IT "X" names

[lateapex911]

OK, just to keep things organized, weigh in here on your name classing ideas. Of course that's based on the big "IF"...

OK, some notes-

IT-

.....GT....stilll used in certain areas, and the old American Sedan class before it outgrew IT rulesets.
.....T....comes after "S", but ITT in certain areas is a class for mini trucks
.....U....reminiscent of the old IMSA GTU class...allows expansion for future an even faster IT class called ITO
.....O...sounds cool, and the old GTU cars are really in S and A anyway.
.....R...Not sure about the logic of this one, but I don't think it's used yet. R for "race"? What are the other classes?
.....X....lots of guys think all wheel drive as the manufacturers denote their AWD models with an X, others think "X" sounds cool...sexy, experimental. ooookaaay....
......5 ....if you rename the lower classes 1-4, 5 allows for 6, etc expansion.
....other??

[JeffYoung]

"R" is logical becuase it is the next letter "above" "S".

That leaves the Acura NSX in "ITQ".

I vote "ITR."

[SPiFF]

ITR :023:

[lateapex911]

"R" is logical becuase it is the next letter "above" "S".

That leaves the Acura NSX in "ITQ".

I vote "ITR."
[/b]

A - B -C -D -........P - Q - R - S- T - U......

"Above"?? As in alphabetically?

[mlytle]

currrent ITS should be renamed ITR --- ITRx7

new class above should be ITW --- IT class for the BMW Whiners...

:D

[JeffYoung]

Yup.

Q R S T U V

Like

A B C D E.

ITR it is. I think.

[itaintegra31]

ITX is in use in the San Francisco Region, it is a class that allows ITA cars another run group.

[RSTPerformance]

currrent ITS should be renamed ITR --- ITRx7

new class above should be ITW --- IT class for the BMW Whiners...

:D
[/b]


And the recomendation comes from a BMW driver!!! I love it LOL

Raymond

[Catch22]

I vote for "R" and here is why...

GT - Still in use regionally
T - Used for IT Trucks regionally
X - Used regionally
G - Looks too much like a "C" at 100mph.
O - Looks too much like a "C" at 100mph
U - For the *next* class.

Yes, I know that there should be no mistaking ITC and ITO cars on the track, but thats not the point. Workers and T/S want everything to be clear, and in many fonts an O and a C are going to just be way too close.

[Bill Miller]

Another vote for "R"

[planet6racing]

I like a full re-numbering or lettering. Call that one ITA, ITS=ITB, ITA=ITC, etc or IT1, IT2, IT3, etc.

And, as for R coming in above S, you all missed out!!

A
B
C
D
.
.
.
P
Q
R
S
T

See, R is clearly above S!! :D

[mlytle]

And the recomendation comes from a BMW driver!!! I love it LOL

Raymond
[/b]

some of us actually do have a sense of humor... :D

marshall

[zracre]

ITR for I ntegra T ype R!!! B)

[Knestis]

...and Sentra SE-R, etc. R is just racey.

K

[Hotshoe]

Jake,

... Another vote for IT " R "

... It exemplifies how we: R able to work together.
........................................ R willing to look ahead.
........................................ R wanting to make things better
........................................ R not afraid of change
........................................ R members of the best Club in the USA
........................................ R.... Ready to Race

... Rick

[RacerBowie]

Jake,

... Another vote for IT " R "

... It exemplifies how we: R able to work together.
........................................ R willing to look ahead.
........................................ R wanting to make things better
........................................ R not afraid of change
........................................ R members of the best Club in the USA
........................................ R.... Ready to Race

... Rick
[/b]

That was REALLY bad. :wacko:

[RacerBill]

I like a full re-numbering or lettering. Call that one ITA, ITS=ITB, ITA=ITC, etc or IT1, IT2, IT3, etc.

[/b]

GT and Touring uses numbers, I vote for numbers! But not necessarily renumbering all the classes. Start with the new class as IT1. Then after we see what shakes out, we can see if ITS will become IT2 or IT3, with the rest of the classes following along. This leaves some flexability to the scheme.

[Knestis]

Every aspect of the new proposal that is different from the existing IT framework gives someone a reason to say no. Just a thought.

K

[Catch22]

While I agree that a full re-classing or re-numbering makes more sense from a purely "makes sense" standpoint, its a whole lot easier to just add an "ITR" than to get everyone out there to put new vinyl on their cars.

How did we get to IT"S" from A,B,C anyway?
Is the S supposed to stand for "Sport?"

If this is the case, then "R" can stand for "Race."
If we add yet another class in the future (and I'm talking FUTURE) after all the ITB and ITC cars are running vintage, it can be "IGT"
"Improved Grand Touring"

[lateapex911]

Seems like the "R"s have it...

[jhooten]

Change C to A
Leave B
Change A to C
Change S to D
Make the new Class E
Change the current catch all from E to X or Z or what ever
Then you could add:
F for retitred T3 cars
and G for T2
and H for T1
or what ever fancy strikes in years to come.

[Geo]

I like a full re-numbering or lettering. Call that one ITA, ITS=ITB, ITA=ITC, etc or IT1, IT2, IT3, etc.

[/b]

I'm with Bill.

[lateapex911]

It makes sense, but it's another hurdle to get over with the big bosses.

Of course, with T1, T2, T3, and GT1, GT2, etc, it does match the existing framework. Too bad we're expanding faster, so our faster class would be IT5...

Unless we name it IT1, and any future faster class is IT.5,....

[RSTPerformance]

Jake-

I don't agree with re-naming all the classes as that will be another hurdle, many issues...

While inexpensive for most re-lettering cars will get some complaints, Track records could be an issue, and while not the intent many people will probably view the re-naming as a major "regrouping" of the class wich I am sure will bring up even more issues. The list could go on and on, so my suggestion is to stick with ITR or some other "new" class name.

If you were going to re-name the classes personaly think that we should follow the production classing. EX: equivelant GP cars would be in ITG (in IT trim). I say this only because the next logical step for most it cars is production, however like I said before we should keep IT seperate and where it is now.


Raymond "Do we ever expect a class in the next 10 years above ITR? I doubt it so lets keep this as easy as possible" Blethen

[Bill Miller]

I agree w/ the people that don't want to rename the classes. I think that's just one more thing for someone to grab onto as a reason to shoot this down.

[Knestis]

You'd be amazed how people will latch onto something, if only to use it as an excuse to object to an idea...

Adding an ITS class is one thing: Changing the designations is going to be construed by some as "restructuring the category" - a much tougher sell.

K

[RacerBill]

I agree that we need to keep the naming of the new class separate from any perceived restructuring of the existing classes by renaming them. However, looking forward a few years, what would we name a class that is faster than ITR - ITQ?. I can see the IT classes becomming a hodgepodge of letters. (ITS, ITA, ITB, ITC, ITE, ITT...)

Let's look a little farther forward. Is this going to be the only 'new' IT class, or are there potentially one or more classes that might be created when it comes time to absorb more Touring cars into IT? Do presently classed Touring 1, Touring 2 or Touring 3 easily map into IT classes with the creation of one new IT class? If the answer is yes, then ITR is probably as good a choice as any. If there is a good probability of more classes, then IT1 might be the answer for the potentially fastest class, with IT2 being an option for later down the road. Then changing the existing IT classes is something that does not have to be done at this time, and if it were to be implemented, the proper thought process could be used.

Just my thougth. I can really live with whatever the group decides ( I'm easy, but who said IT racing was cheap!).

[bldn10]

I'd say IT$ but I'm not sure how to pronounce it.

[Banzai240]

I'd say IT$ but I'm not sure how to pronounce it.
[/b]

Bill... that's PERFECT! Exactly what I was thinking...

I think I'd pronounce it "IT-Cha-Ching..." :119:

[Hotshoe]

I think I'd pronounce it "IT-Cha-Ching..." :119:
[/b]
Darin,

... I needed a good laugh today......

... Bravo old chap,

... Rick

[Z3_GoCar]

I'd say IT$ but I'm not sure how to pronounce it.
[/b]

How about, "The class formerly known as ITR" Then it'll be shortened to The Class, as in The Class to Be In :D

James

[planet6racing]

How about ITX... as in we "X"-cluded everyone else from seeing the discussion...

Sorry, it's just rubbing me wrong today...

[Geo]

Adding an ITS class is one thing: Changing the designations is going to be construed by some as "restructuring the category" - a much tougher sell.
[/b]

I don't buy it. That's silly. It's just a name.

OK, how about ITM (for money)? :)

Or ITF (for fast)? :P

Or ITO (for OH MY, that's a lot of money)?

I think worrying about naming is silly. Who really cares what it's called? Just make the sequence make sense.

[JamesB]

I though we all just like the pirate sounds we make when we speak the class. IT arrrrr!

[Knestis]

How about ITX... as in we "X"-cluded everyone else from seeing the discussion... [/b]

Just ask, Bill and I personally promise to share ANYTHING that we are talking about.

The point - if it helps at all to go over it again - is that it is hard enough coming to consensus with the limited number of heads currently involved, and that is what we are striving for. If everyone in the group is just a little dissatisfied with the result, then we will know we have something that (1) isn't overly representative of one narrow agenda, and (2) has been through the wringer sufficiently that it has a hope of passing muster with the CRB.

K

[lateapex911]

Just ask, Bill and I personally promise to share ANYTHING that we are talking about.



K
[/b]

Me too....

and for the record if anyone wants to bend my ear shoot me a PM and I'll send my phone number.

(Well, almost anyone...I'm not wasting my money on certain trolls that frequented the BMW thread, If you've called me a "loser" in any past thread on here or Bimmerforums, count yourself out, LOL..; ) )

[Geo]

Just ask, Bill and I personally promise to share ANYTHING that we are talking about.

The point - if it helps at all to go over it again - is that it is hard enough coming to consensus with the limited number of heads currently involved, and that is what we are striving for. If everyone in the group is just a little dissatisfied with the result, then we will know we have something that (1) isn't overly representative of one narrow agenda, and (2) has been through the wringer sufficiently that it has a hope of passing muster with the CRB.

K
[/b]

Have a new appreciation for what the ITAC goes through? :D

[erlrich]

How about ITX... as in we "X"-cluded everyone else from seeing the discussion...

Sorry, it's just rubbing me wrong today... [/b]

I have to admit, I had the same reaction when I first saw the "secret" room. I would think with all the past accusations of back-room deals and super-secret meetings this would be something we would want to keep out in the open.

Is there no option to make that forum "read only" for those without the password? I have no desire to contribute to the confusion (although I would be more than willing to help in any way I could), but I am very interested in what is conspir... I mean transpiring in there. :D (<---- note the big smilie face, that was a just a joke guys).

[JeffYoung]

No problem Earl, we who are in there were all concerned about it. At the same time, it did need to be limited to a small group.

Read only works for me -- you&#39;ll laugh at the debates. The biggest issues we are having now are with the V8 ponies (legitimate, and "out") and the 928 (a fringe car, but one I have pushed in the face of some opposition). This stuff will probably bore you to tears.

The initial debate over defining the horsepower range I do wish others had the chance to read.

Again, read only sounds good to me. Kirk? Scott? Jake? Dick? George? Andy? Ron? Bill? That ok with you guys?

[Knestis]

Makes me no nevermind, one way or t&#39;other. Except I think there might be some incentive to be more forthright in the small group, than might be the case in a completely public forum.

Like when I told Jake he was being loser.

:lol:

K

[JeffYoung]

LOL...of course, I prove I am a loser ever time I roll into a racetrack.....

[orlando_wrx]

I vote for "R" and here is why...

GT - Still in use regionally
T - Used for IT Trucks regionally
X - Used regionally
G - Looks too much like a "C" at 100mph.
O - Looks too much like a "C" at 100mph
U - For the *next* class.

Yes, I know that there should be no mistaking ITC and ITO cars on the track, but thats not the point. Workers and T/S want everything to be clear, and in many fonts an O and a C are going to just be way too close.
[/b]

Wouldn&#39;t the "R" look too much like a "B" at 100mph?

[lateapex911]

Wouldn&#39;t the "R" look too much like a "B" at 100mph?
[/b]

B cars don&#39;t GO 100MPH!

Kidding, kidding!

(but there will be little in common between the classes, LOL)

[Bill Miller]

We could call it IT$, but that would look too much like ITS, uh, wait a sec, um, nevermind.

[ShelbyRacer]

Bill... that&#39;s PERFECT! Exactly what I was thinking...

I think I&#39;d pronounce it "IT-Cha-Ching..." :119:
[/b]

Nah, that&#39;s too long.

Call it IT-Bling

:eclipsee_steering: