than some ambiquous, confusing rules that are attempting to plug the dyke after the flood or reinforce the levee where there's only a dry creek.

2 cents
[/b]

This comming from a couple of Prod guys? That's pretty damn funny!! :lol:

Prod has become a category w/ 5 or 6 different prep levels. You've got full-prep cars, you've got some limited-prep EP cars, that have a different set of rules than most of the other limited-prep cars, you've got Caterhams, which are essentially spec cars, you've got full-prep cars w/ limited-prep engines, and I think there's a limited-prep car w/ a full-prep engine (one of the EP Miata configurations, IIRC). Yeah, IT is full of confusion and expense!

[turboICE]

Glad you responded Bill I was too busy scratching my head as to what other sanctioning body's production they were running to be able to respond - it just couldn't have been SCCA Production.

I still want one example of where it costs less to run up front in another class group than IT that is even half the participation and competition of IT.

Does it cost less to run in the front of SM than ITA? Does it cost less to run in front of H5 than ITB?

As much as the cost is complained about I still haven't seen a class with as much participation and good competition that costs less to run up front than IT.

[pgipson]

(I know I'm on the wrong board to try to make my point but here goes...)[/b]

Actually, the IT forum seems to be the only place one can discuss PT since anything that smells like criticism on the NASA forums gets smacked pretty quickly.


1. Unlike IT, the PT rules inherently penalize you for spending money on your car.[/b]

Only to the extent that you should go faster but could move up in class if you spend money. In IT you spend money to go faster and remain in a class. Don't really see the difference.


2. If you do want to make your car go faster, the PT rules allow you cheaper ways to do it than IT. For instance, for much less than the price (and points) of a IT build, I can drop a set of cams in my car now. [/b]

But unless you make other changes to optimize those new cams how much faster will you really go? That looks like a way to spend money and NOT go faster. As with any perf mod, it's the combination that counts. Just adding sticky tires will not make much difference without other changes to allow you to take advantage of the sticky.


3. PT attempts to class stock older cars competitively. Put some tires and brake pads on and you can race! Think of it this way, pretend that instead of building up your ITB cars, you could have raced them in ITC if you didn't do X,Y, or Z on them.[/b]

Attempts, but not proven to work. Again, tires and pads (plus a roll cage, seat, safety gear, etc) do not ensure you are able to race. There is a level of mods that pretty much must be done to make a car responsive enough to be fun to drive that hard. Unless you are starting with a Z06.


4. PT allows you to run what you want to build, not based on some arbitrary class structure. When was the last time you saw a Honda in a magazine with 14" wheels? And a rear wing puts you in SPO??![/b]

Granted, this is true. So for the one - off car that nobody else wants to get involved with (Subaru Legacy? Toyota Yaris???) PT is a way to get that car on track. But I fall back on the mantra, do you want to race THAT car -- or do you want to race?


While not an asset for people with cars optimized to the IT rules[/b]

I am not convinced yet that PT rules are a deteriment to all IT - type cars. A mildly modified car (like a Spec RX7) might do alright.


PT will make amateur racing more more accessible, affordable, and attractive[/b]

It's only more accessible if you assume that people racing the Subaru Legacy or Toyota Yaris (what the heck is that anyway?) would never race anything else. But nothing makes racing more affordable. It is only more affordable than some other from. And when people start putting roll cages in their street cars (bad idea) and writing them off on a concrete wall, then affordability takes on a whole new meaning. As to more attractive -- I don't understand the implications of attractiveness. Explain some more.


You don't have to convince me that people who spend more and, in general take winning more seriously, will still have an advantage[/b]

It's not so much taking the winning seriously, as it is taking the racing seriously. I've seen to many people make a transition from track days to racing only to realize they don't like being side by side 3 inches apart in a corner at 60 mph.


this is a HUGE move in the right direction.[/b]

It's a move in a direction, but only time will tell if this is the right direction. I'm not smart enough to predict the future, but it seems like fewer classes with more people racing each other would be more fun.

But more classes with lots of winners trophies could appeal to some segment of the motorsports population.

[Jake]

I don't have the patience to parse - so this may be hard to understand without reading the other posts...



1- Only to the extent that you should go faster but could move up in class if you spend money. In IT you spend money to go faster and remain in a class. Don't really see the difference.

2- But unless you make other changes to optimize those new cams how much faster will you really go? That looks like a way to spend money and NOT go faster. As with any perf mod, it's the combination that counts. J

3- There is a level of mods that pretty much must be done to make a car responsive enough to be fun to drive that hard. Unless you are starting with a Z06.

4- for the one - off car that nobody else wants to get involved[/b]

1 - Yes there is a difference. If a tube frame chassis was legal in ITA, it would make racing ITA competitively more expensive. Fortunately it bumps you out of IT.

2 - There are much cheaper and easier ways to make HP. You could easily do motor swaps for cheaper than typical IT builds. Add the same points, get the same hp, and have something more reliable.

3 - Showroom stock and Touring don't have many mods - and thats some very good racing. If you want to do the mods you can still do them.

4 - Not quite my point. 14"wheels and no wings allowed, but Motech and $4K shocks ok?! Let people mod the cars HOW they want - not just how they are in the rule book. Allowing people to race cars that they want to build, or to tart their cars up like Speed Touring cars does increase the attraction to spectators and competitors.

[turboICE]

2 - There are much cheaper and easier ways to make HP. You could easily do motor swaps for cheaper than typical IT builds. Add the same points, get the same hp, and have something more reliable.[/b]Not sure if I misunderstand what you are saying or if you misunderstand the PT rules.

If I read what you are saying right then you misunderstand the rules. Motor swaps do not get points. You take the motor numbers (OEM as from the manufacturer) and the chasis numbers and you get a hybrid vehicle that they will put in a base class for you. The idea being that no advantage would be gained from the swap you would be put in a class with the same competitive potential - then you start adding points for changes to the swapped motor from OEM or changes to the chasis from OEM.

For instance I don't think you are going to get a SR20DET swapped into a 240SX chasis on the track any cheaper or more reliabily than any other PTE** car. I actually would think that it would be cheaper and more reliable to get more HP by building the KA24 than swapping an OEM SR20DET and still be lower than PTE with 15 points.

However, if that is what you want to race, you can do it at least. I don't think that car would be permitted in any SCCA race, except maybe a very open and liberal ITE region.

[pgipson]

don't have the patience to parse [/b]

And I don't have the desire (or the need) to debate the issue. In the end; Speed Costs Money, How Fast Do You Want To Go? will still rule the day. Spend it on IT cars or PT cars, you're still spending it. My experience is that a 0.1 sec lap time car improvement costs proportionally the same no matter the class.

Oh, and tube frame cars are legal for PT.

[Jake]

And I don't have the desire (or the need) to debate the issue.[/b]

Ahh - that's something we both agree on. But I refuse to let at least one point die: :D

Going by the assumption that a good IT build will get you about 20% power increase and cost $4-5K, you would have to be on drugs (or not know anything about cars) to think that there aren't more cost effective ways to make that power. (engine swap, bolt on blower, port and polish, cams, etc. etc. etc.) Heck you could do a Jackson racing Supercharger on a Miata for less than the cost of a Sunbelt Motor. The philosophy of PT is to allow you to do whatever you like, and then find the appropriate class for the car after the mods. So in theory, if a motor swap puts reclasses your car up one class, an IT build with equiv hp to the motor swap should "point" you up one class as well. Only difference is the motor swap is cheaper and more reliable.

[Catch22]

Just a few thoughts...

- I agree. I'd love to see the current ITAC clean up the IT rules. Not really change anything, just get rid of things like this.

- 88-91 CRX and Civic Si models came without radios... FYI. I bought one that way brand new in 1991.

- As mentioned on the previous page... NASA?
Please. If SCCA rule writing and procedure frustrates and confuses you its a good idea to stay FAR away from NASA. Look closely at the supps for their upcoming enduro at VIR and you'll see that they are running a sprint within an enduro. Thats right, 30 minutes into the enduro a checkered flag will wave for *some* of the cars on the track. They will then be on a cool down while enduro entrants are still racing.
Of course, it also says in the supps, basically "don't crash into each other during the sprint checkered."
I'm of the opinion that if you feel you need to write "don't crash into each other" in the supps... Well...

- NASA's claim rules???
There is a guy in Atlanta that would love to talk to you about NASA's engine claim rule in SM. He tried to use it last summer and was told there wasn't time for that. When he pressed the issue he was kicked out of the event and had his membership revoked.
The entire story is in the Atlanta Region SCCA's newsletter for December (I think, maybe January).

So, at the end of the day, IT is like the good old US of A.
It might not be perfect, but there really isn't anywhere else I want to move to.

Kirk, buddy, stop stressing about the rules and build to the intent (which is typically pretty obvious). Race your car, win some trophies, and have a beer.
Anybody that would protest because speaker wires have been removed needs to be kicked square in the nuts anyway. JMVHO.

[lateapex911]

The thing about the PT category that nobody has mentioned is that it's really a nightmare from a legality point of view. It seems like the changes can result in a myriad of combinations that can yield a plethora of performance levels...all for one car! You think it's tough to tell when a guy in IT is cheating?? HA! You will NEVER be able to make even a WAG in PT! The same car could be in how many different classes when the points add up?? The onus is on the competitor to list completely what is, and what isn't in his or her car. It seems too easy to have the system fooled.

It also turns the entire concept into a bit of an excel spreadsheet effort. I mean, how realistic are the "points adders"? Is a cam on car A going to have the same performance increase as a cam on car B? Doubt it...at least not for every car across the board. But it carries the same "points'. So it behooves the future competitor to read the rules very carefully and do some very careful analysis before choosing a car.

It does create an easy intro for guys running Drivers ed events who haven't given much thought to a future in racing....it puts them in a class in a fair manner. That is a powerful tool for the club.

[Knestis]

... Anybody that would protest because speaker wires have been removed needs to be kicked square in the nuts (http://www.jahozafat.com/cgi-bin/spwavs.cgi?Episode_112_Mecha_Streisand=112_pipnuts .wav) anyway. JMVHO.[/b]

Now THERE'S a way to work out differences on these issues...

K

[Matt Rowe]

It also turns the entire concept into a bit of an excel spreadsheet effort. I mean, how realistic are the "points adders"? Is a cam on car A going to have the same performance increase as a cam on car B? Doubt it...at least not for every car across the board. But it carries the same "points'. So it behooves the future competitor to read the rules very carefully and do some very careful analysis before choosing a car.
[/b]
If the series gets enough interest to start attracting lots of competition how much money do you think people will sink into coming up with the perfect combination of parts to get in just the right class. Think about it this way, right now in IT the decision is what spring/shock combo to use. For PT the decision will be IF non-stock springs/shocks should be used and then if so what parts. The same is true of EVERY possible change. The money to develop and test all of those combinations would exceed anything IT can think of.

It sounds like a way to get people on track in whatever they want. But by now means does it sounds like a good system to pit the best aganst the best and decide a national championship. And I'd hate to be the one administering this or policing the system. :119:

[RacerBill]

OK, I can kind of see pros and cons of each classing system - IT and PT. IMHO, I think PT is a neat way to let everyone do what they want to their cars. However, I think it could be a nightmare to police. It kind of reminds me of the old SCCA 'Modified' classes 35 - 40 years ago (what evolved into Sports Racers). I have pictures of Austin Healeys with 289 Fords stuffed in them (how many PT points do I get for that mod? :o ).

I am not saying that either philosophy is good or bad. One has to look at both systems, measure their own priorities, make a decision, and commit to having a good time based on their decision. Some race horses by climbing right up their backs, others by riding in a little wagon!

[turboICE]

(how many PT points do I get for that mod? :o )
[/b]Probably none, classed first as a swap then add points from there.

[gran racing]

The way I see it, there are some good things about IT that PT lacks and vice-versa. Both could use improvements.

People have made statements that costs can never be controlled in racing and IT is as good as it gets. Fine, you may be content with how things are and do not have interest in making racing less expensive, but others do (myself included). If you do have interest making racing less expensive but still say IT in its current form is the solution, might you be acting a bit lazy?

While there are very few options to prevent people from dumping goobs of money into their racing efforts, there are ways to contain the benefit received from doing so. For example, in a class that only allows stock engines. Yes, a person could go through the parts bin and find the best “stock” part available but when it comes down to it, the difference in HP is not terribly significant. Now take IT where it could be anything from a stock engine to a decent engine build to the cream of the crop engine build. The HP at the wheel results may look more like: 112 HP w/ stock motor, 138 HP decent build, and 155 HP cream of the crop build. There is a much large incentive to spend cash in this scenario.

When looking at SCCA’s various classes, Show Room Stock’s general set of rules seems very interesting. Maybe there is a place for a similar class with older (more affordable) SS cars? I also find it interesting that many good Show Room Stock cars end up dead (not a competitive place in IT for them to run) after their tenure expires in that class. Why not form classes where these older SS cars run in the same exact form? Heck, I don’t even care if they call it over the hill, beat up junky old Show Room A, B, and C classes. It would provide a place for these cars to have a second life, make the donor car much less expensive, reduce the incentive to spend $40K on a car, etcetera.

[Catch22]

While there are very few options to prevent people from dumping goobs of money into their racing efforts, there are ways to contain the benefit received from doing so. For example, in a class that only allows stock engines. Yes, a person could go through the parts bin and find the best “stock” part available but when it comes down to it, the difference in HP is not terribly significant. Now take IT where it could be anything from a stock engine to a decent engine build to the cream of the crop engine build. The HP at the wheel results may look more like: 112 HP w/ stock motor, 138 HP decent build, and 155 HP cream of the crop build. There is a much large incentive to spend cash in this scenario.

[/b]

I promise you that the top SS guys are spending as much or more on their motors than the IT guys. Same goes for SM.

Be careful what you wish for.

[turboICE]

Stock bin blueprinting is exceedingly expensive and the difference doesn't need to be terribly significant - at the end of 30 or so miles all it takes is 0.001 second to beat someone else. If it wasn't sufficiently significant to matter no one would do it and they wouldn't all be the ones on the podium - it matters enough that people pay for it when it is worth it to them.

If the racing becomes worthwhile (i.e. large competitive field) it doesn't matter what you do - people will find a way to spend money in it and they will find a way to make that spend matter.

Outside of bracket racing, the only place I have ever seen successfully make racing inexpensive and cost the same for everyone participating is in a video arcade.

[gran racing]

I never said people are not spending mucho bucks - what I said is the incentive is not as high.

What is the HP difference between a factory engine from Mazda (since you said SM) vs. one built otherwise? I know there is a larger HP gap between a low cost IT engine and a fully developed IT engine.


Stock bin blueprinting is exceedingly expensive and the difference doesn't need to be terribly significant - at the end of 30 or so miles all it takes is 0.001 second to beat someone else.[/b]

So what happens with a 15 plus HP difference at the wheels? (I realize this is a very low / conservative number.)

Guess you are right, absolutely nothing can be done to reduce the cost of racing and we'll just have to accept things as they are. :rolleyes:

[turboICE]

The incentive apparently is even higher in SM as it has grown, to achieve less of a performance benefit and pay more for it requires some sort of increased incentive, at least in a rational economic environment. (Not that racing is.)

It is enough in SM to matter and the incentive is plenty high based on how much they are paying to do it. Whether its 2 or 10 HP people are doing it at high cost, so even with a smaller performance gap the incentive cost wise is actually higher than the incentive in IT, based on actual activities of the participants. If the incentive in IT to spend is so high why aren't there more fully prepared IT cars? The incentive can't be that great, as economically rational participants are choosing not to prepare more fully. If the incentive to do so were greater more would do it.

The gap in IT also should be only 2-10 hp, since the intent of any classing in a rule set is that the car be fully prepared - the person deciding to fully prepare their car is doing the right thing for the class. If anything hurts the class it is the people not fully preparing their cars AND then complaining about those that do. A person chooses each year to stay in IT knowing full well that they either fully prepare and compete or don't fully prepare and go out and have fun. Expecting anyone in any form of racing not to fully prepare and spend as much as they desire to do it is an unreasonable expectation. If it the class is worth racing in someone is going to spend the money doing it.

Even in PT the intent is that whatever class you land in you have fully prepared to compete in that class - but with the same car you can choose which level of fully prepared you want to undergo from the equivalent of less than SS to greater than Production.

[Jake]

If anything hurts the class it is the people not fully preparing their cars and then complaining about those that do.[/b]

I just wanted to formally apologize to everyone for hurting ITA by not building up my car to the limit of the rules. I mistakenly thought that IT was the place for low-cost amateur racing, but I must admit that I was completely wrong about that. Again, sorry all. I am informing the wife tonight that we can't afford to have another kid becuase I need to install the Motech, start getting custom gears made, and get that car on a rotisserie! :P

[Catch22]

I just wanted to formally apologize to everyone for hurting ITA by not building up my car to the limit of the rules. I mistakenly thought that IT was the place for low-cost amateur racing, but I must admit that I was completely wrong about that. Again, sorry all. I am informing the wife tonight that we can't afford to have another kid becuase I need to install the Motech, start getting custom gears made, and get that car on a rotisserie! :P
[/b]

In all serious, I see what he is trying to say.

In order to keep balance you MUST look at what can be done, not what some or even most people are actually doing.
I imagine a bunch of BMW ITS efforts are going to get killed by the SIR. Before they could compete without having to do a balls-out effort, now they won't be able to.

In short, if your ITA car is a $5000 beater, you can't complain about the guy in the $30000 Integra whipping your ass for you. If you spent $30000 on your car, maybe you'd be right up there with him.
Assuming everyone is legal... Of course.

[turboICE]

OMG this is just ridiculous - is it just that my composition is really lousy or does no one on the internet have any reading comprehension whatsoever. I swear more people quote you, then respond to the quote in such a manner as to never have comprehended what they were responding to.

Where did I ever say that "not building (your) car to the limit of the rules." hurt ITA ? ? ?

Reread the very words you quoted there is a conjunction in there that results in two conditions to exist at the same time in order for the result I stated to occur. And the criticism has nothing to do with living a life, making choices or having constraints all of which I have and hence do not have a fully prepared car either. The criticism to make it more explicitly clear than I did the first time is to not fully prepare AND then criticize those that do which I think does hurt IT.

Why bother having a conversation with another person if you don't even listen to what they are saying and respond by what you think or want them to have been saying. Might as well just type a monologue.

And for the record the intent states the following:


This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible[/b]

No where does it say that preparing them or racing them will be inexpensive only that the car will be.

Jake at some point it is highly likely we will meet each other with SCCA or NASA so don't take it personally it is the culmination that no one on the internet understands what they are responding to before they respond. I try to make sure I take the time to understand what I am responding to before I respond (and if I don't then cram it down my throat, because I will have been wrong myself) but I do expect others to make the same effort I guess.

[gran racing]

:mad1: Once again from the 2006 GCR (and first page of this thread):

“Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition.”


In short, if your ITA car is a $5000 beater, you can't complain about the guy in the $30000 Integra whipping your ass for you. If you spent $30000 on your car, maybe you'd be right up there with him.[/b]

Correct - there is no reason to complain, but that is not the point here. The point is that NASA is attempting (wheither you like it or not) to try something new. People mentioned that in other classes (i.e. Showroom Stock) tons of money are being spent. Yes, there is extra HP to be made but I'd take a shot that by working on my driving using inexpensive techniques, I could hopefully compensate for the relative small HP differences gained. Not saying that I could, but at least it would be within reach for me.

Listen, right now I'm cool with running in IT. I have worked hard on my driving skills (still have much to improve though!), and have a car that gives me a shot at being up front if I work hard enough. That's now. Just a couple years ago I absolutely would have loved to participate in a class where it didn't require a ton of money to be competitive. (Actually, that's still the case now.) Here's my thing - anything that can be done to make racing more affordable and thus accessible to more people, I see as a very good thing. This isn't about IT being a big bad evil class. I still do not think it is such a horrible idea for people to brainstorm ideas that can make racing less expensive even if you choose not to race in that class.

Scott - watch what I wish for with Olde Show Room Stock classes? Hope you didn't think I meant a class to replace IT. I don't think its such a bad idea.


Why bother having a conversation with another person if you don't even listen to what they are saying and respond by what you think or want them to have been saying.[/b]

Now that sounds like something my wife would tell me. :)

[gsbaker]

...I swear more people quote you, then respond to the quote in such a manner as to never have comprehended what they were responding to...[/b]I have no idea what this thread is about, but I love that observation, ICE. Thanks.

[gran racing]

Ed, you mentioned costs associated with racing. Just curious, what region do you typically race in?

Time to pick on Ray -
Just my observation in the racing world would be that even in NASA if you want to win then you are still going to have to spend $900.00 a weekend on tires[/b] You're kidding, right? When did your tire budget sky rocket like this?

[turboICE]

Now that sounds like something my wife would tell me. :)
[/b]
Ever think the significant others in our lives might have a point when it is confirmed elsewhere? :P

I know she never believes me until I find two other people to tell her too!

Living in NNJR but haven't raced with them yet. I have run with WDCR and NER with SCCA and with Mid-Atlantic and NE with NASA.

[RSTPerformance]

Dave-

I think that you can justify IT in general being a relatively inexpensive class to run...

In my mind...

ITC- cheep very cheep, and you can be compete and win on a very low budget.
ITB- Inexpensive, you can win (and you and I have proved it) on a reasonable budget, but more money does make it easier to win.
ITA- Reasonably priced to run, lots of cars to compete with and have fun, very expensive to outright win though.
ITS- Expensive as compaired to other "IT" cars and low/reasonably budgeted people, however the cost as compaired to other race cars with similar speeds, performance levels, and lap times this class really is very inexpensive.
IT?- (The class for the cars that are to fast for ITS that everyone always talks about... Expensive, but a great place for the big budget want to have fun people.

That's just my look at the IT structure...

As for your idea on allowing Showroom Stock to allow "old" cars to run... I absolutely agree, I hate the date rule, I think it is lame, and should be opened up... I do think though that could cause issues with people running a 1980 rabbit who can't get parts... my thought though would be once you can't get parts, your car is no longer eligable (IE: better build a junkyard with parts, or update to a newer car)... The "catch22" (no reference to posters name) of that would be that SCCA would need to be strict on not making exceptions and people would need to realize that thier cars would NOT be compeditive as they grow older, thus is does not solve your issue with an inexpensive class where you can compete to win. :dead_horse:

Raymond...

[turboICE]

Doesn't SS already do exactly that with the 10 year eligibility and 5 year positive competitive adjustment cutoff?

I'll be curious to see how many complain how much it costs to race in "IT?"

Pretty accurate description of the cost progression. And on my budget I probably should have gone ITB in order to field a better prepared car.

[RSTPerformance]

Ed, you mentioned costs associated with racing. Just curious, what region do you typically race in?

Time to pick on Ray - You're kidding, right? When did your tire budget sky rocket like this?
[/b]


When we went to the ARRC and qualified pole/off pole (we wont talk about the race) the tire budget was much higher than that... Thankfully Hoosier helped us out a lot.

We don't spend that much when racing at NARRC races, but are we really the absolute car to beat??? I don't think so, in the Northeast races we run on scraps, however, if we want to win agains Scott Carlson or Derek Lugar we will have to up the tire budget a bit...

Our cars are also unique in the fact that we don't race on all four tires, remember our engine is infront of our front tires!!! At Lime Rock we really only race on the left front tire... lol so our budget is $200 or so plus some used tires, however other cars such as an SM race on all four!!!

Raymond

[Jake]

.....my composition is really lousy ....I swear ....I stated ....the criticism has ....to do with living a life....

And for the record the intent states the following:
.....preparing them or racing them will be inexpensive ....

Jake at some point .... we will meet each other with SCCA or NASA so .... take it personally ...
[/b]


Ed - I took your post out of context only because I wanted to make a joke - not about your point, but out of an unfortunate order of words. Honestly, I was just being silly. There's nothing wrong with my comprehension or your composition. Another problem with the internet is it is imposible to distinguish text made in anger or in jest. I hope we do meet in NASA and/or SCCA, and when we do I owe you a beer - make it two!

[turboICE]

:OLA:

Fair enough I'll make mine a jack and ginger though.

:birra:

You think the internet is bad - most find my humor so dry that they don't know when I am joking face to face.

[Catch22]

You can spend as much or as little in IT as you want. Really.
I dropped alot of cash (in ITC terms) actually building my old car, but the result was a car that was super easy on equipment and could win on any given day.

Tire budget - One per weekend, including running enduros.
Front brake pads - 2 sets a year
Rear shoes - One set every 2 years
Front hubs - One set a year

etc....

But it wasn't a "cool" car. 90 world blistering HP and the worlds most widely spaced 2-3 upshift.

You can race "cheap" (in racing terms) and win, but you have to surrender some cool points.

So... $5000 to $7500 can get you an ARRC win in ITC... Maybe.
But that AIN'T EVER gonna happen in ITA. Not unless the first dozen or more cars all crash or break.

So if you wanna race cheap and be competitive, pick the right car. But DON'T pick ITS or ITA and then complain that you are being outspent (note: not singling out anyone in particular, I'm just sick of guys standing in front of their ITS BMWs complaining about what they have to spend on tires... SHUT UP!!!) :cavallo:

And this NASA PT thing???
Good luck with that. I see about a dozen holes in it. But they won't matter until if/when the classes get popular. Then there will be a big mess. Especially at something like a national championship.

And just for the heck of it, I figured up what I spend to build and operate my old ITC car vs. what it would cost me to build and competitively operate that "old" Neon ACR in the driveway for SSC.

The ITC car is cheaper by my math. Build costs are pretty close (once you factor in rebuilding the motor and shocks and tranny in that 150K mile Neon it isn't much different than building a good ITB/C car) but the C car murders the Neon on consumables, especially tires.

There are alot of "myths" in club racing. That Showroom Stock is "cheap" ranks almost as high as spec Toyos saving money.

FWIW

[lateapex911]

I think PT can be a cheap place to race, if nobody shows up. By that I mean, if nobody shows up with a car prepped to the max for the class it is in. No matter what, each level can be optimized...and the "stock" engine is a classic example......some "stock" engines are more "stock" than others, and when two talented drivers go at it, in similar cars, the one with a few more hp will hold the advantage. It might be a minor one, and it might be expensive, but, just like an auction, it takes two to tango. And if they both want it bad enough, the tango gets pricey.

[gran racing]

Ever think the significant others in our lives might have a point when it is confirmed elsewhere?[/b]

Hey! But you were targeting Jake with that comment. Now see what you've done Jake - now you owe me a LRP pulled pork sandwich and two beers. :birra:

With the SS thing - I wasn't saying keep these older cars running with the newer SS cars rather create new classes for them. I understand there are many holes in this idea too; more of a brainstorming idea.

The question is if there is a way to structure a racing category that does not significantly reward tons of money being spent on their cars? Essentially a place where the return on investment is relatively small.

Are there any clubs elsewhere (Europe?) that people have heard work well to accomplish this?

[Bill Miller]

Hey! But you were targeting Jake with that comment. No see what you've done Jake - now you owe me a LRP pulled pork sandwich and two beers. :birra:

[/b]


Geez Dave, why don't you just ask him to pay your entry fee!!! :119:

[wbp]

As to the question of: Is there a formula for racing where money isn't a big factor:
Perhaps Pinewood Derby.

[JamesB]

Geez Dave, why don't you just ask him to pay your entry fee!!! :119:
[/b]

I guess food is really that expensive at LRP?

[944-spec#94]

Guys the biggest advantage PT has over IT is that there is a place for just about any car and any modification. In the NASA world there are two things different from SCCA.

Those are HPDE and Time Trials. 95% of folks start in HPDE. They start with street cars in stock form. Over time if they enjoy the driving they begin to mod the car to make it more fun and safer. After a few years they can be very good DE drivers and rather fast. Naturally they will want to take their time of driving with other DE folks and move on. They have Time Trials. Time trail rules are very similar to PT rules. Really that kind of rule set is perfect for HPDE cars. Each car will have varying mods and 95% of drivers don't want to make major changes just to be legel to do time trials. So the rules are such that as long as the car is safe I can time trial or race somewhere. In time folks can adjust their cars for a particular class, but without the PT classing what does someone with a fun DE/track car go if he wants to race? He probably CAN'T race in SCCA because the car will not be legal for most classes. At best he can run ITE where the car probably won't even be CLOSE to anything else.

At least with PT he can race the car in place where there will be a fair chance that he could be on pace. Certainly winning depends on driver skill and car prep, there is vast difference between being competitive and being a rolling road block.

Seriously I can't tell you how many folks I run into at NASA HPDE events that would love to race, but can't find the right place. They have safe near race prepped DE cars that they have built and run for years. They don't race however since their car is not legal for the class where it speed would have it run.

The bottomline is NASA no longer has a "Mirror class" of IT. They have created something new with the intent of capturing new racers or those who feel left out by most of the other classes. Have an odd ball car or odd ball prep and you can run in PT. Have a car prepped to the limit for IT and you should probalby stay there as PT is not IT.

Now as for the expense. No form of racing is "cheap". It does seem to me that one can build a race car and over time evolve it from a slower cheaper prep level to a very high expensive prep level and have its class move up along the way running with cars in its class of a similar speed.

Right now an IT car could be in 3 PT classes. A "safety legal" bare bone IT car would probably run in its base class. A moderate prep car would probably run in one class up. A full tilt IT prep car would run two classes up. Seems like a very nice model for someone wanting to slowly build a car and race it. In IT they are stuck in there class getting runover by the full tilt cars. IN PT they woudl be among slower cars so at least the speed differece would not be as great.

Hey PT is not for everyone. I will not run PT. Why? I have 944 spec that fits my goals and needs perfectly. However without 944 spec I would probably run PT vs IT with my 944 becuase the prep level I run now I cannot really exceed. So in ITS even with the weight break I would get creamed due my "stock junkyard" motor. In PT is only move up one class with my current prep so I would not need to build a motor to be competitive.

[Catch22]

Well, Dave... I hear what you are saying, but Jake's post above pretty much answers it.

There really is no way to control costs in racing besides claim rules, and claim rules are almost impossible to pull off logistically in a club our size. Imagine 250 entrants at the ARRC and 50 of them decide to use the claim rule. How in the world would you pull that off?
Well, you couldn't. And before you write a rule, you need to make sure you can logistically and reasonably make it happen. As I mentioned earlier, NASA has a SM engine claim rule that looks GREAT on paper, but the only person I've heard of that actually tried to use it got kicked out of the event. Thats good stuff right there.

So a claim rule doesn't work. How about very restrictive rules...

OK.

Lets look at the possibility of a bone stock class for cars 7 years or older. ZERO modifications allowed other than tires and brake pads...
Now, I want to win the ARRC in this new class in the Neon ACR sitting in my driveway...
- Complete motor rebuild barely inside factory spec (the "perfect" parts bin motor).
- Tranny rebuild
- New Konis
- New springs/swaybars
- All new OE bushings
etc...

Get my point? What am I doing here that is much different than building an IT car? Well, not much. And the lack of suspension adjustment, extra weight, and extra body roll means I'm eating up tires and brake pads faster than I would on an ITB/C car.
And if I do all of this, I become Mr. Jones. And if you want to keep up with the Joneses, you have to do it to.

Spec Classes?
Please. Look at SM and SRF. The tighter the rules in a spec class the more expensive things become. People are making a killing selling "perfect" Miata motors for 2 to 3 times as much as what a good Honda IT motor costs.

This NASA PT thing is no better. As soon as someone decides to be Mr. Jones... Let the spending begin.
There really is no way to get away from it, other than just deciding that you don't care if you are competitive. The reason I chose ITC was because at that time it was the only place I could reasonably afford to be a consistent front runner.
Thats about the best you can do. Look at your budget and then pick a class. Don't do it the other way around (which is wayyyyy too common).

[jwalter]

- NASA's claim rules???
There is a guy in Atlanta that would love to talk to you about NASA's engine claim rule in SM. He tried to use it last summer and was told there wasn't time for that. When he pressed the issue he was kicked out of the event and had his membership revoked.
The entire story is in the Atlanta Region SCCA's newsletter for December (I think, maybe January).
[/b]

Except this is totally untrue.
He was kicked out of NASA for belligerant behavior, interfering with an official during an emergency and a number of other reasons I won't mention. This was not an isolated incident this person was involved in as well, just the last straw.

The fact that he wanted to claim someone's motor is beside the fact.

Anyway, a competitor can't claim another's engine. The rules state that the director/NASA Official is the only one that can claim a motor, and only after reasonable evidence. So a fellow competitor can suggest an engine claim be made, but it is up to the director.

I can guarantee the car in question was not "walking away" from the pack. Actually, if anything, was on even par with the protestor's car.

Also, he wasn't told that there wasn't time for that, he was asked to wait until the current incident on track was resolved before filing a protest. After he (the protestor) was still yelling (heard all the way down the pit) he was told to leave the grid. Oh yeah, many impartial witnesses can attest to exactly what happened.

Sorry, I know this is kind of a hijack, but I can't stand it when lies get propagated as truth.

To bring it a bit back on topic :)
PT will be a great class for beginners to enter road racing. I guess we'll see if PT can grow to be a competitive classing system.
Maybe someday, somewill with try to build a PTA or PTB, etc car, but I think the main goal is bringing racer's into the fold

[Andy Bettencourt]

The way I look at this is simple:

NASA has done a great job carving out a niche in a very 'run-what-you-brung' kind of format. Very much like the ST/SM classes in SCCA Solo. A market wasn't being serviced, they addressed it , and now those Solo classes continue to grow while Prepeard and Mod classes shrink.

PT seems like the easiest way to look out your window, see the car in your driveway, and race it.

The problem I see is that with an infinate amount of combinations in all the classs, you will never have a serious series. There will always be a better combination emerging and the possibility for cheating is huge because you have to know the prep level of each individual car instead of the class itself. Each car is not held to one standard, it is held to it's own. You almost have to have a prep sheet on each car at the beginning of every event to even understand what you are competing against. You think it's hard to protest in SCCA?

As far as a $7K car in ITC winning the ARRC - no way. Drop me some prices for the following:
Donor
Cage
2 sets of wheels
Sunbelt Motor
Limted slip/final drive
Shocks/Suspension
Safety equipment, etc, etc.

You can spend $20K+ on ANY car in ANY class. It's just how far you want to go. Most of the top cars are almost 'resto-racers'. You don't HAVE to spend it, but some do.

Showroom stock motors go for $5K. Spec Miata motors go for $6K+. When you have a spec class, people are willing to spend the money to get the extra 3hp that in IT or PT doesn't matter (nearly as much).

I still think there is room for both groups to co-exist. SCCA has to do a better job in some areas and NASA has to do a better job in some.

AB

[R2 Racing]

You know what I like about you Scott? It's that you take the time to write out stuff like that so I don't have to. :P

I've built a '92 Civic for ITC (winter 02-03) and a '92 Integra for ITA (winter 03-04). I paid the exact same amount for each chassis - $1300 for a base model, 130K'ish miles, very minimal rust, all in all in pretty good shape. Each car I recouped about the same amount from selling of their good interiors and other parts I didn't need for the race car. Each car received the exact same engine build up resulting in pretty similar costs to do so. Both cars received almost the exact same suspension except a shorten and revalve and an aftermarket rear sway bar for the Integra. Both cars received the same ECU tuning and dyno time. Both cars received pretty much the exact same cage. Same OPM LSD'd. Seat, steering wheel, harness, window net, fire system, kill switch, transponder - all exactly the same.

In the end, my ITA car only cost about $2000-2500 more to build than my ITC car. It came from a couple of places:
The much more expensive final drive - custom made versus dropping an Si gear into the ITC car.
The extra work on the Koni's.
The more elaborate (and expensive) header I chose.
Head work due to DOHC vs. SOHC.

That's about it. The cars and the builds they recieved are very similar. However, the operating costs are indeed higher on the Integra. Just because of it's extra weight, speed, and displacement it definately goes through tires, brakes, and gas quicker than the Civic. I also seem to have to do wheel bearings and hubs a little more often - again, more weight, more speed. I'd say in all that the Integra's consumables costs are only somewhere around 50% more than the Civic's, at most.

So I just don't know about saying that ITA is so much more expensive to run than ITB or ITC. In consumables, some. In initial builds, again, some. But certainly not as much as some of you guys are making it out to be.

[Matt Rowe]

Guys the biggest advantage PT has over IT is that there is a place for just about any car and any modification. In the NASA world there are two things different from SCCA.

Those are HPDE and Time Trials. [/b]

You know, SCCA has those two things also. Yes the more user friendly PDX program is new but the Time Trials (Formerly Solo I, Solo Trials) programs have been around for decades. And we have them for the same reason of providing a place for people to get started at a track (or move on from Solo II). So please keep that in mind before giving the impression that SCCA doesn't have a place for new racers or the guy that wants to take his modified daily driver out on track and start learning.

Basically I would say the PT class seems like the road racing version of the tv show "Pinks." It's a more controlled environment for street racers to show up with a car built to what they want. In the tv show the drivers neogtiate what rules they are going to use and who gets what kind of head start. In PT the drivers get to negotiate what mods they have and what class that puts them in. In the end the show is just that, entertainment but not may the best driver win. PT seems to be similar in that it will get you out on track and racing wheel to wheel, but don't expect the best driver to be the one taking the checker.

[charrbq]

Kevin, you paid $1300 for an ITC Honda...jees, you got hosed! I bought mine for only $200...straight, and with only a broken rear window!
I will say that if it cost you not that much more to build your Integra to the state that you have it than it did your Civic, then you did this one cheap, or the other one expensive. My pricing of parts (yes, I once considered the class change) came in a lot higher than that. Even still, the cost of running ITC and ITA is way greater in the area of consumables. The problem with ITC is finding competition. When I ran ITA in the the old Si, there were always A cars and there still are. But B and C are getting rare as hen's teeth. There's still a good race out there to be found, but I have to drive 10 to 14 hrs to find it.
There's where my greatest expense in racing lies...gas and wear and tear on the tow vehicle to go racing a competitive field.
Where was it you wanted me to drive 18 hrs to race?...Mid- something or another?

[Catch22]

Sorry Andy, I didn't mean that most of us could build an ITC car that could win the ARRC for $7000, I meant that you could buy one. I think Rebstock's car is for sale for about that price right now. Will Perry recently sold one of his cars for $5000.
I think the ITB Accord that won last years ARRC is for sale for $8500.

The ITA CRX that won two years ago is for sale too, but that price jumps all the way up to $13500.
The infamous Orange BMW... That can be yours for the low low price of $50000 (or... About 8 ITC cars).

If you did EVERYTHING yourself including machine work and fabrication you could build a front running B/C car for $7000ish, but you'd need alot of talent, time, and equipment to do it. Its not realistic for 99% of us.

As for the NASA post above... You assume other folks weren't there too.
Enough of that. Lets move on.

[RSTPerformance]

Dave-

Just a comment on the adding of additional SS classes for older SS cars... I don't like the idea of having a million different classes just so every one can win. I think that the progression from SS, to IT, to Production, to GT is great. I would however agree that every year IT seems to become more and more like production, wich at the same time isn't that bad as it makes an easier stepping stone into Nationals.


Raymond

[charrbq]

Scott, it's not that I agree with everything you write...who'd need that, then there would be two Scotts...it's that you write it with such passion.! Glad I'm your friend and not someone with "berg" in my name. :D

[R2 Racing]

Kevin, you paid $1300 for an ITC Honda...jees, you got hosed! I bought mine for only $200...straight, and with only a broken rear window![/b]
Well, those '92 Civic CX hatchbacks are pretty highly sought after by the ricer crowd. That of course made the car a little more expensive - plus it was in damn near perfect condition. Doesn't matter much though since I was able to sell enough off of it to recoup about 80% of the original purchase cost.



I will say that if it cost you not that much more to build your Integra to the state that you have it than it did your Civic, then you did this one cheap, or the other one expensive. My pricing of parts (yes, I once considered the class change) came in a lot higher than that. Even still, the cost of running ITC and ITA is way greater in the area of consumables.[/b]
I don't want to give out exact figures or anything, but I'd say both of the cars were built "cheap". That's a relative term though since my Dad and I do 99% of our own work. That extra 1% going to Serra installing the FD in my Integra (thanks, Anthony!) and my machinest work (who's a sponsor of mine, anyways). But seriously, what do you have to put into an ITA '92 Integra that you wouldn't put into an ITC '92 Civic? The cars themselves are very similar, the suppliers you get the parts from are the same, and the prices for the parts are very similar too. Really, the only extra expenses I incured in building my A car over my C car is what I listed, all the rest of the parts were pretty much equally put into both cars.


The problem with ITC is finding competition. When I ran ITA in the the old Si, there were always A cars and there still are. But B and C are getting rare as hen's teeth. There's still a good race out there to be found, but I have to drive 10 to 14 hrs to find it.
There's where my greatest expense in racing lies...gas and wear and tear on the tow vehicle to go racing a competitive field.
Where was it you wanted me to drive 18 hrs to race?...Mid- something or another?
[/b]
That's the reason right there for why the additional build cost and the higher "upkeep" cost made it worth it. Pretty much guaranteed at least 10 ITA cars anywhere you go and sometimes will see up around 30. Oh yea, and hitting the gas and having your car throw you back in your seat is pretty sweet too! :023:

I believe it was "Mid-Ohio". ;)

[charrbq]

I'll agree with the thrown seat deal. Evan let me co drive with him at the ARRC enduro in '04. (Bad idea on his part, and I let my ego overload my a-hole, but I digress). The comparison of cornering approach (don't lift) in the C car to the A was really un-nerving, but the thrust on the straights was made me want to go for more than another gear :unsure: Last time I felt that much power in a race car was when I was young, stupid, and drove and Atlantic. Only the stupid remains :P

[wbp]

Andy, while I agree it is possible to spend $20k on any race car, it is fact that the fellows finishing up front at the ARRC in 84/87 ITC Hondas are not. There are 7 ITC Hondas in our small SCCA Region, and I was involved enough in each to know about what was spent. These cars represent THREE first place ARRC ITC finishes, and about 10 podium finishes there. From your list, most recent builds of front runners:

Donor Car: from $100 to big spender at $500
Cage: DIY at $325 for material, swap used parts for bending (would be $1250 for custom shop built)
Two sets wheels: Actually three sets at $100 per set at junkyard (off VW)
Sunbelt Motor: Front runners are using Basement Built, with Sunbelt head. Pistons $159 per set.
Limited Slip/Final drive: Phantom Grip at $259 and SI 4.40 final at <$100 or 4.93 at <$1500
Shocks/Suspension: Tokicos at $470 per set, other $260 including Basement Built strut mounts.
Safety Equipment; See Tim at SafeQuip for about $860.
Add a set of Hoosiers to your list and it comes to about the $7000 mark. Obviously, the mechanically inept would have to spend more.

But the last of the seven ITC cars in our Region took the easy way. He bought a well built ITC Honda for $3075. It just passed it&#39;s Annual, and is a former champion (not ARRC). And I sold my ITC Civic for $5000 (former ARRC Champion, mulitple ECR championships).

Maintenance? We don&#39;t know what the life of the Basement Built motors is yet. The oldest in our group has 50 SCCA races on it (including ARRC first place and many enduro wins) and a few dirt track races. Car was totaled at VIR (by an SM) in it&#39;s 50th race, on the pole. It is now in a street Honda, driven every day and still doesn&#39;t burn oil. Pistons haven&#39;t been out of the block. It is considered our "spare race motor". It is using the $159 per set pistons.
Can&#39;t win in ITC because you have less than $10,000 to spend? Work smarter and harder and drive faster.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, while I agree it is possible to spend $20k on any race car, it is fact that the fellows finishing up front at the ARRC in 84/87 ITC Hondas are not. There are 7 ITC Hondas in our small SCCA Region, and I was involved enough in each to know about what was spent. These cars represent THREE first place ARRC ITC finishes, and about 10 podium finishes there. From your list, most recent builds of front runners:

Donor Car: from $100 to big spender at $500
Cage: DIY at $325 for material, swap used parts for bending (would be $1250 for custom shop built)
Two sets wheels: Actually three sets at $100 per set at junkyard (off VW)
Sunbelt Motor: Front runners are using Basement Built, with Sunbelt head. Pistons $159 per set.
Limited Slip/Final drive: Phantom Grip at $259 and SI 4.40 final at <$100 or 4.93 at <$1500
Shocks/Suspension: Tokicos at $470 per set, other $260 including Basement Built strut mounts.
Safety Equipment; See Tim at SafeQuip for about $860.
Add a set of Hoosiers to your list and it comes to about the $7000 mark. Obviously, the mechanically inept would have to spend more.

But the last of the seven ITC cars in our Region took the easy way. He bought a well built ITC Honda for $3075. It just passed it&#39;s Annual, and is a former champion (not ARRC). And I sold my ITC Civic for $5000 (former ARRC Champion, mulitple ECR championships).

Maintenance? We don&#39;t know what the life of the Basement Built motors is yet. The oldest in our group has 50 SCCA races on it (including ARRC first place and many enduro wins) and a few dirt track races. Car was totaled at VIR (by an SM) in it&#39;s 50th race, on the pole. It is now in a street Honda, driven every day and still doesn&#39;t burn oil. Pistons haven&#39;t been out of the block. It is considered our "spare race motor". It is using the $159 per set pistons.
Can&#39;t win in ITC because you have less than $10,000 to spend? Work smarter and harder and drive faster. [/b]

While I applaud your math, I still feel ike you can&#39;t get it done for less than $10K. No reference to:

-pads
-rotors
-hubs
-calipers
-no paint and body work on the $100 donor?

I am assuming your $860 includes a seat, belts, fuel test port, fire extinguisher, etc.

Regardless, the cost of a budget build is probably similar across all classes except for engine prep and donor costs. Not too bad.

ITC IS the cost leader for sure but if you had as many people interested in building top cars, cost to be competitive would rise.

AB

[Banzai240]

Andy,

KOOOOOLLLL Avatar!! :happy204:

[wbp]

I suppose the cars we get to work with here for $150 or so aren&#39;t the same as a salted MA. car. We have a near perfect spare setting out back (great white paint still) that we bought for $150. Three of the seven ITC Hondas here have been at least partially painted. Others original.
Vesa Silegren won the ARRC in a Honda he painted with spray cans from WalMart! Looked pretty good - at speed. Noticed Rebstock&#39;s paint? Just a different way of thinking about what a race car is. Yes, we don&#39;t see many big spenders in ITC, and like it that way.
Example - Fuel test Port. 18 inches of hose, a fitting and a brake bleeder. $6.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I suppose the cars we get to work with here for $150 or so aren&#39;t the same as a salted MA. car. [/b]

Note to self. Leave 2 empty spots on the transporter for clean donors!