The ITR Star Chamber

[Knestis]

:)

This - and any other strand anyone wants to start - should serve as a place to air questions, concerns, input, etc. re: the ITR effort.

Trust me - it ain't all that exciting in the super-secret closed thread. It was created to provide an easily managed space for the discussion of logistical and content issues among the group of folks who are spearheading the proposal0-development process and, at least so far, all of the questions getting discussed there are either (1) repeats of topics already aired elsewhere, or (2) about the strategies thought most likely to make the new class happen.

If you have any questions, ask them and someone with the key to the chamber of secrets will answer them. Promise. Have any ideas? Post 'em. But be warned - there isn't a lot of deep thinking going on here, since the whole idea moves forward from the practical premise that ITR should be just like any other IT class but for cars with more poop.

K

[JeffW]

The Prod guys are discussing the "B" and "D" Production issue. T3 is relatively new on the scene. SSB and SSC may be rolled into Touring (T3 and T4?). Where do retired WC cars go? The development of ITR (and ITQ and...) should take into consideration that there are some race cars that have been orphaned. I think that ALL cars in Touring/SS should be classed in IT and Prod when they become eligible. Some will argue that the classification process is too difficult and that time shouldn't be wasted on a SS car that very few raced. Just because it might not have been a great car in SS doesn't mean it can't be a good car in IT/Prod.

Keep the big picture in mind while working on ITR.

Jeff

[lateapex911]

Jeff, thats a good point, and one that's not lost on us.

One limiting factor is that any IT class above S MUST not leave a gap between itself and S.

And that limits how far "Up" we can go power and performance wise. At some point, the weight you have to throw at a car that has too much power just becomes too much of an issue. We know that ITR will be an uphill battle amongst the suits of the SCCA, so to speak, so we certainly are going to try to make it work, and fit whatever we can. But....we can't get too crazy, or it will be killed on that basis alone.

In some ways you could make a case for ITR AND a class above that, LOL.

WC cars are a big problem for inclusion in the standard IT ranks, because they have lots of mods that are not allowed in IT...and mods that are VERY hard to undo, like seam welded chassis, more than 6 points of attachment on the cage, and so on. ITE seems to be the best place for them at this point, but we'll see.

But in general, I agree that it behooves us to help a car have a progressive path.

[ddewhurst]

***Trust me - it ain't all that exciting in the super-secret closed thread.***

K, I buy 100% what your saying.

D squared ;)

[dj10]

I've looked at 2 cars you plan to put into ITR, the S2000 Honda @ 237 hp and the Porsche 968 @ 236 HP. From what I gathered you thing these car already highly tuned from the factory. I know Porsche and there is more to gain with this car. With headers, exhaust and blueprint & balanced engine I bet your looking @ 260hp +. I thing the same with the Honda. Have you factored this in?

[lateapex911]

I've looked at 2 cars you plan to put into ITR, the S2000 Honda @ 237 hp and the Porsche 968 @ 236 HP. From what I gathered you thing these car already highly tuned from the factory. I know Porsche and there is more to gain with this car. With headers, exhaust and blueprint & balanced engine I bet your looking @ 260hp +. I thing the same with the Honda. Have you factored this in?
[/b]


Of course, things like this are bing debated.

On the Honda, it make 240 hp from 2 LITRES!!!!!! That is EXCEPTIONAL, world leading specific output. I can not agree that there is *much* more to be had there. I t takes a lot of tricky things to get over 120 hp/litre...this car is cose to maximized. Of course, it's being looked at closely.

The porsche is also being scrutinized.

[Z3_GoCar]

:)

This - and any other strand anyone wants to start - should serve as a place to air questions, concerns, input, etc. re: the ITR effort.

Trust me - it ain't all that exciting in the super-secret closed thread. It was created to provide an easily managed space for the discussion of logistical and content issues among the group of folks who are spearheading the proposal0-development process and, at least so far, all of the questions getting discussed there are either (1) repeats of topics already aired elsewhere, or (2) about the strategies thought most likely to make the new class happen.

If you have any questions, ask them and someone with the key to the chamber of secrets will answer them. Promise. Have any ideas? Post 'em. But be warned - there isn't a lot of deep thinking going on here, since the whole idea moves forward from the practical premise that ITR should be just like any other IT class but for cars with more poop.

K
[/b]

Here's what I want to know..... When, next season, two seasons from now. I'd like to have an idea of how long I've got to make my car legal. As it was built for Grand-Am cup I'm sure it's way over preped for current IT rules. Sure I can run ITE untill then but I've got to decied if it's worth the effort to make legal. Or maybe I should look to the reconstituted C-prod class.

James

[Knestis]

I wish that there was a way to know for sure when ITR might happen, if it does. I think it would be unfair to suggest that you should make any spending decisions based on the new class happeing.

IF you pull the trigger on a Prod project, expect to spend a lot more money than you would on an IT-spec machine: That's a safe bet even if ITR is NOT right now.

K

[JeffYoung]

The rough plan is ITR in 2007, but probably not realistic.

DJ, look also at the S2000's torque. 130 or so stock. Ain't much. The 968 has more torque but if the motor is like the 944, there is much else there. If you have data to share on its potential, please do. We are using a slightly lower IT prep adder for the 968. If that is incorrect, we'll change it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I've looked at 2 cars you plan to put into ITR, the S2000 Honda @ 237 hp and the Porsche 968 @ 236 HP. From what I gathered you thing these car already highly tuned from the factory. I know Porsche and there is more to gain with this car. With headers, exhaust and blueprint & balanced engine I bet your looking @ 260hp +. I thing the same with the Honda. Have you factored this in?

[/b]

260hp over 236hp is only a 10% gain. We factor in these items when known. This is why the 236hp 968 and 240hp S2000 seem to fit at 'do-able' weights, while the E36 M3 and RX-8 are probably looking in from the outside as these engines have proven to gain 30+%, resulting in the need for weights nobody would build them.

AB

[Z3_GoCar]

I wish that there was a way to know for sure when ITR might happen, if it does. I think it would be unfair to suggest that you should make any spending decisions based on the new class happeing.

IF you pull the trigger on a Prod project, expect to spend a lot more money than you would on an IT-spec machine: That's a safe bet even if ITR is NOT right now.

K
[/b]

Thanks K,

At the minimum my spending will have to include a new engine, wiring harness, and hood. Maybe Prod will be where former WCC/GA cars go when it's time to retire. I say this having looked at the latest suppliment and noted the language concerning the addition of D and C prod asap.

James

[lateapex911]

Andy, I wonder about the rotary...it's pretty optimized from the factory. I don't think we'll see the same percentage of gains. let's not reject it without a look. Of course, it's not "up" for awhile, and we have no class yet,....

[Knestis]

... At the minimum my spending will have to include a new engine, wiring harness, and hood. [/b]
You are right, of course James. I wasn't talking about the minimum cost of entry, looking instead at a full build. I looked (briefly) at LP Prod as a way back into the game four years ago and stopped immediately when i got to the gearbox rules. I figured about $6K in parts alone for a to-the-max VW or Honda unit, using mostly Group N/Group A rally parts.

Not that it wouldn't be fun. We put a similar kit on the Group 2 Golf rally car that I used to codrive in and it really woke it up, having a high first and small splits between the ratios.

Back to your regularly scheduled ITR discussion, already in progress...

K

[e36its]

I assume (since it kinda touched off the ITR discussion again) that the E36 325 is included in the new class. Is the idea to have the car listed at some weight spec unrestricted in ITR and delist it from ITS or to have the both the ITS restricted spec and the ITR unrestricted spec available to the car?

tom

[zracre]

260hp over 236hp is only a 10% gain. We factor in these items when known. This is why the 236hp 968 and 240hp S2000 seem to fit at 'do-able' weights, while the E36 M3 and RX-8 are probably looking in from the outside as these engines have proven to gain 30+%, resulting in the need for weights nobody would build them.

AB
[/b]

The S2000 and 968 are definitely faster than ITS cars but the HP figures dont seem a whole lot higher...couldnt the system be tweaked to make the S2000 and 968 type cars competitive by making them lighter and the E36 M3 type cars closer to an Ideal weight without bolting too much on it? Also what is the max HP for ITR? A 222 HP Z32 300ZX would be nice...but it weighs ALOT in stock form. So does the Supra. These would make great race cars with major diets. Oh and a Legend Coupe?? MMMMMMMM Go Honda!!!

[Knestis]

... Is the idea to have the [e36 325] listed at some weight spec unrestricted in ITR and delist it from ITS or to have the both the ITS restricted spec and the ITR unrestricted spec available to the car?[/b]

There's been conversation around all of those options, including in terms possibly presenting ITR in part as one resolution to the current predicament faced by Bimmer entrants in S. It would be interesting to know how they might feel about that option - or others.

My PERSONAL sense is that it would be goofy to have the e36 325 listed in both S and R with different specs but it's become a special case...

K

[JeffYoung]

Some quick answers:

1. I have not heard from any E36 drivers who would run with the SIR, so the plan right now is to delist the E36 325 and have it moved to ITR at 2750 unrestricted.

2. Evan, we looked at putting the E36 M3 in ITR but it moves the target rwp too far up. The class is maxed out at the 222 hp Z32, the S2000 (at 240 hp but pretty maxed at that displacement and with little torque) and the 968 (with again little room for improvement). The RX8 and the BMW S52 cars (M Coupe/Roadster/M3) are probably a little too much, if not a lot too much, for the class.

3. The target stock crank hp for the class is in the 190 to 240 range.

Hope that helps.

Jeff

[Fastfred92]

Jeff, I happen to know based on past experience that a M3 (1995) with all IT prep except overbore and Motec puts about 235 hp to the rear and while it must have alot more tq than a S2000, the Honda would certainly weigh less. If my memory serves me correctly the M3 runs in BMWCR stock class at 3300 without driver...

Also you should include the first gen M3, easily within ITR.

[Knestis]

(Salivating over early M3 in IT form.) :wacko:

K

[JeffYoung]

Fred, Kirk, she is IN. That will be a cool ITR car. Kirk, I know where one is for sale (bad paint, good mechanicals) in Apex....$7500......

[Bill Miller]

This is for those that have contacted me about participating in the group. After discussions w/ all the members of the group, we feel that we have a workable size group now, and will not be adding any new individuals at this time. We will continue to keep people updated. Thanks to everyone for their interest in helping move this process forward. :023:

[zracre]

Maxed out with the Z32 300 ZX? 222HP is not much more than ITS...I would think the target would be 250HP or some where close to it...

[Knestis]

Current conversations revolve around the dangers of indexing ITR too high, creating another gap (or GAP, says Giles) for tweeners to fall through. The trick is finding the top but not making the cars at that end of the class the de facto must-haves in the class - accepting that R, like the other IT cars actually represents a range of performances rather than just one.

Think about it this way: The top could be defined by the Z-whatever Vette or Viper Competition Coupe, right? That would clearly be troublesome. Any cut-off lower than that is just LESS of a problem until the ceiling of the new class gets low enough that the floor makes sense relative to S.

On the other hand, we have to make sure that there is no on-paper overlap (even though some R cars in the real world will be slower than some S cars, due to prep level, driver skill, etc.), and that there's enough of a difference in mean performance that the class LOOKS faster than S.

It's a pretty difficult balancing act.

Consider a couple of other things, too...

** It will be possible to request that specific makes/models be added to R after it is in place, just like with the rest of the category

** There's no reason that, if R becomes successful, an additional class can't be piled on top, using the same kind of logic and approach we're using here.

** It's more important to get SOMETHING above S at this point, than it is to include EVERYTHING that someone might want to race. A cohesive class is more important for the greater good than is the opportunity for Rex Racer to run his 2001 Whatchamacallit GT.

K

[its66]

This is for those that have contacted me about participating in the group. After discussions w/ all the members of the group, we feel that we have a workable size group now, and will not be adding any new individuals at this time. We will continue to keep people updated. Thanks to everyone for their interest in helping move this process forward. :023:
[/b]

It sure would be nice if there was a way to allow interested racers/forum members the ability to view the posts, comments, and opinions which may affect the future of our class. I can understand not wanting 4000 posts arguing the classification weight of a 2001 Whatchamacallit GT. Or perhaps VERY strict moderation of the forum. 16 threads, and over 400 replies ...Just to decide where to "draw the line"???.. I think we all deserve to know.....

[planet6racing]

I assume (since it kinda touched off the ITR discussion again) that the E36 325 is included in the new class. Is the idea to have the car listed at some weight spec unrestricted in ITR and delist it from ITS or to have the both the ITS restricted spec and the ITR unrestricted spec available to the car?

tom
[/b]

(please note, Tom, this is not aimed at you, just a general comment)

(on edit) Retracted statement about BMWs. It wasn't helpful to the ITR discussion.(/edit)

And what about the Mustangs/Camaros for those of us that don't want to have the expense of AS? There is no way that I want to run with those people, as I've seen more carnage with them than with SM so far... Plus, I don't like the thought of have to rebuild my engine every weekend just to be competitive.

[Andy Bettencourt]

16 threads, and over 400 replies ...Just to decide where to "draw the line"???..[/b]

1st thread with 155 replies is the "ITR Part Deux" moved from the mainline. No further discussion.
Others topics include:

- Quick discussion of the rules (or more specifically that they must stay the same to be successful)
- "What are our obsticals" thread from a 10,000 foot view
- Quick discussion on the appropriate wheel size for this class given what runs there
- Another 10,000 foot "Value Proposition" thread which will be the basis for our proposal to the ITAC/CRB
- Discussion on VTS sheets - when they will be needed and who will head up the collection of the data
- The 'V8' question - should they be allowed in or do they pose a potential class-tilting problem (or political roadblock)
- "Issues with the spreadsheet" is a final scrub-down of cars and weights for initial classification
- And a "Finalization" thread to cross our T's and dot our i's before the formal written document starts to come to life.
- "Updates to Regular Forum" is just a blurb on the intention to keep the main discussion going while we work a plan.

This is the meat of the section.

[Bill Miller]

It sure would be nice if there was a way to allow interested racers/forum members the ability to view the posts, comments, and opinions which may affect the future of our class. I can understand not wanting 4000 posts arguing the classification weight of a 2001 Whatchamacallit GT. Or perhaps VERY strict moderation of the forum. 16 threads, and over 400 replies ...Just to decide where to "draw the line"???.. I think we all deserve to know.....
[/b]


Jim,

The feeling among the group was to not have a lot of 'leakage' into the general forums, and a lot of associated noise. I can assure you, there's nothing super-secret going on. It's just a group of people trying to address a commonly (among the group) perceived need, that will ultimately increase IT participation and hopefully add more good racing.


A cohesive class is more important for the greater good than is the opportunity for Rex Racer to run his 2001 Whatchamacallit GT.
[/b]

He only gets to run it if we get to 'un-pimp his auto'! :D

[Fastfred92]

Hey Bill,

Any chance we could start ITR from day one without the stupid "ecu in the oem box rule", then hopefully remove it from the IT specs altogether........

[e36its]

(please note, Tom, this is not aimed at you, just a general comment)
How is this going to make things better? Aren't the BMW people still just going to cry about how they can't be competitive against the Porsche and the new RX-8 in ITR?
[/b]Bill --

(I gather -- and please, correct me if I'm wrong -- that you are saying that the move of the E36 from ITS to ITR won't make a difference because the whining will just move with it. If I didn't interpret that correctly, I apologize.)

Is this really a fair or helpful comment? A guy could get tired of the perception that "BMW people" are whiners who are going to complain until they get an unfair advantage. There are some of us (I hope myself included) who have not approached this SIR debacle with the intent of whining. I've certainly expressed some frustration but mostly tried to understand the situation and advocate for what I thought fair. I'm inclined to believe that doesn't meet the definition of whining, but I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

tom

edit: speeeeeling

[planet6racing]

Tom:

That is the correct interpretation.

And, I appreciate that you have been cooperative. It has been noticed.

Your comment about it not being helpful to the ITR discussion is valid and correct. I shall retract my statement here...

[Tristan Smith]

Another question............? Who is this new group going to run with? I have some concerns as a current ITA driver of suddenly having to run with cars that are going to be grossly faster than my 240sx? It seems like these cars will be American Sedan fast, and in some cases as heavy. Is there any thought as to what run group they will be in? With the every increasing amount of classes at SCCA weekend, I know there are concerns about getting everybody on track for an appropriate amount of track time.

[Joe Harlan]

Jim,

The feeling among the group was to not have a lot of 'leakage' into the general forums, and a lot of associated noise. I can assure you, there's nothing super-secret going on. It's just a group of people trying to address a commonly (among the group) perceived need, that will ultimately increase IT participation and hopefully add more good racing.
He only gets to run it if we get to 'un-pimp his auto'! :D
[/b]

Sounds funny from the biggest complainer of the secret car club of america.....What happened to the guy that has screamed for openess for as long as I can remember..... :happy204:

[dj10]

Some quick answers:

1. I have not heard from any E36 drivers who would run with the SIR, so the plan right now is to delist the E36 325 and have it moved to ITR at 2750 unrestricted.

2. Evan, we looked at putting the E36 M3 in ITR but it moves the target rwp too far up. The class is maxed out at the 222 hp Z32, the S2000 (at 240 hp but pretty maxed at that displacement and with little torque) and the 968 (with again little room for improvement). The RX8 and the BMW S52 cars (M Coupe/Roadster/M3) are probably a little too much, if not a lot too much, for the class.

3. The target stock crank hp for the class is in the 190 to 240 range.

Hope that helps.

Jeff [/b]

Jeff, hope you plan to eliminate motec and such from ITR.

[e36its]

Jeff, hope you plan to eliminate motec and such from ITR.[/b]
I thought the intent for the class was the same IT rules of today with a change to ITR wheel width (specified in 17.1.4.D.7.a.6) so there'd be no provision to eliminate motec from ITR alone.

tom

[Knestis]

I THINK it represents the dominant paradigm of the folks drafting this ITR proposal, that a first principle of the idea is to NOT change any of the existing IT rules (e.g., open-ECU-in-a-box silliness).

The priority here is to get the class created to give a home to some cars that are too fast for ITS. It muddies the water and - we think - dramatically increases the opportunity for the CRB to say "no, thanks" if we start addressing other policy issues with this one proposal.

On the transparency question, remember that this exercise is not an official activity of the SCCA or any of its regions, or the ITAC. It's simply a handful of members who wanted to collaborate on a proposal to the CRB, thinking that this approach would result in a superior proposal and the greatest likelihood of success. I think it's very safe to say that if any one of us had tried this, it would have been far weaker than it is emerging to be, the result of working out differences of opinion and perspective.

That said, expect to see something for more general input before it's submitted - Jeff is working on a para-final draft this week, I believe - but please bear in mind that this initiative cannot be all things to all people.

K

[Fastfred92]

I THINK it represents the dominant paradigm of the folks drafting this ITR proposal, that a first principle of the idea is to NOT change any of the existing IT rules (e.g., open-ECU-in-a-box silliness).

The priority here is to get the class created to give a home to some cars that are too fast for ITS. It muddies the water and - we think - dramatically increases the opportunity for the CRB to say "no, thanks" if we start addressing other policy issues with this one proposal.

[/b]

Agreed...
But just to make clear, I am OK with aftermarket ECU, just not the stupid and costly part about putting it in the OEM box..... seems too late to totaly drop the ecu thing now....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Another question............? Who is this new group going to run with? I have some concerns as a current ITA driver of suddenly having to run with cars that are going to be grossly faster than my 240sx? It seems like these cars will be American Sedan fast, and in some cases as heavy. Is there any thought as to what run group they will be in? With the every increasing amount of classes at SCCA weekend, I know there are concerns about getting everybody on track for an appropriate amount of track time. [/b]

Tristan,

Not sure if this is really a concern overall. The groupings are 100% up to each Region and are usually determined by speed, car counts, and/or weights. While I never like to be the slower class in a run-group, someone has to be. Think how ITC feels - EVERY weekend.

[JeffYoung]

Let me try to answer some questions I saw in the chain of posts:

1. Tristan, I see this class running wth T1/T2/SPO/ITE. THese are the cars they are most like. Also, as you know, in the SEDiv, I would say the ITS/ITA/IT7 run group is about as perfect a mix of cars as you can have and is also "full" at most events, while T1/T2/etc. is not. Be interested to hear your thoughts on this.....

2. There was a lengthy debate on teh V8 ponies (the 190-225 hp ones from the late 80s and early 90s) being in the class or not. For a variety of reasons, ranging from raceability of the cars to the problems they may cause with trying to get all of ITR passed and implemented, they are out for now. I think this is a good decision. At the same time, we are very open to pushing the CRB to class these cars at a later date if there is sufficient interest. I am also all for that.

3. Motec would stay in. As would spherical bearings (sorry Greg). Only change to the IT ruleset would be to allow larger wheels.

Any other questions, let me know. You can also e-mail me off line at [email protected] with any comments/questions or concerns.

Thanks guys. It's a healthy debate in the "star chamber" but civil, and all directed at what is best for the class and the club. I don't see any personal agendas and I'm proud of that.

[dj10]

Let me try to answer some questions I saw in the chain of posts:
3. Motec would stay in.
[/b]

I think you over looking OBDI & OBDII differences. Since you are allowing both type of systems to compete together you must at the very least acknowledge the capabilities of each system. If you don't, you just may be eliminating any OBDI from being competive. Just a thought. :D

[planet6racing]

2. There was a lengthy debate on teh V8 ponies (the 190-225 hp ones from the late 80s and early 90s) being in the class or not. For a variety of reasons, ranging from raceability of the cars to the problems they may cause with trying to get all of ITR passed and implemented, they are out for now. I think this is a good decision. At the same time, we are very open to pushing the CRB to class these cars at a later date if there is sufficient interest. I am also all for that.

[/b]

This makes no sense given the class philosophy. I can pick up a pony car for less than $2K and get relatively inexpensive performance parts to get it ready to IT standards. However, a 968 Porsche is going to be a much bigger chunk of change...

I look at the popularity of American Iron in NASA. That class is exploding much the same way SM is due to (in my opinion, anyway) the relatively low cost of building a car.

[JeffYoung]

Bill, I agree with you personnaly. There were two view points on this one. Myself and others beleive that an ITR pony makes sense and fits the class, and there are many, many cheap ones available right now. The competing, and valid, viewpoint was that (a) Ponies don't race that well with IT cars and (B) ITR is enough of a mouthful to swallow right now for the CRB, and it would be worse with teh ponies in it.

I disagree with (a) but the viewpoint on the other side has merit. I do think (B) is valid. Having them in now might make it hard to get ITR through at all. After this is done. contact me and you, I and others can push hard to get them classed.

Bottom line, I think they need to be there, but doing it now might hurt the whole process.

Jeff

[planet6racing]

Thank you, Jeff. But, I'm still at a loss. If we are creating ITR to class high dollar cars (Porsche, BMW, Audi, etc), I guess I just don't get it.

I know this topic has been beaten to death before. And, IIRC, the other Bill was one to make the point, but I really don't feel the high $$$ cars need to be in IT.

Don't get me wrong, I know the club needs the money. And, I know these guys really don't have any place else to race, but...

Well, I don't really have an alternative. I'm crabby today (can everyone tell?) so I'm probably a little more critical and more vocal than I have been recently. I just don't like IT trying to be everything to everybody (I get enough of that at work).

[Bill Miller]

Sounds funny from the biggest complainer of the secret car club of america.....What happened to the guy that has screamed for openess for as long as I can remember..... [/b]

Why am I not surprised at your comment Joe? Dissapointed, but not surprised. If you can't accept my word, as well as the word of several others working on this, there's not a whole lot that I can do. Also, please read Kirk's comments. This is not an officially sanctioned initiative, it's a group of people that got together to do something that they feel is in the best interest of the club. The webmaster of this site was kind enough to give us some space to work in. We could have just as easily done this through email and con-call, and not said anything to anybody. Maybe your just sore that you're not involved? :unsure:

[Tristan Smith]

"The groupings are 100% up to each Region and are usually determined by speed, car counts, and/or weights. While I never like to be the slower class in a run-group, someone has to be. Think how ITC feels - EVERY weekend."

Andy,

Not worried about being the slowest class. My concern is speed differentials. It's my sense that we could have some really fast cars once they are developed in this new ITR class, and I am more concerned about my safety. I have raced in Pro IT races at Road Atlanta in my old ITB Datsun back in the day. I more than once got a "chrome shoehorn" out of the way because of the speed disparity. And as Jeff stated, the ITS/ITA fields have been full in the Southeast. I just hope that some of these things are included in the thought process.

[dj10]

Agreed...
But just to make clear, I am OK with aftermarket ECU, just not the stupid and costly part about putting it in the OEM box..... seems too late to totaly drop the ecu thing now....
[/b]

I think you over looking OBDI & OBDII differences. Since you are allowing both type of systems to compete together you must at the very least acknowledge the capabilities of each system. If you don't, you just may be eliminating any OBDI from being competive. Just a thought. :D

I'd like for someone who is working on this ITR thing to at least they have thought about this.
Thanks

[Andy Bettencourt]

This makes no sense given the class philosophy. I can pick up a pony car for less than $2K and get relatively inexpensive performance parts to get it ready to IT standards. However, a 968 Porsche is going to be a much bigger chunk of change...

I look at the popularity of American Iron in NASA. That class is exploding much the same way SM is due to (in my opinion, anyway) the relatively low cost of building a car. [/b]

American Iron is a prototypical NASA class. It's designed as a stand alone to be everything to a few. SCCA does not and can not work like that or else it couldn't be a lot to many. Here is the the Intent of AI:

They police by a power to weight of 9:5 to one HP and 9:1 TQ. This could be one heck of an expensive class with virtually no limits...if you want to win. The V8's in IT would be clammoring for larger brakes and tuner rear suspension stuff etc. You can build any car cheap in IT, it's just how far you want to prep it...just like SM, American Iron - anything really.

A 968 is no more expensive than a E46 323. There will be plenty of affordable cars in ITR, and the goal is for them all to have a shot, regardless of cost.</span></div>

[Knestis]

Apropos of nothing (golly, I love that) the consensus among the tuner-types we are working with is that the OBDI system in the new (but older) Golf we&#39;re building up will allow us MORE tuning lattitude, more affordably, than the OBDII we ran in the first car.

Looks like Andy just beat me to it but I&#39;m pretty sure that the NASA AI cars are well beyond the preparation rules of IT.

K

EDIT - ...which didn&#39;t really get to the OBDI/OBDII question. That hasn&#39;t been on the plate because it&#39;s pretty much accepted that some cars are going to come with advantages, while others don&#39;t. Or vice-versa - some will have issues while others don&#39;t. We can&#39;t get into that kind of granularity, trying to handicap individual make/model options, beyond the general considerations for FWD/RWD, etc. It was pointed out that the Celica GT-S - an R candidate at its apparently achievable feather weight - has oiling issues. We accept that that&#39;s not our problem.

[zracre]

We have ITGT here in the SEDIV and the fields are usually 1-2 cars sometimes 3...it is a dying class...why? Nobody is building them. A pony car with IT mods = heavy fast no brakes. The faster ones tend to run around top ITA times then fall off pretty fast when the brake temps reach critical mass (around lap 5) For them to be competitive in a class above ITS they would need a brake allowance and that is not the IT philosophy. Most will just go to AS.

[JeffYoung]

Evan, I understand. That was one of the considerations in excluding them. I still think it can work, but I agree brakes are an issue.

For now, they are out. If there is enough interest, they may be classed in the future and I would support that.

[planet6racing]

I agree completely that AI cars are well beyond the IT car prep. And I agree that we should not police by HP:weight.

What I am saying is that they saw an opportunity to use a relatively inexpensive car with readily available performance parts and found a way to fit it into their racing that was cost-effective, such that even the new guy with the basic modifications could come out and have fun. For the pony cars, we don&#39;t have that. Just AS and GT. Neither of which I would consider cost effective.

Andy, just out of curiosity, what other cars are being proposed for ITR? I&#39;ve heard of the S2000, Z3, 968, E46 3-series, E36 3-series, and the RX-8. Only 2 of those would I consider "low cost"...

(And, I&#39;m not saying that I am so naive as to not believe that racing is cheap. Heck, I race a Saturn. While I know that the initial upfront cost of the car is minor in comparison to the rest of it all, the cost of the aftermarket parts also falls inline with the purchase price of the car. The more expensive the car, the more expensive you can expect the aftermarket to be...)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, just out of curiosity, what other cars are being proposed for ITR? I&#39;ve heard of the S2000, Z3, 968, E46 3-series, E36 3-series, and the RX-8. Only 2 of those would I consider "low cost"...

(And, I&#39;m not saying that I am so naive as to not believe that racing is cheap. Heck, I race a Saturn. While I know that the initial upfront cost of the car is minor in comparison to the rest of it all, the cost of the aftermarket parts also falls inline with the purchase price of the car. The more expensive the car, the more expensive you can expect the aftermarket to be...) [/b]

"Low cost" is realative. The difference between LC in ITC and LC in ITS is a stretch as well. I joke that when someone crashes a VW GTI-like-thingie that it will be ok because they will see 2 or 3 donors on the way home someone wants to give them...:)

Porsche 944S2
Contour SVT
300ZX
Supra
ect.

By nature these cars have higer HP and initial buy costs will be higher. The question this class is answering is not one of cost, it is one of new, fresh cars, hopefully of which people are interested in racing.

AB

[Knestis]

Andy - you best be telling me if you see any MkIII thingies out there...

I&#39;ll echo what Andy is saying about cost. We are trying to get more cars listed, that are too fast for S, and cost containment is not an issue on the table. I&#39;m captain budget (contrary to what some will think when they see our new paint job) and am CONSTANTLY amazed at what people will spend to go club racing. This class will certainly be more expensive than, say ITC, but that&#39;s not something we&#39;re worried about, I don&#39;t think.

Oddly, I&#39;m thinking that I&#39;m more likely to build an R car in the future than another cheaper B car, simply because it&#39;s more likely to attract spendy renters or marque fans who want at-track support or car preparation.

K

[JeffYoung]

We did, with the spreadsheet, an estimated cost for donor vehicles. High side was probably 15k or so, but plenty of 3 to 5k options. Certianly not like $200 RX7 tubs, but not crazy either -- and would have running motors, etc.

I agree with Kirk and Andy, I think there is enough of a range of cars that you can do a budget ITR car, and have plenty of fun, but just know that it will be about as competitive as a budget ITS car is against BWorld etc.

[tom_sprecher]

Oh yeah, I forgot about ITGT and ITE! Do other divisions have a similar classes and if so is are they well subscribed? If the answers are yes and no why bother with ITR?

Plus, Tristan has a point with the speed differential in the group ITR would run in. Due to safety reasons, car counts, weight & HP, etc. it appears the only group they can run in would be with the GT1, SPO & T1 guys.

Unfortunately, I haven&#39;t run much, but having been grouped with the big boys I know when they blow by in the straight it&#39;s a rush. At least it is for me. I mean damn, the whole car shakes. :o I don&#39;t think an ITR would have the same effect as an SPO (NASCAR) but due to existing car counts I&#39;d prefer if they were not in ITS/ITA/IT7.

And I don&#39;t care if I&#39;m the slowest car in the slowest class in the group. It just makes me work harder to keep up.

[lateapex911]

Keep in mind that IT, as a category aims to be relativley budget friendly...and it is. Can you race cheap and be competitive in IT? Sure can. Go buy a Blethen Audi, or a good ITC car. Tim Klavana has a fast Honda for sale.

Can you spend money? Sure can! It&#39;s rumoured that Mr Moser Sr spent $35K on the ARRC CRX this year. For ITA...and reports of S cars selling in the $35K range are common. But you don&#39;t have to pay King Motorsports $75 an hour to lick the undercoating off your CRX if you don&#39;t want to.

By nature, faster classes cost more IF they are open to more than one VERY limited rule set for ONE model car. IT is of course, a big pond, with more than one model.

Our goal isn&#39;t focusing on keeping costs down at all costs, pun intended, but making sure that there is no obvious overdog, especialy one that is an expensive build.

In a multi marque series, it is nearly impossible to limit spending. The best we can do is make the dollars spent have diminishing returns at some point.

And...on the V8 thing, my comments aren&#39;t really concerning numbers like tq and hp. I really don&#39;t care IF or IF not the car fits in the class.

I care what the "gut" or instictive reaction will be when the CRB, and if it gets that far, the BoD will have when they see "Ford 5.0 litre Mustang" on the list.

This is a HUGE uphill fight to have this even be considered...and I don&#39;t want anything that needs debating or explaining.

if it&#39;s going to see the light of day, the BoD and the CRB have to see it as something that solves their problems, and doesn&#39;t create more.


(Just for the record, and without having nailed down numbers on the V8s, I think they could be made to fit, but I also wonder if the draw is as strong as we think it might be. Some, (a lot of?) the &#39;Murican owners love to throw parts like cams and stuff at the car rather than driving talent, it seems to me. They might be frustrated by the "limited" rules, and balk at having to take stuff off their car to race)

[gran racing]

With the classes running together comments...
If ITS can run with ITB, why can&#39;t ITR run with ITA?

Just curious, what are the car counts in NASA like for some of the cars you mentioned? Is there really much of a demand for this type of class? Is there a larger potential market for another classification category?

[planet6racing]

Just curious, what are the car counts in NASA like for some of the cars you mentioned? Is there really much of a demand for this type of class? Is there a larger potential market for another classification category?
[/b]

To be honest, I have none of this information. I just read about it in GRM and at another site that I frequent. Car counts seem to be in the 20&#39;s for AI, but I cannot back that up with any data at this time.

I don&#39;t know if there is potential. If it were up to me, I&#39;d probably look at performing a Voice of the Customer survey and find out what the SCCA membership is looking for. Of course, that is Work Bill talking and I&#39;m sure that, once I get home and wash the racecar I&#39;ll have a different perspective...

Jake, I understand the concept of IT and guess that, well, right now no answer is really going to make me happy. I understand what you all are trying to do and am trying to be supportive (though you wouldn&#39;t know it, eh?). So, let me do this:

89?-95 Ford Taurus SHO

That&#39;s a car I&#39;d like to see get classed (yes, purely personal motives. Then my friend could finally shut-up and put up...). I thought it had too much for ITS (though it is a big pig) but could probably fit into ITR...

[JeffYoung]

Bill, it is in there, as is the SVT Contour. I mailed you the spreadsheet a few hours ago -- let me know if you didn&#39;t get it.

[lateapex911]

Bill, I&#39;m troubled by your mood, everything OK?

It&#39;s really hard to make faster classes cheap across the board.

But, if you were king, and you thought the V8s probably fit, but knew the CRB would blow snot out of their nose when they saw it on the list, ...........

what would you do???

I&#39;m told that while the buy in might be cheap on those cars the consumables would beh huge as the brakes turn to jello after 5 laps.

Once you check out the spreadsheet, what cars did we miss that fit the parameters and are true to the IT philosophy?

(OK, I don&#39;t know that the CRB will flip on the V8 thing, but I suspect that it&#39;s not what they are thinking of as "ideal", and they probably also think that theres a perfectly good place for those cars in AS. Again, I&#39;m just projecting here and could be all wrong.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom, ITGT isn&#39;t a Nationally recognized class like C, B, A and S. And it&#39;s for basically Fords and Chevy&#39;s and thats it, although regional variations may exist.

ITE, on the other hand is a catchall class. Turbos allowed. Cars from other series allowed. Basically it&#39;s no holds barred racing. Get out your checkbook. In my opinion, it shouldn&#39;t be called "IT" at all.

ITR needs to be for the next performance envelope up the ladder from ITS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the ECU thing, that is rfeally a seperate issue, and does, in my mind bear looking at. But...it has to be the same for R as it is for S and A and B.

[Z3_GoCar]

Great Idea,

Representing GM add gen III and IV camaro & firebird &#39;s with the (Buick)V-6 option. If I remember correctly the latest V-6 put out about 190-200hp. For the blue oval crowd how about the last Mustang model again with the V-6. I don&#39;t have exact hp, torque, or weight but these should be considered.

James

[JeffYoung]

The sixes are in there James.

[gran racing]

I like Bill&#39;s general survey idea if done properly. For people not racing, what would need to be done to attract them into the sport & SCCA (as in racing classes)? What types of cars would you like to see racing that are not currently? Why is there such a HUGE turnover within SCCA?

ITR...not so sure I care either way. I&#39;m still curious what some of the NASA numbers are for some of these cars racing? I would prefer to see a class in IT that has more restrictions as to what can be done to the car. Instead of adding another expensive class, maybe go the other way even with some cool cars.

Although I do not like many aspects of NASA&#39;s PT class (we&#39;ve already beaten this one to death), there are some cool things we can learn from it and use over in IT land.

[tom_sprecher]

$35k for an IT car??? Who does that? And why?

Maybe I&#39;ve been hanging with the Formula and GT crowd for too long but with that kind of money you could own a nice purpose built race car, say a 3-4 year old Continental, C Sports Racer or SPO/NASCAR road burner instead of a freakin&#39; Honda some mom used to get groceries with.

But, like a lot of things, maybe I just don&#39;t get it.

[gran racing]

I agree with you Tom. I get Anthony doing top of the line builds to promote his business, but many others...

[Bill Miller]

$35k for an IT car??? Who does that? And why?

Maybe I&#39;ve been hanging with the Formula and GT crowd for too long but with that kind of money you could own a nice purpose built race car, say a 3-4 year old Continental, C Sports Racer or SPO/NASCAR road burner instead of a freakin&#39; Honda some mom used to get groceries with.

But, like a lot of things, maybe I just don&#39;t get it.
[/b]


Tom,

For whatever reason, that&#39;s what having someone build you a top-level ITS car will cost you, and then some. And who knows, full-tilt ITA cars may be pushing that number. I believe Anthony Serra quoted something in the $11k - $12k range for one of his full-tilt engine packages. Not to many years ago, an A2 ITB Golf from BSI would run you ~$20k. Wait until after the Runoffs this year, and look at what top SMs will cost.

I agree, you could run in a lot of other classes for that kind of money. Heck, you can buy the fastest EP Miata (past National Champion) for $50k. I forget what Loshak wanted for his EP Prelude, but I think it was about the same. Plenty of other top EP cars for the same, or less (sometimes lots), than top ITS cars.

[lateapex911]

$35k for an IT car??? Who does that? And why?

Maybe I&#39;ve been hanging with the Formula and GT crowd for too long but with that kind of money you could own a nice purpose built race car, say a 3-4 year old Continental, C Sports Racer or SPO/NASCAR road burner instead of a freakin&#39; Honda some mom used to get groceries with.

But, like a lot of things, maybe I just don&#39;t get it.
[/b]

Lots of reasons. If you have good competition in your area in a certain class, then the desire becomes greater to do well...It&#39;s better to beat many than a few.

Formula cars are forbidden in many families.

C Sports and so on are big wrenching classes, and the parts are foreign to most guys, plus, in many areas, why bother? Even the Runoffs had a lame field with the guys in back, who "won" the right to be there 7 seconds off the pace!

SPO, Nascar...gets REALLY expensive if you want to win.

Finally, while it&#39;s anot a "real" National champ. the ARRCs do have some prestige. So theres a draw there too.

That&#39;s why we have lots of different oppurtunities in SCCA...

[lateapex911]

sorry, dbl post..

[ddewhurst]

Jake, is someone doing a double post a debatable issue. ;)

[tom_sprecher]

I dunno, I just feel you should get more technology for that kind of money. Also, there&#39;s the "cool" factor. With all the restrictions placed on IT or SM there&#39;s really nothing wizzy (Formula term) about them. At least not like purpose built cars. Hell, with a plain paint job these cars could have just come back from the rush hour commute by just looking at them. Any car in one of the classes I mentioned in my previous post simply painted in primer would still turn heads.

At the last ARRC test day a friend of a friend had an SPO that was a NASCAR road race car and was from a couple of seasons ago. I believe it was purchased for around $55k. Now, I realize that&#39;s a bit more than $35k, and way out of my price range (I may be slow, but I ain&#39;t crazy), but there wasn&#39;t anything on that car that wasn&#39;t trick city (MX term). I seriously considered SPO by way of a ASA or ARCA roller (easy to find at $15-18k) and a crate motor ($5k) or a fairly hot motor built from Summit or Barnett available parts ($10k). Much cheaper and will lift some skirts compared the $35k Honda example.

Now, I realize I have said nothing about local competition or that purpose built cars may not get spousal approval or any of the other reasons mentioned. I&#39;m just saying that I personally would have a hard time justifying to myself or my friends that spending that kind of money on an IT Whatchamacallit vs. a thoroughbred race car.

[JeffYoung]

Tom, that&#39;s a good point. Here are my thoughts on this.

It&#39;s probably always been true with S cars that more money has been spent on a front running effort than many people would spend on an S car. Why? Because it offers many the ONLY place to race some of these cars. SPO is basically Nascar stockers. If you want to run a World-Challenge "like" car, no luck.

In my view, there will always be people, via marque loyalty or otherwise (some may see it as a limited feeder into World Challenge or Grand Am, something Speedsource and BWorld and Flatout have certainly proven) that want something you can&#39;t get with an SPO car. I mean, right now, there are $50k BMW and close to RX7 builds out there in ITS. Hell, I probably have $25k in my car over 3 years.

In looking at all that SCCA has to offer, right now, I would say that ITR would be my choice. Production allows too many modifications. ITR has the widest array of fast GT cars, sports cars and sedans from the last 15 years that I can race with minimal mods, but enough to make the engineering side of it fun. ITR also offers a lot of speed. We&#39;ve debated this in the "star chamber" but the estimates on a speed gap with ITS range from a minimum of two seconds to as much as 5-7 seconds on some tracks. that&#39;s a lot and puts the ITR cars at or above EP levels of speed.

Then, and this is rather "base," but there will always be some people that want to run at the "top." S has people like that, and I have to admit that was one of the reasons I have an S car. ITR will attract those drivers as well.

I&#39;m really looking forward to it.

[lateapex911]

I dunno, I just feel you should get more technology for that kind of money. Also, there&#39;s the "cool" factor. With all the restrictions placed on IT or SM there&#39;s really nothing wizzy (Formula term) about them. At least not like purpose built cars. ....At the last ARRC test day a friend of a friend had an SPO that was a NASCAR road race car and was from a couple of seasons ago. I believe it was purchased for around $55k. Now, I realize that&#39;s a bit more than $35k........but there wasn&#39;t anything on that car that wasn&#39;t trick city (MX term).
[/b]

Well it&#39;s all about what you like, of course, but i would debate the "trick city" aspect of an NASCAR road race car. NASCAR is not exactly at the leading edge of technology, Tubes, sheets of metal, simple tubular suspension, pushrod V8 with a carburetor....

The leading edge IT cars have advanced data aq systems, prorammable fuel injection and are actually pretty trick if you look closely. Your own car has some trick innovations.

I hear what you&#39;re saying,, but I&#39;d rather spend money on a car that races in a class that has a stout top line field. Lots of the other classes are pretty poorly subscribed. I&#39;ve watched a lot of trick cars do some glorified track days, then take home a trophy.

[gran racing]

I&#39;ve watched a lot of trick cars do some glorified track days, then take home a trophy.[/b]

Yeah, that stuff cracks me up!!! (last year...) "Hey, how&#39;s it going Dave? Phew, the track was pretty slippery today but I still managed to win!" :happy204: Oh, congrats. My friend and I begin to walk away and I confirm "wasn&#39;t he the only one in his class?"

"Yup"

"Did he win overall?"

"Nope, just his class"

"Oh. Tough race, huh?"

No really, that&#39;s about how it went on not just one race weekend. The even funnier thing was how he talked about how he needed to buy fresh tires quite frequently to stay fast.

[benspeed]

Dave Gran - you made me laugh my ass off!

I bought a sweet ASA national car for a great price since that series folded up. I&#39;ve been running ITS for 5 years and poured a ton of $$ into the car to keep it healthy and running up front. The SPO/NASCAR play should be a good one for reliability. The cost to run these cars are actually the same or less than an ITS car. Parts are beyond pletiful and pretty cheap. Motor options are unlimited.

But I was laughing my ass off about the "man, had to buy new tires to stay at the front of my single car class..." That&#39;s what I&#39;m worried about. After running in groups of 20+ ITS cars I"m not sure how I&#39;ll feel running against 5 SPO guys. My goals will be to win overall which means beating the GT-1 Trans Am cars - not that likely but we&#39;ll see. I haven&#39;t sold the ITS car yet and I wont try too hard to sell it until I&#39;m sure I like the new class.

To the guys who don&#39;t think these stockers aren&#39;t trick city - swing by and checkout the BigSpeed Monte Carlo - it is beyond trick. And it&#39;ll run with a 911 twin turbo any day of the week. :023:

I race for fun and especially the good competition. ITS, ITA and the Miata classes are the most competitve (OK SRF and Formula V are in there too). But ITS is getting out of control expensive. No fake, I was getting ready to do the $50K ITS bimmer until I realized that the contraversy around those cars was only heating up. I have a full blown SPO car for $12K plus another $3K to convert it to RR. These cars can be found without looking too hard for under $20K plus the RR conversion.

For the money a purpose built car is better than running a full blown Rabbit. (But if I&#39;m the only guy out there in SPO - that&#39;s gonna get friggin borning fast.) :015:

[tom_sprecher]

I understand that if there is a particular make or model of inherently fast mass produced car you want to race and do so within a rather restrictive rule set of IT the SCCA needs a class like ITR in order to provide a means for you to do so. Also, there are some very innovative bits and pieces that can be added or exchanged on IT cars. I know that labor can be upwards of 2/3 the cost of a professional build and is probably the majority of some of the prices quoted in this thread. And racing in a well subscribed class is one of the main reasons I chose to buy an IT car.

All that said I personally could not justify that level of expensive on a car that for the most part was already built when it rolled off the production line. Given the rule set for IT and what it allows you to remove/replace/modify I can’t see the technology there. Since we live by the credo, IIDSYCYC (I think I got that right), what are these big bucks buying?

I personally don’t care for NASCAR all that much since most of my drivers were killed during the early ‘90’s, but I liked to use it as an example in this case. The same argument would apply to Formula as well. Anyway, you’re right that NASCAR is only “tubes, sheets of metal, simple tubular suspension, pushrod V8 with a carburetor....” but it is all equipment that we are not allowed to use in order to keep the cost of racing IT reasonable. It is also equipment that someone had to design for, purchase and put together and that’s what you’re paying for when you buy purpose built cars. For the life of me I can’t think of what are you paying for on the high dollar IT car that’s not in the SPO? Data? Got it. Programmable FI? Nope, but damn that’s some pretty high dollar FI.

What do you get in the SPO that’s not in the IT car? I don’t have time to list all the pure racing equipment that goes into one of those bad boys, so I’ll leave it to your imagination since that’s the rule set those guys work within. And that’s the point I can’t get past. Look at some examples.

Asphalt Race Cars (http://www.autoracingtrader.com/asphalt_race_cars.htm)

If I had the $ some of these guys are spending on ITS when I was looking maybe I would have went another route.

[Bill Miller]

No fake, I was getting ready to do the $50K ITS bimmer [/b]

Now THERE&#39;S a term I haven&#39;t heard in 30 years!!

[JeffW]

I personally don’t care for NASCAR all that much since most of my drivers were killed during the early ‘90’s,[/b]

Davey Allison and Alan Kulwicki in small aircraft, J.D McDuffie at Watkins Glen in &#39;91, Neil Bonnet at Daytona practice in &#39;94 (&#39;95?), and a kid, whose name I have forgotten, in a street car while speeding on a public highway about 10 years ago. And, of course, Dale Earnhardt in 2001. Gone are the days of drivers who give interviews if they feel like it. NASCAR wanted to shed the "baccy-chewin&#39;, sister-huggin&#39;, squirrel-huntin&#39;, redneck image" and gave us media boys. I long for the days of the Donnie Allison-Cale Yarbrough donnybrook. Jeff Gordon pushing Matt Kenseth was like watching Potsie take a shot at Napoleon Dynamite.
Now, Biffle&#39;s girl wagging her finger :018: at Kurt Busch&#39;s girl.... Speaking of Kurt Busch.... did he get his ears pinned back over the winter? :unsure:

Back to ITR.

I have not seen the list of proposed cars. And there have been a few, "What about the [my dog in this fight]?" As I mentioned before, there are some orphaned cars out there (some not IT appropriate) that need a place to go after Touring/Showroom Stock. If those are included, we may get the support of the Touring/SS community with the CRB. And if Production takes the Touring/SS castoffs that don&#39;t fit into the IT philosphy, another part of the equation is solved. The IT community can make recommendations for a new class but SCCA needs to take a broad, comprehensive look at all of the production-based racers. When a car gets classed in Touring there should be a proposed path for that vehicle for IT, Prod, and GT. Had this been done in the past, SCCA would have already had plans for the ITR class. T3 was in response to the BMW Z4 which was protested by the SSB Miata crowd at the 2003 Runoffs and not allowed to run. 2004 Runoffs saw a Z4 take SSB. Will the Z4 be in ITS or ITR? (Z3 is in ITA)

TURN RANT ON!

I think a bigger part of this issue is some of the people who run SCCA at different levels. Without drivers (Club Racing, Solo, Rally), there is no reason for T&S, F&C, Registration, Sound Control, etc. Take your sound meter to the track and tell me what the crickets and locusts register. We, as drivers and owners, need to infiltrate the leadership. Look around. How many of the people who are in charge at the Regional, Divisional and National levels are current or former racers? In some cases, not enough.

How about this? On a 9 member board, let&#39;s have designated seats for specific classes. E-F-G-H Prod (but no Spridget guys :D ) and IT(R-S-A-B-C). Screw Formula and SM :P OK, maybe not such a drastic tack. A fair representation of drivers elected by their constituents, a democratic republic. But it would be nice to get away from the church auxiliary model that is SCCA in many places. How many times have you heard, "We&#39;ve never done it that way before," or "I don&#39;t think we can do that" ?

RANT OFF!

[Bill Miller]

and a kid, whose name I have forgotten, in a street car while speeding on a public highway about 10 years ago[/b]

You&#39;re probably talking about Robby Moroso. And don&#39;t forget Davey and Clifford Allison (and I know there are others that I can&#39;t think of). IIRC, J.D. McDuffy was one of the last, true independents. Spun wrenches on his own car, etc.

[Knestis]

Having built, maintainted, and/or driven SCCA cars from an ITC Renault to a Formula Atlantic Ralt - and a bunch of stuff in between - I&#39;m more than comfortable saying that the ONLY reason that ANY formula car, sports racer, GT, or Production car might be more affordable to run than ANY IT car, is that the level of competition is lower.

When the guy for whom we managed the Ralt wanted to do something that scared his wife less, we did a complete feasibility study of a conservative, circle-track-based GT1/TransAm car (this was pre-current T/A rules, so the differences were negligable), we learned that our rosy estimates - like those above - were WAY outside of reality. And that was in 1990 racing dollars.

I&#39;ve been sucked into the cool factor thing and, once my head cleared, jumped right the hell back out. A $12K SPO car is about as "full blown" as would be an archtypical $1200 ITC Rabbit, to put things into a currency familiar to folks here. If there were only 5 ITC entrants, a guy could finish in the top five with that Rabbit, easy.

But then, we all make our choices based on what we think is important.

K

[tom_sprecher]

Wow, not a whole lot of room allowed there for exceptions so I&#39;m not going to bother with quoting any as I feel they detract from the point trying to be made anyway. I would agree that Formula, GT/SPO and Sports Racer in general are more $ to run than IT in general. My point was I can’t see spending $35k for a Honda or $50k for a BMW that is for all practical purposes is a lightly modified street car? It started out as basic transportation and the rules dictate that it shall remain that way with a few exceptions. Hey, maybe I’m crazy that way, I don’t know.

K, maybe in the modern era of stock car racing, due to it&#39;s overwhelming popularity with everyone from spectators to the sponsors that want their attention, it’s possible that stock car packages are cheaper than they were 16 years ago. Things can change over that period of time based on supply and demand. Apparently, according to the multitude of cars available at the site I linked, not only are stock car packages cheaper there&#39;s also a hell of a lot of them. And that was one of several sites that sell these types of cars. I did not find that to be the case last year w/IT. S&D also applies to engines and trannys for V-8 powered cars. It’s sick how cheap a Chevy small block build can be done for these days. Unfortunately, most cars were way over the $15k I had budgeted for a car and trailer, hence the IT7.

I will agree with you that GT1 is ridiculously expensive no matter what you do. FA is that way too. It comes from one-off or very limited production parts. I have one friend that switched from GT1 to GTA because of it. Another upgraded to FA last November and is already experiencing the financial reality of just keeping it on the track.

And you’re right again in that winning in a heavily subscribed class speaks magnitudes about your driving skill compared to the others. Personally, I am happy just trying to chase down anybody in the group that’s ahead of me. Also, I wish I was not affected by the “cool factor” but maybe I’m just weak. One thing though, I dunno about the ITC Rabbit and an SPO being equally cool or full blown. I just can’t agree with ya there at any price. The rules just don’t allow it.

[lateapex911]

Well, Tom, you can always add "cool" to your car with a cool Data aq package that comes with a display. Even cooler at night. And of course you can use the requisite laptop to watch in car racing stufff that you recorded with your cool digital memory device and bullet cams.

And when you&#39;re done with this car, you can always move the stuff to the next car, which is a cool money justification!

[seckerich]

Tom --No disrespect intended but you are really missing the boat if you think anything about a front running IT car is anything but high tech. In your world of an ITA RX that might be true and you can have lots of fun with little investment and basic equipment. The first 10 seconds in any car is cheap. The last 2 seconds take tons of time and money--just insert the car--doesn&#39;t matter what make. A 35,000 plus IT car is a work of art frame up restoration for the most part. You can do the same yourself with hard work and patience. Kills me to see some of the rats that show up in my tech line.

[Catch22]

Cool?

You want "Cool?"

Well, from a "civilian" point of view a "cheap" GT1 car that runs regionals (and not well) might be cool.

But to most racers, a guy doing 1:49s at Road Atlanta in a sub-100 horsepower ITC car is pretty friggin "cool." How about 1:42s in one of those cars gramma used to get groceries in?
Yeah? Thats cool.

I wouldn&#39;t race anything BUT IT. Sprints, enduros, Pro series that pay money...
And bigger fields than pretty much every national class including the formula cars (ESPECIALLY the formula cars).

A few weeks ago at VIR the formula car groups had about 20 cars in them. The IT cars and Spec Miatas were taking the green flag in the ECRs with 100 cars.
Where do I want to race? Not a second thought.

[Geo]

You know, I think it&#39;s a red herring to talk about what people spend. First of all, people will spend what they have to spend (and usually then some). Secondly, people who buy a car they had someone build for them are paying top dollar x 10^3.

Cars that cost $50k that you just send a check to have built cost a lot less if you do all the work yourself. IMHO about the only thing that is hard to duplicate DIY is an engine from Sunbelt, Milledge, wt al. The rest, with some time and hard work can be duplicated for significantly less.

My car is getting everything but dipped. If I could write a bigger check, I would have dipped it, but the $700 for dipping could be better spent elsewhere in my case. So I scraped. Instead of buying a brand new harness for a 22 year old car, I removed it and I&#39;m mapping it and replacing all questionable wires. Yes, It&#39;s taking me a while, but it damned sure isn&#39;t costing me $50k. It&#39;s just costing me a lot of time. Of course, I&#39;ll know every damned nut and bolt on the bloody car.

[zracre]

A silly expensive GT car is as cool to its owner as a newbie in his IT car...The point of IT is to try to have an affordable competitive class. $50k for an IT car? well im sure some would (and have ) cut that check. Racing a street based class to me is way cooler than racing a tube frame contraption...no matter how fast and fun it may be. My passion is racing touring type cars. I remember watching BTCC races years ago and being hooked...going to a race and seeing street cars with cages...hooked! If someone has an open checkbook, where the money goes depends on the individual...if you want a CSR/DSR/Star Mazda/GT Car, well sign away! If you LOVE BMW&#39;s Z cars Hondacuras RX&#39;s or any street cars, IT Touring and Production await your checkbook! Its all about what is cool to You!

[tom_sprecher]

Looks like I succeeded in pissing some people off but honestly I didn&#39;t mean any disrespect for IT or the people who love it. Hell, I love it, but for what it is supposed to be. I got hooked on IT and RX-7&#39;s back in &#39;93 at the inaugural SCCA running at AMS as a first time worker. The cars still had passenger seats back then.

You all bring up excellent points. Turning fast times in an underpowered car - cool. Racing competitively in well subscribed classes - cool. Turning a street car into a race car and loving doing it - cool & priceless. Not keeping things in perspective or knowing were to draw the line - not cool.

A $35-50k IT car isn&#39;t cool, it&#39;s a bit excessive, but definitely not cool in my opinion . I guess I can&#39;t see where that kind of money is going. What are you paying for specifically. Yeah, the last 1% is 99% of the cost, and so on, and I realize you could pay $100/hr for technical expertise, or half that for grunt work, but I just don’t feel IT is the place to do that. For that amount I want to know where’s the beef?

I do all my own work, not only because I’m kind of cheap that way, but generally feel I can do a better job because it’s mine and I know how. It’s kind of a curse. People regularly ask me “how did you know how to do that?” I tell them all you have to do is read about it and just start doing it – it’s that simple. I also lie. I started working on my friends bicycles when I was 10, then as a motorcycle mechanic out of high school, then cars while in engineering school, then industrial machinery, and frame offs, Formula cars (not to brag, but what the hell, 2004 & 2005 SARRC Champs and 2 track records) and now my own car. I am no expert, believe me, but by now I hope I might know a thing or two about using my hands.

I’d love to have someone else prep the tub that’s sitting in my garage but instead I’m going out there today with the dry ice and scraping that fµ€king sound deadening and undercoating. Dipping would be great but 7 Benjamins can be better spent. It’s not that I mind spending money it’s just I try to justify it when I do. I may not agree with a lot of what I see, but I also believe in to each his own.

Also in light of my limited experience and recent on track budget buster I have a real negative attitude toward putting too much effort into something that can (and did) end up being cut up with torch and scrapped. I know that’s the price you pay but ya gotta keep a leash on it.

[JeffYoung]

No truer statement than this:



Tom --No disrespect intended but you are really missing the boat if you think anything about a front running IT car is anything but high tech. In your world of an ITA RX that might be true and you can have lots of fun with little investment and basic equipment. The first 10 seconds in any car is cheap. The last 2 seconds take tons of time and money--just insert the car--doesn&#39;t matter what make. A 35,000 plus IT car is a work of art frame up restoration for the most part. You can do the same yourself with hard work and patience. Kills me to see some of the rats that show up in my tech line.
[/b]

I remember thinking I&#39;ll bolt a header on my car, some good pads and tires and I&#39;ll win baby! Not possible. Well, maybe with a BMW (just kidding!).

Seriously, take a look at Steve&#39;s car sometime. Or Ricky T&#39;s 99 RX7. Or Steve Parrish&#39;s Z car. Like Steve said, the equivalent of a 100 point restoration (you take EVERYTHING apart and put it all back together right, and for the purpose of racing it, beating it and abusing it).

The level of patience, prep, attention to detail and WORK required to run up front in ITS, ITA and IT7 (when the bar is set as high as it is by guys like Rick, and Grover McNair and Don Vincini) will amaze you at first, make you discouraged second, and then third hopefully will motivate you to get your ass to work.....lol.

[Geo]

Tom, just in case there is any confusion, you certainly didn&#39;t piss me off. Like you, long before I&#39;d spend $50k on an IT car I&#39;d have a formula car sitting in my shop. I love IT, but for serious money I&#39;d rather race FF or F2000 or FM or........ I now you get the picture. I think we&#39;re of the same mind there.

When it comes to spending money on IT, I&#39;m no concerned what a few people with big checkbooks do. I know that a very large portion of those $50k checks is labor AND profit for the shops building the cars and that I could build the same car for a boatload less, perhaps even half. I am doing everything myself on my cars. Partly to save money (yes, I know it costs me time), but also partly because I get great satisfaction of doing so, including scraping the rubberized coating from the wheel wells and the sound deadening from the cockpit. Nasty jobs, but part of the process.

If I were wealthy enough to be able to write the $50k check for a top shelf IT car, I might be inclined to do so. But without question, if I were truly independently wealthy (read, didn&#39;t have to work), I&#39;d do it ALL myself again. Some would find that crazy. Me, I find it rewarding.

In the end, however, I think I could build the same caliber car as say Bimmerworld for a fraction of the cost. Strip, dip, reassemble buying all the right parts (mostly direct from BW) and an engine from Sunbelt.

Here&#39;s a good question for speculation.....

How much do you think a top flight BW car could be reproduced for, doing all the work yourself (the engine package is purchaed from Sunbelt however)?

[benspeed]

Tom - I agree with you - $50K for an IT is rediculous but guys are dropping that kind of money. The guys who spend that money are either shops making a name for themself or folks who don&#39;t wrench but want to win (my category). I was glad I had the reality check before I went forward. Heck, I already put a bunch of $$ in my RX7.

But the ASA/GTA/SPO thing is likely going to pickup some momentum over the next couple of years. Folks have the impression that running a stocker is big bucks. Not so for a ASA/GTA/SPO car. These cars are purpose built racers that can be had for the cost of a quality IT car. Difference being - they&#39;re purpose built and don&#39;t break or wear out nearly as fast. They&#39;re also not 20 years old. The trick part of the cars is the adjustability - the range of adjustment is huge and parts are cheap. I&#39;ve kept spreadsheets for the last 5 years on running ITS and I&#39;ll do the same for SPO. I hope my bet that SPO is cheaper will be correct.

The other nice thing is these ASA/GTA/SPO cars are light - 2,550 without the driver. So you get to drive a car that handles as good as a sports car with more than twice the HP - 430 hp with an LS1 motor. I don&#39;t think I&#39;d have bought a cup or busch car because of the weight and the motors are way more expensive. Lighter car = cheaper motor.

I think we&#39;ll see more stockers in SCCA over the next couple years. Seems like GTA/SPO is growing down south and I hope we get some takers up North. The pure volume of cars available cannot be ingnored. I won&#39;t go for GT1 - just way to expensive on the motor side.

I also agree that the level of competition is the tops in IT. But to run up front - big friggin money - at least to somebody like me who doesn&#39;t have much mechanical skill and usually has to pay somebody to do the work. This year I&#39;m hoping for reliability and more time driving than fixing (and some good competition).

Cheers,

[JeffYoung]

George, good question. Let&#39;s start a list:

1. Donor --- if you look, you can find a decent 325 for $3-5. Say $4k to be safe.

$4,000

2. Motor -- Sunbelt or like quality, $6-8k. Say $7k

$7,000

3. Cage -- I&#39;m not sure it is reasonable to expect even a decent wrench to do this, so say we farm this out too -- $2k.

$2,000

4. Wheels/tires -- $2000

$2,000

5. Springs, sways, bushings

$600 (cost)

6. Seat

$400

7. Gauges/instrumentation

$400

8. Brake lines, rebuild calipers, rebuild master

$200

9. Diff/LSD

$1500

10. Shocks. A BW car? probably what,$2000 for all four corners?

$2000

11. Air dam/splitter

$500

12. Dyno tune

$1000


That&#39;s about $20k right there.

[lateapex911]

here&#39;s the flip side to that question. If you are in the position to be paid for your time, which is better....working more hours...or scraping gunk?

Sometimes the $40K cars get sold to a guy who worked hard on his car, but at his business, and for less time than he would have spent in the garage.

[dj10]

If all you guys that work on their own cars would put all that time into their jobs, instead of wasting time on the race cars, they could pay someone else to build their race cars and have tons of money in the bank. :D

[zracre]

George, good question. Let&#39;s start a list:

1. Donor --- if you look, you can find a decent 325 for $3-5. Say $4k to be safe.

$4,000

2. Motor -- Sunbelt or like quality, $6-8k. Say $7k

$7,000

3. Cage -- I&#39;m not sure it is reasonable to expect even a decent wrench to do this, so say we farm this out too -- $2k.

$2,000

4. Wheels/tires -- $2000

$2,000

5. Springs, sways, bushings

$600 (cost)

6. Seat

$400

7. Gauges/instrumentation

$400

8. Brake lines, rebuild calipers, rebuild master

$200

9. Diff/LSD

$1500

10. Shocks. A BW car? probably what,$2000 for all four corners?

$2000

11. Air dam/splitter

$500

12. Dyno tune

$1000
That&#39;s about $20k right there.
[/b]

and then there is a Motec, SIR, Belts, Fancy radiator, clutch, tranny rebuild, paint/decals, brake rotors and pads, bushings and sway bars im sure are more...and the suspension and subframe "factory repairs"...not hard to dump silly money in these things. Basically when they build it, you would be better off financially to just buy one depending on what you make per hour...but i like to know what i have thats why i build rather than buy.

[its66]

If all you guys that work on their own cars would put all that time into their jobs, instead of wasting time on the race cars, they could pay someone else to build their race cars and have tons of money in the bank. :D
[/b]

DJ,

You know that you can&#39;t apply financial logic to anything involving racecars. It&#39;ll never work.

[DavidM]

George, good question. Let&#39;s start a list:

4. Wheels/tires -- $2000

$2,000

5. Springs, sways, bushings

$600 (cost)

6. Seat

$400

7. Gauges/instrumentation

$400

8. Brake lines, rebuild calipers, rebuild master

$200

9. Diff/LSD

$1500

10. Shocks. A BW car? probably what,$2000 for all four corners?

$2000

[/b]

Are we building an 8/10ths or 10/10ths car? If we&#39;re going 10/10ths......

$2k for wheels AND tires seems low. I&#39;d say $2-3k just for lightweight race wheels which don&#39;t need spacers. And do you want a second set for rain tires?

$400 for gauges and instrumentation? I&#39;d say $1-2k and up if you want a stack system or equivalent.

My guess would be $1k per corner at least for shocks/springs.

I think I just added another $5k. I can see $25k in parts alone on a 10/10ths car.

I find working on my car rewarding, but I only have so much time (still working on that independently wealthy thing). I&#39;d love to build my own race car, but I ain&#39;t got the time for it. Nor did I have the $30k+ to have one built. So I bought one somebody else built. :D That&#39;s still got to be the cheapest (and quickest) way to get into this sport.

The idea of a 2600lb stock car with 400+ hp kind of sounds fun, but I&#39;d probably just be doing dounuts the whole time. I get the back end sliding around enough in my 2600lb, 160 hp car. I think one of the other attractions of IT is that it&#39;s necessarily as fast as some of the other classes. I&#39;ve always liked the Radicals in DSR, but I&#39;d probably kill myself if I tried to drive one of those right now. IT is a place where you can learn to race and move on to a faster class if you want. Or you can just stick around and keeping having fun in IT.

David

[Banzai240]

The idea of a 2600lb stock car with 400+ hp kind of sounds fun,...[/b]

At some point, I believe there is a wt/pwr threshold that has an effect on the safety rules mandated for a racing class... I may be wrong, but I think that, at some point, once you exceed a certain threshold, you move out of the realm of IT cage legality and start getting into GT style requirements...

I may be wrong... Just thought I read that somewhere in the past... The numbers you mention here are approaching GT-1 numbers. I&#39;m pretty sure that stricter safety regs would be required at that point...

[Fastfred92]

I get the back end sliding around enough in my 2600lb, 160 hp car.
David
[/b]
Care to explain how you get 160hp in a ITA car ?????????? :wacko:

[Bill Miller]

I imagine he&#39;s talking crank HP.

[jhooten]

If all you guys that work on their own cars would put all that time into their jobs, instead of wasting time on the race cars, they could pay someone else to build their race cars and have tons of money in the bank. :D
[/b]


In the good ole days before the Overtime died that was true. Now I can olny work 80 every two weeks so I have to work on the car to keep me busy and out of trouble.

[x-ring]

You&#39;re only ALLOWED to work 80 hours/2 weeks? Cool. I&#39;m &#39;allowed&#39; to work much more than that, as much as I want.

&#39;Course, they only pay for 80... :wacko:

Edited to clairify work week.

[jhooten]

You&#39;re only ALLOWED to work 80 hours/week? Cool. I&#39;m &#39;allowed&#39; to work much more than that, as much as I want.

&#39;Course, they only pay for 80... :wacko:
[/b]

Inspector Till Is still around.

There is a 10 min grace period. If I come in the door at 5 minutes before the start of my shift I have to be out the door by 5 minutes after the shift is over or be subject to a disciplinary action. If there is an energency that requires me to work past the scheduled shift I have to leave early the next day. The CEO trying to show he is cutting the budget and the union thugs fighting the wrong battles again caused this mess.


And it is 80 hours every two week not every week.

[benspeed]

At some point, I believe there is a wt/pwr threshold that has an effect on the safety rules mandated for a racing class... I may be wrong, but I think that, at some point, once you exceed a certain threshold, you move out of the realm of IT cage legality and start getting into GT style requirements...

I may be wrong... Just thought I read that somewhere in the past... The numbers you mention here are approaching GT-1 numbers. I&#39;m pretty sure that stricter safety regs would be required at that point...
[/b]

The stocker is setup like a Nextel Cup car - safety cage is a GT-1 safety level. I&#39;d race in GT-1 but is seems like SPO is the Nascar class. I&#39;d like to put ITE on the door so I can run enduros, but the speed differential would be big. Doubt it would be allowed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I&#39;d like to put ITE on the door so I can run enduros, but the speed differential would be big. Doubt it would be allowed. [/b]

Plus no slicks in ITE in NER...

AB

[dj10]

The stocker is setup like a Nextel Cup car - safety cage is a GT-1 safety level. I&#39;d race in GT-1 but is seems like SPO is the Nascar class. I&#39;d like to put ITE on the door so I can run enduros, but the speed differential would be big. Doubt it would be allowed. [/b]

Ben, put some DOT racing on it and you&#39;ll be legal. Any previously pro series car can run ITE. Don&#39;t worry about about the speed, they will get out of the way. :D This exactly why I got out of ITEverything.

[orlando_wrx]

In all the debate I haven&#39;t seen any inquiry into allowing AWD in ITR. There have been numerous people questioning about the Subaru 2.5 RS and they still seem to have nowhere to go. I&#39;m sure they will be way underpowered for a class like this, but at least that will give them a place to race away from the autocross, and the inability to make the power of the other proposed cars seems to negate the AWD advantage that so many people overestimate at a low prep level such as IT.

[Andy Bettencourt]

In all the debate I haven&#39;t seen any inquiry into allowing AWD in ITR. There have been numerous people questioning about the Subaru 2.5 RS and they still seem to have nowhere to go. I&#39;m sure they will be way underpowered for a class like this, but at least that will give them a place to race away from the autocross, and the inability to make the power of the other proposed cars seems to negate the AWD advantage that so many people overestimate at a low prep level such as IT. [/b]

Joel,

One of the goals for the proposal is to not change any rules. This is destined to fail should rules differ between classes instide a category. Besides, there is NO WAY a 164hp 2.5RS could compete in ITR at those power levels unless you gave it some sort of power allowance - see my first point above. And who would build one that could never win?

AWD may come, but it won&#39;t be in ITR - at least right away.

[Fastfred92]

I may have missed it but is the early Boxster being considered ?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I may have missed it but is the early Boxster being considered ? [/b]

Yes.

[lateapex911]

I may have missed it but is the early Boxster being considered ?
[/b]
Just curious, would you consider building one?

[dj10]

Would this class be ready to go in 2007?

[dickita15]

Well it could be but it depends on the CRB and the BOD.
If everyone who has the ear of someone on either of those boards tell that person that we are in need of a class above ITS and if there is not a lot of controversy over the details of the final proposal and if the “no new class people” are not threatened by a regional only class.
It is possible it could be voted in August for 07 implementation.

[seckerich]

Is the RX8 on the list? I have seen some comments about it being too powerful for the class. Based on the Grand Am power numbers that are spot on for IT prep levels--it should fit well. And yes--I will build one.

[JeffYoung]

Steve, right now it is out for two reasons, one technical one more problematic.

1. I believe first year of manufacture was 2003 (or 2004), so technically not eligible for IT racing until 2008 at least.

2. The group&#39;s initial opinion is that the car is too powerful for ITR, given the known gains you can make with a rotary with exhaust, etc. If you have some dyno info to the contrary, would love to see it. Anything more than 280-300 at the crank or 230 or so at the wheels is going to be a problem.

Thanks Steve.

See you at Roebling I hope.

Jeff

[dj10]

Jeff,
Would this class (ITR) be ready to go in 2007?

[lateapex911]

Jeff,
Would this class (ITR) be ready to go in 2007?
[/b]

(Ooops...sorry, I just saw you asked earlier, and that you readressed this to jeff, but hey, i wrote all this crap, so I&#39;m leavin&#39; it!)

It&#39;s possible........

But...that&#39;s only IF certain events occur.

1- A large and undeniable groundswell of grassroots support from real members who want to build cars nd who write to the SCCA.

2- The CRB and the BoD get behind it, and quickly. It takes time to get things on the dockets for meetings. IF the ITAC likes it, it passes it to the CRB...who then put it on their list. When they get to it, they discuss it, and A: Reject it flatly, B Reject it for more info, or C, pass it up to the BoD, who put it on their list, and get to it when they have a chance. Then it goes thru the same process. You can see how it could take months. I suspect, at some point, one of the boards will likely want it put out for member feedback....IF we&#39;re lucky!

3- All of which presumes that the BoD is willing to do the same for IT that they did for Touring, which is to create a class from the top own, skipping the standard "regional implementation" method. (such as how Spec Miata came to be)

#3 Is a HUGE presumption. But #1 could have a positive effect.

The likely response could be: "If there is so much support, let them build the cars, and when we see them, we&#39;ll make the class."

Another response could be, (By the CRB to the ITAC, which, if it likes the presentation, will present to the CRB): You&#39;ve got 4 classes, if you want, just class them all in ITS and move everybody else down a class. We are not creating any new classes at this time"

(Clearly that puts the ITC cars in a bind)

Getting beyond the current climate of "No new classes" will be the hardest part. The BoD is struggling with undersubscibed classes at the Runoffs, but the defensive patrons of those classes...who are very vocal, and the current 25 National classes that they need to cram into a Runoffs program that has 24 spots.

We will need to remind and impress that this won&#39;t add to the troubles, and will actually help solve other SCCA problems like the graying of members (newer cars) the issues with member retention (going to marque clubs & NASA) and the recruitment of new members (Cool new cars, easy to prep).

Honestly, it makes all the sense in the world to do this, but it will be a huge uphill and long battle to convince those in charge of that.

[Catch22]

For the record, I&#39;m very much a "we have too many classes" guy, but we NEED this class for IT.

What SCCA needs in terms of class reduction is to ditch a couple of those national classes that see 1 or 2 cars in most regions (oops! Did I say that out loud?).

[charrbq]

For the record, I&#39;m very much a "we have too many classes" guy, but we NEED this class for IT.

What SCCA needs in terms of class reduction is to ditch a couple of those national classes that see 1 or 2 cars in most regions (oops! Did I say that out loud?).
[/b]
I&#39;d second that, except that it would come back to bite me in the ass about ITC.

[orlando_wrx]

For the record, I&#39;m very much a "we have too many classes" guy, but we NEED this class for IT.

What SCCA needs in terms of class reduction is to ditch a couple of those national classes that see 1 or 2 cars in most regions (oops! Did I say that out loud?).
[/b]

Agreed, I&#39;m not sure about other regions, but here in CFR there is a HUGE IT community and we just keep growing. Another step up in the IT ranks is inevitable, and would really gather more interest in the club with the greater variety of cars that would now be included. I really don&#39;t WANT to see any other classes get broken up, but the fact of the matter is that SCCA needs to cater to the masses rather than the few. Wouldn&#39;t it be great if we had the time and resources to have a class for every single watchamacallit? There are limits to classification, so we do need to be sure (as I was corrected about the AWD question I had asked earlier) that an ITR class eases into the current rules set of IT. I do have doubts, however, as to how many cars will actually fit into such a class, so I&#39;ll just watch and see.

[dj10]

(Ooops...sorry, I just saw you asked earlier, and that you readressed this to jeff, but hey, i wrote all this crap, so I&#39;m leavin&#39; it!)

It&#39;s possible........

But...that&#39;s only IF certain events occur.

1- A large and undeniable groundswell of grassroots support from real members who want to build cars nd who write to the SCCA.

2- The CRB and the BoD get behind it, and quickly. It takes time to get things on the dockets for meetings. IF the ITAC likes it, it passes it to the CRB...who then put it on their list. When they get to it, they discuss it, and A: Reject it flatly, B Reject it for more info, or C, pass it up to the BoD, who put it on their list, and get to it when they have a chance. Then it goes thru the same process. You can see how it could take months. I suspect, at some point, one of the boards will likely want it put out for member feedback....IF we&#39;re lucky!

3- All of which presumes that the BoD is willing to do the same for IT that they did for Touring, which is to create a class from the top own, skipping the standard "regional implementation" method. (such as how Spec Miata came to be)

#3 Is a HUGE presumption. But #1 could have a positive effect.

The likely response could be: "If there is so much support, let them build the cars, and when we see them, we&#39;ll make the class."

Another response could be, (By the CRB to the ITAC, which, if it likes the presentation, will present to the CRB): You&#39;ve got 4 classes, if you want, just class them all in ITS and move everybody else down a class. We are not creating any new classes at this time"

(Clearly that puts the ITC cars in a bind)

Getting beyond the current climate of "No new classes" will be the hardest part. The BoD is struggling with undersubscibed classes at the Runoffs, but the defensive patrons of those classes...who are very vocal, and the current 25 National classes that they need to cram into a Runoffs program that has 24 spots.

We will need to remind and impress that this won&#39;t add to the troubles, and will actually help solve other SCCA problems like the graying of members (newer cars) the issues with member retention (going to marque clubs & NASA) and the recruitment of new members (Cool new cars, easy to prep).

Honestly, it makes all the sense in the world to do this, but it will be a huge uphill and long battle to convince those in charge of that. [/b]

Thanks for answering Jake. There are some BMW owners who are trying to sell their cars because of recent events. If there is a possibility of this happening........you understand what I&#39;m getting at.

I&#39;m afraid if this gets to the BoD, well, it won&#39;t happen in my life time. :D Miracles happen sometimes? I can&#39;t understand the command flow here. The BoD should stay out of things only as a last resort. They should be a review only when it comes to Competition rules and classes. This is like Congress telling the military how to run a war! We would lose again. If we need it, lets shi% or get off the pot.

[zracre]

I am drafting my letter to request a class above ITS now...Look at the numbers for SCCA...IT is probably the best subscribed group out there (SM a close second and SRF prob 3rd). If you add another class and put the real big dogs there, ITS and down will become more pure and maybe have less ultra high dollar guys trying to buy championships...not so good for ITS but good for the class overall. The only downfall is that ITC will probably suffer the most. It is a very unsubscribed class and only getting worse. I guess you could help the majority of them by allowing the ITC group to upgrade to ITB or ITA with swaps...but a whole different can...i guess you could grandfather the already built cars in...

[JeffYoung]

Evan, no need for a letter asking for a new class at this time. We have a pretty firmed up proposal, with a detailed spreadsheet of cars, etc. Once it goes in, THEN let&#39;s get a massive letter writing campaign to support it.

If you are at Roebling this weekend, I&#39;ll be there -- let&#39;s talk.

Jeff

[charrbq]

The problem with ITC is that no matter what you do, it&#39;s dying. No one builds cars off the showroom that will fit. The same was said for the production classes years ago, but they have provisions to put more current tin tops, and limited prep that&#39;s breathed life into the classes. We don&#39;t, nor do I feel we ever will, nor do I hope we ever will. Right now, most of the races I run, I&#39;m the only or at least one of two C cars racing. I have to tow 8-14 hrs to have a class in SEDIV!

If you aren&#39;t building or driving an ITA car, you&#39;re peeing in the wind of obsolecence. The technology, the showroom, and the money&#39;s there. ITS is full of dinosaurs and large bank accounts. ITR or ITX or whatever is the only logical step. The factories and the competitors are there, but I wonder, given the current technology coming from Europe and Asia, how long they will want to back a 5 yr old car for a regional class.

Let those with large stock portfolios have a place to race their awesome &#39;mobiles...sure. I&#39;m for it for several reason. Don&#39;t kill us old guys with old cars off, and spare me the sympathy shovels of dirt. It may take a lot of vacation time to travel for a race, but I can do that for a lot longer than what it would cost me to build a competitive car in the upper classes. I&#39;ve heard all the price quotes and seen all the budget sheets. But I deal in real race world $&#39;s. I throw $100 bills at my effort, and it&#39;s only ITC. I don&#39;t want to tap my 401K just to race.


Sorry, I didn&#39;t mean to hi-jack the thread. Just that some of the more recent comments hit a tender nerve. No offense, Evan. You&#39;re right.

[JeffYoung]

From the looks of the class makeup spreadsheet, I would say that ITR is going to be a lot like ITS from an economic standpoint. You can build a car and run midpack for $10k. You will need to spend bigger dollars to be up front. In my view, it won&#39;t be any more than what is presently spent on an S car though.

[charrbq]

From the looks of the class makeup spreadsheet, I would say that ITR is going to be a lot like ITS from an economic standpoint. You can build a car and run midpack for $10k. You will need to spend bigger dollars to be up front. In my view, it won&#39;t be any more than what is presently spent on an S car though.
[/b]
Possibly...but I doubt it will happen often. As mid pack become back marker and more people pony up the big bucks to run up front. Final track position usually computes in exponential dollars. The idea of $50K cars in ITS just hurts my brain when I think of the original concept of IT being a rather low bucks deal. Or at least that was what I was lead to believe.

[orlando_wrx]

IT is a regional class, and as such can be modified on a regional basis. They have ITT (trucks) in atlanta. If the CRB comes to the point where they say ITR should be ITS and class everyone else down, I don&#39;t think that will be considered a vaild option by the ITAC. Even still, we have more than a few ITC racers in CFR so I assume it would be safe to say that SEDiv would not do anything to hurt ITC. Assumptions aside, I like the classing structure we currently have, and if it comes down to dropping an existing IT class to add another on top I&#39;ll stand behind you Charrbq. I fear you may have misinterpreted my statement about the masses vs. the few, I was speaking of some national classes where they lump a bunch of classes together and still track time gets eaten up by 10-15 car fields. (no offense to all those vocal people in those classes :) )

[gran racing]

If you add another class and put the real big dogs there, ITS and down will become more pure and maybe have less ultra high dollar guys trying to buy championships...not so good for ITS but good for the class overall. [/b]

Excellent point Evan - I never really thought much about that.

[charrbq]

I understood what you meant, Joel...I agree. When I first starting going to the Runoffs (the good ones, at Atlanta), I was so impressed by the running of one class at a time. Now, for a number of financial reasons, I suspect, you see a National Championship race in which the purity of a class is poluted by a mixture of classes in a group in order to make a show and expedite a time frame.

To protect myself from assault, I have no problem with that at such venues as the ARRC as they run on a different budget than the national office.

Even though I have to drive forever to race my class, and don&#39;t get to do it near as often as time will allow, I love racing in the SEDIV and CFR. The groups are huge, my class is super competitive, and a good time is had by all. That&#39;s the reason I race ITC. I can afford to go to the races, stay at a decent motel, and eat at nice restuarants each evening without selling a body part or winning the lottery. :birra:

[dj10]

From the looks of the class makeup spreadsheet, [/b]

Are we going to see the spreadsheet?

[JeffYoung]

DJ, send me your e-mail and I&#39;ll send it to you.

There are a number of $10k ITS cars out there. They just don&#39;t run at the front. I run S, and have spent probably $25k over time to run midpack, but got on track for about $10k.

There&#39;s no reason you couldn&#39;t build a mid-pack Z car or even 325 for $10k if that is what you wanted to do.

I fully agree with Evan that if ITR is implemented, it will become the "premier" IT class and the high dollar efforts will move there. In the short run this hurts S as a lot of guys will move up because they want to be in the "fastest" IT class -- hell, I probably will. In the end though, I think you will see ITS become a lot more like ITA -- a number of great, competitive chassis that can be built for $15 to $20k.

P.S. -- I bet a full tilt ITC or ITB build is pushing $20k these days as well.

[Ron Earp]

That is planned when the proposal is done. Right now the proposal is going through edits and revisions. If it were put out now I think it would simply cause endless contraversy and debate thus slowing the editing process. No since in putting it out in half form, it&#39;d do more harm than good.

Ron

[charrbq]

DJ, send me your e-mail and I&#39;ll send it to you.

There are a number of $10k ITS cars out there. They just don&#39;t run at the front. I run S, and have spent probably $25k over time to run midpack, but got on track for about $10k.

There&#39;s no reason you couldn&#39;t build a mid-pack Z car or even 325 for $10k if that is what you wanted to do.

I fully agree with Evan that if ITR is implemented, it will become the "premier" IT class and the high dollar efforts will move there. In the short run this hurts S as a lot of guys will move up because they want to be in the "fastest" IT class -- hell, I probably will. In the end though, I think you will see ITS become a lot more like ITA -- a number of great, competitive chassis that can be built for $15 to $20k.

P.S. -- I bet a full tilt ITC or ITB build is pushing $20k these days as well.
[/b]
If you find a $20k ITC car, then I&#39;ll show you money poorly spent. The 5 time ARRC champion&#39;s car is for sale for substantially less than that. I know the guy really well, know how and where it was built, and can tell you that $10k would be a stretch. Others might be more, but not much. As for ITB...about the same. There are a lot of $10k ITA and even a few ITS cars out there...they are used to fill out the field for the guys that spend the big bucks to win. It&#39;s tough to go by resale prices for race cars when estimating build prices. A general guess would be no more than a 1/3, in most cases. :wacko:

[JeffYoung]

Chris, I agree with your 1/3 rule and I do see $5-8k C cars which leads me to believe folks spent $15k+ on them. In any event, interested to see how this all shakes out. I know that no one presently invovled in ITR wants to see ITB and/or ITC go away -- delisting or declassing of existing race cars is still a huge taboo. Hopefully, the CRB will see that ITR can fit in a regional weekend without too much problem.

In fact, in my view, the real problem are the couple of open wheel classes that seem to jam up regional weekends. Many times at CMP I&#39;ve sat and watched a couple of Vs and a couple of F5000s race each other.

[Ron Earp]

If you find a $20k ITC car, then I&#39;ll show you money poorly spent. The 5 time ARRC champion&#39;s car is for sale for substantially less than that.

It&#39;s tough to go by resale prices for race cars when estimating build prices. A general guess would be no more than a 1/3, in most cases. :wacko:
[/b]

Ok, then you just made Jeff&#39;s point. If the ARRC winning C car is for sale at say $6k, and re-sell is about 1/3 of build cost, then that car cost $18k to build. Almost a $20k ITC car.

It cost money to race and basically the faster you go the more money it&#39;ll cost you. SM was supposed to be low budget too, and was for awhile, but now the class is developed, and fast (2:18 at VIR - S territory) a top car cost big $$$ to buy or build.

I think all things being equal R >$ S >$ A >$ B > $C

B and C are fine classes, but I bet folks will start moving up when they can of something opens up above S. Maybe B/C could merge? Don&#39;t know, don&#39;t know a lot about B/C cars.




In fact, in my view, the real problem are the couple of open wheel classes that seem to jam up regional weekends. Many times at CMP I&#39;ve sat and watched a couple of Vs and a couple of F5000s race each other.
[/b]

That is the damn truth!!!!!! Two guys with open wheels, with their own run group, using up just as much time in a weekend as the entire S/A or B/C run groups. I bet if you took up a padock collection from all the IT and SM racers each would donate $10 to give to the open wheelers to go home. Sorry, bad form, but had to be said. I&#39;d pay $20. They could make money NOT racing. And he wasn&#39;t exaggerating - 2 open wheelers in August of 2005 at CMP. There should be a minimum entry level on something like that when it requires an entire run group.
Ron

[Bill Miller]

P.S. -- I bet a full tilt ITC or ITB build is pushing $20k these days as well.[/b]

You&#39;re not that far off, if you have someone build it for you. Not that many years ago, an ITB Mk II VW Golf from BSI was ~$20k. A couple of years ago, someone had puchased an ITC Scirocco built by BSI. It was a quick car, but after he ran it for a year, he decided to move up to something faster. Mind you, he didn&#39;t have the car built, but bought it off of a BSI customer. He was selling it for $12,500, which he said was a loss for him. Stu and company build beautiful cars, but they&#39;re not cheap. And honestly, I don&#39;t think anybody that builds a full-blown car is going to be cheap.

[charrbq]

I was wondering if anyone would catch my fox paws on the resale vs. build price. Seriously, my car would sell for about $5k on a good day...or less, but it didn&#39;t cost anywhere near $15k to build. The ITC car I referenced cost nowhere near $18k...unless you put a value on testing, wrong parts now worthless, and time involved. No one I know of that builds a car on there own can get any value out of that...sadly.

Pro build guys get the heavy coins, &#39;cause their reputation is built on it. You pay the big bucks, get a quality race car, and don&#39;t have to do anything but add fluids and race. That&#39;s where a lot of B & C drivers went...lay down $25k, buy an SM, go racing, and always have a class.

As for the groups of 4 open wheel cars taking up track time...amen. But if they were to look at ITB & C, they might say the same thing. Fortunately, you guys in S & A don&#39;t mind using us for mobile chicanes, so we get to blend into the scene.

As a personal note...shared by many I&#39;ve talked to. Wouldn&#39;t it be nice if Atlanta Region would make and promote the ARRC similar to the old IT Festival of the early &#39;90&#39;s? That would eliminate the small open wheel groups that seem to have very little subscription or interest. If they then promoted it more as a true IT Championship as it was when National dropped us, they might just have a hit on their hands. I know that there would be complaints from the fast plastic and winged things, but...so. I would allow for the SM&#39;s and the Ground Pounders...they&#39;re entertaining...sorta. B)

[orlando_wrx]

Any chance of BMW 330 (3.0L) being classified?
We have 2 E46 chassis and would like an idea of the direction the club is headed with E46 BMW&#39;s. Already @ 3000lbs. for a2.5L ITS car, hopefully SIR&#39;s aren&#39;t comming down the pike.

[Ron Earp]

It is on the list and I hope that it&#39;ll fit fine - without SIRs. The recent SIR situation has made me, and a few others working on ITR, doubly cautious to make sure these are not a "tool" in ITR. Sure, it can be available to IT in general, but with proper classing of the cars it is not needed. I truely hope that R exists without SIRs, or, what would be the point of having higher hp cars?

[Geo]

It is on the list and I hope that it&#39;ll fit fine - without SIRs. The recent SIR situation has made me, and a few others working on ITR, doubly cautious to make sure these are not a "tool" in ITR. Sure, it can be available to IT in general, but with proper classing of the cars it is not needed. I truely hope that R exists without SIRs, or, what would be the point of having higher hp cars?
[/b]

Amen brother.