dual classification

[RSTPerformance]

additional thoughts...

I could change my mind on how it should be done, but I do think it should be a more used option...

Raymond

[erlrich]

I really do like the idea of allowing cars to run in higher classes - the only caveot I could see is that they would need to be permitted to make use of class-specific allowances (e.g. ITB cars could run 7" wheels in ITA, ITS cars could run 8.5" wheels in ITR). Is there a potential downside to this?

[BlueStreak]

You left out a solution to my pet problem - I'm in a no expense spared STRIPPED to the bone car that has a weight req of 2080. As a 250lb driver, I can't get under 2148. I'd love to have a new practical (for me) weight target and just run some ballast and move from ITB to ITC.

To put it simply, create an optional spec weight that I can ballast up to and run in ITC instead of ITB.

I'm not whining, the process is working extremely well, and I will continue to troll around the back of ITB on those rare weekends when work and family permit.

I'm just suggesting that creating an option to allow people who want to ballast up and run a class slower does not seem like a tough option to provide to people.

[Knestis]

Ack.

Rather than asking people how they want to DO dual classification, how about a serious discussion to try to define what problem it is supposed to be solving?

Until/unless that is made blindingly clear, there's no way to tell if the policy is a success, someone is always going to be able to find fault in it, and it will be ripe for re-purposing resulting in unintended consequences and rules creep.

K

[keycom]

You left out a solution to my pet problem - I'm in a no expense spared STRIPPED to the bone car that has a weight req of 2080. As a 250lb driver, I can't get under 2148. I'd love to have a new practical (for me) weight target and just run some ballast and move from ITB to ITC.
[/b]

I just got started this year in an 84 GTI also. I am at about 2150 and I weigh 300 naked (try not to think too much about THAT)

So I would be down to 2100 if I was as slim as you! And that is with heavy Audi wheels, the evaporator still under the dash, and much underbody soundproofing left to grind off.

The GTI can make weight easily, so I need to find another excuse for hiding at the back of the pack! :( :(

[RSTPerformance]

Ack.

Rather than asking people how they want to DO dual classification, how about a serious discussion to try to define what problem it is supposed to be solving?

K
[/b]


For me it is a no-brainer... It is not solving a problem, but rather providing opportunities for growth in individual classes, SCCA as a whole, as well as opportunities for people to share expences in a reasonable way.

2 sides to this...

1. Poorer people such as myself and several other people in my region (I bold my because I know it isn't all about my region, but I don't know how it is elsewhere...) can't afford to go racing anymore.

Racing is getting expensive, and for many people it is just not feasable to build a car alone anymore. However it is or may be feasible for someone to build a car with someone else (Sharing expenses and risk). If you share a car with someone else then you both would need the opportunity to race it. Don't say this is a stupid idea, people run more of a risk renting a car every weekend than sharing the expence of a car with someone.

2. Richer people are already running cars in multiple classes for many reasons as well...

A. To make travel worthwhile. If I could afford 2 entry fees and get the track time I actually want (say 2hrs vs 1hr) then I would be willing to make the $500 investment to tow to the track and do race.
B. Testing...

That is the rich vs. poor quick snapshot in my head (5 minutes worth of thought)... However for me it is actually the bottom line... From a business angle or a membership angle people want more opportunities to race, the demand is thier and it would cost $0.00 (ZERO DOLLORS) for SCCA to meet the needs. I don't see how anyone can say that putting zero dollors into something with the potential of making $200 per person (average) isn't worth it... please tell me from a business side how it is not worth it???

sure you can enter two classes now, but lets face it, they are not realistic. I entered SPU last weekend, probably the slowest catch all class, and I was 18 seconds a lap behind the leader... lol

Raymond

[tnord]

You left out a solution to my pet problem - I'm in a no expense spared STRIPPED to the bone car that has a weight req of 2080. As a 250lb driver, I can't get under 2148. I'd love to have a new practical (for me) weight target
[/b]


no expense spared except for going on a diet. actually, that wouldn't even cost you money, it'd SAVE you money. basing minimum weights on anything but the average is absurd.

this is one of my pet peves, and no, i'm not exactly a light guy either at 6'3'' 200lbs in a 1.6 Miata.

[Knestis]

For me it is a no-brainer... It is not solving a problem, but rather providing opportunities for growth in individual classes, SCCA as a whole, as well as opportunities for people to share expences in a reasonable way. ...[/b]
I use the term "problem" in the broadest sense so don't let that hang you up.

Putting your explanation in a nutshell and turning it around so it's in the form of a "problem" (need? desire?), you are suggesting that...

Members want to be able to enter a given IT car in more than one race (for more than one driver, or the same driver in more than one class) in one weekend, but current IT classing limitations prevent them from doing so.

...or words to that effect?

That's a VERY different intention than has been discussed regarding...

** Solutions to the "tweener problem"

** Redressing injustices committed upon owners of cars moved from one class to another

Point being (as an example), I'd be totally OK with dual classification to address the tweener issue - where cars can reasonably be spec'd within the process in two classes - but NOT for other reasons.

You understand how it could be a real problem to mush all of these things together, right? There might be other solutions to the problem you are addressing (regional catch-all classes, re-jiggered groupings, double regionals) that don't fix others, and vice-versa, for example. A "solution" might be really good at solving one problem but fall short fixing another, making it necessary to go back to the drawing table. Etc.

K

[RSTPerformance]

K-

very well sumerized...

Option #1:
For me, I am "totally OK with dual classification to address the tweener issue - where cars can reasonably be spec'd within the process in two classes."

Option #2:
I am also open to the idea of allowing any cars to compete in a "higher" class at will, only because it does not require any work on SCCA's part other than to make the allowance, and because those cars should not have a competitive advantage given the process that classed them in the "lower" class.
__________________________________________________ ______________________________________

Agreed, those are two completely different issues... for example:

example #1:
The Shelby would partialy work with option #2, however I am not sure that the driver would want to compete at ITB weights against ITA cars, thus that driver would probably prefer option # 1 should the car fit in both classes per the process.

Example # 2
The BMW ITR issue... certainly would not have been solved with either process above, expecially without the SIR (Crap I mentioned those darn 3 letters...).

Raymond "I still think that some dual Classing should be taken advantage of to meet members requests, possibly a combination of option 1 and option 2 above..." Blethen

PS: I hate refering to a "higher" class or "Lower" class as it seems demeaning... anyone have a better way to refer to it... we all know ITB is far better than ITA :unsure:

[BlueStreak]

I just got started this year in an 84 GTI also. I am at about 2150 and I weigh 300 naked (try not to think too much about THAT)

So I would be down to 2100 if I was as slim as you! And that is with heavy Audi wheels, the evaporator still under the dash, and much underbody soundproofing left to grind off.

The GTI can make weight easily, so I need to find another excuse for hiding at the back of the pack! :( :(
[/b]

After reading that, now I'm worried about the scales. I'm running 13lb wheels, no evaporator, and about half of the factory soundproofing.

I wonder if my cage is just stupid heavy...I have not measured it and done the math to establish the total cage weight.

[BlueStreak]

A simple question:
What is the down side to allowing someone to add xx percentage to the spec line weight and move down one class?


I'm not worked up about this at all, I really like the current system. I'm just curious as to why so many seem to think that allowing the above dual classing per dual weight is a rotten idea. I understand it adds a small level of complication to the rulebook and the administration of the event, but is there something else big I am missing?

[dickita15]

Raymond, I think for Dual Classification to be acceptable it has to be uniform and transparent as well as consistently applied. Personally I am comfortable with “dual classification to address the tweener issue - where cars can reasonably be spec'd within the process in two classes.” But it must be applied in the same manner each time.

The part about cars moving up another class really can be done on a local level. In parts of the country they have classes such as ITX to allow double dipping.
ITB could run in the same race group as ITBx. ITBx would be for any legal ITC car.
ITA could run with ITAx. ITAx would be for any legal ITB or ITC car.
ITS could run with ITSx. ITSx would be for any legal ITA, B or C car. And so on. If there is room in race groups it would be for the region to do.

Obviously I am in favor of DCs because I see the upside and no one has been able to point out to me the down sides.

[JoshS]

Obviously I am in favor of DCs because I see the upside and no one has been able to point out to me the down sides.
[/b]
- It's a lot of work to calculate the weights
- The number of listings would triple.
- It's very confusing for anyone outside of the IT community (even other racers)
- Some perceive the ability to double-dip as unfair, if their car can't do it (think non-IT people)

I'm 100% against dual-classifications, with a couple of well-defined exceptions:
- Creation of new classes - if listings in the new class are also in an existing class, the existing listing can stay around for a fixed amount of time (maybe 1 season)
- Reclasses - same thing, DC for a fixed amount of time (1 season)

Now -- I don't have a huge amount of angst about "slower" cars running in a "faster" class, without modifications, i.e., an ITB car choosing to race in ITA, at its ITB weight. But to me, such an allowance is really an event operations issue, i.e., up to the stewards. I do not believe a rule should be codified that allows it for one category. But if the event operators wanted to put such a thing in the event supps, they would be more than welcome to do it.

I suspect you (Dick) won't find my reasons compelling, and that's your choice, but I absolutely abhor the idea of DCs.

[dickita15]

Now -- I don't have a huge amount of angst about "slower" cars running in a "faster" class, without modifications, i.e., an ITB car choosing to race in ITA, at its ITB weight. But to me, such an allowance is really an event operations issue, i.e., up to the stewards. I do not believe a rule should be codified that allows it for one category. But if the event operators wanted to put such a thing in the event supps, they would be more than welcome to do it.
[/b]
I fully agree.



I suspect you (Dick) won't find my reasons compelling, and that's your choice, but I absolutely abhor the idea of DCs.
[/b]
You are right Josh about my opinion, but thank you for articulating your reasons. :023:

[Eagle7]

Option #2:
I am also open to the idea of allowing any cars to compete in a "higher" class at will, only because it does not require any work on SCCA's part other than to make the allowance, and because those cars should not have a competitive advantage given the process that classed them in the "lower" class.[/b]

Hope I got the right person quoted.

This could create a grouping problem if you allowed any IT car to move up to any IT class. Put an ITC car into a group where ITR is grouped with GT-1 and see what the steward thinks.

[RSTPerformance]

A simple question:
What is the down side to allowing someone to add xx percentage to the spec line weight and move down one class?
I'm not worked up about this at all, I really like the current system. I'm just curious as to why so many seem to think that allowing the above dual classing per dual weight is a rotten idea. I understand it adds a small level of complication to the rulebook and the administration of the event, but is there something else big I am missing?
[/b]

I don't think it is feasible to add any amount of weight to a top ITA car to bring it down to the speeds of an ITB car... That is my issue with that. Sure ITB down to ITC is feasible almoast, and ITS down to ITA is again almost feasible but overall it is far more difficult IMO.



- It's very confusing for anyone outside of the IT community (even other racers)
-[/b]

First and only good downside I see, however it is only a downside due to lack of education... a totaly different issue all together.




Hope I got the right person quoted.

This could create a grouping problem if you allowed any IT car to move up to any IT class. Put an ITC car into a group where ITR is grouped with GT-1 and see what the steward thinks.
[/b]

Currently you have this with cars running in ITE and DP as they are gennerally grouped with GT1... The other option is SPU, and those are generally with SRF, another bad mixture...

Raymond

[Knestis]

Okay - so play this out for me.

Say you are one of a bunch of ITA cars at a VIR Regional, running for SARRC points. I own an ITB car but I have a guy who's willing to pay for the weekend's tires if I let him run a race. No problem - I can let him enter my car in ITA, since A and B are in different groups.

You and everyone else at the track would be cool with that, right?

He gets SARRC ITA points, right? Like if someone has a little off or something busts? Or if he just beats them? Like a "real" ITA car...?

Or does he get to enter but is forced to run for no point or trophy? If he does, and he influences the outcome of the race (say he's a knucklehead and takes out 3 guys in the season points in T1) is that just a sucks-to-be-you kind of moment?

Or let's say that even with the extra 7" wheels he'll bring to the track (for that better sidewall angle ;) ) and taking out the lead I have hidden in the rear bumper to make the ITB weight, we can't get him to the ITA spec weight - does the ITAC have an obligation to fix that? Do they have enough hours in the evenings to address all of the requests to keep people happy in TWO classes? :026:

K



I don't think it is feasible to add any amount of weight to a top ITA car to bring it down to the speeds of an ITB car... That is my issue with that. Sure ITB down to ITC is feasible almoast, and ITS down to ITA is again almost feasible but overall it is far more difficult IMO. ...[/b]
But that's NOT the point since there's no consideration for on-track performance in the specification process. You could make an ITR BMW M3 fit the ITC parameters with enough lead. If I want to do that, why should some guys get what they want if I can't have my way, too? So what if I have to weigh 4500 pounds. I'm not violating Rule 1 or Rule 2. Am I?

You're going to discover right quick that the power/weight math works pretty well in a narrow band, when other factors are similar but you get too far out on the distribution curve and all of a sudden, the fact that my M3 won't go around corners very fast is more than made up for in top end. Plus I'm REALLY fun for the Civics to try to deal with in the twisty bits. :happy204:

K

[BlueStreak]

K

Thanks-I understand the opposition to the idea a little better now.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Some good discussion here. Where I stand at the moment:

DC's for tweeners - I still like the idea. Let the market decide. Biggest issue is to codify a 'tweener' and spell it out in the ITCS that those types of 'border cars' will be the only ones considered. Hard to do and a hard message to tell someone their ca is NOT a tweener.

DC's for cars that move up or down a class - 1 year DC. Specific mention on the spec line with expiration date.

DC's for everyone - do it locally.

[mom'sZ]

Some good discussion here. Where I stand at the moment:

DC's for tweeners - I still like the idea. Let the market decide. Biggest issue is to codify a 'tweener' and spell it out in the ITCS that those types of 'border cars' will be the only ones considered. Hard to do and a hard message to tell someone their ca is NOT a tweener.

DC's for cars that move up or down a class - 1 year DC. Specific mention on the spec line with expiration date.

DC's for everyone - do it locally.
[/b]
Andy: I'm I understanding you that (in the above scenario) cars that move up or down a class would have a 1 year limit but tweeners would not? (if you were king that is) To me, a time limit on the tweeners, with how the cars would eventually be classed (say based on participation) spelled out ahead of time would be a lot more palatable then DC forever for tweeners. More then a year may be nessasary to decide though me thinks. I agree there would be a lot of bickering over whether a car was a tweener or not. Personally I don't like the idea of dual classification just mostly because it muddles the classifications. Kirk's scenario where people use it to enter more races makes me even more uncomfortable. But in regions were car counts are low it might help the folks running the show. Isn't moving cars up or down a class in itself supposed to be a solution for tweeners? or just misclassed cars? So only cars that didn't get considered the first time through are eligible? To me, letting cars that get moved remain in there old class for one year, but not allowed to use it to enter two races, seems a courtesy I would be least bothered by. I wouldn't even call it dual classification, just a transition period, so as to not let the camel's nose into the tent.

[spnkzss]

I can see why some people wouldn't want to allow cars of a lower class to run in the higher class. There is a huge speed differential. My ITC car would get killed by ITA cars, but at someplace like VIR, I was held up tremendously by an ITA car. I would get by and then he would drive by my on the back straight like I was standing still.

I think it is a good idea to allow lower classes to run the higher classes IF:
1.) you STRICTLY enforce the 120% of the leaders speed
2.) you run YOUR class letters in the rear window so it's easy for that ITA car to see you as they come flying up
3.) NOBODY bitches when the next higher class is already racing with you so you can't double dip )ie ITC and ITB running together).

[ScotMac]

Some good discussion here. Where I stand at the moment:

DC's for tweeners - I still like the idea. Let the market decide. Biggest issue is to codify a 'tweener' and spell it out in the ITCS that those types of 'border cars' will be the only ones considered. Hard to do and a hard message to tell someone their ca is NOT a tweener.

DC's for cars that move up or down a class - 1 year DC. Specific mention on the spec line with expiration date.

DC's for everyone - do it locally.
[/b]

I think Andy's conclusions are good here, though he didn't bother to support the last two.

Specifically, i think the last point needs expounding upon. I see this as a "track time" issue. In general, there are (many) regions where track time is precious commodity, and others where they are struggling to get people to fill the grid. Allowing the DC at the former could cause some people to not be able to race while others gorge on the track time afforded the DC. Whereas, it could be a great boon for the latter struggling tracks, allowing them to get the revenue associated w/ filling out their grids.

[mom'sZ]

I can see why some people wouldn't want to allow cars of a lower class to run in the higher class. There is a huge speed differential. My ITC car would get killed by ITA cars, but at someplace like VIR, I was held up tremendously by an ITA car. I would get by and then he would drive by my on the back straight like I was standing still.

I think it is a good idea to allow lower classes to run the higher classes IF:
1.) you STRICTLY enforce the 120% of the leaders speed
2.) you run YOUR class letters in the rear window so it's easy for that ITA car to see you as they come flying up
3.) NOBODY bitches when the next higher class is already racing with you so you can't double dip )ie ITC and ITB running together).
[/b]
This is starting to make my head spin. Just to be clear, if a car is dual classed, say a B car is dual classed into A or B, and I run it as an A car, in the A race, I'm an A car running for A points right? It might only be able to go in one direction. In otherwords you could allow B car to run in C but not A. Because in C. you should be at the front not holding anybody up to bad, but in A you are just tacked onto the slow end of the pack. Spanky: you think they should be made to put there original class in the back window? Why? So normal cars have fair warning that this car may not be able to keep up? or be faster? Dual classification is not the greatest idea IMHO.



I see this as a "track time" issue. In general, there are (many) regions where track time is precious commodity, and others where they are struggling to get people to fill the grid. Allowing the DC at the former could cause some people to not be able to race while others gorge on the track time afforded the DC.
[/b]
yeah Scot agreed, some people, the ones who have the dual classed cars. A wholly unfair situation for those that don't. Unless everybody is allowed to DC.
You know, why not let everybody run in any damn class they feel like paying an entrance fee for? Regardless of what they wieght? Hell, why even have classes? Just let us all run in one big giant race? :blink: Now I'm just being silly, no silly isn't.... er... no, I won't go there. (but calling myself that would be OK wouldn't it?)

[JoshS]

This concept of letting slower-classed cars run in a faster class is NOT dual-classification, because the car in question would not have a classification in the faster class.

Case in point: if you have an ITB Volvo: dual-classification would say that there is a classification listing for it in ITA, presumably with different specs (weight, at least) than the same car's ITB listing. The car could run in either class, using the specifications for that class.

But this allowance for ITB cars to run in ITA assumes that there is no ITA listing for the car ... it's just a rule that allows one to run in ITA using the ITB classification. No dual-classification, as there is only one classification in the book.

This whole issue of speed differentials is a red-herring. Out here in San Francisco Region, nearly every race group has huge speed differentials. In my group, at our last race at Laguna Seca, the fastest lap times ranged from 1:37 to 1:59 (I do 1:47s). I did one National race last year in T2 where GT1 and GTL were in the same group. Fastest lap times ranged from 1:35 to 2:15 (I did 1:54s). You can figure out who is slow and who is fast without a label on the window.

But again, I feel strongly that it is inappropriate to codify a rule that does this "upclassing" allowance. A region could choose to do that in its supplemental regs.

[gran racing]

In otherwords you could allow B car to run in C but not A. Because in C. you should be at the front not holding anybody up to bad, but in A you are just tacked onto the slow end of the pack.[/b]

Using the process assuming the car can achieve the min. weight, it would do equally as well in both classes. This would help people who are unable to (due to whatever reason) achieve min. weight.

[mom'sZ]

Using the process assuming the car can achieve the min. weight, it would do equally as well in both classes. This would help people who are unable to (due to whatever reason) achieve min. weight.
[/b]
Dave, you are right, it only would go one way. The only reason to do it is because min. wieght is unachievable (or just really hard). So to me, that is the definition of a tweener. If a car's process wieght is x amount under curb wieght, it's a tweener. (just trying to throw out some verbage to stimulate conversation on a real rule) It gets to run in both classes and after two three years which ever class got the most entries, that is where it lands... for good. No DC needed. No muddling the rule set. No camel breath to put up with. Seems to me it would be OK to try on a few cars that do truely seem to fall between two classes.
Under subscribed regions can do whatever they can think of to try to bring up their numbers.

[Knestis]

Oh, for Pete's sake! We don't even know what it is we are talking about when we say "dual classification." I rest my case.

K

[JohnRW]

Amen. "Dual classification" to me smells like "Revel in my own mediocrity".

[mom'sZ]

Amen. "Dual classification" to me smells like "Revel in my own mediocrity".
[/b]
that's funny... I don't care who you are, that's funny

[spnkzss]

Oh, for Pete's sake! We don't even know what it is we are talking about when we say "dual classification." I rest my case.

K
[/b]

Actually there are 2 different conversations going on here. 1 about dual classification and another about allowing a lower classed IT car run in a higher IT class at lower class rules.

Didn't you know noboday can stay on one subject only for too long :P

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

I think one way to define a 'tweener' is a car that has realistic, achievable weights in both classes. With a cap of say 100# over curb weight on the high side (not counting the driver).

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

I think one way to define a 'tweener' is a car that has realistic, achievable weights in both classes. With a cap of say 100# over curb weight on the high side (not counting the driver). [/b]

If the cars lower weight (higher class) was achievable, then there would be no need to consider the car for DC, it would just be in that class without issue.

The MR2 is a tweener IMHO. Data currently shows it can't quite get to it's ITA weight - and most certainly not without a tremendous effort at that. So while it may look and smell like an ITA car, the weight it says it is supposed to run in not attainable (throwing out any 100lbs of static arguement), then it goes 'down' a class.

I think there are probably less than 10 tweeners in the ITCS that we would have to address.

[Bill Miller]

If the cars lower weight (higher class) was achievable, then there would be no need to consider the car for DC, it would just be in that class without issue.

The MR2 is a tweener IMHO. Data currently shows it can't quite get to it's ITA weight - and most certainly not without a tremendous effort at that. So while it may look and smell like an ITA car, the weight it says it is supposed to run in not attainable (throwing out any 100lbs of static arguement), then it goes 'down' a class.

I think there are probably less than 10 tweeners in the ITCS that we would have to address.
[/b]


Andy,

Your position is based on the premise that a car should be classed in the class that will give it the lowest achievable weight. I suppose that's valid, but there's nothing anywhere that says that's the way it should be. Folks have talked a lot about where to find new ITC cars. There really aren't that many new ones out there, and of those, most agree that they don't appeal to racers. Why not look to ITB to find some of those cars?

As I've said earlier, it's pretty easy to spec a car for two classes. The one where it would be at its lightest achievable weight, and the class below that. Look around at some of the ITB cars. IIRC, the process weight for a Rabbit GTI in ITC was ~75# higher than the old ITB weight (2250# IIRC). That car made 90 hp stock. That's 20hp off of what you've called a 'solid ITB' car that was 'in the middle'. That's a lot in a lower hp class. Look at dropping that car, and similar ones, in ITC. Or give them the ability to run in both, and let the racers decide.

[JoshS]

Actually there are 2 different conversations going on here. 1 about dual classification and another about allowing a lower classed IT car run in a higher IT class at lower class rules.

Didn't you know noboday can stay on one subject only for too long :P
[/b]
The problem started the moment the thread started, because the poll mixes the two concepts as though they are equivalent.

[ScotMac]

Andy,

Your position is based on the premise that a car should be classed in the class that will give it the lowest achievable weight. I suppose that's valid, but there's nothing anywhere that says that's the way it should be. Folks have talked a lot about where to find new ITC cars. There really aren't that many new ones out there, and of those, most agree that they don't appeal to racers. Why not look to ITB to find some of those cars?

As I've said earlier, it's pretty easy to spec a car for two classes. The one where it would be at its lightest achievable weight, and the class below that. Look around at some of the ITB cars. IIRC, the process weight for a Rabbit GTI in ITC was ~75# higher than the old ITB weight (2250# IIRC). That car made 90 hp stock. That's 20hp off of what you've called a 'solid ITB' car that was 'in the middle'. That's a lot in a lower hp class. Look at dropping that car, and similar ones, in ITC. Or give them the ability to run in both, and let the racers decide.
[/b]

I don't think we should be systematically pulling cars from ITB to run ITC, since both are struggling, but in most regions ITB is doing better than ITC. ie, we don't want to bring ITB down for the sake of ITC, and end up w/ two classes that are really bad off.

However, what i really think you meant to say (hope so) was that if there are ITB cars that are not being run, because of low HP, then we should look at moving them down, in order to pump up ITC a bit. Well, i would contend that those cars are simply miss-classed, and if so, yes, they may need looking at.

Also, Andy, is that HP figure and quote accurate? ie, did you say that 110hp (stock) is middle of the road ITB car? Hmmm...my Fiero is looking worse all the time. It was 90hp in 84-87, and 95 in 88.

Lastly, Josh's point about groups differentials in SF-Region, brings up another interesting point about ITB and ITC cars in SF Region.

1. Are others around the country seeing 2002's dominating ITB? I don't have big enough sample yet, but i have seen a couple of races where they were 4-6 secs faster than the next closest ITB car.

2. What about the Datsun 510's in ITC? Are they dominating in other regions? Multiple of the 510's in the SFRegion are *equaling* those winning BMW 2002 *ITB* times and setting track records for ITC.

Have others seen this? If so, we might to "adjust" those 510's. If not, maybe the other ITC drivers should start looking at the SFR 510's a little more closely!! ;)

(Note, sorry to get off topic, just was wondering about the other regions)

[Knestis]

...

1. ...i have seen a couple of races where they were 4-6 secs faster than the next closest ITB car.

2. ...Multiple of the 510's in the SFRegion are *equaling* those winning BMW 2002 *ITB* times and setting track records for ITC. ...[/b]
1 + 2 = 5

When something LOOKS wrong, it usually is.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Also, Andy, is that HP figure and quote accurate? ie, did you say that 110hp (stock) is middle of the road ITB car? Hmmm...my Fiero is looking worse all the time. It was 90hp in 84-87, and 95 in 88.[/b]

There is a wide range of stock hp levels in all classes. What 'fits' has to do with 'attainable power to weight numbers'. The way the process works, a 116hp Miata can run against a 140hp 240SX - all in ITA.


Lastly, Josh's point about groups differentials in SF-Region, brings up another interesting point about ITB and ITC cars in SF Region.

1. Are others around the country seeing 2002's dominating ITB? I don't have big enough sample yet, but i have seen a couple of races where they were 4-6 secs faster than the next closest ITB car.

2. What about the Datsun 510's in ITC? Are they dominating in other regions? Multiple of the 510's in the SFRegion are *equaling* those winning BMW 2002 *ITB* times and setting track records for ITC.

Have others seen this? If so, we might to "adjust" those 510's. If not, maybe the other ITC drivers should start looking at the SFR 510's a little more closely!! ;) [/b]

IT doesn't make adjustments based on results. Pockets of success happen for a huge variety of reasons.

[MMiskoe]

Cripes, does this have to be so complicated? The SM guys take a lot of crap from IT guys some days, but take a look at what they did on the East coast (at least) w/ SM vrs SSM. Lots of cars that drive in two races per event. Why? Because they can.

Why is it such a hard concept to ask if a car can run one class higher than it is currently classed w/ no changes except a digit on the class lettering? The XXXXX that is currently classed in ITA at XXXX pounds wants to go run in ITS. Let him go do it, no changes made, no requests made. If he shows up the ITS guys, oh well, they ought to be faster. If he's slower than snail dung, again. So what? So is the guy who's limping around out there on 3 out of 4 spark plugs because he needs to simply 'finish' a race. We ain't nascar w/ so many entrants that we turn people away.

This helps car counts, costs the CRB nothing, allows more people to do more racing. It helps the guys in the Shelby who don't want to race w/ B guys. If the ITR guys want to do this, so they move on to either ITE or SPO. How do you lose?

In the northeast we see a lot of 1.8 SM cars that go run in either ITA or ITS. I met a guy who entered the same car in SM, SPO and ITS in the same double race weekend. He got in 5 races in two days (didn't stick around for the last run group on Sunday). In other words, with the right car, it is already possible so why fight over it.

Might was well bicker over something more interesting and useful like what's the best color to paint your car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Cripes, does this have to be so complicated? The SM guys take a lot of crap from IT guys some days, but take a look at what they did on the East coast (at least) w/ SM vrs SSM. Lots of cars that drive in two races per event. Why? Because they can.

Why is it such a hard concept to ask if a car can run one class higher than it is currently classed w/ no changes except a digit on the class lettering? The XXXXX that is currently classed in ITA at XXXX pounds wants to go run in ITS. Let him go do it, no changes made, no requests made. If he shows up the ITS guys, oh well, they ought to be faster. If he's slower than snail dung, again. So what? So is the guy who's limping around out there on 3 out of 4 spark plugs because he needs to simply 'finish' a race. We ain't nascar w/ so many entrants that we turn people away.

This helps car counts, costs the CRB nothing, allows more people to do more racing. It helps the guys in the Shelby who don't want to race w/ B guys. If the ITR guys want to do this, so they move on to either ITE or SPO. How do you lose?

In the northeast we see a lot of 1.8 SM cars that go run in either ITA or ITS. I met a guy who entered the same car in SM, SPO and ITS in the same double race weekend. He got in 5 races in two days (didn't stick around for the last run group on Sunday). In other words, with the right car, it is already possible so why fight over it.

Might was well bicker over something more interesting and useful like what's the best color to paint your car.

[/b]

Matt, while I agree with you fundamentally, why can't this be done locally? Like a NARRC, NERRC, MARRS, SARRC, etc rule? If you do it for IT, you really should do it for everyone. Then the GT1 guys will bitch as they have no 'up' class.

Are we saying that it should be a rule that any car can run in any class 'above' it at any time?

[Z3_GoCar]

Cripes, does this have to be so complicated? The SM guys take a lot of crap from IT guys some days, but take a look at what they did on the East coast (at least) w/ SM vrs SSM. Lots of cars that drive in two races per event. Why? Because they can.

Why is it such a hard concept to ask if a car can run one class higher than it is currently classed w/ no changes except a digit on the class lettering? The XXXXX that is currently classed in ITA at XXXX pounds wants to go run in ITS. Let him go do it, no changes made, no requests made. If he shows up the ITS guys, oh well, they ought to be faster. If he's slower than snail dung, again. So what? So is the guy who's limping around out there on 3 out of 4 spark plugs because he needs to simply 'finish' a race. We ain't nascar w/ so many entrants that we turn people away.

This helps car counts, costs the CRB nothing, allows more people to do more racing. It helps the guys in the Shelby who don't want to race w/ B guys. If the ITR guys want to do this, so they move on to either ITE or SPO. How do you lose?

In the northeast we see a lot of 1.8 SM cars that go run in either ITA or ITS. I met a guy who entered the same car in SM, SPO and ITS in the same double race weekend. He got in 5 races in two days (didn't stick around for the last run group on Sunday). In other words, with the right car, it is already possible so why fight over it.

Might was well bicker over something more interesting and useful like what's the best color to paint your car.
[/b]

Hold the phone, I kept wondering why would anyone want to take an ITy car and run in ITx. The reason I wondered about this is that out here, IT runs in the same run group, along with Touring, HP, and sometimes SRX-7. I wish I could have run in that run group, ITE runs with GT, RS, SP, AS, and F/EP, so anyone in IT can DD, except for ITE. So Rodger will still be running in the same run group and all likelyhood will still probably be beating on SM crossovers.

James

[RSTPerformance]

Are we saying that it should be a rule that any car can run in any class 'above' it at any time?
[/b]


I ,like it :023:

But also I think when re-classing cars we should keep it eligable per the current rules (uncompetitive but fun), but also run it through the process and re-class it in the lower class... Then let the market decide, and until all cars have switched keep the dual classing!!!

Raymond "Sorry to mix two concepts, didn't realize to popularity of the topic" Blethen

[MMiskoe]

why can't this be done locally

It could be, but it would be simpler if it was noted from the top that it can be done. As it stands now, since there is nothing saying you can, then you can't. So you have to get an allowance which would have to be done for every event.


If you do it for IT, you really should do it for everyone.


True, but since when do us IT guys start getting really concerned for the rest of the groups? If they want it, let them ask. Not the nicest reply, but I'd take care of the stuff that impacts me before dipping my toe in a pool that I know ZERO about and as little influence on me.

[quote]Then the GT1 guys will bitch as they have no 'up' class.

And? Yes, these guys have no where to move up to, nor does an FA. Or an ITR car if they want to run against other IT cars. Its not perfect. Never will be.

Matt

[spnkzss]

Are we saying that it should be a rule that any car can run in any class 'above' it at any time?
[/b]

I like except we need to add that the stirct enforcement of the 120% rule.

[BlueStreak]

Andy,

Your position is based on the premise that a car should be classed in the class that will give it the lowest achievable weight. I suppose that's valid, but there's nothing anywhere that says that's the way it should be. Folks have talked a lot about where to find new ITC cars. There really aren't that many new ones out there, and of those, most agree that they don't appeal to racers. Why not look to ITB to find some of those cars?

As I've said earlier, it's pretty easy to spec a car for two classes. The one where it would be at its lightest achievable weight, and the class below that. Look around at some of the ITB cars. IIRC, the process weight for a Rabbit GTI in ITC was ~75# higher than the old ITB weight (2250# IIRC). That car made 90 hp stock. That's 20hp off of what you've called a 'solid ITB' car that was 'in the middle'. That's a lot in a lower hp class. Look at dropping that car, and similar ones, in ITC. Or give them the ability to run in both, and let the racers decide.
[/b]

Despite some very understandable arguments to the contrary, I'm right there with you Bill.

;) This would give me an excuse to protest the ITC CRX's that have beat me in races where I was running first and second in ITB! :P

Here's what messed me up, and I understand the old "no good deed goes unpunished", but when the ITB Rabbit GTI received the last weight reduction, I could no longer make min weight. I now know that I won't make min weight unless I work off 70#'s of flab (eh-no), or rip out a cage that has been fine since '98, and replace it with a lighter one. I actually know of one guy running an ITB Rabbit GTI who ripped his entire cage out this past spring and rebuilt it to make min weight. I admire that kind of dedication (and wallet thickness), but that ain't happenin' on my "raising three kids budget". If the solution had been to bolt in ballast (which I still had on the shelf from the 2180# days) and bump from ITB to ITC, I would have been better off, as bolting in ballast and changing a class letter is cheaper than rebuilding cages. I don't give a rip that I'd be in a "slower class", I just want to be able to see the frontrunners when I turn onto the front straight!

One last hand grenade for the conversation...What about combining (and weight tweaking) ITB and ITC? I'll buy stock in the steel plate companies and make a fortune as all the B cars ballast up :lol:

[mom'sZ]

Andy,
I think one way to define a 'tweener' is a car that has realistic, achievable weights in both classes. With a cap of say 100# over curb weight on the high side (not counting the driver).
[/b]
Bill: me Andy or Andy B. Andy? I think you may have been refering to me because I had just prior posted


So to me, that is the definition of a tweener. If a car's process wieght is x amount under curb wieght, it's a tweener.
[/b]
If so... I like it (your definition that is) Seems maybe a tweener rule may not be that tough to craft


Folks have talked a lot about where to find new ITC cars. There really aren't that many new ones out there, and of those, most agree that they don't appeal to racers. Why not look to ITB to find some of those cars?
[/b]


One last hand grenade for the conversation...What about combining (and weight tweaking) ITB and ITC?
[/b]
Awhile back I was thinking about this when I heard the problems with C. It also occured to me around the time ITR was being discussed. If no low horsepower cars are really being produced (at least none anybody would want to race) Why not combine B and C? Maybe not wholly and completely but say the bottom two thirds of B into C. In the same way the slower cars in A go to B ect. ect. on up through the class. Why create a faster class as a slower class is busy dying a slow death? Maybe such a solution could be helpful for the tweener problem. Maybe a better cut off point could be choosen which could divide up the ranks more logically. If no low horsepower cars are being produced and lots of higher horsepower cars are, maybe this is just the natural progression of the class. Well, what about the really slow end of C cars, what becomes of them? I don't know without looking at all the specs. Could they be speced light enough to compete and still make weight? Maybe that would be the cut off point, Where the slowest of C are speced as light as they can make min. wieght and as much of B is absorded which doesn't make them to heavy. The biggest problem I see is B guys getting moved to C whining because they don't want to be in the 'slow' class. From a guy who roadraced a motorcycle in the lightweight class, I can tell you there is a skill set to learn and plenty fun to be had, but I could see guys being reluctant. Maybe the solution would be to call it IT1, IT2 ect. That way we don't have to figure out what to call the next one after R. Anyhow that's my rambling on this one.
Andy Rowe

[Knestis]

I'm still not getting it but then, I'm old and slow...

So, under what (some of) you are proposing, I could simply take my Golf, tape over the "B", slap on an "A" and run for SARRC points in the group that includes ITA in addition to the one that includes ITB? Of course then...

** I can run A instead of B, rather than adding an entry fee to the region's income?

** I can run A and R, if they are in two groups.

** I can pay two entry fees and enter both classes if they are in the same group.

** I can pay two entry fees and enter ITB twice! Double points!!

** I can enter other "faster" classes at a Regional (like EP, for example)? Does it make a difference if anyone else is entered in the class or not?

** Since we've chucked the general expectation that cars have to be listed in specific classes to be eligible, I can probably qualify for the RubOffs in SOMETHING next year.

Before you get all sputtery with indignation about how I've taken this to some asinine extreme, stop and check each of the "solutions" above against the rationale that have been presented. How many of them...

** Allow me to get more races in a given weekend, thereby stretching my racing dollar?

** Allow the region to increase entries and make more money?

** Don't violate Dickita's First and Second Rules?

Heck - I've even improved EP's national participation numbers!

Kirk (who seems to remember SOMETHING about a bunch of IT entrants squawking about SMs being allowed to run in IT)

[mom'sZ]

Kirk... BINGO!!!!
dual classing is dumb (is it ok to say dumb? please no one be offended) Can we not come up with a better way to get more track time or bring up low car counts without bastardizing the rule set? (And I thought the same thing about the SM debacle as I read this thread)
Duel classing (by another name) to help transistion tweeners = OK, Dual classing for other reasons listed above or otherwise = not so wise IMHO

[Dave Zaslow]

So then we'll have to go after the race organizers and make sure that no IT class is in the same race group as the next higher class. ITC could run with ITA or higher. ITB could run with ITS but not ITA. ITA could only run with ITR. ITS and ITR are SOL. In some areas of the country this might be just a tad problematic.

This makes sense?

Do you really want your race group muddled with uncompetitive cars? Uncompetitive cars that can screw up your race? No thanks. I have anough of a challenge with the fine group of talents (bunch of yahoo&#39;s <_< ) who are out there now.

Envy not SSM, SM, and ITA Miata&#39;s.

Since the impetus for this seems to be increasing tracktime, while not being competitve, consider doing this within the existing framework. Run SPU/SPO or have your region add an ITO/ITU run group to suck up your dollars.

As for DC&#39;s, I say no. There actually is a reason we have classes and an ITAC and all that good stuff that keeps IT vital. If a car is being re-classed, it is for a good reason. The new classification should always become effective the next racing year. If the re-classification comes about after July 1st, I would support a one year transitional DC. That would give a person at least 18 months to make the change.

DZ
ITB

[dickita15]

I really wish that there were not two discussions going on here.




As for DC&#39;s, I say no. There actually is a reason we have classes and an ITAC and all that good stuff that keeps IT vital. If a car is being re-classed, it is for a good reason.
DZ
ITB
[/b]

Except there are time when it is a coin toss as to which class the car belongs in and no matter which way the ITAC decides, half of those racer will think it was the wrong call. That is the definition of a tweener. If in those cases the car is Dual Classed then the market can decide with no harm to the process.

If a car were to be Dual Classes where it obviously fits better in one class than the other I would bet the market would figure that out as well.

[ScotMac]

IT doesn&#39;t make adjustments based on results. Pockets of success happen for a huge variety of reasons.
[/b]

Right. That&#39;s why i asked for input from other regions. ie, to see if it is more that just a pocket of success.

Sorry Andy, guess i don&#39;t understand. IT DOES move cars around in classes and change the spec weight of cars. Based on what? A re-evaluation of the "process"?

If one particular car is completely dominating a class, and nothing in the "process" says that it should be, then it is just left that way?

[Knestis]

Just to double check, you do know that there are still a lot of cars listed in the ITCS that have not been THROUGH the "process," right Scot?

Before the Great Realignment a couple years ago, the classifications and weight specs where a horrible hodge-podge, with some placed by people who believed one thing, and some placed by people believing an entirely different thing.

And by "Process" I don&#39;t mean the procedural stuff, like someone asking that a car be re-examined or reclassed. I mean the actual weight-setting process. I think that&#39;s the typical way that term gets used around here.

K

EDIT - and the answer to your last question is, "if the process has been used, yes." Unless there is really strong evidence that the process is flawed (which is where I begin to get very anxious, too.)