help me out..define the "look and feel" of IT.

[lateapex911]

So in the other thread, we've discussed the concept of adding a narrow range of Mustangs and Camaros into ITR. V8 versions, that is.

Now, it's a proposal that has seen some interesting response, and since it's winter, I guess, it's share of controversy.

I've seen arguments from people that, when "cross examined" with parallel arguments, fall apart, suggesting that their true objection is really being cloaked in their argument. In other words, they are taking a stand that they really don't truly believe, at least when it's applied to another equivalent situation.

which suggests to me that theres more here than meets the eye. That there are underlying perceptions or reasons that are moving people. That some of the objection is emotional, and I wonder what it is.

So, I'd like to get an idea of what the racers think. Answer some questions honestly, if you don't mind. Heck, if you feel that you want to remain secret, fire up a new signon name.

What do YOU think the IT category should be comprised of?
All cars? 4 doors racing against roadsters? Cars from all nationalities?
Do you feel that certain "Types" of cars don't belong, for whatever reason. (could be that you hate French cars, who knows)
Should it be Hondas only?
Or imports only?
Or "sophisticated" cars only?
Should all the classes be "equal"?
Or should one class be about "economy cars" another about "Sporty cars" and another about "sophisticated cars"?
Are there economic lines that you draw in your mind?

I know this is rather "out there", but I'd really like to understand peoples perceptions and ideals.

Thanks.

[JeffYoung]

Isn't the point of IT that we allow ALL production based cars taht meet certain criteria.

I can't believe that anyone could look at the present ITCS car list or the ruleset and think that IT is about anything other than diversity.

[spnkzss]

All cars with fenders that can be classed in our current rule set. If someday (due to technology) we have to create ITX, so be it, but the concept is the same. If someone can find a 200 hp Ferrari that fits in ITR, I'd be all for it. Insane though they be, it's still a place to race.

I look at each step as a step in speed. ITC being slowest, ITR being fastest. That and speed=cubic dollars.

[Ron Earp]

All cars? 4 doors racing against roadsters? Cars from all nationalities?
All cars from all nationalities.

Do you feel that certain "Types" of cars don't belong, for whatever reason. (could be that you hate French cars, who knows)
No, if it fits the classification and there are at least a couple thousand examples in the US then class them up.

Should it be Hondas only?
No.

Or imports only?
Absolutely not.

Or "sophisticated" cars only?
No.

Should all the classes be "equal"?
Not sure what you mean by that, if you mean that no IT class excludes certain types, nationalities, etc., then certainly, they should be equal.

Or should one class be about "economy cars" another about "Sporty cars" and another about "sophisticated cars"?
No, too subjective. My sporty might be your economy.

Are there economic lines that you draw in your mind?
No although I certainly consider it when picking a car.

[erlrich]

IMO IT is THE class for diversity; if it has four wheels and fits into the performance range of one of the IT classes then bring it on. Want to race your Scion xB? Sure, why not. Got an old K-car you want to run - absolutely. Hell, we've already got Yugos, Fiestas, Starlets, LeCars, Chevettes, Opel GTs, Mustangs, MGBs, Saturns, Beetles, Corvairs, Oldsmobiles, TR7s, TR8s, Alfas, Vegas, and Pintos - tell me what the heck doesn't fit in IT?

Unless it's those damn V8s... OMG, that's right, we already have those too! What is the world coming to :(

[Knestis]

I've hinted at my thoughts on the subject elsewhere but put simply, the problem is unique to ITR because the cars listed there - at least those perceived to be competitive - are all bucks-up foreign touring and sports cars. That's created an air of exclusivity, that the 'excluders' simply don't see as a place for American POS V8s.

I believe there's some turf protecting going on as well, in competitive terms. There's NO question that a 5.0 Mustang can turn a X:XX.XXX at Road America for less $$ than would be required to make a 944 S2 do the same thing. I can picture how egos might be bruised and few things elicit more fundamental dislikes than do bruised egos.

NOW, to be fair - I'm reacting to only a TINY but very vocal minority of comments that I've seen. If you aren't one of the people harboring these opinions, don't get all defensive 'cause I'm not talking about YOU. If you DO get defensive, ask yourself why.

Sorry, Jake - I didn't really answer your question. I kind of jumped to the end of the story.

K

PS - I asked someone why Camaros would mess up the "look" of the class, since the V6 versions are already listed. The response - that those won't ever be competitive - suggested STRONGLY to me that they really don't care about the look, as much as the competition.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If someone can find a 200 hp Ferrari that fits in ITR, I'd be all for it.

214hp anyone? :)

http://www.bcgator.net/Images/1980%20Ferrari%20308GTSi%20a.jpg

[Ron Earp]

PS - I asked someone why Camaros would mess up the "look" of the class, since the V6 versions are already listed. The response - that those won't ever be competitive - suggested STRONGLY to me that they really don't care about the look, as much as the competition.

Who actually suggested "look" of the class as a reason to exclude V8s? What does "look" have to do with anything at all?

I think you are 100% correct. Another red herring, one of many surrounding the V8 Pony Car discussion.

Ron

[Rabbit07]

214hp anyone? :)

http://www.bcgator.net/Images/1980%20Ferrari%20308GTSi%20a.jpg
I'll build one if I can sport an aloha shirt instead of Nomex?

Magnum PI here I come

[Racerlinn]

Let the station wagons in!
:cavallo:

[lateapex911]

. I kind of jumped to the end of the story.

tch tch tch, LOL. :018:




K

PS - I asked someone why Camaros would mess up the "look" of the class, since the V6 versions are already listed. The response - that those won't ever be competitive - suggested STRONGLY to me that they really don't care about the look, as much as the competition.

Or................

MAYbe he was saying that BECAUSE the car wasn't competitive, you'd never see one. And if you can't SEE something, it can't spoil the "look" of that thing????

[spnkzss]

You know, I'm seriously wondering if I could build (not run, just build) an ITR Camero for cheaper than the ITA Honda I'm building.... hmm.......:017:

[RacerBill]

How about aloha-flowered Nomex?

[Ron Earp]

I'll build one if I can sport an aloha shirt instead of Nomex?

Magnum PI here I come

I want to wear cut off jeans with my Kimber .45 tucked in my waist band.

[lateapex911]

I want to wear cut off jeans with my Kimber .45 tucked in my waist band.
That's the kind of thing you keep to yourself, Ron.
;)

[seckerich]

Any car that fits the requirements should get a chance to be classes. If there is support to build cars welcome them to the ranks.

On a side note I believe ITR would have been a better class if we had allowed ABS to remain. Would have been cheaper and moved us forward. RR shocks should also be allowed. I understand the BS about keeping all the classes consistent but it could be done as a spec line allowance to all ITR cars without upsetting the balance in existing classes. No car in ITR is cheap so throw that arguement out the window. Flame away!!:happy204:

[RacerBill]

What do YOU think the IT category should be comprised of?
All cars? 4 doors racing against roadsters? Cars from all nationalities?
Do you feel that certain "Types" of cars don't belong, for whatever reason. (could be that you hate French cars, who knows)
Should it be Hondas only?
Or imports only?
Or "sophisticated" cars only?
Should all the classes be "equal"?
Or should one class be about "economy cars" another about "Sporty cars" and another about "sophisticated cars"?
Are there economic lines that you draw in your mind?

I know this is rather "out there", but I'd really like to understand peoples perceptions and ideals.

Thanks.

I agree with what others have said in this thread. IT is looking pretty good as it is. I don't feel that anyone would have a hard time finding a place to classify just about anything with four wheels!

Over the years that IT has been in existance, there have been changes that reflect the changes in the automotive world, the creating of ITR. Other classes may see changes as the low end of the performance scale gets higher and higher.

No, I feel that the class, and the ITAC are doing a great job. IT is the place to race! IT rocks!!!!!!!

[dj10]

Any car that fits the requirements should get a chance to be classes. If there is support to build cars welcome them to the ranks.

On a side note I believe ITR would have been a better class if we had allowed ABS to remain. Would have been cheaper and moved us forward. RR shocks should also be allowed. I understand the BS about keeping all the classes consistent but it could be done as a spec line allowance to all ITR cars without upsetting the balance in existing classes. No car in ITR is cheap so throw that arguement out the window. Flame away!!:happy204:
Steve, I will have to disagree on 2 of your points. 1. the ABS and 2. the RR Shocks and here is my reasoning. Since there is a major technology difference between i.e. 1993 BMW and A 2006 Acura. The newer cars are always comming up with more and more signals per ms thus giving the newer cars a much greater edge when braking with ABS than the older cars. The top of the line RR Shocks are 6 to 9k while top of the line double adjustables are 1.5k to 3.8k. Big difference, if you want to spend more money, go National and you can buy all the RR Shocks you want. You are correct, no top running ITR, or IT car is cheap, let's not make it any more expensive, we all ready cut costs by implimenting the new ecu rule, to a certain degree.

[seckerich]

I will agree on the ABS technology. The RR shock myth has been proven false in Touring. PS. I have gone National racing in EP and I have RR shocks. Life is good!!!

[Knestis]

If I have the $5K and want to spend it to go faster, not being able to buy RR shocks is NOT going to keep me from buying more tenths.

It's not possible to control spending with rules. Never has been, never will be. We might make the gains per dollar smaller but that just makes them more valuable.

K

[dj10]

I will agree on the ABS technology. The RR shock myth has been proven false in Touring. PS. I have gone National racing in EP and I have RR shocks. Life is good!!!

I must have missed that myth, what's the myth on the RR shocks?:shrug:


If I have the $5K and want to spend it to go faster, not being able to buy RR shocks is NOT going to keep me from buying more tenths.

What double adj shocks can you spend an addition 5k on that will pickup that kind of time? A few tenths is a matter of squeezing your butt together tighter in a couple of turns.:)

It's not possible to control spending with rules. Never has been, never will be. We might make the gains per dollar smaller but that just makes them more valuable.

Your right but that's no reason to leave the barn door wide open either.

K

[Knestis]

>> Your right but that's no reason to leave the barn door wide open either.

Okay, then. Let's just not use "decreased cost" as a rationale for limiting technology or maintaining some restriction. There's no need to quote any more shock prices...

And for the record, I can't figure out why anyone would want to spend MORE money to run a national class, than it takes to run even a basic IT car. All you have to do to win in many National classes in many divisions is show up.

K

[seckerich]

The myth Dan is that the banning of them saves money. It was proven cost effective to allow them in Touring as opposed to high end custom valving like we use in our current IT shocks. 10 years ago it was a valid reason to ban them. It is not the case now that the cost has come down so much compared to the legal alternatives. Motec and other engine management started at $5000 then as well. Times change and you have to look at what fits today--not 10 years ago. Jake asked for opinions--you got mine. It is worth what you paid for it.:p

[RSTPerformance]

ALL US cars should be eligible if they fit into one of the 5 current IT classes, unless proven to be a safety hazard (weight and/or speed - we don't need anything above ITR at the moment). And yes, I do think that station waggons, AWD, and even the small pickups (ITT) should be classed.

All classes should be equal in terms of one set of rules.

JMO

Raymond

[rcc85]

I like IT because I like cars!! I like the diversity, the variety. The idea that people can race Dodges, Volvos, Pintos, Renaults, Alfas and yes even BMWs, VWs, Mazdas and Hondas. I understand the appeal of the spec classes from a driver's standpoint and even from a builder's standpoint but there is something about building and driving something different that appeals to me. I always root for the underdog.

The ITR V8 pony car discussion has caused me to keep an eye out for both V8 and V6 pony cars (a V6 ITS Mustang is an interesting idea as an alternative to the ITR cars). Man, if I could make one of those competitive some people would cry. If I had more hair, I would even grow a mullet.:023:

Bob Clifton
#05 ITB Dodge Daytona

[GKR_17]

Bring on the Ferrari. Though I find 240hp not 214. Right on the line officially. Stock weight is somewhere around 2300 lbs though, it'd be sad to have to bolt in well over 500 lbs of lead.

[Greg Amy]

Bring on the Ferrari. Though I find 240hp not 214.
The 1980-82 (81?) K-Jetronic model (GTBi and GTSi) was 214 ponies. The prior carb'd one (GTB; four Webers?) was 240, and the subsequent four-valve (QV) got it back to 240 (K-Jet was added to the '80 to meet emissions). Yes, I'm a big closet fan of the Ferrari 3.0L V8s...always had a thing for that car, especially the QV...

Bring on the 308s! Just don't ask me to build or campaign one...I'll drive yours, though... ;)