ITR PRoposal

[JeffYoung]

With a lot of excitement, and some trepidation, I am posting in its entirety (sans spreadsheet of cars) the proposal for the creation of a class (ITR) above ITS in Improved Touring for everyone's comment. This proposal is now with the ITAC for presentation to the CRB shortly (rough outlines of it have already been sent to the CRB). Initial feedback from the powers that be (we have a CRB member as part of our working group) have been very positive. No promises, no guarantees in SCCA land (and there shouldn't be) but my personal belief is it is likely we will see ITR running next year, 2008 at the latest.

Please give this a look and fire away with comments.

Of course, the "big" debates will come on proposed vehicle weights. We have a spreadsheet developed with those weights and I truly want to relese it but I am very afraid it will turn into the nasty tit for tat fights about car weights, potential and "bias" that I've seen here in the past.

So how to avoid that? Here's my "grand" idea. We "annoint" one board/forum participant to "represent" their manfucturer in the discussions with the spreadsheet. Maybe say, Tristan Smith or KThomas for Nissan, Marshall or DJ for BMW, Steve E. for Mazda, Scott Giles for Honda, etc. I'll send the sheet to them and they can give constructive comments on issues they see with the weighting/classing of their manufacturer's cars.

Make sense? Thoughts?

Here is the written proposal:

Proposal for Restructuring of Improved Touring’s Faster Classes

Submitted to the Improved Touring Advisory Committee for consideration

I. The Past, the Present and the Future

Improved Touring has thrived as a regional class since its inception, and is the “point of entry” for most new SCCA Club racers. It draws large fields in most Regions, and new cars are being built each year. In many ways, it is the bread and butter of SCCA Club Racing and is critical to the survival of most Regions across the country.

While IT is healthy now, it is aging. A class above ITS is needed to fill the pipeline of new cars and drivers for the future. An increasing number of requests have been denied from members asking for higher horsepower cars to be classified. A quick look at old SSA cars, T2 cars and T3 cars shows a plentiful supply of cars in race trim searching for a home. This problem needs to be addressed to keep ITS healthy and vibrant.

II. “ITR”

Several SCCA members, working with some members of the Improved Touring Advisory Committee, would like to propose a solution to the issue of IT aging. This is the creation of an Improved Touring classification “above” ITS in terms of performance potential, to give those cars from 5 to 20 years old with 190 to 230 stock horsepower (there are many, see attached spreadsheet) a place to race (note that some former SSA, existing SSB, T2 and T3 cars will be eligible). These cars are more available, and in our opinion, more exciting to the generation currently deciding on what racing series to build a car for and participate in. Many of them currently appeal to the “tuner” enthusiast who, at this point, has very few real options in Improved Touring.

The list of cars that we believe fit the class is extensive, and could grow over the years. It will open the door to many new cars going SCCA racing. We think we may see new cars running SCCA that currently run with Honda Challenge, BMW CCA and Porsche Club of America and other sanctioning bodies.

We realize there will be resistance. We anticipate those evaluating the merit of this proposal to have the following (legitimate) questions:

• Will it help or hurt ITS?

We believe ITR will, in the long run, result in ITS flourishing. It is our perception that very few new ITS cars are being built, and some chassis retired, due to the belief that the BMW E36 325i/is is the only car to have, and that the only other two cars with any real chance of success are the RX7 and Datsun 240Z. ITS should not be a “three-chassis” class, and in our view, over the last three years, the perception that it is has hurt ITS. The BMW E36 325i/is fits perfectly in ITR without an SIR and will bring back the ITS drivers who have left based on any past engine restrictions. We believe that opening up ITS to many competitive chassis will result in an influx of new cars, and new drivers/members, to the class.

• How will Regions deal with it?

Member retention and development of new membership is always at the top of the lists for Regional goals. This class kills both birds with one stone. It will bring parity back to ITS while drawing entries from Honda Challenge, NASA, Porsche Club and BMW CCA club racing. Since each Region runs their Club Racing program differently, it would be up to them to slot ITR in where appropriate for car counts in that region. For some regions, running ITR with ITS until numbers dictated a split should be easy. For other regions, ITR may more realistically fit with T1/T2/SPO/SPU. In any event, high car counts should not be an unsolvable problem. Anytime a Region has too many entries, it is a good problem to have.

• Safety concerns with higher speeds

Since this will be proposed for 2007, it should fall in line with the re-organization of the cage rules category-wide. We request Touring car-level cages be required.

• Concerns with making “IT” a more expensive class.

While some of the cars in this class are more expensive, this is not a reason to limit the current class structure by eliminating cars that can be or are affordable to many in the racing industry. Affordable “used” cars are available from the T1, T2, T3, SSA, SSB and SSC ranks. Additionally, many of the cars listed on the attached spreadsheet can be had for between $3-6k – the price of a decent Prelude, E36 or Integra GSR ITS shell these days. Additionally, ITR may reduce the cost of racing in ITS as many cheap, presently non-competitive chassis, will now have a chance in ITS and may actually be built by members now that they are potentially competitive.


III. The Ruleset

We propose no changes to the Improved Touring ruleset to accommodate this class, other than the following:

1. ITR maximum wheel width is 8.5 inches.

2. Cage rules should be in line with SCCA Touring classes.

3. AWD and forced induction cars will not presently be classed in ITR.

IV. The Proposed ITR Class

Attached is a spreadsheet with over 30 cars representing our first pass at the cars that should make up in the initial classification for ITR in the ITCS along with anticipated race weights using the ITAC’s classification process. Manufacturers represented include BMW, Porsche, Honda, Acura, Nissan, Audi and others.

We all stand ready to answer any questions you may have about this proposal. The goal would be an approval from the ITAC / CRB / BoD in time for a 2007 implementation.

V. Conclusion

1. ITR will increase the number of cars available to members for building and racing. Furthermore, it will allow Improved Touring to showcase the automotive technology of the last five to 20 years.

2. ITR will bring peace to E36 325 BMW owners and tuners. They will have a place to run unrestricted, and at a reasonable weight. It is also anticipated that many of the “tuner” crowd will build and race Acuras, Hondas and other imports in ITS, as moving the 325 to ITR dispels the notion that you have to have a 325 to win in ITS. ITR will also be a viable venue for BMWCCA and PCA racers to race cars currently under competitive in their clubs and/or allow them to race at a higher level of preparation.

3. ITR will increase membership and participation in IT racing. Many of the competitive cars in ITS are presently older than members (and potential members) in their 20s. We hope to make available to them some of the popular models of the last five to 20 years in the hopes that they will build and race these cars.

4. We do not believe that ITR will unnecessarily “crowd” regional race weekends. ITR appears perfectly suited to run with either Big Bore closed wheel or ITS as it sits. When the class gains momentum, Regions will make space as needed.

5. ITR will provide a venue for several ex-SSB and T2/3 cars to race, once they are no longer eligible to run in SS or T.

This class will freshen Improved Touring, draw new members and retain ones that are seeking other outlets. It’s a win-win!

[Knestis]

I'd like to commend Jeff, Ron, and the rest who did all the really heavy lifting on this project. It's a very good idea. I'd like to head off some potential bird-walks with a couple more comments, if I might:

** There's going to be a tendency for the ITR proposal to get jammed up with other, potentially related ideas (e.g., the BP-DP thing or efforts to make IT more appealing to the aftermarket by allowing wings and stuff). Understand that Rule #1 was that ITR be IT for new cars, and nothing else.

** There are some cars that were not included on the proposed list. Any that were CLOSE but not SOLIDLY within the parameters were left off for safety's sake, as were some that were just different and difficult to fit into the base weight model. This is a conservative approach, intended to above all avoid inadvertently including a ringer in the list.

** Remember: one definition of consensus is that everyone is a little PO'd with the result :) . What you see represents a true compromise in many respects, among those who were involved in its creation. Nobody had to fall on their sword and nobody got exactly what they wanted, I don't think.

** Almost by neccessity, this proposal bumps up against the e36 SIR issue. In fact, it proposes an alternative solution that was not previously available to the CRB, to include those cars in a way that might be more palatable to entrants. However, PLEASE do not plug this proposal up with wanderings about technical issues, history, biases, etc. related directly to the SIR question.

K

[benspeed]

Nice Job. The proposal is well thought out and well written. The intent is clear and I agree ITR will attract more racers and even up things in ITS. I was just telling a friend I'm tired of running a 20 year old car and want to run something new that you see on the street. I can't remember the last time I saw an RX7 on the road.

I hope people don't attack you guys for trying something new.

[Bill Miller]

I hope people don't attack you guys for trying something new.[/b]

Don't worry Ben, most of the folks involved in this project have been around this board for several years now, and most of us have pretty thick skins. :023:

I have to echo what Jeff and Kirk have said. This is something that all the people involved compromised a bit on, which, as Kirk mentioned, is a pretty good indication of concensus. Our #1 goal, that were all in agreement with, was that ITR would be 'just another IT class'. That means no extras that none of the other classes get (with the simple nod to the wider wheels). No alternate brakes, no alternate cams, no wings, nothing but what any ITC-ITS car would get.

Based on some of the un-official 'official' preliminary feedback we've gotten, I'm optimistic that we're on the verge of a new day in IT. Getting something like this off the ground, and implemented w/in a year, is light-speed in normal SCCA-time. I'd like to thank all the members of the project team, and say that it was a pleasure to work with you! :023: :smilie_pokal:

And maybe, just maybe, when ITR is implemented, we might even be able to retire :dead_horse:

[zracre]

Im curious, what kind of Audi is in ITR w/o AWD? otherwise looks good :eclipsee_steering:

[JeffYoung]

Front-wheel drive A4 with 190 hp. Not all (in fact, probably not a majority) of the first few years of the A4 were quattro.

[Jeremy Billiel]

Does the Integra GSR stay in ITS or ITR with less weight?

[JeffYoung]

ITS I believe.....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Does the Integra GSR stay in ITS or ITR with less weight? [/b]

ITR in ITR and GS-R in ITS.

I have a seperate proposal in front of the ITAC to re-examine the 'adders' for FWD cars in ITS.

[Catch22]

Does the Integra GSR stay in ITS or ITR with less weight?
[/b]

With all due respect Jeremy, lets try to keep the "What about ME?!?!" to a minimum until at least the new class is either approved or disapproved.
I can't speak for the whole group, but I know I personally do not want to spend the next couple of months answering questions about what goes where and why and have it all end up being meaningless.
Lets at least see if its actually going to happen before we go through all of that.

Deal?

[ShelbyRacer]

** Remember: one definition of consensus is that everyone is a little PO'd with the result :) . What you see represents a true compromise in many respects, among those who were involved in its creation. Nobody had to fall on their sword and nobody got exactly what they wanted, I don't think.

[/b]

Kirk, can I use that first sentence as a quote? :happy204:

I think you guys did exactly what is needed, and that consitutes a great job! As one of the people who is (or at least was) involved with BP/DP, I also hope that it doesn't get confused or obfuscated somehow... Hopefully the CRB will see the merits and institute something the club really needs.

[Jeremy Billiel]

With all due respect Jeremy, lets try to keep the "What about ME?!?!" to a minimum until at least the new class is either approved or disapproved.
I can't speak for the whole group, but I know I personally do not want to spend the next couple of months answering questions about what goes where and why and have it all end up being meaningless.
Lets at least see if its actually going to happen before we go through all of that.

Deal?
[/b]

Deal! This was a hot button for many Honda owners so I was just curious. I should have emailed you off line. Thank you all for all the hard work! I fully support this iniative. Should we send in our support to the CRB at some point?

:happy204: :happy204:

[Stan]

I fully support this iniative. Should we send in our support to the CRB at some point?[/b]
Today would be fine. The email addy is [email protected]. :023:

[tom_sprecher]

Of course, the "big" debates will come on proposed vehicle weights. We have a spreadsheet developed with those weights and I truly want to relese it but I am very afraid it will turn into the nasty tit for tat fights about car weights, potential and "bias" that I've seen here in the past.

So how to avoid that? Here's my "grand" idea. We "annoint" one board/forum participant to "represent" their manfucturer in the discussions with the spreadsheet. Maybe say, Tristan Smith or KThomas for Nissan, Marshall or DJ for BMW, Steve E. for Mazda, Scott Giles for Honda, etc. I'll send the sheet to them and they can give constructive comments on issues they see with the weighting/classing of their manufacturer's cars.

Make sense? Thoughts?
[/b]


Let me preface my thought by saying when I use “you” and “yourself” the comment is aimed at the collective group spearheading the ITR proposal. :huh:

I understand your desire not to have to deal with every little concern that each post may address. That can result in a tremendous amount of explaining to do. Also, I don&#39;t plan on racing in either ITS or ITR, at least for a while, so I really have no say or care to about what proposal your group has developed. However, I think it is unfortunate and unfair that although you took it upon yourself to start a limited access forum in order to take control of how and what the proposal shall and shall not consist of yet do not want the responsibility of answering to the racing group that will be affected by your decisions and actions. <_<

At this point do you still want to preside over the whole matter? No one would blame you if you did not. If you do not want to engage in these "big" debates then perhaps it is time for you to step down and allow someone who will take your place. Your part in the proposal may be at an end and the time for someone else with the desire to hammer out the fine details to take over. Think about it. Otherwise, it comes across as if you “can’t be bothered” with the concerns of the proletariat and anyone who is a member of this forum knows that is not the case.

Perhaps you should release the spreadsheet and allow them to fight amongst themselves without any involvement on your part. :014: Once the dust settles and everyone had had their say we all can rejoice in the knowledge that was shared and no one will feel left out. Or not.

I think you have done an excellent job and you all must be congratulated in preparing a proposal that still captures the intent of IT while addressing future growth for the benefit of all those engaged in the class. Having done that it may be time for a little more input that from a select group of individuals.

[Ron Earp]

Tom,

Jeff nor I suggested the closed forum for ITR. I don&#39;t know who started that, but as one of the folks putting the proposal forth with the guidance of the ITAC we were naturally drawn into that forum when the discussion took off. It served the purpose for developing ITR and I think the class draft is what needs to be focused on

I&#39;ll be happy to answer any questions folks want to direct at ITR, publically here, via personal message, or email. All my info is out there and if folks have questions about specific cars I&#39;ll write what I know about classing it, why, ifs and hows. Granted, the answers might not happen in real time, I&#39;ve a job to keep working at, but I&#39;ll try.

Best,
Ron

[RSTPerformance]

IMO the proposal is not something that is/should be debated at this time. Let’s get the class created first!!! The reason NOT to post the spreadsheet is it WILL create "drama" and or debates. It already did amongst those of us who were working on the proposal. Together we hashed it out and came up with a great group of cars while staying civil (the reason for the "private forums").

After/If the class is created then you (all of SCCA members) could write and ask for certain classifications and adjustments. "Our" spreadsheet was simply our compromised recommendations to get the class started, they may choose to keep them, change them, eliminate some, or add some. My main focus or idea was/is to support starting a class, not classify certain cars.

We will hopefully get the class started first... then everyone else can go at it!!!

Raymond "Just My Opinion" Blethen

[Stan]

No one need feel left out, Tom, as I am confident that the CRB will be open to input on the specifics.

But that&#39;s putting the cart ahead of the horse. The Ad Hoc needs to be large enough to get the diversity of views needed, but small enough to get the work done without bogging down in mountains of input. In the end, the real function of the Ad Hoc is to create a coherent proposal that can be acted on by the BoD, and I think that most of us here can agree that in that regard the ITR Ad Hoc has succeeded, in spades! Once the proposal is approved, it will be up to the CRB, with input from the ITAC, to do the actual car classification, and that&#39;s where the input should be as broad as possible.

We haven&#39;t created a new IT class in a number of years, and maybe folks have forgotten how much work there is to be done when that happens, which is where persons with detailed marque expertise will be critical. Asking for POC&#39;s isn&#39;t to lock anyone out...it will be to produce the darn VTS sheets! :wacko:

And those guys will need lots of help if we are to make this happen in time for the 2007 season. please form a line over to the left... :D

ITR Proposal... :birra:

[Catch22]

A large and unfiltered group of people simply can&#39;t get stuff done.
Sorry, but I have years of managing people for a living (large work groups) and any time you try to let *everyone* be involved it is totally counter productive and typically results in alot of sound and fury with zero results.

What does work is a diverse but small group that is representative of the larger one.
I was lucky enough to have been asked to be in that group in this case. But if I hadn&#39;t been, I would understand and wouldn&#39;t feel "left out."

Don&#39;t believe me?
Hop on over to another new but popular racing web forum where we can&#39;t manage to agree on the font for decals to promote the forum.
Its the infuriating process of taking something butt simple and making it mind bogglingly complicated. Thats typically what happens when *everyone* is allowed to throw in their $.02.
If I had it to do all over again I&#39;d have just picked a decal design myself and apologized for being a tyrant later. Because as things sit, we are farther away now from a decal design than we were when the process started, and it gets worse and more complicated by the day (now everyone has an even BETTER idea, further complicating things).
See what I mean?

Our little group has done an excellent job. I know this because we rarely reached total agreement on anything and had quite a few little fights. BUT, it was a small group, so those things could be resolved and we could move forward. This means diverse views and experiences were sorted out and the best possible result was found.
That (resolution) hardly ever happens when the argument is open to the public.

I HIGHLY recommend this process for just about anything this web community decides to do in the future that really matters. It just plain works, and we are very likely about to see a new class go from zero to racing in a matter of months.
I promise you that if we&#39;d allowed the process to be open to the public we wouldn&#39;t even be close to a completed written proposal and first draft of cars in the class at this point. Honest, I promise.

Scott, who speaks from vast experience.
:cavallo:

[RacerBill]

Congratulations on your efforts. ITR will be a welcome addition to the IT community. Although I have no plans to run either ITR or ITS I am fully behind your proposal for the class. I believe that it is a win-win solution to the issues of bringing new cars and new members into the club. I am emailing the CRB tonight!

[Z3_GoCar]

Great, but I have two questions.

First, May I post the proposal for ITR on my regional web forum?

Secondly, Can a preliminary list of make model and year for the class be released? If I&#39;m going to try to draw interest in my region for fellow competitors I&#39;d like to have some bait :D

If anyone want&#39;s spec&#39;s on my car or any of the Z3&#39;s I&#39;ll be more than happy to help; however, I&#39;m happy to stay out of any contentious debate as I have a horse in this race.

James

[alexands]

Could someone please explain to me why SCCA doesn&#39;t just use power/weight ratio to class cars? I really want to build an IT car and am trying to learn as much as I can. It seems to me most threads on IT.com always end up in a car classing debate. This thread is trying to go there as well.

I&#39;m a novice, my question is not loaded. Power/weight seems very logical with a few controlled parameters (tire widths for example). What are the drawbacks of this approach? I&#39;ve looked at CMC and AI and those rules make a ton of sense to me. Am I over simplifying it?

Thanks,
Scott

[Andy Bettencourt]

Could someone please explain to me why SCCA doesn&#39;t just use power/weight ratio to class cars? I really want to build an IT car and am trying to learn as much as I can. It seems to me most threads on IT.com always end up in a car classing debate. This thread is trying to go there as well.

I&#39;m a novice, my question is not loaded. Power/weight seems very logical with a few controlled parameters (tire widths for example). What are the drawbacks of this approach? I&#39;ve looked at CMC and AI and those rules make a ton of sense to me. Am I over simplifying it?

Thanks,
Scott

[/b]

Power to weight ratio is a HUGE part of the classification process for IT. It&#39;s not a straight formula as we take into account things like suspension design, drivetrain layout, tranny ratios, brake size, balance, etc.

It isn&#39;t perfect but it seemingly is working in most areas.

AB

[JeffYoung]

Z-car, sure, please post away. Also, e-mail me at [email protected] and I&#39;ll send you a listing of cars (without weights).

Jeff

[tom_sprecher]

As usual I did not make myself clear and it is something done too often. I did not while it was forming and still do not support open debate on the ITR class proposal (or the same for F1000 occurring at this time). If anyone felt left out, or if they cared to, let them write their own proposal.

You all did a great job of doing nothing except allowing wider rims and beefier roll cages into the class if I recall correctly. Addressing the obvious concerns with introducing a new class and the justifications based on tangible merit were spot on. But these portions of the process are over and not open to debate unless someone else wants to take another crack at it.

My remark about the limited access forum and the responsibility with being involved with it THEN was made to suggest that NOW may be the time to show all the cards. Maybe some of the people directly affected by "your" spreadsheet wouldn&#39;t mind having a peek at it. Just as in search engines and databases, filters do not always produce the best results, and additional input is necessary. If there is a fear that it can not pass their scrutiny than maybe the job is not finished and the situation could jeopardize the future of the class.

Tom "just stirring up $h!t" Sprecher :lol:

PS - we desperately need 15 corner workers this weekend at Road Atlanta for the Panoz Track Day. No experience other than flag recognition is needed. Contact me or Sandy Pence.

[Knestis]

Tom&#39;s point is completely valid from a buy-in generating point of view but I have to agree with Scott that the best way to actually move forward at this point is to avoid getting bogged down in minutiae. The one thing that I think can pretty much be counted on is that everyone will have SOME opinion about why Model X is too heavy and Model Y is too light - regardless of WHAT weight specs are published. That&#39;s minutiae.

Besides - the weights are/will be spec&#39;d by the same basic process already in place with the ITAC. We didn&#39;t really sit down and decide what each make/model should weigh. If when it comes out, you see something that you think doesn&#39;t make sense, you&#39;ll need to address the inputs that were used in the math, rather than whether or not you think a particular model is going to be competitive, too competitive, or whatever.

The question at hand is how many people support the broad concept, as it&#39;s been framed here?

Remember that, even though this proposal isn&#39;t being put forth as representative of the collective desires of this entire community, it IS helpful to speak up on the big points.

K

[alexands]

Power to weight ratio is a HUGE part of the classification process for IT. It&#39;s not a straight formula as we take into account things like suspension design, drivetrain layout, tranny ratios, brake size, balance, etc.

It isn&#39;t perfect but it seemingly is working in most areas.

AB
[/b]

Andy,

I&#39;m sure it is. My original post wasn&#39;t very clear. I apologize. I realize that power and weight are important to the classification process. What I meant to say is; why isn&#39;t it the ONLY criteria? Why specify restrictor plates, or porting, or compression ratios, or this or that? Whay not just say "we don&#39;t care what you run as long as the P/W ration is between 13:1 and 15:1?" Trying to spec all of the possible configurations and what not seems a total waste to me. It always ends up in splitting hairs, at least that&#39;s what I gather from lurking on these forums.

Scott

[JeffYoung]

Tom, the fear is not that the spreadsheet will not pass scrutiny. The fear is HOW the scrutiny will be applied. The question is not whether the spreadsheet will (or should) be released -- I absolutely believe it should. The question is HOW -- do we just dump it out here and let everyone have at it?

I&#39;m open to anything that constructively moves the ball forward.

[JamesB]

First and formost I want to congradulate all that where involved. Its a very well thought out and foward proposal with great intentions and I think its time and the CRB knows it.

As for release of the spreadsheet, I would say that releasing it when the whole group feels that they numbers are proper is the best chance. But confur with ITAC and anyone else involved, if you dont think it being released now that a draft is together then have at it. But I would add the caviet that first ITR in general must be approved before people start tearing CBR apart on the proposed weights and cars classified.

[Z3_GoCar]

Scott,

The P/W is controled based on what someone can get our of the stock cams, intake manifold, and only a moderate rise in compression (.5 points from stock). The real question in how cars are classed is how much hp is avalible from a fully blueprinted and tuned engine, for example maybe the cams are the real limiting factor then trying to get the assumed 25% increase in hp is virtually impossible. Or, if the restriction is all in the exhaust manifold then maybe there might be 30%-35% gains availble. For an example look over the trials of building and running a TR-8 in the other models forum, lurking can be quite educational. Great question.

James

[Jeremy Billiel]

I agree that we should get the class created before any debate, but does it make sense to just list the cars in the class and not include any weights?

[Knestis]

I think that Scott is making reference to systems like NASA&#39;s GTS challenge, wherein you actually declare your HP and weight, supported by a dyno sheet, and there are then periodic checks with a dyno and scales to keep people honest.

It&#39;s not wrong. It&#39;s just different.

IT moves from the proposition that performance is the product (an output) of a set of mechanical specs (inputs), and monitors the inputs with the rules and compliance checking. GTS (and some other NASA classes) monitor the output that they think is most important, letting the other variables influencing overall on-track performance shake out where they may. Interestingly, the next logical step is bracket racing where the ultimate output is monitored. It&#39;s been suggested over the years that a similar approach could be applied to road racing: bust a 2:30 lap at VIR and you&#39;re DQ&#39;d. Or you&#39;re no longer in ITC, you&#39;re in ITB. Again - not wrong, just a different approach.

Changing a fundamental precept of the category would be very hard, even if you could get most of the players thinking it&#39;s a good idea.

K

[JamesB]

Jeremy, I support releasing them sooner rather then later. However, I think note that these are the final draft and that CRB has not even published it for comment should be made now. I think the focus should be getting over the first hurdle rather then fighting over weights.

[lateapex911]

Just a few comments.

First, for those who might not know, "Stan" who has begun posting here is Stan Clayton, of the CRB. Together with Bob Dowie, and Peter Keane, who are also CRB guys, Stan has been very helpful and attentive through the process. I&#39;d like to point out that both Stan and Peter are IT guys as well, and that Peter was recently appointed to the CRB after serving the ITAC for awhile. I think that&#39;s an important point, in that Peter is known as a progressive thinking IT guy, but one with experence and history. The fact that he was appointed shows that the CRB is looking for new and progressive ideas. We should feel fortunate to have guys like these on the CRB. When we have our Con calls, these three are alwyas there as CRB liasons, and I&#39;m really glad. I think the system works well. They listen, and advise, but allow us to mold IT as we see fit, with just enough guidance and information to help move things quickly. Having Bob stop in here occasionally, and now Stan, who has been rather prolific, is great!!

Bob owns a repair/race shop, drives a GT car, and has been in the SCCA for a long time...he&#39;s one step away for the head of the CRB on the chart. Stan is from the San Fran area, and has a very diverse background having served on a Formula car ad hoc, (I think!). He&#39;s sharp, doesn&#39;t miss much. Both he and Peter are recent adds to the CRB. Peter is from Fla, and is pretty involved in Rolex Prototype racing too. Last year he drove two cars at the ARRC, and ITB Honda (fastest ITB lap, I think) and a Spec Miata.

Secondly, the proposal and list have gone to the ITAC for discussion. THey will confer, and run the cars through the process, with checks and balances, to set weights. Then it will go to the CRB formally. That ITAC call is next Monday. I think a list of the cars under consideration could be posted, but the final version hasn&#39;t been created yet.

[Ron Earp]

I wouldn&#39;t mind posting them now, sans all the data, just the list of the cars. Any opposition? If not I&#39;ll put them up.

[Bill Miller]

Works for me Ron. :023:

[tom_sprecher]

Sounds good. That way everyone can have their cake and eat it too!

[erlrich]

Just thinking out loud - would it help the effort to try and generate some significant support from our members outside of this forum? Maybe bring it up as a quickie announcement at upcoming events, during the driver&#39;s meetings? Or are we fairly confident that the CRB will put it out for comment without a huge push from the members first?

Oh, btw, great job guys :023:

[alexands]

What&#39;s the latest on the ITR proposal? When will the decision be made to make this a reality? I have a good lead on a Z32 :D

[lateapex911]

In regards to talking it up at drivers meetings, by all means! A word of caution though...don&#39;t expect automatic approval form everyone. There are those in the club that drive cars in classes that are on "life support" shall we say. They may not like anything that they feel threatened by.

On the other hand, all response will be read, and of course, the reders are smart enough to read between the lines. And also, enourage writers to list who they are, what they drive, and any other thoughts they might have. (Make it faster, slower, include this, or that, make it National, don&#39;t make it National, whatever,,,,)

Timing? Tough to say!!!!!!! It&#39;s in the CRBs hands right now....and it will go to the August BoD meeting if all goes well. I wouldn&#39;t be surprised if there was a member comment period, but maybe not...thats for top brass to decide.

(So far, the unofficial response I have seen roll through the ITAC/CRB mailbox has been very positive, about 10 to 1 for.)

[erlrich]

I was thinking while reading the thread about the announcements of the proposed new classes on SpeedTV.com, that if the new ITR class does go through (and it certainly looks like it will), what will it mean for ITS? Was there ever any discussion about this during the ITR committee meetings? With the BMW effectively out of ITS, are we starting to see a resurgence of entries from other makes (I know it may still be a little early to tell)? Looking at this year&#39;s MARRS entries, it&#39;s hard to tell. Will the new class steal some of those ITS entries? It seems to me that with the costs involved in running a top ITS car many guys will just throw $XXXX more into the pot to be able to run one of the really cool ITR cars. I know I would.

What do you guys think? Is this the beginning of the end for ITS?

edit: and oh, btw, it was Jake&#39;s comment about being careful what you wish for that started me thinking about this, so if you&#39;re going to yell, yell at Jake :P

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am most CERTAINLY bias because I am on the ITAC but here are my thoughts:

ITR will initially be populated by E36 guys who want to run unrestricted at a slightly lower weight. No more spending money to go slower. It will also be populated by Honda Challenge crossover guys in Integra Type R&#39;s. This will play out in small numbers while guys build car to there liking (Jake is a good example - a 944S2 in already parked in his yard)

ITS with thrive for two reasons - One, those who left when unrestricted and underweight E36&#39;s dominated the land will &#39;unpark&#39; their cars. Maybe even some new ones will be built. The second is a pending change to how we set weights on FWD cars in ITS. These currently uncompetitive chassis will benefit from a catagorical change in process numbers lowering MOST of their weights. Example - the 1.8L GSR should come in around 2590. These changes should bring these cars in in numbers as well.

[lateapex911]

Andy nailed it.

ITS was certainly considered in this concept, and Bob Dowie of the CRB was the first to ask about it.

I think ITS will be great...the process changes, plus peoples renewed faith that it&#39;s not a one make class will start bringing out new cars.

ITR will see some Acuras for sure. It seems the R types are very enthusiastic. Llets hope they like a hard fought battle!

I was talking over the weekend at Lime Rock to some marque club racers. They both related to me how SCCA is the "real deal"..you have to EARN your passes, and SCCA front running drivers are well respected. Hopefully, those that defected to the BMWCCA, for example, will decide to keep their feet wet in SCCA for that different flavor.

Time will tell.