Dual Classifications... of classes (Not a specific car).

[RSTPerformance]

This poll comes from the SM -> IT and IT -> Prod discussions... What do people think?

[JoshS]

I don't think it's appropriate for nationally-defined classes ... this kind of stuff doesn't belong in the national rulebook. The book should define allowable modifications for each class, and a list of cars eligible to make those modifications, and that's it.

But I don't have a philosophical problem with the concept, and therefore I think there's no reason that regions couldn't or shouldn't allow this sort of cross-pollenation as a supplemental rule (or as an entire supplemental class).

But I'll tell you ... my wife takes an extreme that I haven't seen mentioned here. This multiple classes for a single car drives her nuts. She's always confused about what class a car is in. She can't figure out why a car has multiple classes on the side.

I thought she was saying that in any one weekend, a car should only get to run in one class. But to her, that's not even right. A car should only be legal for one class -- she'd like a car to stick to a class for an entire season.

So, there are people out there with the other extreme opinion ...

[spnkzss]

I don't mind the idea of being able to run 2 different classes, but without needing to add rules. My ITC Civic would be legal in both ITC and (I Think it's FP) IF I had a fuel cell and fire system. I don't need to have the fuel cell and fire system in ITC, but's it's allowed. Would I be competitive, heck no, but I could if I wanted too. It would be like allowing me to change to the 5 speed for ITC because FP allows it.

I know the current reasoning behind this questioning does not have as high of an implication, but the exact same concept fits both.

TIFWIW

[JamesB]

Taking the 99+ SM car and putting it in ITA under SM rulesrather then ITS under IT rules? Do I see a problem? yes. I think the issue is the car is already classed in ITS, they can remove the restrictor plate and go play with them. Should they NEED to be allowd in ITA with the restrictor plate? I dont think so as they already have a place in IT where they can go play. If they want to be competitive in IT they drop SM like others have done and go for a true IT build.

I dont know about prod, I would never cross into that class unless I wanted to race in prod. And I dont, the rules make my head hurt.

[RSTPerformance]

I don't see any issues with a car being classed in two or more classes with or without restrictors... The BMW is a prime example of a good solution (ITS & ITR). In that situation the car meets all the rules in both ITA and ITS AKA the IT class as a whole. This poll is more in reference to cars from one class such as IT or SM and allowing them to run in thier respective class in another class without meeting the rules. Examples of this is IT cars running W/ IT rules in Prod classes or SM cars running in IT classes W/ SM rules.

Raymond

[cherokee]

To add just a little to what spnkzss said, the car should be classed to a point to where it is not a rolling road block. It needs to be at least a mid pack car. In his exapmle I think an ITC car should be in HP.

It still could be a slippery slope as should an IT cross over to prod be allowed to remove lenses that have to be removed for prod but are ok for IT, pass door glass....there are a couple of others I can't think of off hand.

Most of the cross classing I have read about have been an "up" class jump. IT to Prod, Prod to GT.
SM to IT, me I just don't see why.

[JamesB]

Raymond my response to a car from one class running in another prepared to the other class rules? Cool, I want to go buy a ITS car and run it in SSB is that cool?

In the end NO. Want IT prep for it, want SM prep for it. Want prod prep for it. Want to run two classes, find a car you can easilly convert to both rule sets between qualifing and races.

[RSTPerformance]

Raymond my response to a car from one class running in another prepared to the other class rules? Cool, I want to go buy a ITS car and run it in SSB is that cool?
[/b]


I put up the poll to see if anyone at all would want to see someone able to do just that. NO I DIDN"T VOTE the first choice because I don't agree with it. be it SM -> IT; IT -> Prod or ITS -> SSB



In the end NO. Want IT prep for it, want SM prep for it. Want prod prep for it. Want to run two classes, find a car you can easilly convert to both rule sets between qualifing and races.
[/b]

I picked the second choice because I do feel that IT -> Prod should be a dual classification. However I think that the dual classification needs to be made by having some "overlap" in the rules. For example remove the requirement from prod to eliminate headlights and door glass, and/or allow the removal in IT that way cars could overlap without needing to make changes. I don't think that having a car that can easilly convert is the answer to making SCCA and our classes more successful, some people just don't want or don't know how to work on (convert) thier cars.

Raymond

[Chris Wire]

I don't see a problem with cross classing provided that certain criteria are met.

1. SAFETY - If a class, like Prod, requires fuel cells and fire systems, then any IT car choosing to run Prod must comply. In turn, if the CRB wants to create an environment like that, they need to amend some rules (like door glass) that allow that end to be feasible. Ultimately though, the car needs to be 100% LEGAL for the class it is choosing to run in.

2. CLARITY - If a car chooses to run a cross-class, it should be TOTALLY OBVIOUS as to which class it is subscribed to. If I come up on a 99+ SM, it shouldn't take me more than a glance to determine which class it's running in. Not HMMMMMMM, which is it? SM? ITA w/ restrictor? ITS w/o restrictor? Does he have the restrictor? Should he have the restrictor?

3. CONSISTENCY - If the club is going to continue down this path, it should be looking at the classifications globally. If a Miata can do it, there is a good chance that there are others that should be considered. I guess if you're going to show favoritism, it shouldn't be BLATANT favoritism!

Let me restate my ultimate position though, any car running in a cross-class must be 100% LEGAL for the class it is running in. Period.

[shwah]

I chose the 2nd option.

Of course there are more issues than a poll can address here, if someone chooses the first option:

1. Identification of the what class a car is racing in
2. Compatibility of safety regulations
3. Educating the 'host' class competitors of the new ruleset so that they may appropriately police the class.

Simply by making selection #2 these all disappear. Your SM/SMT/SM?? car meets IT rules? Great come race IT. Your IT car meets Prepared rules? Great come race Prepared. Your IT car meets Prod rules? Great come race prod. Your LP Prod car meets IT rules? Great come race IT.

So easy and logical that way.

[mattbatson]

I think it would be fine to allow SM into IT. They arent allowed as many mod's, so they should be slower. (if they arent, it's the driver and the level of prep).

I would love, as an ITB guy, to have...for instance...if there was still a VW Cup. If there were a huge contingent of pretty much stock VW rabbits running in a class that is MORE restrictive then IT, it would be great it they were allowed to come play in my class.

At some point, it just gets boring running in these two or three car fields in ITB. The VW Cup cars should be slower...so whats the big deal?

I would also love to be able to take my ITB car into GP at certain nationals. No, it wouldnt be very competitive...but I bet I still have someone to race with :eclipsee_steering:

So far as whether or not safety items are a match...I dont see the importance.

I've been on track with plenty of guys who you could take and stuff into a fuel cell, and they're still gonna be dangerous on track! :rolleyes:

I wonder what the percentage of car fire's is with comparison to IT and Production? And of these, how many are attributable to no fuel cell?

I would think, if regular old gas tanks are blowing up all over the place that the SCCA would have taken action by now....no?

[shwah]

Hmm. I welcome additional competition in my class, but honestly prefer just that - competion. The Mini in ITB for instance may be a very competitive car, I look forward to seeing some show up. Saying that you want more cars in your class, regardless of what rules they are prepped to, provided they are slower than you is pretty disingenuous. What is the rationale for wanting more cars if you will not see them during a race unless lapping them?

I have been in a 3 car ITB race more than once. At times it sucked because we were all out there driving on our own, at times it was great because all 3 of us were mixing it up lap after lap - you could not tell the difference between that and a 10 car field where 3 of the field were well matched. The point - adding cars to my class that are guaranteed to be slower than me has absolutely no effect on my enjoyment of the event.

So yeah - more cars, prepped to IT specifications, that can race WITH us, not behind us.

[Knestis]

You ask about "dual classification" without ever defining what it is. Results are going to be meaningless.

** Same car listed in one class each in more than one category?

** Same car/engine package listed in different classes in on category, with differnt weight specs?

** Same car listed in multiple classes adhering to only one class specifications?

We dont' clarify situations when we are sloppy with how we talk about them.

K

[thedemoguy]

I'm a new guy on the SCCA block so take my response with a grain of salt.
I love my ITB Jetta and love racing at Nelson with the regionals, and I have a friend that helps me with the car thats been racing SCCA for a long time.

This weekend was a national race at Nelson and of course I returned the favor by helping him with his GT1, but a spectator I'm not, I just couldn't stand it standing there watching the races.
How much trouble would it have been to add one more race, we could run with the spec Miata class...

Just my humble new-be opinion

Bill you guys just don't want me to beat you Johnson :eclipsee_steering:
#13 ITB Jetta from Nelson

[mattbatson]

Hmm. I welcome additional competition in my class, but honestly prefer just that - competion. The Mini in ITB for instance may be a very competitive car, I look forward to seeing some show up. Saying that you want more cars in your class, regardless of what rules they are prepped to, provided they are slower than you is pretty disingenuous. What is the rationale for wanting more cars if you will not see them during a race unless lapping them?

I have been in a 3 car ITB race more than once. At times it sucked because we were all out there driving on our own, at times it was great because all 3 of us were mixing it up lap after lap - you could not tell the difference between that and a 10 car field where 3 of the field were well matched. The point - adding cars to my class that are guaranteed to be slower than me has absolutely no effect on my enjoyment of the event.

So yeah - more cars, prepped to IT specifications, that can race WITH us, not behind us.
[/b]

Well....the example of letting, albeit a fictional class at this point in time, VW Cup cars into ITB would mean letting in cars that are very close to the same speed of our ITB cars.

I run with SSC cars, and Spec miata cars, and other classes all of the time (of course, we arent competing against each other...) and even though my ITB car is "theoretically" a slower car then the spec miata's, I usually qualify/race mid pack with these cars.

If VW Cup cars were allowed in ITB, I guarantee with the right prep and right driver, they will not be getting lapped by your ITB car :D

Just as if spec miata were allowed to run in ITA (at a lower level of allowed modifications no less), I guarantee with the right driver and prep, the SM will not be getting lapped by the ITA cars :blink:

Competition is good, dont be afraid of it... embrace it :eclipsee_steering:

[thedemoguy]

Vote and be heard..............


http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...showtopic=11587 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=11587)

Bill