Not a "Done Deal"

[rlward]

Ok, guys... from the desk of John Bauer, "It is not a done deal. The Board of Directors will vote on the reclassification in December. I am sorry you did not get a response to yur letter. In the future, keep sending it until you do. The fastrack is the official notification system."

So, Racer Bill, and the other Shelby drivers out there, please write the letters.

I have written 2, and will write every week to keep the Shelby in ITA. I will also suggest again, if the car requires tweaking, adjust the weight down, but keep it in ITA.

Rodger Ward
84 Shelby, CalClub
#18

[Matt Rowe]

Thanks for the update Rodger. I will send in my letter as well.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Guys, this car WILL NOT get comp adjustments in ITA to 'keep it competitive'. The process puts it in ITB and it puts it smack dab in the core of ITB. That is the bottom line.

[RSTPerformance]

Matt & Roger... Why would you want to stay in ITA?

Raymond

[Matt Rowe]

Because the car currently carries significant ballast and can still run mid pack. If I wanted to run ITB I would have built an ITB Charger.I want to run with ITA and if the weight was adjusted accordingly I think the car would stand a chance against all but the best of ITA. You know it would be competitive with 90% of the cars already classed in ITA that don't stand a chance against a well prepped Miata, Integra, CRX or 240.

Oh and Andy, I appreciate your honesty but you can't (and shouldn't) prevent us for expressing our opinions on what we would like. It may be shouting into the wind but it is still our right to do so, isn't it?

Also isn't the classification process supposed to start at the highest level, determine what the minimum weight would be, make an educated guess of if the car can reach that and if not move down a class and repeat. So what's the minimum weight the car would have to make to stay in ITA?

[RSTPerformance]

Because the car currently carries significant ballast and can still run mid pack. If I wanted to run ITB I would have built an ITB Charger.I want to run with ITA and if the weight was adjusted accordingly I think the car would stand a chance against all but the best of ITA. You know it would be competitive with 90% of the cars already classed in ITA that don't stand a chance against a well prepped Miata, Integra, CRX or 240.

Oh and Andy, I appreciate your honesty but you can't (and shouldn't) prevent us for expressing our opinions on what we would like. It may be shouting into the wind but it is still our right to do so, isn't it?

Also isn't the classification process supposed to start at the highest level, determine what the minimum weight would be, make an educated guess of if the car can reach that and if not move down a class and repeat. So what's the minimum weight the car would have to make to stay in ITA?
[/b]

:023:

Raymond "Some people really just do want to have fun and not win!!!" Blethen

[Knestis]

Knock yourselves out, guys. It's just a shame that we finally have a system in place and people don't recognize how important that is. Make sure that you explain in your letters that you understand that there will be no future allowances made to improve competitiveness of this model in A.

K

[Matt Rowe]

Where is the lack of recognition? No one is asking for a comp adjustment now or in the future. What I did ask for is what the spec weight in ITA would be for the car based on the process. Class it at that weight in ITA and be done with it, or at least that is what my letter will say.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Where is the lack of recognition? No one is asking for a comp adjustment now or in the future. What I did ask for is what the spec weight in ITA would be for the car based on the process. Class it at that weight in ITA and be done with it, or at least that is what my letter will say. [/b]

Sorry Matt, you aren't reading the posts well enough. Roger's initial post asks for Prod-style comp adjustments.


I will also suggest again, if the car requires tweaking, adjust the weight down, but keep it in ITA.[/b]

I can assure you, this will never happen in IT under my watch. NEVER.

And please, I never prevented anyone from expressing an opinion, I simply stated that what Roger suggested won't happen. Request all you want - but it will be a waste of time. Harsh? Maybe but it is what it is.

As far as the weight in ITA - you asked for it. How about 1945lbs? Can you get there? I don't think so. The original request came in from a Mr. Hoffman in March to have it reclassed to ITB. You have the structure and timelines correct, you just don't like the result. It's a B car.

[lateapex911]

Yup-
As Andy points out, we spent some time researching this car. It's a pretty large engine, and yet it's pretty weak. It's specific output should be higher. Thats a red flag. Sometimes, (often) cars are strangled by a certain item that gets changed in IT prep.

We researched.
We ran it through the process
And the weight.
And we researched.....

Finally, after we finished our due diligence, we came to the conclusion you read. ITB.

What I hear is conflicting...
"Just throw us a bone, look at the times, we could be competitive with an adjustment"
"Fix the weight"
"Let us stay in ITA, really, the car could be fast enough to have fun in.."
"I don't care about being fast, I like running with my friends"
"I just bought wheels, why didn't this happen two years ago??"

Lets have a poll on how long it will take to get the first "I can't get my car that light, what were you idiots thinking??" letter...;)

[dickita15]

And this is exactly why I have become to believe that Dual Classification is the way to promote fair racing a still satisfy the largest number of racers.
We are a participant driven sport. We do not class cars based on spectator interest or manufacturer influence because frankly neither of those groups care that much. We class cars based on what the individual wants to race balanced against the rights of the rest of the racers in that class.
From the discussion on these threads the Shelby move to ITB is totally logical. The numbers are right and it fits the process perfectly and yet much to the surprise of the green visor wearing number crunchers of the ITAC there are those who own the cars that are unhappy.
Reasons for not wanting to move down a class don’t have to be rational to everyone. Reasons like I don’t want to slow my car down, the change will cost me money or the B guys are a bunch of …(insert offensive statement here) may not be rational to all, but the reasons we race or race a particular car are not always rational.
If you trust the process we now use for classifying cars than why not satisfy the largest number of racers.

Trust the process, dual classify the car.

[spnkzss]

Here is my next stupid question. Let's say it get changed to ITB. If you are not running for points, is there anything in the GCR that states that you can not continue to run in ITA in current trim?

[Greg Amy]

...is there anything in the GCR that states that you can not continue to run in ITA in current trim?[/b]
Yes.

1) If it doesn't say you can, you can't; and
2) Vehicles are specifically listed in the ITCS by class.

[RSTPerformance]

And this is exactly why I have become to believe that Dual Classification is the way to promote fair racing a still satisfy the largest number of racers.
We are a participant driven sport. We do not class cars based on spectator interest or manufacturer influence because frankly neither of those groups care that much. We class cars based on what the individual wants to race balanced against the rights of the rest of the racers in that class.
From the discussion on these threads the Shelby move to ITB is totally logical. The numbers are right and it fits the process perfectly and yet much to the surprise of the green visor wearing number crunchers of the ITAC there are those who own the cars that are unhappy.
Reasons for not wanting to move down a class don’t have to be rational to everyone. Reasons like I don’t want to slow my car down, the change will cost me money or the B guys are a bunch of …(insert offensive statement here) may not be rational to all, but the reasons we race or race a particular car are not always rational.
If you trust the process we now use for classifying cars than why not satisfy the largest number of racers.

Trust the process, dual classify the car.
[/b]

:023:

Raymond

[Andy Bettencourt]

And this is exactly why I have become to believe that Dual Classification is the way to promote fair racing a still satisfy the largest number of racers.
We are a participant driven sport. We do not class cars based on spectator interest or manufacturer influence because frankly neither of those groups care that much. We class cars based on what the individual wants to race balanced against the rights of the rest of the racers in that class.
From the discussion on these threads the Shelby move to ITB is totally logical. The numbers are right and it fits the process perfectly and yet much to the surprise of the green visor wearing number crunchers of the ITAC there are those who own the cars that are unhappy.
Reasons for not wanting to move down a class don't have to be rational to everyone. Reasons like I don't want to slow my car down, the change will cost me money or the B guys are a bunch of …(insert offensive statement here) may not be rational to all, but the reasons we race or race a particular car are not always rational.
If you trust the process we now use for classifying cars than why not satisfy the largest number of racers.

Trust the process, dual classify the car.
[/b]

While I like some aspects of the Dual Classification Philosophy (Tweeners), this is NOT one of those situations. Frankly, it exemplifies why it is probably a bad idea to adopt a DCP. This car is not a tweener. It is an ITB car. Now we have members who 'just want to stay in ITA' for a variety of reasons. For some it will be wheels. For some its the guys they run against. For some it's the run group. No matter what the reason, it's not appropriate to DC this car and not EVERYONE ELSE. Hell, I would double-dip in ITS almost every race if I could under this philosophy. You just tripled the size of the classification listsings (core class plus one up and one down).

So to satisfy the largets number of racers, I submit we class cars where they should be - ONCE. Then there are no "PCB's"...(post classification bitching). You get what you get. It's Improved Touring, nothing more, nothing less.

[spnkzss]

Yes.

1) If it doesn't say you can, you can't; and
2) Vehicles are specifically listed in the ITCS by class.
[/b]

Good answer.

[Matt Rowe]

Sorry Matt, you aren't reading the posts well enough. Roger's initial post asks for Prod-style comp adjustments.
I can assure you, this will never happen in IT under my watch. NEVER.[/b]
Sorry, but that isn't how I read it. I read it as he isa sking the car be run through the process and the weight adjusted if shown that it does not currently meet the spec. I wouldn't support anything else and you should know that by now.



And please, I never prevented anyone from expressing an opinion, I simply stated that what Roger suggested won't happen. Request all you want - but it will be a waste of time. Harsh? Maybe but it is what it is.[/b]
No, you didn't come right out and say not to send in something, just that it is a waste of time. That is a piss poor message to send to members. I'm on a committee too and know exactly how little feedback is received and that there is no excuse for discouraging someone from sending in a letter. None! Try re-reading your own responses and ask yourself how open to member input your come across.



As far as the weight in ITA - you asked for it. How about 1945lbs? Can you get there? I don't think so. The original request came in from a Mr. Hoffman in March to have it reclassed to ITB. You have the structure and timelines correct, you just don't like the result. It's a B car.
[/b]
1945 but you didn't feel the need to fix this when the classes were all reviewed and re-aligned? 20% out of alignment with active racers out there? What did it take for a car to stand out enough?

It's not so much that I don't like that weight as it doesn't seem to align with reality. As a comparison the 16V GTI runs at 2220. It gives up .4 l of displacement but benefits from EFI and 8 extra valves. Suspension between the two are a wash although the GTI is top heavy and a bigger sail at high speed than the Shelby. So basically it appears that the EFI and 16 valves not only make up for the displacement difference but also make almost a 300 lb difference? Something doesn't seem right there?

[dickita15]

While I like some aspects of the Dual Classification Philosophy (Tweeners), this is NOT one of those situations. Frankly, it exemplifies why it is probably a bad idea to adopt a DCP. This car is not a tweener. It is an ITB car. Now we have members who 'just want to stay in ITA' for a variety of reasons. For some it will be wheels. For some its the guys they run against. For some it's the run group. No matter what the reason, it's not appropriate to DC this car and not EVERYONE ELSE. Hell, I would double-dip in ITS almost every race if I could under this philosophy. You just tripled the size of the classification listsings (core class plus one up and one down).

So to satisfy the largets number of racers, I submit we class cars where they should be - ONCE. Then there are no "PCB's"...(post classification bitching). You get what you get. It's Improved Touring, nothing more, nothing less.
[/b]

Andy, would this reaction be because of your surprise and frustration as a green visor wearing number cruncher of the ITAC. :D

[rlward]

Matt & Roger... Why would you want to stay in ITA?

Raymond
[/b]
Raymond-
Cause I still feel I can win at least one race. The race is the important part of the process of being a better driver. The challenge is important. It is not all about how many wins I can have in a class, but how hard it was to win, or even place. If I was in this just to win, I would study all the calsses, all the cars, and pick the class with the least amount of entrants and spend the most amount of $ on the highest potential car available. I am sorry, but that just seems too easy...might as well stay home and watch TV.



Knock yourselves out, guys. It's just a shame that we finally have a system in place and people don't recognize how important that is. Make sure that you explain in your letters that you understand that there will be no future allowances made to improve competitiveness of this model in A.

K
[/b]

I don't think you realize how important it is to the drivers affected that we have a say in the process, and that the board does not act based on the imput of just one driver that expresses his situation. The fact remains the SYSTEM was not transparent, letters written were not answered, and considering how much time and space has been devoted to this one issue on reclassification, the SYSTEM is still not perfect. That is ok, it should get better. Please don't get me wrong, I appreciate all the time and effort the board spends on these issues. I feel like my imput was not as important as some responses class my car as, "110hp, struts, FWD...come on!"
And my letter(s) will not have any statement as to "no future allowances", things constantly evolve.

[Knestis]

...It's not so much that I don't like that weight as it doesn't seem to align with reality. As a comparison the 16V GTI runs at 2220. It gives up .4 l of displacement but benefits from EFI and 8 extra valves. Suspension between the two are a wash although the GTI is top heavy and a bigger sail at high speed than the Shelby. So basically it appears that the EFI and 16 valves not only make up for the displacement difference but also make almost a 300 lb difference? Something doesn't seem right there?[/b]
That's competition adjustment talk (bleah), right there. You want a break based on direct comparisons with some other car in the class. You are making a case for running the GTI back through the process, remembering that its weight is a artifact of the old way of doing business. At least I think it is...


Trust the process, dual classify the car.[/b]
I'm totally with you, Dick - right up to the point where the process said, "1945 pounds." That's completely unreachable so it make exactly zero sense to even go to the trouble to put it in the book.

K

[rlward]

Sorry Matt, you aren't reading the posts well enough. Roger's initial post asks for Prod-style comp adjustments.
I can assure you, this will never happen in IT under my watch. NEVER.

And please, I never prevented anyone from expressing an opinion, I simply stated that what Roger suggested won't happen. Request all you want - but it will be a waste of time. Harsh? Maybe but it is what it is.

As far as the weight in ITA - you asked for it. How about 1945lbs? Can you get there? I don't think so. The original request came in from a Mr. Hoffman in March to have it reclassed to ITB. You have the structure and timelines correct, you just don't like the result. It's a B car.
[/b]
Andy,
I did not ask for a prod-style comp adjustment. I said IF a change needs to be made, reduce the weight. 1945 pounds would be fine. I barely make weight now without ballast.
Please pardon me if I am wrong, but you certainly seem to be set in the reclassification. Are you 100% convinced the change is in the best intrest of the drivers, or is there something I am missing here? Your responses are almost defensive, and being a driver of one of the Sheby's, most offensive.



Sorry Matt, you aren't reading the posts well enough. Roger's initial post asks for Prod-style comp adjustments.
I can assure you, this will never happen in IT under my watch. NEVER.

And please, I never prevented anyone from expressing an opinion, I simply stated that what Roger suggested won't happen. Request all you want - but it will be a waste of time. Harsh? Maybe but it is what it is.

As far as the weight in ITA - you asked for it. How about 1945lbs? Can you get there? I don't think so. The original request came in from a Mr. Hoffman in March to have it reclassed to ITB. You have the structure and timelines correct, you just don't like the result. It's a B car.
[/b]
Andy,
I did not ask for a prod-style comp adjustment. I said IF a change needs to be made, reduce the weight. 1945 pounds would be fine. I barely make weight now without ballast.
Please pardon me if I am wrong, but you certainly seem to be set in the reclassification. Are you 100% convinced the change is in the best intrest of the drivers, or is there something I am missing here? Your responses are almost defensive, and being a driver of one of the Sheby's, most offensive.

[Knestis]

...I don't think you realize how important it is to the drivers affected that we have a say in the process, and that the board does not act based on the imput of just one driver that expresses his situation. The fact remains the SYSTEM was not transparent, letters written were not answered, and considering how much time and space has been devoted to this one issue on reclassification, the SYSTEM is still not perfect.[/b]
Let's clarify. You don't like the process by which classification of this make/model was revisited. You have a legitimate beef, even if there's some good reasons things went down like they did. However, the "system" that determines the race weight of IT cars, at this point in time, is as transparent as anything in the world of auto racing. You could ask every member of the ITAC independently what a Hyundwoo Snuggly should weight and if you gave them all the same info, they'd come back to you within 50 pounds of one-another. And with some thinkin' you or I could discern what the factors are and figger it out for ourselves based solely on the race weights of cars run through the process, and their attributes.

What could you possible want more than that? No - you don't get to have what you want based on how impassioned your plea might be. That just doesn't work when everyone wants their own thing and the best interests of the category are served by a huge list of compromises.


...And my letter(s) will not have any statement as to "no future allowances", things constantly evolve.
[/b]
And I would expect nothing less. Your philosophy is showing and it just doesn't match the prevailing position of the category. You are NOT wrong, or evil for wanting what you want. Your expectations are just not particularly well matched to where we've managed to get the category over the last 5-7 years.

K

Edit - WAITAMINUTE - Are you seriously suggesting you can legally get that car down to 1945# with a 180# driver???

[rlward]

Thanks for the update Rodger. I will send in my letter as well.
[/b]
Matt,
thank you, first for the help, and second for spelling my name right. :happy204:



Let's clarify. You don't like the process by which classification of this make/model was revisited. You have a legitimate beef, even if there's some good reasons things went down like they did. However, the "system" that determines the race weight of IT cars, at this point in time, is as transparent as anything in the world of auto racing. You could ask every member of the ITAC independently what a Hyudwoo Snuggly should weight and if you gave them all the same info, they'd come back to you within 50 pounds of one-another. And with some thinkin' you or I could discern what the factors are and figger it out for ourselves based solely on the race weights of cars run through the process, and their attributes.

What could you possible want more than that? No - you don't get to have what you want based on how impassioned your plea might be. That just doesn't work when everyone wants their own thing and the best interests of the category are served by a huge list of compromises.
And I would expect nothing less. Your philosophy is showing and it just doesn't match the prevailing position of the category. You are NOT wrong, or evil for wanting what you want. Your expectations are just not particularly well matched to where we've managed to get the category over the last 5-7 years.

K

Edit - WAITAMINUTE - Are you seriously suggesting you can legally get that car down to 1945# with a 180# driver???
[/b]




Let's clarify. You don't like the process by which classification of this make/model was revisited. You have a legitimate beef, even if there's some good reasons things went down like they did. However, the "system" that determines the race weight of IT cars, at this point in time, is as transparent as anything in the world of auto racing. You could ask every member of the ITAC independently what a Hyundwoo Snuggly should weight and if you gave them all the same info, they'd come back to you within 50 pounds of one-another. And with some thinkin' you or I could discern what the factors are and figger it out for ourselves based solely on the race weights of cars run through the process, and their attributes.

What could you possible want more than that? No - you don't get to have what you want based on how impassioned your plea might be. That just doesn't work when everyone wants their own thing and the best interests of the category are served by a huge list of compromises.
And I would expect nothing less. Your philosophy is showing and it just doesn't match the prevailing position of the category. You are NOT wrong, or evil for wanting what you want. Your expectations are just not particularly well matched to where we've managed to get the category over the last 5-7 years.

K

Edit - WAITAMINUTE - Are you seriously suggesting you can legally get that car down to 1945# with a 180# driver???
[/b]
No, it was tongue in cheek, I also weight more than 180. But it is easy to get to the minimum weight now leagally. I could probably reduce another 10 pounds, not me - the car, by legal means. And I don't want more than that. I would be happy if the car was left alone, in ITA. That is all I want. Why is that not best for the catagory? and are you saying the catagory has not been tweaked?
RW

[JoshS]

Raymond-
Cause I still feel I can win at least one race. The race is the important part of the process of being a better driver. The challenge is important. It is not all about how many wins I can have in a class, but how hard it was to win, or even place. If I was in this just to win, I would study all the calsses, all the cars, and pick the class with the least amount of entrants and spend the most amount of $ on the highest potential car available. I am sorry, but that just seems too easy...might as well stay home and watch TV.[/b]

Rodger,

I'm just curious -- are you already faster than your local ITB drivers, so that this challenge wouldn't exist in ITB for you?

Josh

[Matt Rowe]

That's competition adjustment talk (bleah), right there. You want a break based on direct comparisons with some other car in the class. You are making a case for running the GTI back through the process, remembering that its weight is a artifact of the old way of doing business. At least I think it is...[/b]
Are you missing something K?

Andy tells me the weight should be 1945, I disagree because it appears too low. That is not me asking for a break that is me trying to understand the process. Because it appears (when compared to a similar car) that it places far more emphasis on # of valves and EFI than on displacement or stock hp. I'm not asking for a comp adjustment I'm trying to understand the process because something doesn't seem right.

Also I have to assume the GTI is at the proper weight because I have no way of knowing if the ITAC decided it was right or that they did not have enough information. Given the numbers of VW's and Rabitt's out there racing over the years most would assume there is enough information to have it classed properly otherwise I start to wonder just how many cars really were reviewed. Which is the problem with not fixing every car at once. You are bound to encourage more requests to fix car X because are seeing cars moved or re-weighted. Who's to know what cars have been adjusted and which haven't?

Now if this is trully what the process predicts based on solid information or at least the normal assumptions then I'm not sure what to say. I have a hard time believing there is that much emphasis on EFI and valves and that little emphasis on displacement but so be it. I have said before that a fully built version can get down to 2250 but if the classification puts it 300 lbs below that it must be an ITB car. Of course to gain 485 lbs jumping up a class (1945 in ITA and 2430 in ITB) seems odd too. I don't remember the other tweener cars gaining that much but I could be wrong.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,
I did not ask for a prod-style comp adjustment. I said IF a change needs to be made, reduce the weight. 1945 pounds would be fine. I barely make weight now without ballast.
Please pardon me if I am wrong, but you certainly seem to be set in the reclassification. Are you 100% convinced the change is in the best intrest of the drivers, or is there something I am missing here? Your responses are almost defensive, and being a driver of one of the Sheby's, most offensive. [/b]

Well I certainly read it that way. My apologies if you didn't mean, 'Change the weight, and change it again if you have to keep making it lighter'.

What does your car weigh? How close do you think you can come to 1945lbs? That is a car that would be 1765lbs without driver!

I am set in this classification (which doesn't mean anything really). I am trying to be true to the process, true to the category and true to both current and FUTURE Shelby drivers and drivers interested in IT and a stable and predicatble ruleset. To leave this car in ITA at a weight it can't come within 300lbs of is really just nonsense. In some small part, the integrity of the category is being challenged.

I am 100% convinced the change is in the best interest of the category. Some decisions hurt some in the short term but help in the long term. Keeping on-track with what we have been doing for the last 4 years is what will continue to keep IT strong. A deviation like this is just the wrong thing to do from a 10,000 foot level. I am sorry you feel slighted and insulted but there are just as many people insulted by your desire to deviate from the framework - for what amounts to not having to pay for new wheel (or insert 'me' reason here)

I am done with this one. Thanks to all who have PM'd me.

Edit: Matt, cars were reviewed and changes were made to those +/- 100lbs of their process weight. As has been said over and over - that was within the statistical noise of the IT framework. And remember, adders/subtractors are not universally applied across all classes. By that I mean that an adder for dispacement/torque in ITB or ITC may not apply in ITA or ITS as it may not be 'out of the ordinary' for that class. 2.2 in ITB may be big, but in ITA or ITS and especially ITR, not so much. That is why this is a 'process' and not a formula.

[Matt Rowe]

What does your car weigh? How close do you think you can come to 1945lbs? That is a car that would be 1765lbs without driver![/b]
Look above I have already answered that. 2250. Don't get me wrong at 1945 it would be a killer ITA car but it's not going to get there.



In some small part, the integrity of the category is being challenged.
...
I am sorry you feel slighted and insulted but there are just as many people insulted by your desire to deviate from the framework - for what amounts to not having to pay for new wheel (or insert 'me' reason here)[/b]
When have I ever asked to deviate from the process? Now that you have responded with the process dictated weight I have only asked for a better understanding of how it is applied. Furthermore I have already said that if that is what the process predicts then it clearly should be a B car as 1945 is unreasonable. I'm just unclear as to the why the disparity in predictions when compared to other examples.



And remember, adders/subtractors are not universally applied across all classes. By that I mean that an adder for dispacement/torque in ITB or ITC may not apply in ITA or ITS as it may not be 'out of the ordinary' for that class. 2.2 in ITB may be big, but in ITA or ITS and especially ITR, not so much. That is why this is a 'process' and not a formula.
[/b]
I understand it's a process I am a big fan of the process and have always and will continue to support it. What I am trying to understand is a comparison between weights for two cars within the same class, ITA.

So although you may be done with this you still haven't really answered why the huge disparity between the GTI and the Shelby, both within ITA. Both with similar characteristics aside from what I already pointed out. It appears the GTI is appropriately classed (no need to perform a "comp adjustment") yet the Shelby would be 275 lb's lighter. The adders shouldn't be different due to class changes, only the effects of displacement, EFI, and valves. So what am I missing?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hey Matt, you have to notice my response was not to you, just the Edit.

The 16V GTI at 2220 in ITA is a 123hp car. 13 stock hp in ITA is worth about 235lbs.

What class do you think it belongs in?

[Knestis]

Someone please run the back-of-napkin numbers on the GTI 1.8 16v - 123hp, 120ft-lb, struts, and the same chassis and brakes as an ITB MkII Golf. Maybe Jake will because Andy's had the good sense to go clean his attic or something. :)

My guess - without even getting out a calculator - is 2375. The only reasons nobody has much cared is that (1) none of the real-life examples out there are actually at 2200, and (2) nobody's built a full-tilt version of the car to scare the competition into squawking about it.

K

EDIT - Andy isn't as sensible as I thought. Am I to infer from your post that the process weight for the GTI 16v is ACTUALLY 2200??

[Andy Bettencourt]

Someone please run the back-of-napkin numbers on the GTI 1.8 16v - 123hp, 120ft-lb, struts, and the same chassis and brakes as an ITB MkII Golf. Maybe Jake will because Andy's had the good sense to go clean his attic or something. :)

My guess - without even getting out a calculator - is 2375. The only reasons nobody has much cared is that (1) none of the real-life examples out there are actually at 2200, and (2) nobody's built a full-tilt version of the car to scare the competition into squawking about it.

K [/b]

Back of the napkin shows a quick 2230 - 50 for FWD. 2180lbs. 2220 in the GCR now. Build it VW guys.

We are talking about the 1.8, not the 2.0 at 2475.

[Knestis]

Day-um.

Someone's glad Andy is doing the math rather than me. :)

There's tracks where that would be a great combination, methinks.

Never mind. :unsure:

K

[Matt Rowe]

Hey Matt, you have to notice my response was not to you, just the Edit.

The 16V GTI at 2220 in ITA is a 123hp car. 13 stock hp in ITA is worth about 235lbs.

What class do you think it belongs in?
[/b]
Unfortunately that's not how I read it. Sorry if I misunderstood the scope of the "you" in your previous comments.

Anyway, I give up. For some reason I was using a lower HP number for the GTI which skewed the estimate I had. Despite my own personal preference I have to agree that based on the math it looks like an ITB. If it does fit it's better for the long term future of the car and may even help numbers in the "dying" ITB class. Thanks for clarifying how you got to that point. I sincerely appreciate that there are members of the ITAC willing to explain the basis for the decisions instead of dismissing questions with trite responses.

[rlward]

Rodger,

I'm just curious -- are you already faster than your local ITB drivers, so that this challenge wouldn't exist in ITB for you?

Josh
[/b]
Not All, some, but not all. faster than some ITA cars also, not all ,but some. This is in a car that was mothballed for 6 years. I changed fluids, bought new tires and went racing. The point I have always been trying to make is, leave the car alone. IF and that is IF the board wants to do anything to help the driver of the shelby be more competitive, reduce the minimum weight. the added weight specified in the reclassification is in the wrong place. If that information had been available at the begining of the season, there would be enough time to plan and re-purchase a lot of interior pieces that added weight in the right place before the start of the new season.

I didn't buy an ITB car because I wanted to race in ITA. The Shelby was interesting. not a lot of sources, not a lot of other Shelby's, heck I honestly thought I was the only Shelby Racer until just a few weeks ago when I learned of this site. I have been curious as to why we are on this site instead of the SCCA site.

[mustanghammer]

Ditto:

***********************

And this is exactly why I have become to believe that Dual Classification is the way to promote fair racing a still satisfy the largest number of racers.
We are a participant driven sport. We do not class cars based on spectator interest or manufacturer influence because frankly neither of those groups care that much. We class cars based on what the individual wants to race balanced against the rights of the rest of the racers in that class.
From the discussion on these threads the Shelby move to ITB is totally logical. The numbers are right and it fits the process perfectly and yet much to the surprise of the green visor wearing number crunchers of the ITAC there are those who own the cars that are unhappy.
Reasons for not wanting to move down a class don’t have to be rational to everyone. Reasons like I don’t want to slow my car down, the change will cost me money or the B guys are a bunch of …(insert offensive statement here) may not be rational to all, but the reasons we race or race a particular car are not always rational.
If you trust the process we now use for classifying cars than why not satisfy the largest number of racers.

Trust the process, dual classify the car

****************************

[dickita15]

I'm totally with you, Dick - right up to the point where the process said, "1945 pounds." That's completely unreachable so it make exactly zero sense to even go to the trouble to put it in the book.

K
[/b]
I totally understand that that is an unattainable weight and from a purely practical perspective it may defy logic, but what is our goal here.
I would say the rule one is to protect the process and to insure that no violation of the process does harm to the racers who rely on the rules process for fair competition.
My second goal would be attempt to allow members to do what they want as long as it is safe and does not violate rule one.
If we can satisfy a larger group of customers without no any harm whatsoever to the integrity of the process or the rest of our customers why would we not? Is the burden of having to print a few more spec lines in a book that is over 500 pages really that bad?
Let’s say there are 12 guys out there racing these cars now in ITA. What would happen if the Shelby was Dual Classified in A and B. my WAG is 4 would immediately move their cars to ITB where the car is a better fit and eventually another 4 would look around and see how much fun they are having and find some wheels to make the move. Maybe 4 would stay in ITA and enjoy their decision. I see this as good for ITB and doing no harm to ITA.

[rlward]

Sorry Matt, you aren't reading the posts well enough. Roger's initial post asks for Prod-style comp adjustments.
I can assure you, this will never happen in IT under my watch. NEVER.

And please, I never prevented anyone from expressing an opinion, I simply stated that what Roger suggested won't happen. Request all you want - but it will be a waste of time. Harsh? Maybe but it is what it is.

As far as the weight in ITA - you asked for it. How about 1945lbs? Can you get there? I don't think so. The original request came in from a Mr. Hoffman in March to have it reclassed to ITB. You have the structure and timelines correct, you just don't like the result. It's a B car.
[/b]
Andy -
Where are the posts from Mr. Hoffman regarding his position on this issue? Is he taking advantage of the rules or does he have a fairly stock car? Is he a new driver? Does he just want to run in ITB? I just don't get it. Does the process mean if I am uncompetitive in ITB too all I have to do is write a letter and be asked to be reclassified to ITC? What happens if now, the Shelby's start winning all the ITB events? will there be a Competition adjustment? And most of all, I have only asked the car be left in ITA (i don't know how you read anything else in my posts or even if you read my letter to the board), nothing else...are you saying that regardless of letters from those affected (Shelby Drivers), the car WILL GO to ITB? If so, let me outta here, I thought this was a better organization than that. Also, tell mr. Hoffman to contact me. If he really wants to race in ITB I will buy his car so that he can buy an ITB car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Someone help me please. I can't type stuff over and over.

:Tired:

[rlward]

Someone help me please. I can't type stuff over and over.

:Tired:
[/b]

I am tired too, but I don't give up, not here, not on the track! you have no stamina....you still have offered no real response to my quiery....I'll admit I don't know how to run the back of the napkin stuff. I do know my car is competitive in ITA and I don't want to change classes. Just because 1 driver is whining and you (heck WHO ARE YOU? are you the comp board? I'm too new at this to have identified all the players) happen to run the numbers and agree doen't make it justified.

[Jeremy Billiel]

I have read this entire thread and I just don't get it....

Everyone wants a clear process that is transparent. We now have that.

The shelby was re-run through the process and with the new (correct) data it is a ITB car.

How can one bitch about this? Who the F cares about having to buy new rims? That is chump change in this world that we play in. If the car belongs in ITB, it belongs in ITB, where it looks like it can be very competitive.

END OF STORY IMO

I know that is harsh, but this is what everyone wanted and IT is better for this. Thank you ITAC.

[Knestis]

Rodger - Andy is on the Improved Touring Ad Hoc Committee (ITAC), as is Jake Gulick who also posts here and a couple of other occasional visitors. The ITAC is charged with reviewing IT rules requests and making recommendations to the Comp Board, where IT issues are concerned.

With respect - there are a LOT of things about the current process, the history, and the players that you haven't learned yet. You are asking for things - both in terms of organizational procedures and the technical practices currently applied to classing - that are simply not in line with how things currently work.

SCCA is not being unfair or unresponsive if they don't do what one individual wants.

K

[Knestis]

... I would say the rule one is to protect the process and to insure that no violation of the process does harm to the racers who rely on the rules process for fair competition.
My second goal would be attempt to allow members to do what they want as long as it is safe and does not violate rule one. ...[/b]
As always, Dick you make a compelling case but I still have fundamental concerns in terms of the cohesion of the category, and of the classes within it.

There are always shades of gray, so let's look at one that's closer to the extreme end of your scale - we'll call it "white," where everyone gets to do quite literally everything they want. We'll call Kirk's end "black" (as in evil), where rules Dementors like me suck all of the joy out of racing. :)

What's the analog to your suggestion that people be allowed to keep their Shelbys in A, at whatever minimum weight they can possibly attain (as long as it's above 1945, of course), in the cases where ITA cars got more weight added to them, also based on the process? Those guys were plenty unhappy about the situation, as I recall.

"Please let me run at my old weight for no points or trophies" - OK or not OK?

"I'll run on 6" wheels, if I can keep my old weight" - OK or not OK?

"Make all of the other cars lighter" (a real suggestion as I recall) - OK or not OK?

Etc.

They simply got told to bolt in some weight and quite whining - OK or not OK?

I'm not trying to argue sense with the absurd - really. I just find that it's easier to parse out issues and solutions sometimes if I look at examples out toward the ends of the curve. The limits to what's OK are always arbitrary to some degree, so the question becomes one of what we are collectively comfortable with. And there are ALWAYS costs due to outcomes of taking a new location along the black-white continuum. Heck - there are costs associated change, in and of itself.

Further, we don't even KNOW what the costs will be sometimes.

So, I'm convinced that the dual classification option *might* be a good way to deal with some really special cases, where the benefits outweigh the costs. (And equally convinced that the language of that allowance would have to be VERY carefully crafted.) I'm just not loving the cost/benefit math of going whole-hog with the idea, applying it to every car in every class.

K

[rcc85]

Some other questions...

If the Shelby Charger is moved to ITB, does the Omni GLH automatically get moved as well (same engine, same suspension, both "L" bodies in Chrysler parlance) or does it stay in ITA pending a review request from a member?

Second, does the 2.5 Daytona really belong in ITA? I don't have the numbers handy, but I think it is only about 100 hp stock (130 lbs/ft of torque) in a fairly heavy car. If that car was run through the process would it also be a candidate to be moved to ITB?

Third, how do I submit a request to have my ITB 2.2 Daytona run through the process? I really think that if it was run through the process it would come out lighter than its current 2630 lbs. (99 hp stock/fwd/struts).

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Daytona

[gran racing]

Does the process mean if I am uncompetitive in ITB too all I have to do is write a letter and be asked to be reclassified to ITC? What happens if now, the Shelby's start winning all the ITB events?[/b]

The process being used doesn’t take into consideration on track race results. If the Shelby starts winning all of the ITB events, we’ll just see more people building Shelbys.


The shelby was re-run through the process and with the new (correct) data it is a ITB car.

How can one bitch about this? Who the F cares about having to buy new rims? That is chump change in this world that we play in. If the car belongs in ITB, it belongs in ITB, where it looks like it can be very competitive.[/b]

For some people, it isn’t about changing the rim size. In the NER, ITB is quite large and we’re actually seeing it grow more. :D In other areas of the country, it isn’t as strong. Jeremy, here’s an example: if my ITB car was being reclassed to ITC even if it fit, I’d be upset because the change took me out of large fields and put the car into a very small field of cars racing (at least in our area).

Another issue people have is that they’ve formed rivalries with people in ITA and don’t want to lose that. Sure, they’ll form new ones but that’s not what they care about now. I’ll admit that I miss some of the battles I had with a certain ITA driver in addition to a couple of others and have yet to form the same in ITB. In my case, having a car that could potentially be competitive was important to me and was willing to make the sacrifice – others are not.

It is also tough to tell Mr. Hoffman that the ITAC reviewed the Shelby and it fits perfectly within ITB, but we’re still gonna keep it in ITA. In any case, not everyone will be satisfied utilizing our current tools. I’m still not totally sold on a full dual classification approach, but maybe it could be used as a transition period for cars being changed to a different class for a definitive amount of time? In this case the Shelby would be classed in both ITA & ITB for a period of three years, after which time it would strictly be in ITB.

[lateapex911]

Andy -
Where are the posts from Mr. Hoffman regarding his position on this issue? Is he taking advantage of the rules or does he have a fairly stock car? Is he a new driver? Does he just want to run in ITB?
[/b]
First, reread the thread, as I can remember many if not all of these questions being adressed.
The ITAc has gotten several, IIRC letters on this, and took a close look at the car, with research that time didn't allow earlier. Some things take longer, plain and simple. It was felt that the numbers that came from the research placed the car in ITA at the weight listed above, or in ITB at a heavier weight.


I just don't get it. Does the process mean if I am uncompetitive in ITB too all I have to do is write a letter and be asked to be reclassified to ITC? [/b]

No, the move wasn't made because the ITAC felt the car was uncompetitive, the move was made because the numbers showed it could not be competitive in ITA, except at a ridiculous weight.


What happens if now, the Shelby's start winning all the ITB events? will there be a Competition adjustment?[/b]

No. Good for them. Unless there is new information that shows beond the shadow of a doubt that the research has provided the wrong answer...and we aren't talking about one guy winning at Shely Motorsports Park, the car stays where it is.






...... I'm still not totally sold on a full dual classification approach, but maybe it could be used as a transition period for cars being changed to a different class for a definitive amount of time? In this case the Shelby would be classed in both ITA & ITB for a period of three years, after which time it would strictly be in ITB.
[/b]

Hmmm....that's not a bad idea...

[lateapex911]

.......... do know my car is competitive in ITA and I don't want to change classes. . [/b]

I apologise in advance for what I'm about to write.... it might sound harsh, but it's the truth..

You're in Prather California, and from my limited observations on trips west and visits to races, ITA isn't the same class it is in other parts of the country. Bring that car east to run some ITA races, and you'll be lucky to see the lead pack for a lap. Honestly, the cars are pretty darn quick. I think that you are deciding that your world is representative of the country at large and it simply isn't. And the ITAC needs to concern itself with the big picture. IF your car can be competitive with a Moser driven CRX, then my hats off to you, and we have a serious screw up. (But we'll have serious reservations about "How" you got so fast...;) )

[Greg Amy]

...until just a few weeks ago when I learned of this site. I have been curious as to why we are on this site instead of the SCCA site.[/b]
This site LOOONG pre-dates anything SCCA's done. Way long. As in I think I joined with my first identity ('grega") in 2001 or something like that; I was user #180-something...

So, this is our "home", and probably always will be (unless "Webmaster" gets bored with it).


... do know my car is competitive in ITA and I don't want to change classes.[/b]
As someone who (currently, but possibly not for long!) is the reigning ITA ARRC champion, and someone that built probably the very first ITA Shelby Charger (way back in 1987), I can say with confidence you're mistaken. Ain't sayin' you can't have fun with it in ITA, but ain't no way it'll win against the pointy-end ITA competition (for reference, my car puts 150+ hp to the ground...)

If I were you, I'd be taking that ITB gift with a big smile; that torquey 2.2 engine should rock there. - GA

[dickita15]

As always, Dick you make a compelling case but I still have fundamental concerns in terms of the cohesion of the category, and of the classes within it.

There are always shades of gray, so let's look at one that's closer to the extreme end of your scale - we'll call it "white," where everyone gets to do quite literally everything they want. We'll call Kirk's end "black" (as in evil), where rules Dementors like me suck all of the joy out of racing. :)

What's the analog to your suggestion that people be allowed to keep their Shelbys in A, at whatever minimum weight they can possibly attain (as long as it's above 1945, of course), in the cases where ITA cars got more weight added to them, also based on the process? Those guys were plenty unhappy about the situation, as I recall.

"Please let me run at my old weight for no points or trophies" - OK or not OK?

"I'll run on 6" wheels, if I can keep my old weight" - OK or not OK?

"Make all of the other cars lighter" (a real suggestion as I recall) - OK or not OK?

Etc.

They simply got told to bolt in some weight and quite whining - OK or not OK?

I'm not trying to argue sense with the absurd - really. I just find that it's easier to parse out issues and solutions sometimes if I look at examples out toward the ends of the curve. The limits to what's OK are always arbitrary to some degree, so the question becomes one of what we are collectively comfortable with. And there are ALWAYS costs due to outcomes of taking a new location along the black-white continuum. Heck - there are costs associated change, in and of itself.

Further, we don't even KNOW what the costs will be sometimes.

So, I'm convinced that the dual classification option *might* be a good way to deal with some really special cases, where the benefits outweigh the costs. (And equally convinced that the language of that allowance would have to be VERY carefully crafted.) I'm just not loving the cost/benefit math of going whole-hog with the idea, applying it to every car in every class.

K
[/b]

Kirk, in my world of black and white those answers are easy for me. Can I allow this without violating rule one?
Rule one is to protect the process and to insure that no violation of the process does harm to the racers who rely on the rules process for fair competition.
You have to run IT with a car that meets the rules defined by the process, it is not ok to run a nonconforming cars.
I do not believe in spec line rules exceptions. The Olds has been thrown in our face over and over and that mistake was something like 15 years ago, so no, no wheel size exceptions.
The Shelby can be listed in two classes without harming the process or being unfair to any other competitors. Give that why should the powers that be force these guys to change if they do not want to. I just don’t see the upside.

[steve b]

.02 from a newb

I'm still wet behind the ears, so I read as much as I can and say as little as I can. But I have a suggestion that may solve this issue.

First off I want to commend Andy for being a stand up guy and taking on all of this abuse. Andy, you must have pulled all of your hair out years ago. On one hand you have MR2 owners (me included) wanting to move to ITB because we cant get any closer than 80 pound of min. weight, on the other hand, you have Shelby drivers wanting to stay in ITA even though they can not get within 300 pounds of min. weight.

Would it make sense to grandfather in a class change? This wouldn't seem feasible if a car were moving UP in a class (ITB => ITA), but it doesn't seem that this is the direction most moves occur. Couldn't a car be moved from ITA => ITB and any car/driver combo could have the option of remaining in ITA under a grandfather clause? Once the car is sold or the driver retires, the car would have to go to ITB.

The only negative impact on a car owner that would remain is that once that car were sold, the rims may need replaced and therefore lower the resale value of the car. But it would seem to me as an improvement over a say 3 year dual classification period where at the end of 3 years a driver still gets punted to another class.

[rlward]

I apologise in advance for what I'm about to write.... it might sound harsh, but it's the truth..

You're in Prather California, and from my limited observations on trips west and visits to races, ITA isn't the same class it is in other parts of the country. Bring that car east to run some ITA races, and you'll be lucky to see the lead pack for a lap. Honestly, the cars are pretty darn quick. I think that you are deciding that your world is representative of the country at large and it simply isn't. And the ITAC needs to concern itself with the big picture. IF your car can be competitive with a Moser driven CRX, then my hats off to you, and we have a serious screw up. (But we'll have serious reservations about "How" you got so fast...;) )
[/b]
You, may be correct about east vs west. but it is a regional only class. I may never race in the east. This change, in my opinion, should have been effective in 2009 at least. But I still want to be left in ITA. I know, stugbborn.
RW

[Knestis]

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few - or the one" - Spock

B)

K

[dickita15]

Purpose of Democracy: provide for the will of the majority while protecting the rights of the minority.

[rlward]

Great quotes!
Does this mean you agree that Mr Hoffmans request (one) should not outweight the request of all others (at least 2) and leave it in ITA?

[Knestis]

Rodger gets the "twist and shout" award for this afternoon. :lol:

...or put differently, "no."

The needs of the category, as enacted by the reasonably transparent classification/specification process currently in place, outweigh the wishes of even three individuals.

K

[dickita15]

Kirk is right in my opinion Rodger. The car as the facts are laid out is a B car. It is good for IT for the car to be in B. In case you did not notice I trust the process. :)

The question I have been trying to persuade Kirk and others is that with a dual classification approach maybe we can satisfy both side while still protecting the integrity of the classification process and let the free market decide.

[rlward]

Actually, all the discussion has been enlightning as I can see that the re-class to ITB could be a good thing, and I think it will happen eventually. Dual Classification for a period of time might be a good thing when cars are re-classified as I still have windmills in ITA to conquer.

In the case of any reclassification though, I believe there will be too little notice to properly prepare any car for the following season in the new class. If, any reclassification move is made by the board, the transition period or effective date, or time period for dual classification should be at least one full season after the decision is approved. Remember the board will not even vote on the reclassification until December.
Here are the possibilities as I see them:
1. The board approves the reclassification in december, the final decision is posted around the end of the month, we have already spent all the time and effort to prepare for the class change, ready for the first race Jan 15, 2008 and all is fine.
2. The board does not approve the reclassificaton in December, the final decision is posted around the end of the month, we have already spent all the time and money to prepare for the class change, ready for the first race Jan 15, 2008 and all is havoc.

I thnk that changes in professional racing, for the most part, are geared to allow Owners time to re-adjust their program. We, on the other hand will not have that opportunity in this particular case because of the timing of the final vote and the start of the season.

Is this something everybody including the board could live with?

RW

Matt, K, Racer Bill, and all others, thank you for your time and thoughts.
All Shelby drivers out there I welcome direct email to share or preparation processes and network information and sources.

[Knestis]

I think you have a GREAT point, re: timelines that get created for racers by these changes. Procedurally, I'd be fine with longer lead times but again, there's probably some out there who really want them to happen RIGHT NOW, once the decision gets made.

CONCEPTUALLY (and very hesitantly), I might be convinced of the value of a transitional dual classification, applied ONLY to cars that get relisted. It would need to be clearly spelled out how long, etc. but it is an interesting solution. I'd be very bothered by the idea of grandfathering individual drivers/cars into the class they are leaving, as has been previously mentioned, for the simple reason that it would be hell to enforce. Somewhere between these two options would be grandfathering the entire make/model - permanent dual classification: Bigger downside potential, in fact too big I think.

I'm just one guy though, with no official capacity in the process. What the Board will go for, I have no idea.

K

[rlward]

I think you have a GREAT point, re: timelines that get created for racers by these changes. Procedurally, I'd be fine with longer lead times but again, there's probably some out there who really want them to happen RIGHT NOW, once the decision gets made.

CONCEPTUALLY (and very hesitantly), I might be convinced of the value of a transitional dual classification, applied ONLY to cars that get relisted. It would need to be clearly spelled out how long, etc. but it is an interesting solution. I'd be very bothered by the idea of grandfathering individual drivers/cars into the class they are leaving, as has been previously mentioned, for the simple reason that it would be hell to enforce. Somewhere between these two options would be grandfathering the entire make/model - permanent dual classification: Bigger downside potential, in fact too big I think.

I'm just one guy though, with no official capacity in the process. What the Board will go for, I have no idea.

K
[/b]
But you do have an official capacity in the process if you just write the board and affer your opinion on this concept. Maybe it will allow the change immediately to those that want, but give us that have't even thought about how to re-enginer time to think and plan. Thanks,
RW

[Andy Bettencourt]

I would expect this to get done for 1-1-08 as the FastTrack says. No weight increase, just wheels to be legal. You can have those in 2 weeks if you are really in a pinch.

Rodger - how many races did you run this year?

[rlward]

I would expect this to get done for 1-1-08 as the FastTrack says. No weight increase, just wheels to be legal. You can have those in 2 weeks if you are really in a pinch.

Rodger - how many races did you run this year?
[/b]
none, the car was dissassembled in january, I started it for the first time last Sunday. I ran almost every race in 06, missing the season opener in Fontana and the last race in october at BW. The cam foller exploded during a chase, I do mean a close one with a miata.
My car in now well prepared with ground control, adj koni's, weber, headers, MSD ign and advance computer, custom cam, professionally built engine, there is not an area of the car that has not been gone over. I really wanted that damn miata behind me!

Did I understand the weight will not increase?
RW

[ScotMac]

My car in now well prepared with ground control, adj koni's, weber, headers, MSD ign and advance computer, custom cam, professionally built engine, there is not an area of the car that has not been gone over. I really wanted that damn miata behind me!

[/b]

I didn't know IT allowed custom cams?

[Andy Bettencourt]

The process weight in ITB is the same weight it is currently listed at in ITA. THAT is how bad this classification is. October Fast Track, page 48.

You mean you didn't know the proposed weight before you started this thread?

And what does 'custom cam' mean?

[Knestis]

I didn't know IT allowed custom cams?
[/b]

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smilepopcorn.gif

[RSTPerformance]

http://www.absolutewrite.com/forums/images/smilies/smilepopcorn.gif
[/b]

:026:

[Gary L]

My car in now well prepared with ground control, adj koni's, weber, headers, MSD ign and advance computer, custom camera, professionally built engine, there is not an area of the car that has not been gone over. I really wanted that damn miata behind me!

Did I understand the weight will not increase?
RW [/b]Fixed that for ya. :D

[Dave Ebersole]

How did I miss the rules change regarding cams??

[Rabbit07]

You mean cams aren't open? :rolleyes:

[Wreckerboy]

Only for ITA and ITS Rx-7's.

[Rabbit07]

Only for ITA and ITS Rx-7's.
[/b]

Got it!

[Greg Amy]

[...insert sounds of crickets chirping...]

[rlward]

Cam timing and grind have been set to exactly the factory dim and settings, alloed in rules.
RW

[ScotMac]

Only for ITA and ITS Rx-7's.
[/b]

ITB and ITC get screwed *again*!!! :bash_1_: :bash_1_: :bash_1_: ;)




Cam timing and grind have been set to exactly the factory dim and settings, alloed in rules.
RW
[/b]

I see....so, not so much "custom" as "stock", then?

[Matt Rowe]

Where are those pesky rules nerds when you need them?

I can see where you are trying to pull that interpretation from, but I don't agree that it's legal per most people's interpretation. of 9.1.3.D.1.p.

[Greg Amy]

I can see where you are trying to pull that interpretation from, but I don't agree that it's legal per most people's interpretation. of 9.1.3.D.1.p.[/b]
Here's where we get to picking nits.

First of all, aftermarket cams are allowed in 9.1.3.C, "Stock replacement parts may be obtained from sources other than the manufacturer provided they are the exact equivalent of the original parts."

Problem is, one has to wonder why someone feels the need to have one "custom ground". After all, a brandy-new factory cam perfectly meets the rules, is optimal to the spec (you can't get any better than brandy-new) and is, no doubt, even cheaper than having something custom ground.

The implication is clear: someone does this because they've taken the workshop-listed specs and ground a cam that meets those specific numbers but improves performance in other ways; e.g., meets the lift and duration specs but is reprofiled such as to gain torque and power.

But, this is illegal, plain and simple. That part is not "...the exact equivalent of the original parts."

"But," you may say, "it meets the specs!" Yep, it meets the workshop specs, but it's still cheating. Also, you're missing a key component: the GCR specifically states that camshafts are checked by providing a known good stock example to compare it against. Topeka has the tools to compare profiles of the cam, not just the lift and duration, ergo anything that deviates from a stock cam - including profile - is easily discoverable as illegal.

So, why "custom grind"? Well, one of two reasons: one, it's cheaper (unlikely), or two, it's not the stock profile.

Or am I missing something here...?

GA

[lateapex911]

Well, there is a third answwer, although I don't know if it holds water...

Perhaps a new one was impossible to source, so the old one was reground?

Now, the question begs, reground to what profile??

I'm just sayin' .... (SG)

(Maybe the power in the Dodge isn't a "done deal"....

LOL.

(And while I've maintained all along that track performance is rather irrelevent to this discussion, I'd be interested to know Roger, what was the build state of that Miata you were chasing a year ago? And how do your times fare against other ITA cars (what models), and how do you stack up against the ITB guys?)

[mom'sZ]

I think I might even know a fourth one. I've heard tales of lore where engine builders have had to run multible cams through the cam doctor to find one where the phasing is correct. (not sure if that is the correct term or not) To explain further, take a bunch of OEM cams, run them on the cam doctor, all are factory cams close to the stock spec, but lobes are misaligned with one another due to sloppy manufacturing. Some cylinders are getting their events at the correct time and some are not. 'Cheater cams' as I've heard them called, just optimize the factort specs exactly, lift, duration, ramp profile, rate... everything, but to a 'T' since sometimes even lift and duration can vary from lobe to lobe and cylinder to cylinder. Just what I've heard. What say you rule nerds? is this illegal?

[Knestis]

Choosing from a basket full of stock parts, the one piece that is most optimal within factory tolerances? TOTALLY legal. Also totally expensive.

I&#39;ve told the story here before but a long time ago, i did a cost analysis of a few class options for a guy who wanted some ideas about what to race. I learned that a TransAm-spec Pontiac short block was LESS EXPENSIVE than a Showroom Stock GT Pontiac short block (Firebird), because the labor time to weigh and measure all of those OE pieces was way <strike>less </strike> MORE than the cost of buying the NASCAR-derived stuff for the real racing engine.

If someone&#39;s gone to the trouble to whittle out an exact replica of a stock cam, that&#39;s an "equivalent replacement part," but as Greg points out, there&#39;s no rational motive for doing that.

I hate it but I have a new opinion about this situation.

K

EDIT - oops. Thanks! MORE.

[mom'sZ]

edit (kinda figured that is what ya meant Kirk)


If someone&#39;s gone to the trouble to whittle out an exact replica of a stock cam, that&#39;s an "equivalent replacement part," but as Greg points out, there&#39;s no rational motive for doing that.[/b]
Would not to create one that is most optimal within factory tolerances be a rational motive for doing so? Would that not still be an &#39;equivalent replacement part&#39;? If that is what you&#39;re stating then, I&#39;m sorry, I&#39;m not trying to be a smart a$$, I really am this dense.


I hate it but I have a new opinion about this situation.
[/b]
Again with the dense thing here, what is your new opinion? Are you saying a cheater cam might have legit reasons and be legal or I&#39;m I all at sea? (wouldn&#39;t be the first time... not even in this post)
Andy R

[rcc85]

You can get "stock replacement" cams for the 2.2 from Auto Zone and Advance Auto Parts (Melling/Sealed Power/Clevite). So "stock replacement" cams are both cheap and plentiful. Finding an optimal stock cam is another story.

When I was racing karts our engine builders used to buy cams in large quantities, check them all, keep the optimal ones and return the rest. The WKA relented and changed the rules to allow aftermarket cams ground to stock specs ("cheater cams"). Crane Cams even started making 5 horse Briggs cams after that! It ended up lowering the cost of the cam.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[Andy Bettencourt]

If someone&#39;s gone to the trouble to whittle out an exact replica of a stock cam, that&#39;s an "equivalent replacement part," but as Greg points out, there&#39;s no rational motive for doing that.

I hate it but I have a new opinion about this situation.

K [/b]

Cams were/are one of the reasons Spec Miata pro motors are $7K. They include &#39;perfect&#39; cams. Before full cam specs were researched, documented and placed in the rules, builders were building to existing spec and slightly &#39;optimizing&#39; other portions of the profiles. Good for 1-2 dynojets some said.

Now that the specs are out, there is a &#39;range&#39;. Albeit a small range, cams are being ground to the &#39;peaks&#39; of the specs - the &#39;perfect cams&#39; if you will - all within stock specs. Could a stock one have come like that? Sure - and there is no way to prove otherwise.

A nice set of new cams will get you pretty dang close as Greg has said...and in a non-spec class, the potential hp gain is just dyno noise IMHO.

[mom'sZ]

Cams were/are one of the reasons Spec Miata pro motors are $7K. They include &#39;perfect&#39; cams. Before full cam specs were researched, documented and placed in the rules, builders were building to existing spec and slightly &#39;optimizing&#39; other portions of the profiles. Good for 1-2 dynojets some said.
[/b]
Right, I remember when the spec came out and a bunch of protests ensued. My understanding though, was that builder were grinding to the stock lift and duration (at the time the only things checked) but using ramp profiles that were better then stock (perhaps gentler on the valve train allowing higher revs or different opening or closing rates)


Now that the specs are out, there is a &#39;range&#39;. Albeit a small range, cams are being ground to the &#39;peaks&#39; of the specs - the &#39;perfect cams&#39; if you will - all within stock specs. Could a stock one have come like that? Sure - and there is no way to prove otherwise.

A nice set of new cams will get you pretty dang close as Greg has said...and in a non-spec class, the potential hp gain is just dyno noise IMHO.
[/b]
A nice set as in choosen from a bunch of stock cams? (as in expensive?) And would not your dyno noise be another man&#39;s ten tenths build? Wouldn&#39;t not doing so constitute not ten tenths? I&#39;m just saying

[Andy Bettencourt]

A nice set as in choosen from a bunch of stock cams? (as in expensive?) And would not your dyno noise be another man&#39;s ten tenths build? Wouldn&#39;t not doing so constitute not ten tenths? I&#39;m just saying [/b]

I consider having custom cams done that MIGHT produce 1 dynojet to be static and not really measurable within a class that has so many different types of cars and platforms. A new set is 100% legal and probably just as good. I don&#39;t consider &#39;custom&#39; cams part of a 10-10ths but some may.

I will say that there are probably cars out there with vague specs and very grey cams - and owners that let that info slip. Hell, a quick perusal of teh IT classifieds will net you more than one light flywheel, short shifter, etc.

[Knestis]

>> Would not to create one that is most optimal within factory tolerances be a rational motive for doing so? Would that not still be an &#39;equivalent replacement part&#39;?

Presuming it were within all factory tolerances - and not just the ones that apply to easily measured variables - yes, it would be reasonably considered "equivalent." Simply having the stock lift, for example, doesn&#39;t get it done. Nor lift and duration. Nor lift, duration, and degrees of intake-exhaust peak separation. NOT even lift, duration, between-peak angle, and timing relative to the crankshaft...

I don&#39;t buy that someone replicate all of those dimensions PLUS the base circle diameter and valve acceleration values (front and back side of the lobe!), all within the factory +/- range, in the situation we&#39;re talking about - that it&#39;s rational given the costs and benefits.

My new theory - or newly supported theory? - is that the car in question would be slower with an OE cam and that, given it is currently at its new ITB race weight and already "faster than all the B cars" (I think I read that someplace in the various discussions?), that it&#39;s a problem. :unsure:

K

[mom'sZ]

I consider having custom cams done that MIGHT produce 1 dynojet to be static and not really measurable within a class that has so many different types of cars and platforms. [/b]
agreed Andy agreed


A new set is 100% legal and probably just as good. I don&#39;t consider &#39;custom&#39; cams part of a 10-10ths but some may.
[/b]
But is it legal? In your opinion? (I respect your opinion) To me, if jeremy in topeka runs it on the cam doctor and is to spec... it&#39;s legal. Doesn&#39;t matter where it came from (book says we can get replacement from where ever) Purchased from manufacture, auto parts store on corner or created in engine builders lathe. My humble opinion.

Anyhow, Kirk, you&#39;re a funny guy, ya gave me a tickle
And Andy, dog gone ya edited yer post before I could hammer out my reply. But I think to add to your vague specs and gray cams comment, I think there are probably some cars with greater tolerance deviations then others. In other words some are junkier then others (from model to model) thus where this could possibly make a difference with some cars, it could just be dyno noise to others.

[Andy Bettencourt]

But is it legal? In your opinion? (I respect your opinion) To me, if jeremy in topeka runs it on the cam doctor and is to spec... it&#39;s legal. Doesn&#39;t matter where it came from (book says we can get replacement from where ever) Purchased from manufacture, auto parts store on corner or created in engine builders lathe. My humble opinion.

.[/b]

Yes. BUT I am betting that in IT people are doing it to go &#39;way grey&#39;. Jeremy has enough cam experience now so that he would consider something like that (way grey) illegal. Remember, just because a spec isn&#39;t published doesn&#39;t mean one can&#39;t be determined by the SCCA.

[Rabbit07]

Did the 2.2 have a particular year or model cam that was better? I know that with the Neon 2.0 we use the &#39;95 cam because its profile is a little better than the rest.


The old VW 1.6 with the G-grind was another one.

And then there is the secret special non verifiable Volvo cam that seems to allow a stock push rod 2.0 to rev to 8000 rpm.

[Gary L]

And then there is the secret special non verifiable Volvo cam that seems to allow a stock push rod 2.0 to rev to 8000 rpm. [/b] Yeah, right. IMHO... if you see a Volvo B20 running an honest 8000 rpm in any gear (vertically down a mine shaft doesn&#39;t count) you don&#39;t even need to check the cam, just write him up for illegal valve springs. :)

But since you brought it up, and since it seems to fit the current tone of this thread, I&#39;ll relate a Volvo story that may upset some, particularly those that think cheating in IT is rare. Over the past few years because I&#39;ve broken some engines in a big way, I&#39;ve always been on the lookout for, and have subsequently purchased, ITB-ready short blocks, full up engines, and in one case an entire (used up) ITB car with spares. This ultimately meant I&#39;ve had the opportunity to peek inside a total of 4 B20&#39;s that were raced by 4 different individuals from various parts of the country, none of whom even knew each other AFAIK. Here&#39;s what I found, in no particular order...

Engine #1 - Iskendarian VV71 camshaft - no question whatsoever about the grind, based on valve timing and lift, neither of which even resembled the legal Volvo "D" camshaft. (And BTW, I don&#39;t care what you&#39;ve heard, the D is the only legal cam for a US spec D-Jet Volvo B20.)

Engine #2 - Stock D camshaft, but blatantly illegal dual valve springs, as well as lightweight lifters & pushrods

Engine #3 - Apparently custom ground camshaft that met D camshaft specs for "valve open" timing and lift, but had 19 degrees extra duration on the backside of the exhaust.

Engine #4 - Camshaft, lifters, springs, pushrods all legal... but with an offset key in the camshaft stub that advanced valve timing nine (9) degrees.

So yes, I tend to be a bit cynical when I hear how honest most IT racers are. :018:

[gran racing]

:(

[lateapex911]

A few years ago I came across a guy&#39;s ads for "Cheater cams" for BMWs in ITB. he has a aftermarket firm in CA.I shot him a scathing email, and got a equally terse response. "Gotta make money" was the message, and "If I don&#39;t sell them, someone else will", and "Get a clue, this is racing...you want it all nicey nice go play jacks"....or something along those lines. I kept the email but I lost it when my house, and computer got hit by lightning last summer.

Indeed, it is rather pervasive in certain circles.

However, I think that it is rarer at the top.

Nonetheless, the autocrossers make us look like pu$$ies when it comes to writing paper. Difference is there it&#39;s often for silly stuff, but this kind of stuff wins races. We should take a lesson from them from time to time, and write paper when it counts..

[Knestis]

Cameron and I were laughing about this stuff today, when I told him the story of a 1.6 Rabbit (then in ITB) that I drove a few times back in the old days. It belonged to a friend who wanted me to buy it, so he let me run a couple of Regionals at Seattle and Portland. I got about half way through the first practice session before I realized that I could hang with the 2002s pretty much everywhere...

...at which point I wondered if maybe I should be sandbagging or something. Amazing what a cam and a little more squeeze did for that car.

When I got back to the pits, another guy (ex-SSC RubOffs contender in cheated-up MkII Golfs) came by to ask me how the "fastest Rabbit in the world" was running, with a big smirk on his face. He&#39;d built at least one of the 2002s I was racing with.

Moral of the story is that one of the most common modes of cheating in this game is, "getting a slow car to the middle of the pack." It&#39;s easier, less expensive, and requires less actual skill to cheat just enough to get in the thick part of the race. One is advised to not be TOO good at it, or one might accidentally win and attract attention. It&#39;s also easier to rationalize cheating if one thinks his/her car is getting screwed by the process, and can&#39;t be competitive.

So they GET competitive.

K

[Z3_GoCar]

A few years ago I came across a guy&#39;s ads for "Cheater cams" for BMWs in ITB. he has a aftermarket firm in CA.I shot him a scathing email, and got a equally terse response. "Gotta make money" was the message, and "If I don&#39;t sell them, someone else will", and "Get a clue, this is racing...you want it all nicey nice go play jacks"....or something along those lines. I kept the email but I lost it when my house, and computer got hit by lightning last summer.

Indeed, it is rather pervasive in certain circles.

However, I think that it is rarer at the top.

Nonetheless, the autocrossers make us look like pu$$ies when it comes to writing paper. Difference is there it&#39;s often for silly stuff, but this kind of stuff wins races. We should take a lesson from them from time to time, and write paper when it counts..
[/b]

They&#39;re still around, I just googled cheater ITB cams and they came up. This reminds me of my friend who drives a pinto-engined FC. He mentioned having a custom ground cam as a prerequesite for winning the run-offs, pre-Ztec. There&#39;s appearantly one shop that has the know-how to make the cam hard enough to last, but only the truly initiated know who they are. Of course you could always just order a bunch of stock cams and sort throught them and cherry pick the best, then sell some of the good ones as ITB "cheater" cams,( but keep the best for yourself.) There&#39;s a lot of aftermarket parts sold on the pants-seat improvements. Put in the "cheater" cam and now you have a reason to go faster, do you go faster because of the cam, or because you think you should?

James

[Stan]

This reminds me of my friend who drives a pinto-engined FC. He mentioned having a custom ground cam as a prerequesite for winning the run-offs, pre-Ztec.[/b]
Very interesting and enlightening discussion, but this comment reminds me of something I saw in the tech barn at the Runoffs last night. The 3rd place FC (pinto) had his cam removed and put through the Cam Pro (all smiles from the tech staff). And since this is the first year of having a Zetec show up at the Runoffs in FC, and the Club has had the Cam Pro for several years, I wonder how true the stories of cheater cams in FC at the Runoffs are.

Stan

[Z3_GoCar]

Very interesting and enlightening discussion, but this comment reminds me of something I saw in the tech barn at the Runoffs last night. The 3rd place FC (pinto) had his cam removed and put through the Cam Pro (all smiles from the tech staff). And since this is the first year of having a Zetec show up at the Runoffs in FC, and the Club has had the Cam Pro for several years, I wonder how true the stories of cheater cams in FC at the Runoffs are.

Stan
[/b]

Hey Stan,

I didn&#39;t intend to call the FC guys cheaters, I&#39;m sure that&#39;s not my friend&#39;s intent either. This came up when he was discussing getting a full build on his motor after having gone with a local shop to do a ring and bearing job. The point being if you&#39;re going to run with the big dogs at the Run-offs or any other championship event, you need to make sure that everything is as close to max&#39;ed as legally allowed. Whether Andy considers a reground cam 10-10ths or not, the camshaft can&#39;t be ignored if you intend to get everything possible out of your motor. Surely a speciallist can get a closer tolerance between lobes more uniform grind that matches the best of what&#39;s avalible from the factory.

James

[Andy Bettencourt]

Whether Andy considers a reground cam 10-10ths or not, the camshaft can&#39;t be ignored if you intend to get everything possible out of your motor. Surely a speciallist can get a closer tolerance between lobes more uniform grind that matches the best of what&#39;s avalible from the factory.

James
[/b]

Just to clarify, I agree with you. My point is that I don&#39;t consider a POTENTIAL 1hp from custom cams part of a 10/10ths IT build as there are far to many differences in cars for that to register. Now in SM or SRF, you bet I do.

[rlward]

I been out so maybe I have missed somthing. But, inasmuch as manufacturing tolerances for off the shelf engine components, i.e. blocks, rods, heads, etc. have tolerances, the term "bluprinting" came about. Blueprinting is maching to optimum specifications. Now, because my cam follower took a dump and chewed up my only stock cam and good head, and the wrecking yards are full of turbo cams that come with a wrecking yard head, the head and cam were brought , by way of bluprinting, into the optimal range of "stock". Isn&#39;t this legal under the blueprinting rule?

[Matt Rowe]

Having looked at similar machine work (on other projects) in the past I find it difficult to believe that remachining a cam to an alternate profile was cheaper than buying a new correct cam. Also, you need to be careful with using heads from turbo cars. The castings are potentially different as are the valves. Check the casting number on the water jacket housing and make sure it matches the previous casting.

If I was competing against a car with an alternate cam I would find that to be highly suspect. It would be a good item to write paper against.

[Quickshoe]

I&#39;m totally with you, Dick - right up to the point where the process said, "1945 pounds." That&#39;s completely unreachable so it make exactly zero sense to even go to the trouble to put it in the book.
[/b]

-K

It makes some amount of sense above "zero", the process doesn&#39;t say the car must weigh 1945#, the process says that the minimum weight should be 1945#. It isn&#39;t unreachable for the car to be "compliant", what may be unreachable is competitiveness, which there is no guarantee. If the minimum weight isn&#39;t attainable and someone wishes to build it anyway, where is the harm?

Or is this just a dual classification slippery slope issue? If that is the case, I&#39;ll have to bow out, as I just had my car dual-classed in FProd and GProd (not SCCA) of course I think it is a great idea. Many of the cars in the Production classes have multiple options--perhaps that is what the IT racers are trying to avoid.

[Knestis]

My opinions are influenced by some first assumptions, like it&#39;s a fundamental goal of "racing" classes to combine cars in such a way that they have some reasonable chance of being competitive. If a car can be listed in a class in such a way that it fits the parameters for that class, it makes no sense to list it in an "adjacent" class within the same category where it does not fit the parameters - regardless of whether it&#39;s "too fast" for that class, or "too slow."

It&#39;s RACING.

If we wanted to call it "participating," then we wouldn&#39;t have classes. Or the classes would be about the drivers&#39; skill levels rather than the type of car involved. Oh, wait - we have those HPDE things... :)

I wouldn&#39;t put a junior high school basketball team up against a high school team "so they could enjoy participating" or get another game in their schedule. Or I would call it a something other than a "real game" and wouldn&#39;t pay refs to show up.

Opinions may differ.

K

[Knestis]

...Now, because my cam follower took a dump and chewed up my only stock cam and good head, and the wrecking yards are full of turbo cams that come with a wrecking yard head, the head and cam were brought, by way of bluprinting, into the optimal range of "stock". Isn&#39;t this legal under the blueprinting rule?[/b]

If I&#39;m understanding correctly, no.

You&#39;re talking about using a non-original, non-stock part (assuming the PNs are different from what your car came with, on the turbo head and cam), and machining them into the spec&#39;s defined for your car...? That&#39;s not blueprinting by any definition I understand. If you&#39;d started with ORIGINAL STOCK parts and whittled on them to maximize their spec&#39;s within factory dimensions and tolerances, sure.

That&#39;s a pretty important difference to my way of thinking.

K

[Greg Amy]

Kirk, I agree with you, EXCEPT for the "alternate source of parts" gig we have going on now. Granted, he can&#39;t call it &#39;blueprinting&#39; but if the manufactured part matches the OE part in every way, even though it stacks up all the specs in his favor, I&#39;d still call it a legal part.

Bottom line: if the damn thing passes a Cam Doctor test compared to a stock part, you&#39;re good to go. But, if it deviates from OE in places where there&#39;s no discretely-listed specifications because you&#39;re trying to take advantage of gray areas, it&#39;s illegal. - GA

[Knestis]

Good point. I confess that I&#39;m assuming that the part isn&#39;t actually exactly the same in every single respect, which might be completely incorrect. IF this is the case, then indeed - a sensible case can be made under the "replacement" rule.
K

[rlward]

I am not trying to cheat, The wrecking yards seemd a good place to find an inexpensive part. Wouldn&#39;t a change in casting numbers fall under the updating/backdating rule?

[Rabbit07]

I am not trying to cheat, The wrecking yards seemd a good place to find an inexpensive part. Wouldn&#39;t a change in casting numbers fall under the updating/backdating rule?
[/b]

Not unless they used that Casting # on a car that is classed on the same spec line. Turbo cars aren&#39;t classed in IT.

[Gary L]

Not unless they used that Casting # on a car that is classed on the same spec line. Turbo cars aren&#39;t classed in IT. [/b]

Even if they are on the same spec line, it is entirely possible that using another head could still be technically illegal. From the GCR, 9.1.3.C, emphasis mine...


Any updated/backdated components shall be substituted as a complete assembly (engine long block, transmission/transaxle, induction system, differential/axle housing).[/b]

If for instance, the spec line includes engines A and B, the only differences between the two being the head casting and the crankshaft, I cannot legally run head A on an engine with crankshaft B.

[Knestis]

Another good point. I can&#39;t mix the dual valve spring OBDII head and earlier oil squirter bottom end on the MkIII Golf, even though all of the parts are off of cars on the same spec line.

K

[rcc85]

The same casting numbers were used on both the carb/tbi engines and the turbo engines. The turbo heads got sodium filled exhaust valves and a different (lower duration, I think, cam).

What you have to watch is the difference between the &#39;85 and earlier "bathtub" heads ("445" and "287" castings) and &#39;86 and up swirl ("782" casting). The swirl head has a 6cc smaller combustion chamber and longer valves. The engines with the bathtub heads used flat top pistons and the engines with the swirl heads used dished pistons to keep the same compression ratio. If you use a swirl head with flat top pistons you will probably raise your compression ratio more than half a point. :018: If you use a bathtub head with dished piston, you will lower your compression ratio. :(

For the Shelby, I think you are legal as long as you use a "445" or "287" casting with the carb cam (the "782" head would not have come on those cars). I&#39;ll let others ponder whether the sodium filled exhaust valves are legal in a carb engine (probably not, huh?).

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[Gary L]

I&#39;ll let others ponder whether the sodium filled exhaust valves are legal in a carb engine (probably not, huh?).[/b]Probably not, indeed. :) If the sodium filled valves were used only on Turbo motors, you can&#39;t use them in some other engine and meet the "complete assembly" requirements of the update/backdate allowances paragraph.

[rlward]

So...what do you do when the parts are NLA?

[Greg Amy]

So...what do you do when the parts are NLA?[/b]
If parts are NLA, and you can provide documentation to that fact, the rules do allow you to petition the SCCA for an allowable replacement. Unless and until that replacement is approved, you&#39;re SOL.

We&#39;ve kinda touched on this subject when discussing classes like ITC; the general consensus is that these cars "probably" should die a natural death as parts go NLA. Sounds harsh, but if you start allowing alternate parts, it becomes a hornet&#39;s nest of requests, approvals, and opportunities for cheating (I&#39;d certainly take advantage of it, if I could...) - GA

[michael baumet]

Regarding Gary&#39;s storyabout the 4 Volvo engines that were illigal and the cheater cam posts, I have one as well, in 1999 I purchased a MkII Golf that had been raced in ITB for years. I found an aftermarket cam that had so much lift the head had been machined to make room for the lobes to pass without hitting.

I have never seen a protest for a car suspected to be illegal in 7 years of racing, maybe its time to start.

Michael

[rcc85]

There&#39;s still plenty of 2.2 Dodge engine parts available through Auto Zone and Advance Auto Parts :D . Cams, followers, lash adjusters, pistons, rings, etc. That&#39;s the nice part about sharing parts with millons of K-cars.

It&#39;s the sources for suspension parts that are drying up.

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Daytona

[ScotMac]

About 7 heads for sale on car-part.com for as low as $50.

[rlward]

That is my point. They are all 2.2, but which version. If the head casing is such a big deal because of combustion chamber shape, ect, and thoses heads were only made in the early years, parts houses are going to carry "universal" parts; most likely all made to fit the turbo version of which there were probably millions. The 2.2 we are all talking about is normally asperated and was made for a short time relative to the total time the 2.2 was in production. Sort of like the chevy 265 ci engine. Are we so anal that universal parts, i.e. parts made that will fit both turbo and non turbo, are not legal and the cars have to die?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Are we so anal that universal parts, i.e. parts made that will fit both turbo and non turbo, are not legal and the cars have to die?

[/b] "Fit" and "Stock" are two TOTALLY different things.

[Knestis]

... Are we so anal that universal parts, i.e. parts made that will fit both turbo and non turbo, are not legal and the cars have to die?
[/b]

We? I don&#39;t know. Me? Yup.

I&#39;ve got a cam from a &#39;99 VW Cabrio that mics out as being a chunk better than what we run that drops right into my ABA 2.0 - the "same" engine came in both cars. I can&#39;t use it unless I come up with rock-solid evidence that it came in a car on my spec line. And even then, I&#39;d have to decide to use the entire long block associated with that part, as delivered.

The WHOLE POINT of the update-backdate assembly rule was to prevent people from mixing-and-matching individual parts (a la pop-up pistons and squash heads) to get something that goes faster than what the OE parts would do.

We just don&#39;t want to get in the business of "may I please have&#39;s" in IT.

K

[Quickshoe]

Are we so anal that universal parts, i.e. parts made that will fit both turbo and non turbo, are not legal and the cars have to die?
[/b]

Part A) YES, part B) NO, the cars don&#39;t have to die, they may evolve to classes or organizations where the ruels are a little more to the owners&#39; liking.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Rodger,

Your letter just got posted to the ITAC site. You are aware that you do not have to add any extra weight to run in ITB, correct? All your effort this past year is equally applicable in ITB as it is in ITA. Sell off your 7" wheels, buy some 6" wheels and have some fun in a class where you will be much more competitive.

And for the record, I think we got 2 letters of support (1 plus the original request) and 2 letters against the move.

[Z3_GoCar]

That is my point. They are all 2.2, but which version. If the head casing is such a big deal because of combustion chamber shape, ect, and thoses heads were only made in the early years, parts houses are going to carry "universal" parts; most likely all made to fit the turbo version of which there were probably millions. The 2.2 we are all talking about is normally asperated and was made for a short time relative to the total time the 2.2 was in production. Sort of like the chevy 265 ci engine. Are we so anal that universal parts, i.e. parts made that will fit both turbo and non turbo, are not legal and the cars have to die?
[/b]

So what happened?? I was the blue-flag on the top of magic mountain and gave the meat-ball. I heard you had your tech sticker pulled. Hope it&#39;s not too serious.

James

[JGreen]

The best I can tell you is to write, write again and if that doesn&#39;t work write again. The directors do read these comments and pass them along to the CRB. If there are several drivers with the same opinion DO NOT write one letter and everyone sign it. Each person should write a letter and send it seperatly to the BOD.