Longevity of ITC???

[toddgreene]

I'm just getting started.
ITC seems to be a great beginning class .(slower, safer and less expensive).
However, it seems that the cars are aging and there are fewer choices to replce them.

How much longer do you veterans think ITC or ITB will continue?
I'm already thinking of ITA, ITS or SM for the near future.
I think SM may be around for a while.

Thanks,

Todd

[Greg Amy]

I'm personally intrigued by both the VW Beetle and the Mazda Protege in ITC. I think you'll see more and more cars dropped in there.

Year ago ITS was "the" class to be in. Last few years it's been A. ITB is making serious inroads into popularity now, and I expect ITC to be "the" place to be within 5-7 years....

[85itcciviv]

I wish I shared Greg's view of ITCs future. I have run ITC since the mid 90s and have watched the fields fall from 48 cars to 12 last year in the MARRS series. 4-5 depending on the weekend were cars I brought to the table. Even with the new cars classed I don't see them as cars a lot of people want to race. I also think people go where the competition is . A is the place and B is on an upswing.

It saddens me greatly to see the class I love decline. I have no intention of selling my ITC civic or converting it to a prod car. I have plenty of other tubs for that if I decide to do it . I will keep the car and race it from time to time and maybe take it to things like the ITFest. Who knows, maybe my daughter will race it someday . `

[JeffYoung]

Depends greatly on region. Car counts in S, A, B and C very greatly from track to track.

[dickita15]

I do not expect to see ITC dropped as a class anytime soon but see nothing to indicate that there will be more cars running. In fact I had two different ITC drivers tell me that if the VIN rule happens they would probably move their existing C car to B. While I like the VIN rule change this was a consequence that I did not anticipate.

[flaboy]

ITC in florida is very strong compared with other regions/areas.I bet we average 6-8 cars per event,even more for certain races.And it's very competitive.The new VIN rule might even help ITC with somw people droping down from B.(CRX/CIVIC drivers).

I think the economy plays a bigger role in ITC than some other class"s like SM,ITA/S,I feel we are more "budget" racers than most.I know for me I will not be racing as much this year as i did last year.

Tim

[toddgreene]

I'm personally intrigued by both the VW Beetle and the Mazda Protege in ITC. I think you'll see more and more cars dropped in there.

I've thought about the Beetle for the future. I don't know how competitive it would be. It would be a great novelty car to have. Kinda ironic that the Beetle would be the heaviest car in it's class...

Todd

[spnkzss]

I do not expect to see ITC dropped as a class anytime soon but see nothing to indicate that there will be more cars running. In fact I had two different ITC drivers tell me that if the VIN rule happens they would probably move their existing C car to B. While I like the VIN rule change this was a consequence that I did not anticipate.

I raced ITC for 5 years. Had a blast. I have decided to move to ITA and am currently in the middle of the build. I moved because of two reasons,

1.) competition. Now don't get me wrong, the last couple years in ITC we have had up to 4 cars fighting for the lead and I have had a blast. Those people that I raced with I would gladly race again (and I'm sure I will), but not all those people always showed up. When they didn't there were 2 people sorta going at it and if you dropped back at all you were soloing it. I felt ITA (in our region) was the next logical step for me.

2.) Speed. Now I'm not saying ITA is "fast", but when you've spent all your time with ~80hp, ITA is FAST :p I want to actually accelerate (even a little) going up hill. Go a little faster than 105mph, you know, all those "illusions" of racing.

3.) I know I said two, but the third reason is kinda BS. I came upon a motor. That's what started all of this. Honestly.

4.) Again, not a reason, but the true reason I can do this. My wife is letting me and I can't think her enough. LOL :happy204:

Now, I have stripped my ITC tub of all the "good" stuff and put them on my ITA car. I still have the ITC tub just waiting. What is it waiting for? Who knows. I'm thinkin' that if the VIN goes away, ITB Enduro may be in it's future. People say the VIN rule may kill ITC, I don't think so. I think it might bring life back. Build your VW, build your Honda, learn in ITC. When you've done some learnin', spend a couple thousand, drop an ITB drive line in, and go race in B.

[Andy Bettencourt]

If the VIN rule 'kills' ITC, then the market has spoken. In other words, it will have died from the inside-out. The cars get re-used, drivers who change become more interested.

If it dies, it will die a natural death, I can't see it getting killed until there are just none around.

[Greg Amy]

It's all about the competition. ITA has a lot of entrants simply because ITA has a lot of entrants. ITB is gaining popularity and increasing entries simply because it's gaining popularity and increasing entries.

It's really that simple.

I've given significant thought many times to buying a "low-budget" (read: low cost) ITC car and going play. In fact, I pretty much decided mid-2007 that I was looking for a new challenge, and ITC was one of those sandboxes I was giving significant thought to playing in. If this ITS opportunity with Jeremy had not come up, I suspect I would have spent my Christmas vacation searching classifieds for theft-damaged New Beetles...

Look at Janoska's CRX...$3k!!! Holy kee-rist, man, it's all I can do to keep from going online and transferring me some home equity line of credit for that jewel of a bargain! Hell, at that price I'd simply add it to the team mix and not make it my "only" race car... And, while it may sound arrogant, if I were to do so - and were to convince just one or two of us to join me - I have no doubt that interest in ITC would increase significantly. (Billiel, it's still a Honda and it costs less than what I've spent since we started this project...how about it, partner...?)

"ITB is the new ITA" and ITC ain't that far behind. Like ITA was a few years ago, ITC is ripe for the picken'. All it takes is one or two good consistent high-vis entrants to make it happen.

Food for thought. - GA

[lateapex911]

Spoken from a guy on the ITAC's point of view...
It's pretty darn hard (compared to ITA, say) to classify cars people want to race in ITC.

For most people, theres the "money should equal speed" mantra as the underlying concept. Some more experienced guys choose a certain aspect of racing that they like. Scott Giles likes the demands placed on ITC (and now, ITB) drivers that punish heavily for a .5 MPH loss of momentum. Others, like Greg Amy look to carve a winning angle, and the car and class are mere tools in that process. But for most, if it costs X, C is OK. But if it costs X+, then they want ITB speed. And if it costs X++, then ITA is the place they want to be.

It's the basic DNA in most racers: Go as fast as your budget allows.

So..back to classifying cars. The New Beetle landed in C because it was felt it couldn't make weight in ITB. We've seen not one built that I' am aware of because:

1- It's an expensive buy in for a class that is chock full of available built and competitive cars for sale at much cheaper dollars. (See "Basic DNA" above)
2- It aint light. Some question if it can win.
3- Some think its rather gehy......
4- Others just don't feel it's "cool" enough...

Now insert other cars into the equation...what fits? Low power cars...like Kias, etc. Run them by the four line items above, and see how they play out.

Simple fact of the matter is that as a society, American racers have moved away from light, slow, hang on to your momentum sedans.

[Greg Amy]

It's pretty darn hard...to classify cars people want to race in ITC.
Which is why I was a bigger proponent of the existing "let the cars filter downwards a class as they get relatively slower" rather than create a faster class up top (ITR). By creating a system of fixed performance brackets/goalposts we have guaranteed that as modern cars' relative performance increases, we - by design - obsolete both classes and cars rather than just cars.

Right now, instead of filtering slower B cars down to C and slower A cars down to B (and so forth) we're being forced to shoe-horn cars into C by making them big-ole piggies 'cause no one makes cars that fit the true basis of those goalposts. If the class "dies from within" (a bit of a misnomer) as Andy describes it's likely we'll end up in the same place regardless: four total classes. The only thing that changed was the names... That's not really "from within" because instead of orphaning C cars we could have added the fast cars (current ITR cars) to S, then slower S cars to A and so forth to where ITC was fortified by the B filter-downers...Six of one, half-dozen of another, I suppose, but the "fixed performance bracket classes" guarantees both the fastest and slowest potential vehicles will be excluded from competition (the faster from outright banning, the slower from lack of any potential competitiveness).

Eventually, since we have fixed goalposts - and assuming cars' relative performances continue to increase in the future - the same thing should be expected to happen to ITB when we add ITX (Extreme) at the top, then to A when we add ITUX (Ultra Extreme) after that, ad nausea...

But, again, I don't see ITC as dead quite yet. If the ITAC keeps up the ideal of adding cars to that mix, even through they're heavy ones, the potential for success exists. - GA

[JamesB]

I went with ITB because of the car I knew how to work on was competitive. From what I see in our area is that B increased a little, A got even stronger with some new drivers and a few permanent conversions from SM.

in our area ITC is waning a little, I dont get invovled int he drama behind it. Some are going to A, I dont know what class the rest are going to.

I have seen ITB growing, and I know a few that plan to return this season. I have a potential renter of our B car during the season races so I will have my hands full and I am not sure early on how many B races I will make.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Which is why I was a bigger proponent of the existing "let the cars filter downwards a class as they get relatively slower" rather than create a faster class up top (ITR). By creating a system of fixed performance brackets/goalposts we have guaranteed that as modern cars' relative performance increases, we - by design - obsolete both classes and cars rather than just cars.

Right now, instead of filtering slower B cars down to C and slower A cars down to B (and so forth) we're being forced to shoe-horn cars into C by making them big-ole piggies 'cause no one makes cars that fit the true basis of those goalposts. If the class "dies from within" (a bit of a misnomer) as Andy describes it's likely we'll end up in the same place regardless: four total classes. The only thing that changed was the names... That's not really "from within" because instead of orphaning C cars we could have added the fast cars (current ITR cars) to S, then slower S cars to A and so forth to where ITC was fortified by the B filter-downers...Six of one, half-dozen of another, I suppose, but the "fixed performance bracket classes" guarantees both the fastest and slowest potential vehicles will be excluded from competition (the faster from outright banning, the slower from lack of any potential competitiveness).

Eventually, since we have fixed goalposts - and assuming cars' relative performances continue to increase in the future - the same thing should be expected to happen to ITB when we add ITX (Extreme) at the top, then to A when we add ITUX (Ultra Extreme) after that, ad nausea...

But, again, I don't see ITC as dead quite yet. If the ITAC keeps up the ideal of adding cars to that mix, even through they're heavy ones, the potential for success exists. - GA

How do you filter 'slow' B cars into C without obsoleting the C cars?

If you want to add weight to the B cars to make them fit into C, then you end up with the same type of pigs. Lipstick on them yes, but still a pig. Don't you have to have a bracket to shoot at?

I fail to see how the design of the brakets are obsoleteting anything. Speed, availability and desire to run cars of these types/speeds is what is pressing on entries.

I just don't understand what you are saying. How does this all work if you don't want to obsolete the C cars? I am sure your idea has merit, but I don't get how it would work.

[JeffYoung]

It looks like six of one, half dozen of another to me.

Either you have R/S/A/B/C with C basically dead.

Or you make R cars S cars, move S to A, A to B, and B cars to C at lower weights.

No real substantive difference that I see, more just nomenclature than anything else, other than determining the appropriate weights for B cars moving to C.

I don't want to be doomsayer, and I'm certainly influenced by what I see here in NC/SC/GA race land, but I don't see any new C cars being built. I see C withering away from lack of competition, and I see B doing okay.

A is odd here. For some reason, in this area, there aren't a whole lot of A cars. Most of our IT fields are populated by ITS and IT7, which is unusually strong, here.

I know A is strong in the NEDiv. Is C strong anywhere? Florida maybe??

[gran racing]

It's really that simple.

The irony of some of these threads is we sometimes prevent ITC from becoming popular again. There are not many cars racing there now, so we (myself included) suggest another class. Based on Greg's theory which I agree with, it makes it tougher to grow.

I think some people also have an attitude that they don't want to be in the slowest class thinking the higher the class, the better the driver. That's not true, but a perception many new people have.

[Greg Amy]

How do you filter 'slow' B cars into C without obsoleting the C cars?

You don't. Read again what I wrote:

By creating a system of fixed performance brackets/goalposts we have guaranteed that as modern cars' relative performance increases, we - by design - obsolete both classes and cars rather than just cars.
The difference is that while you can't affect the performance value of the individual older cars, you could keep the ITC moniker alive by filtering the cars down. You've (plural) chosen not to.

You (plural) have chosen - explicitly or purely by chance - that you'd rather manage cars' relative performance within a fixed performance bracket envelope of classes rather than actively managing the cars' fixed relative performance within a floating system of classes. In other words, you'd prefer to manage the absolute performance of classes rather than the relative performance of cars.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this; in fact I understand how it would much easier on you (plural) and creates a general standardized benchmark for all. However, you should recognize that you may have - again, either explicitly or by unintended consequences - actively obsoleted classes (starting with ITC) within those performance brackets. This is not a function of "death from within" but rather a result of your (plural) choices of design.

In the end, should ITC "die" you're back where you started, with four classes, and a system designed to actively obsolete slower cars as the performance envelope of new cars increases. Eventually, you will be forced to create more classes up top to accommodate this increased performance envelope, and as the slower cars decrease in availability and interest you are implicitly deleting those classes.

GA

[JeffYoung]

Dave, that is definitely true, or was for me. I came in thinking S was the "best" IT class with teh "best" cars and the "best" drivers simple because it was the by the numbers fastest. Clearly not the case. Not sure how you correct that though for new guys; it is as someone mentioned perhaps a natural race tendency.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, again, how do you let ITB cars slide into ITC without either obsoleting the C cars or making the B cars undesireable?

[JeffYoung]

That's the issue. If you simply slide in B cars into C, at "doable" weights, you are going to make the current crop of C cars mostly obsolete -- so smae result as if you kept classes static and added "faster" classes.

Neither approach addresses the real problem here. Right now, the "C" performance envelope is what? 70 to 90 stock hp and weight of 2000 to 2400 lbs?

There just aren't many cars out there with those specs. So either you repopulate with new cars, or old B cars, at very high weights, or you completely change the peformance parameters such that C really isn't C anymore.

[toddgreene]

My concern is that the CRXs, Sciroccos and Rabbits are getting long in the tooth.
The chaisis is now 20+ years old.

In the past two years, the CRB has added some Sentras, Protege, Geos, etc. which will add new cars to the class. There aren't a lot of readily available go-fast parts for these cars. I think the development cost of these cars will be too expensive to build for C. I definitely think the KIA would be two expensive to develop. It seems easier to buy a $4000 CRX or Rabbit with a log-book than to develop a Protege.

If new cars are dropped "down" into C, the CRXs and Sciroccos may be riding in the back of the pack with the British Cars. (LBC fans please don't throw rocks, I am a British Car Nut, too)

Todd

[Andy Bettencourt]

I keep hearing what is wrong, but I have seen no solutions.

If the cars, price point and speeds are popular, then the class will be popular. If not, it will die. This isn't unique to ITC. I bet that there are more ITR cars at the end of 2008 than ITC cars. What does that tell us? Just asking, not saying anything.

Let's design some solutions.

[seckerich]

Gotta love Darwin on this one.:023: The vin rule just might be the kicker to move us back to 4 classes. Less classes and more racing is always good.

[jjjanos]

I keep hearing what is wrong, but I have seen no solutions.

Correct me where I go wrong -

Wasn't the New Beetle classified fat in ITC to keep it from being an overdog? I.e. The car could have been built at less than 2760 but the committee decided that a whole bunch of weight needed to be kept on the car to keep it from dominating?

If we want to keep the current crop of 20+ year old ITC cars competitive (a questionable goal) and maintain the class, couldn't some of the pokier ITB cars go through a similar weight increase program?

I.e Currently the 1989 Nash Rambler is classified in ITB at 1800, but the car is always DFL because it's underpowered as a B car and there is no way it can get to the 1500 it needs to be competitive. The handy-dandy classification model, however, says that at 2000, it will be at the front end of ITC.

Is this the sort of solution for which you were seeking?

The more systemic problem is that the cars that would fit comfortably in ITC are either so old as to be impossible to find or are worth too much as street cars to justify the huge expense of building a custom racecar whose competiveness is in question.

A quick search shows the least expensive new Beetle of the correct age is going for $3900.
Same search gives a Nissan 240SX going for about the same.


How much to add to the build-out cost? If the costs are close, you'll go with the faster car. Then again, if you go with the Beetle, it's newer and you'll be able to pick up spares easier than you will for a car that is 10 years older. Or you could punt and buy one that's for sale 11,000 obo (+ or - based on spares, etc) over in the marketplace.

It's a chicken/egg problem. Nobody is going to build the newly classified cars in ITC until somebody builds one of the newly classified cars in ITC. Then it'll be katy bar the door time.

[JeffYoung]

Have to agree with Steve. What is happening is natural mostly and can't be "fixed." The bottom end of the IT performance envelope is moving upward. No real way to fix that as I see it.

[ScotMac]

I agree w/ the comments that whether we move cars down or add a new class, it is basically the same. And, YES, Andy, the moving down approach does mean obsoleting *cars* in C, but Greg's point is that it doesn't obsolete the *class*.

I disagree Greg. I think the better approach is to add the class at the top. By doing so, you have more stability. Instead of *every* class having change all the time, you simply have the change in the *new* class (and eventually in the low class when it dies). The classes i the middle stay constant. More stability is likely to keep the competition tighter. My $.02.

[lateapex911]

Edit, four of you guys added posts while I was typing mine, making some similar points..sorry!

Greg's concept....relative adjustment...took a second to sink in. I think what he's saying is that you move B cars into C, and adjust the weights of everybody in the "Revamped ITC" class so that their relative performance is equal.

And you do the same for ITS cars that go to A, etc.

Each time, you analyze all the cars in the class, keeping in mind the parmeters that exist...achievable weights being the biggest factor, and adjust the class.

[Cheech Marin voice over] Whoaaa.........that's heavy man...[/Cheech voice over]

Years ago, we had a chat about this and other things here on IT.com, and one thing that I remember vividly after taking the pulse of the IT community was that one of the top reasons people chose IT was stability. They didn't like the rather haphazard classings at that point, but accepted them in a trade for stability.

I think I understand what Greg is saying, but.....the complexity of such a system that has hundreds of cars in the mix would be substantial, to say the least. And I doubt that many drivers will accept bolting in lead this year, or unbolting it and moving a class next, at what appears to be the whim of the class managers. And you'll get howls of protest from ITB drivers who were having fun in a huge class, but now find themselves in ITC...racing nobody, and adding weight to go slower. Thankyou very little.Then there's the wheel issue. Each ITA to ITB move triggers the sale and purchase of a new wheel quiver. Popular.

Further, you now end up with a moving target vis a vis the classes, and, track records will be either easy targets or untouchable, depending upon how much the relative envelope needs to shift to squeeze in the new combination of cars.

Finally, accepting the trend that newer cars are in general faster than older cars (dollars adjusted and equal), the whole "moving down and rejiggering" concept ends up with cars getting added at ridiculous weights..weight that nobody will want to race (See: BMW E36 ITS issue)

Pragmatically, I think that ITC drivers certainly see the writing on the wall. Times change, and we can't live in 1986 forever. Some will use the VIN rule to rebirth their cars in ITB, other will at some point decide that ITC is too: boring (no competition), slow, (new challenge time), difficult to continue in (can't find parts for their car) and move on, perhaps to B, where the expense can actually be pretty close to ITC.

Times have changed, and the relative performance of cars has risen significantly, compared to the cost. Allowing the market to decide affect the least number of people in the most subtle manner.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Correct me where I go wrong -

Wasn't the New Beetle classified fat in ITC to keep it from being an overdog? I.e. The car could have been built at less than 2760 but the committee decided that a whole bunch of weight needed to be kept on the car to keep it from dominating?
Nope. It's porky because its got ITB power in ITC.


If we want to keep the current crop of 20+ year old ITC cars competitive (a questionable goal) and maintain the class, couldn't some of the pokier ITB cars go through a similar weight increase program?
You could certainly add weight to any ITB car and make it an ITC car...but who would want to race a car like that? I think the Beetle has proven that nobody does...new car or not.

One thing to remember, take a look at some of the 20 year old cars in the rulebook. E39 BMW's, 13B RX-7's, ITA CRX's...it may not be just about the age...

I believe 100% that it costs the dang close to the same to build a ITA/ITB or ITC CRX given the same suspension design and assuming the same prep-level goal. It's about 'cool' factor, speed and competition. I would have an ITC 510 if there was 20+ car fields like their are in ITA and ITS around here...just because I love those things.


I.e Currently the 1989 Nash Rambler is classified in ITB at 1800, but the car is always DFL because it's underpowered as a B car and there is no way it can get to the 1500 it needs to be competitive. The handy-dandy classification model, however, says that at 2000, it will be at the front end of ITC.
You are describing a car that is mis-classed, not a car that can just slide down one class. Cars like that can (and should) get moved anyway.

[jjjanos]

Have to agree with Steve. What is happening is natural mostly and can't be "fixed." The bottom end of the IT performance envelope is moving upward. No real way to fix that as I see it.

Same thing happened with showroom stock even absent trunk kits, et al.

At one time, the SSC car to have was the Renault Le Transportation with 55hp (Source: Wiki).

The new Mini is in SSC and it's rated at 115hp, stock. (source: somewhere on innerweb.)

Anyone think a stock Mini and a stock Le Car would be equal? :eek:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Same thing happened with showroom stock even absent trunk kits, et al.

At one time, the SSC car to have was the Renault Le Transportation with 55hp (Source: Wiki).

The new Mini is in SSC and it's rated at 115hp, stock. (source: somewhere on innerweb.)

Anyone think a stock Mini and a stock Le Car would be equal? :eek:

100% spot on. Look at Solo. "New replaces old" is the mantra.

[jjjanos]

Nope. It's porky because its got ITB power in ITC.

I'm sorry, but that didn't answer the question. Is the Beetle heavier than SOP so that it won't be too fast for ITC? I.e. It could be a somewhere back of the middle of ITB or way to the front of ITC if the SOP strip what you can rule was used?


You could certainly add weight to any ITB car and make it an ITC car...but who would want to race a car like that? I think the Beetle has proven that nobody does...new car or not.

I disagree. There is a difference between building an expensive, unproven car and running one that already built and for which the weight is known to leave it competitive.


One thing to remember, take a look at some of the 20 year old cars in the rulebook. E39 BMW's, 13B RX-7's, ITA CRX's...it may not be just about the age...

I agree. I think most people would rather race an uncompetitive "cool" car than one that makes the rest of the class wonder whether there will be foot tapping in the stalls. Then again, the Dodge Neon is not the most macho car out there and people had no problem racing those...


You are describing a car that is mis-classed, not a car that can just slide down one class. Cars like that can (and should) get moved anyway.

OK, fine. A car that is correctly classified but has always and will always run 1:34s in ITB at Summit Point or 0.5 seconds fast then the best ITC cars, i.e. smack dab in the middle of the ITB field, even a little bit at the pointy end but which, if moved lock stock and barrel to ITC would beat even the long-time dominant ITC cars there who last year where struggling to get to the mid 1:34s.

If the goal is to preserve ITC's "philosophy" and the current crop of antiques running in ITC, then why not add some weight and drop it down to ITC? And please remember that the two goals, so saying the car is correctly classified or not being consistent with the overall ITC philosophy would be inappropriate.

If you cannnot, then the answer is clear - we've got two mutually exclusive constraints - A) correctly classifying cars and the GCR-given philosophy and B) preserving the current structure of classes and the cars which run in those classes. Deciding which to satisfy is a political issue and frankly, I have no problem with older cars doing a MacCarthur.

Hell, the club should adopt a birth year rule - no driver may be older than the car in which he is racing. :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree w/ the comments that whether we move cars down or add a new class, it is basically the same. And, YES, Andy, the moving down approach does mean obsoleting *cars* in C, but Greg's point is that it doesn't obsolete the *class*.



Here is where I don't get it (bold mine). If you obsolete all the CARS in ITC because you moved ITB cars in, then all you have done is changed the stickers on the sides of the ITB cars to ITC and killed all of the ITC cars.

Most ITC racers would say the goal hear should be to PRESERVE the cars in ITC, while designing a way to make it more attractive to people. If it's not, then they (the cars) can just die a natural death or you can kill them (the cars) by making them obsolete.

The point is that moving cars down doesn't solve anything IMHO.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm sorry, but that didn't answer the question. Is the Beetle heavier than SOP so that it won't be too fast for ITC?
Sorry I wasn't clear. No.


OK, fine. A car that is correctly classified but has always and will always run 1:34s in ITB at Summit Point or 0.5 seconds fast then the best ITC cars, i.e. smack dab in the middle of the ITB field, even a little bit at the pointy end but which, if moved lock stock and barrel to ITC would beat even the long-time dominant ITC cars there who last year where struggling to get to the mid 1:34s.
We don't use lap times as primary judgement for classification. If it's 'correctly' classified, it stays. No way to quantify prep, driver talent, etc, etc, etc. And even if there were, there is no mechanism in IT (Comp adjustments) to do so. Nor is it the desire of anyone I have ever talked with.


If the goal is to preserve ITC's "philosophy" and the current crop of antiques running in ITC, then why not add some weight and drop it down to ITC? And please remember that the two goals, so saying the car is correctly classified or not being consistent with the overall ITC philosophy would be inappropriate.
Not quite sure what you are saying but I don't believe anyone would run an artificially heavy car (when they can make weight in the 'higher' class) to go slower and eat up more consumables.

At some point, if there were no more ITC cars running anywhere, bump all the B cars to C and so on, making room at the top for another class if the demand was there. More classes is not always (rarely) a good thing IMHO.

[lateapex911]

Here is where I don't get it (bold mine). If you obsolete all the CARS in ITC because you moved ITB cars in, then all you have done is changes the stickers on the sides of the ITB cars to ITC and killed all of the ITC cars.

Most ITC racers would say the goal hear should be to PRESERVE the cars in ITC, while designing a way to make it more attractive to people. If it's not, then they (the cars) can just die a natural death or you can kill them (the cars) by making them obsolete.

The point is that moving cars down doesn't solve anything IMHO.

In theory Andy, you won't obselete the C cars IF you adjust the incoming B cars to perform to the existing C level.

Your point about moving cars down not solving anything is not entirely true. You WILL piss off a bunch of B guys who don't want to add weight and go slower against 3 guys when they used to go faster and race 20 guys...

(Now, if the premise is to move B cars into C at their current weight, then why not move all the C cars up to B? Same difference)

[Andy Bettencourt]

In theory Andy, you won't obselete the C cars IF you adjust the incoming B cars to perform to the existing C level.


I think that is obvious Jake. The point is that nobody wants to run a car that is artifically heavy. It makes no sense for a racecar.

[ScotMac]

Here is where I don't get it (bold mine). If you obsolete all the CARS in ITC because you moved ITB cars in, then all you have done is changed the stickers on the sides of the ITB cars to ITC and killed all of the ITC cars.

Most ITC racers would say the goal hear should be to PRESERVE the cars in ITC, while designing a way to make it more attractive to people. If it's not, then they (the cars) can just die a natural death or you can kill them (the cars) by making them obsolete.

The point is that moving cars down doesn't solve anything IMHO.

I think your key word there is "all". You don't move all the ITB cars to ITC, and don't kill *all* the ITC. You move the slow ITB cars to C and you obsolete the slowest C cars (ones not raced anyway).

Anyway, as i said, it is not a great idea, from a stability point of view...

[Andy Bettencourt]

How do you quantify 'slow' ITB cars? If they just get moved and not 're-processed', then ALL of the ITC cars die because they don't think they have a chance to win.

If they do get 're-processed', then I submit nobody runs THOSE cars because they are unneccesarily heavy.

It's a lose-lose.

[Ron Earp]

I dunno fellows, I see C petering out, and eventually down the road B, etc.

There is only a limited pool of guys who are going to be interested in driving the C class cars. This pool of people will dwindle over the years as will the C cars. You can kid yourself all you want about entry level and all that good stuff, that is true to an extent. But you’ve got to admit – to race a car, to work on it the way we must to go racing – you’ve got to like the car. Those of us that like ITC Rabbits and so forth won’t be increasing in numbers. The cars, and the people that like them enough to race them, will be decreasing over time. They just aren’t making cars that perform at ITC levels any more.

I attribute ITA being popular because it has a large number of Japanese front drivers that many of the 20 and 30 somethings find interesting. I’d imagine that many folks who don’t race A don’t find hot hatch front wheel drive imports interesting.

Putting weight on cars and moving them down classes is crazy. All that does is preserve the “ITC” class, but the original cars in the class would be gone from attrition, lack of interest, etc.

[JeffYoung]

Think about it, the bottom of the stock hp ladder in A (CRXs and 1st Gen RX7s) at 100ish hp are far, far less stock hp than nearly anything you drive off a lot today.

Those cars that exist in the 80-100 hp range, I just don't see a whole lot of folks wanting to race.

I'm not in favor of purposefully "killing" any car or class, but as Steve E said, at least in these parts, it appears that Darwin is taking its toll on C and there is no way to fix the real problem, which is there are no new cars that fit the performance envelope AND there are really no cars in C that people really want to race.

You can buy a mid pack S or A car for $5 to $10k if you look around, slower ones for even less.

All of that said, I hope B and C see a resurgence. It certainly looks like B is pretty hotly contested right now, which is a good thing.

[jjjanos]

Sorry I wasn't clear. No.

So we won't see any of these running with ballast because the minimum weight was set so high.


We don't use lap times as primary judgement for classification. If it's 'correctly' classified, it stays. No way to quantify prep, driver talent, etc, etc, etc. And even if there were, there is no mechanism in IT (Comp adjustments) to do so. Nor is it the desire of anyone I have ever talked with.

Then one wonders how this is applied...
At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated.

Seems to me that the only way to do that would be via lap times.


Not quite sure what you are saying but I don't believe anyone would run an artificially heavy car (when they can make weight in the 'higher' class) to go slower and eat up more consumables.

I wasn't suggesting leaving the door open for making weight in the higher class. You asked for ways to increase car counts in ITC without obsoleting the current cars. Putting B cars in at heavier weight without the option of running in B is one way to do it. I also didn't say it would be a popular decision or a particularly smart one. None-the-less, it's probably the only way to increase ITC car counts without making the current crop obsolete.

[dave parker]

After reading four pages of this I have a headache. But I think that the person it may have JJanos, that mentioned new cars not being in the performance envelope for ITC hit it right on the head. But we can't force the car manufacturers to make cars to fit our racing desires.
Ultimately ITC will stay healthy where there is participation and fade away where there is not. I can remember back when (and it was only nine years ago) when ITC in the DC Region would field thirty to forty cars every race weekend. Now it usually fields ten to fifteen. I think that is called evolution. I used to wonder what happened to the thirty to forty ITC cars that would show up back in the day so I took an informal poll in 2005. The results:
about thirty percent sold the car (in or out of region) and started racing in another class
about twenty-five percent got caught up in other things (life) like kids,work, financial change/hardship
about twenty-five percent parked the car (no reason other than "I am not driving it anymore"
and about fifteen percent were destroyed in on track incidents


If you look closely at the ITC class there are not a lot of "modern" (less than twenty years old) cars classified. If you are a newbie looking to get involved in SCCA racing don't you think that it would be really daunting to start in a class that involves racing a car you can't buy body parts for?

I have not been a 20 or 30 something for a decade but all of my racecars are of the "hot hatch" variety. I also drive a "hot hatch" to work every day.

My opinion and worth exactly what it cost you. :happy204:
cheers
Dave Parker
WDCR HP#97
2007 MARRS HP Champion

[toddgreene]

Pragmatically, I think that ITC drivers certainly see the writing on the wall. Times change, and we can't live in 1986 forever. Some will use the VIN rule to rebirth their cars in ITB, other will at some point decide that ITC is too: boring (no competition), slow, (new challenge time), difficult to continue in (can't find parts for their car) and move on, perhaps to B, where the expense can actually be pretty close to ITC.



Thanks Jake,

That is exactly on point. I'm trying to opinions about the longevity of the class.
I'm not necessarily proposing to change or add to the class.
I'm just trying to figure out if I need to start building something else for the near future.

Thanka again,

Todd

[Andy Bettencourt]

So we won't see any of these running with ballast because the minimum weight was set so high.
What you are saying now are two completely and seperate things. These cars will proabably have to run ballast..but that doesn't mean the cars weight was set outside SOP. There are hundreds of cars that have to run ballast to make minimum weight.



Then one wonders how this is applied...
At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated.

Seems to me that the only way to do that would be via lap times.
You are taking that out of context. Paste the rest of the paragraph in there and you will see that it pertains to cars that are so fast that they are upsetting a classes balance. Clearly not to be used proactively in a comp-adjustment manner.



I wasn't suggesting leaving the door open for making weight in the higher class. You asked for ways to increase car counts in ITC without obsoleting the current cars. Putting B cars in at heavier weight without the option of running in B is one way to do it. I also didn't say it would be a popular decision or a particularly smart one. None-the-less, it's probably the only way to increase ITC car counts without making the current crop obsolete.
And while you may be correct in that we might be able to get more cars LISTED in the ITCS for ITC by doing this, I submit you won't get any ACTUAL cars on track because nobody would do it. So the net is zero increased cars counts in ITC.

[Knestis]

Wow.

Lots of solutions to lots of problems, not all of which seem to align. I have a question, that's kind of been hinted at: If ITC is petering out, what necessarily makes it worth changing things to save it?

If the new VIN rule allows a bunch of the current C cars to become B or A cars, and the drivers are happy about that, why lose any sleep trying to preserve a class? The only reason to have a class is that people want to race in it. If nobody does, it's just a lines in a rulebook.

There's no ONE reason that ITC's popularity has waned. Perceptions and expectations have changed a lot, over the lifetime of IT. It used to be that drivers actually treated the slower classes as entry points to the sport, then moved to faster cars but I think the popularity of track days and pro driver school experiences has changed that. People will start with a sports racer or T2 car, where 20 years ago most people would never go that fast in their whole career.

The performance "distance" between ITC and the fastest cars in the category have changed a LOT, too.

And as preparation levels have increased the COST distance has SHRUNK. In 1985, the purchase price of the car you would run in IT was a big huge part of the build price. Now, the difference between a free metal box for your parts and a $4000 metal box for your parts gets swallowed up pretty quickly.

I've advocated for actively classing cars that fit into C - and there ARE a reasonable number that do. I don't know that it would make a huge difference in the long run but I think it's worth a shot. Again, I'm the old guy but when we started racing Rabbits, there wasn't any aftermarket for them either. It grew to accommodate racers' needs, rather than the other way around.

Ultimately though, market forces will decide.

K

[iambhooper]

this will be my 5th year racing, all in ITC. i chose the class more by budget and what was available than anything. budget is important to all of us... even the guy running the Viper, it's just all in relation.

have the entry's in ITC dwindled in 5 years? i think so. when i started, 5 cars was the average, now having 4 ITC entries is the exception. at best, i am able to race 4 weekends a year, and only twice in the past 2 years have there been more than 4 cars in class (both of those were the SARRC/MARRS at VIR).

what has hurt ITC? pretty much any class that offers a group of cars to run with. SM comes to mind, as does IT7 regionally. in addition, the argument of not offering any cool hip cars for the younger crowd to enjoy.

will i change classes? yep, as soon as i can sell my car, or turn it into an ITB car... someone has t push those azule VW's! :D in the meantime, i'll keep racing it

hoop

[jjjanos]

[/SIZE][/FONT]
What you are saying now are two completely and seperate things. These cars will proabably have to run ballast..but that doesn't mean the cars weight was set outside SOP. There are hundreds of cars that have to run ballast to make minimum weight.

Its part and parcel to the same thing. I remove everything I am allowed to remove from the car, I put in a legal cage, I put my fat arse in the car and I weigh it. If I have to ADD ballast, then the car has made FAT on purpose for competition equalization and using your logic re: people not running cars that are too heavy in the rulebook, nobody will build one by design of its specification.



out of context


During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as—but not limited to—manufacturer’s published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or
downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a “performance compensation adjustment” shall be made. Any performance
compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle’s fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established.

Ahhh, no it doesn't mention an overdog. In fact, it specifically mentions the possibility of REMOVING weight which wouldn't be done if the car was an overdog. The rule is pretty clear, based on the cars lap times, aka relative performance, it can be: reclassified as it sits, it can be reclassified at a higher weight and it can be reclassified at a lower weight. The only thing it mentions is doing it within the second through fourth years. Taking the Beetle as an example, it has been classified for 4? years now so if it turns out to be an overdog in ITC and competitive at an achievable weight in ITB, the door is shut. Except for the restrictor rule... which means it's not only fat, but it cannot breath either.



And while you may be correct in that we might be able to get more cars LISTED in the ITCS for ITC by doing this, I submit you won't get any ACTUAL cars on track because nobody would do it. So the net is zero increased cars counts in ITC.

And based on your logic, one can conclude why the new cars aren't being raced in ITC.

[evanwebb]

I wonder if now that gas is becoming Europe-type expensive (well not quite but almost), and cars like the Smart are becoming available along with can't-get-out-of-their-own-way hybrids, maybe slow cars will make a comeback? ALthough I definitely want to try out some fast as hell cars in my driving career (my current fascination would be to build a V-6 Camaro in ITR), I have always enjoyed driving slow cars, not sure why... I think it's like picking a scab...

[Greg Amy]

I have always enjoyed driving slow cars, not sure why... I think it's like picking a scab...
Heh.

He too, Evan. One of the first things I tell my students (well, after "you can't impress me because I know Joe DiMinno") is "it's much harder - and more impressive - to make a slow car go fast than to make a fast car go fast. Make a slow car go fast and people notice; make a fast car go slow and people notice. Which one do you want?"

One of the fun times I had at LRP was at a PDA HPDE in the NX. Turns out the car was over the dB limit. So, Matt rigged up a "restrictor plate" in the exhaust to dampen the sounds. I could barely get the damn thing above 4500 RPM and we figure we had less than 100 ponies (from 140 crank, stock). I learned more about driving LRP that way than ANY test day since...bring on the C cars! - GA

[Andy Bettencourt]

Its part and parcel to the same thing. I remove everything I am allowed to remove from the car, I put in a legal cage, I put my fat arse in the car and I weigh it. If I have to ADD ballast, then the car has made FAT on purpose for competition equalization and using your logic re: people not running cars that are too heavy in the rulebook, nobody will build one by design of its specification.
We will agree to disagree. Yes, cars are 'weighted' using the process to try and class them similarly - or for 'competition equalization' as you state. But CERTAINLY NOT outside SOP as you suggested in your first statements about the Beetle. SOP classes cars around a target power to weight. If some car have to add ballast, so be it. The only think that means is that they wouldn't be able to make the minimum ever in the lower class.

My theory on people not ever wanting to run artifically heavy cars applies to cars that fit in a class already and then have to add 300-400lbs of ballast to step down one more.





During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as—but not limited to—manufacturer’s published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a “performance compensation adjustment” shall be made. Any performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle’s fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established.


Ahhh, no it doesn't mention an overdog. In fact, it specifically mentions the possibility of REMOVING weight which wouldn't be done if the car was an overdog. The rule is pretty clear, based on the cars lap times, aka relative performance, it can be: reclassified as it sits, it can be reclassified at a higher weight and it can be reclassified at a lower weight. The only thing it mentions is doing it within the second through fourth years. Taking the Beetle as an example, it has been classified for 4? years now so if it turns out to be an overdog in ITC and competitive at an achievable weight in ITB, the door is shut. Except for the restrictor rule... which means it's not only fat, but it cannot breath either.




And based on your logic, one can conclude why the new cars aren't being raced in ITC.

I have highlighted the applicable areas in your quote. What this means is that if a car is obsoleting everything else, it can get looked at again. Hopefully, if such a thing is happening, there will be new and hard evidence to plug into the process.

You can add weight, you can reduce weight and add a restrictor, etc. What the statement does is put together the provisions for something that could be done should a car prove to be an overdog.

The door is NEVER shut on a PCA. How come you don't include he last paragraph in the section for your quote? Let's try and be complete, it's the key to the whole point of PCA's.

[dickita15]

we figure we had less than 100 ponies

welcome to my world :D

[Greg Amy]

welcome to my world :D
Zing!!!

Yep, but I still ripped in some low 1:06s...on MacPherson street struts and Kumhos... ;) It was pretty cool not having to lift from the left hander all the way back to T1, and figure out that any loss of momentum reeeeally hurts when you ain't "got torque" to cover up your blunders... - GA

[RacerBill]

Zing!!!

Yep, but I still ripped in some low 1:06s...on MacPherson street struts and Kumhos... ;) It was pretty cool not having to lift from the left hander all the way back to T1, and figure out that any loss of momentum reeeeally hurts when you ain't "got torque" to cover up your blunders... - GA

What? Flat out from the left hander? Weren't you concerned about eclipsing Sam Posey's high marks in the tree on the outside of 8? :eek:

[jjjanos]

[/size][/font]
My theory on people not ever wanting to run artifically heavy cars applies to cars that fit in a class already and then have to add 300-400lbs of ballast to step down one more.

We'll have to disagree on that. The car is built and someone will race it. If the choice is between the rear of ITB or the front if ITC, I think ego is enough to keep those cars in the pool.

But the issue really is moot since it all resolves around whether cars should be moved to "save" another class and I don't think they should.


[left][font=Arial][i]

[SIZE=2]I have highlighted the applicable areas in your quote. What this means is that if a car is obsoleting everything else, it can get looked at again. Hopefully, if such a thing is happening, there will be new and hard evidence to plug into the process.

You can add weight, you can reduce weight and add a restrictor, etc. What the statement does is put together the provisions for something that could be done should a car prove to be an overdog.


It's the statement that lap times are never used that troubles me. Unless it's HP off a dyno, everything else is on-track performance and that's been removed from the table since lap times aren't used. And if I've built that overdog, I'm not letting you put my car on a dyno to get new or hard evidence.

So, I've built an overdog. How do you know it's an overdog? Relative performance could mean finishing position or laptimes. Lap times are off the table. Finishing position? A car gets reclassified because it wins most or all of its races? To me, that seems an arbitrary standard - how many wins is too many?

But ignoring that without examinging lap times relative to the rest of the class, the car has been determined to be an overdog... the only new data available since classification are its lap times and if those aren't being used, the PCA process is nothing more than throwing weight on the car and hoping it's neither too much or too little.

And how far in the finishing positions must a car fall before the committee decides that it added too much weight? I.e. excluding the recent wholesale weight adjustment process, has there every been a case where either a car's initial weight has been reduced or the extra weight added as part of the PCA been removed?

The rule, as written, applies to both overdogs and underdogs. It's just that it rarely gets applied to underdogs because: 1. most people won't build an underdog 2. Only the drivers of that car will be complaining as opposed to an overdog where the rest of the class is complaining.

[Andy Bettencourt]

We'll have to disagree on that. The car is built and someone will race it. If the choice is between the rear of ITB or the front if ITC, I think ego is enough to keep those cars in the pool.

But the issue really is moot since it all resolves around whether cars should be moved to "save" another class and I don't think they should.
In THEORY only, the cars 'position' on grid won't change just beacuse they move down a class. If the process works, it should land smack-dab in the same spot of that grid as well.




It's the statement that lap times are never used that troubles me. Unless it's HP off a dyno, everything else is on-track performance and that's been removed from the table since lap times aren't used. And if I've built that overdog, I'm not letting you put my car on a dyno to get new or hard evidence.

So, I've built an overdog. How do you know it's an overdog? Relative performance could mean finishing position or laptimes. Lap times are off the table. Finishing position? A car gets reclassified because it wins most or all of its races? To me, that seems an arbitrary standard - how many wins is too many?

But ignoring that without examinging lap times relative to the rest of the class, the car has been determined to be an overdog... the only new data available since classification are its lap times and if those aren't being used, the PCA process is nothing more than throwing weight on the car and hoping it's neither too much or too little.

And how far in the finishing positions must a car fall before the committee decides that it added too much weight? I.e. excluding the recent wholesale weight adjustment process, has there every been a case where either a car's initial weight has been reduced or the extra weight added as part of the PCA been removed?

The rule, as written, applies to both overdogs and underdogs. It's just that it rarely gets applied to underdogs because: 1. most people won't build an underdog 2. Only the drivers of that car will be complaining as opposed to an overdog where the rest of the class is complaining.

Like the rules states, if a car is upsetting the balance of the class, it could get another 'look' at any time. ANY TIME.

The missing connection here is that cars are run through this 'process'. Without any different information, nothing will change. Currently, the CRX looks like the car to have in ITA. It has been through the process and in the right hands with the right drivers, they are VERY tough to beat. Recent ARRC wins and ITFest wins show that. So what, I say! The cream will rise to the top. There is nothing out of the ordinary to show us that the car is misclassed. For me, it says its a damn good car with damn good prep and damn good driving. Put all 3 together and you get a winner. I know *I* have to elevate all levels of my game to compete.

To answer you comments more specifically, you can use wins and lap times (in bulk - hurting the class) as a trigger to search deeper. *IF* you find something that was a boo-boo in the process the first time, you can fix it via PCA. WRT the slower cars, you can't prove a negative.

REMEMBER, this is not about adding arbitrary amounts of weight, it's about going with what the process spits out.

PCA's are NOT intended to make slow cars faster, they are intended to 'correct' uber-fast cars that were mis-classed using the process. Point of fact, we haven't had to use PCA's on ANY car that was run through the process, but it's there in case we screw up.

[jjjanos]

To answer you comments more specifically, you can use wins and lap times (in bulk - hurting the class) as a trigger to search deeper. *IF* you find something that was a boo-boo in the process the first time, you can fix it via PCA. WRT the slower cars, you can't prove a negative.

REMEMBER, this is not about adding arbitrary amounts of weight, it's about going with what the process spits out.

PCA's are NOT intended to make slow cars faster, they are intended to 'correct' uber-fast cars that were mis-classed using the process. Point of fact, we haven't had to use PCA's on ANY car that was run through the process, but it's there in case we screw up.

Andy,

Thank you for your answers.

So, if a newly classified car kicks arse in its first year and the specifications are rerun through the process with the same numbers... the car's classification remains unchanged?

If someone gets the car on a dyno and discovers the legal engine is producing more HP than what the process estimated, then the numbers are rerun through the process and the new output is applied?

If it turns out that the thing that makes this go-fast is handling or aero related - i.e. something about this car's suspension just makes it stick like glue despite appearing to be like the rest of the cars in the class or darn, that little lip on the rear is actually creating a low pressure zone under the car - then the car stays the way it was classified because the process is going to generate the same output? (I.e. the inputs remain the same, therefore the output remains the same?)

[JeffYoung]

I would think no. There are subjective adders to the process. If the car is kicking ass because of a non-hp related factor, it can be adjusted for handling, brakes, etc.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Thank you for your answers.

So, if a newly classified car kicks arse in its first year and the specifications are rerun through the process with the same numbers... the car's classification remains unchanged?

Sure! The only reason to 're-run' it through would be to introduce some part of the process that was either wrong or overlooked. If it was kicking arse, and you don't 'know' anything new, any change would be 100% subjective and based on track results - which can almost never be quantified...and is against the IT Philosophy.


If someone gets the car on a dyno and discovers the legal engine is producing more HP than what the process estimated, then the numbers are rerun through the process and the new output is applied?

Yes and no. First, verification of legality is critical. Second, for *me*, is that a small sample isn't enough to make a change. I would like to see lots of repeatable data from different sources. A trend really - not a single piece of data. To me, that is way too reactionary - and not fair to most.

If there was a pile of data, the needed 'imbalance' in class the wording calls for and the resultant HP number produced a new weight more than 100lbs from it's current weight, then I would say yes it would be a candidate for a PCA.


If it turns out that the thing that makes this go-fast is handling or aero related - i.e. something about this car's suspension just makes it stick like glue despite appearing to be like the rest of the cars in the class or darn, that little lip on the rear is actually creating a low pressure zone under the car - then the car stays the way it was classified because the process is going to generate the same output? (I.e. the inputs remain the same, therefore the output remains the same?)
Those are really hard items to quantify to the point where you can call them out as the reason a car is dominating a class. But if it were possible to single that out (which I don't think is possible) then I suppose you could re-evaluate the 'adder' that was applied to that subjective piece of the process. Again, I can't see how you could do it in practical application.

[jjjanos]

Those are really hard items to quantify to the point where you can call them out as the reason a car is dominating a class. But if it were possible to single that out (which I don't think is possible) then I suppose you could re-evaluate the 'adder' that was applied to that subjective piece of the process. Again, I can't see how you could do it in practical application.

Thanks again.

Hopefully one last question, let's say the overdog part turns out to be the Whorfin Overthruster. Instead of being a 10lb adder, it should be a 100lb adder and that's why this car is kicking butt.

Do you go back and reprocess ALL the cars that have Whorfin Overthrusters?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thanks again.

Hopefully one last question, let's say the overdog part turns out to be the Whorfin Overthruster. Instead of being a 10lb adder, it should be a 100lb adder and that's why this car is kicking butt.

Do you go back and reprocess ALL the cars that have Whorfin Overthrusters?

I think that if the WO is SOMEHOW (not sure how) determined to require a different adder, then yes, you would apply that adder to all cars with a WO.

I highly doubt however that you would determine that a singular car was an overdog because of it's WO, but that other cars with a WO were not overdogs...that would lead me to believe it wasn't the WO afterall.

[jjjanos]

I think that if the WO is SOMEHOW (not sure how) determined to require a different adder, then yes, you would apply that adder to all cars with a WO.

I highly doubt however that you would determine that a singular car was an overdog because of it's WO, but that other cars with a WO were not overdogs...that would lead me to believe it wasn't the WO afterall.

Thanks. Basically none-HP reasons for being an overdog are going to be very difficult or impossible to isolate and thus, unless the initial estimates of IT-legal HP are off, the car is going to remain at its classified weight because the procedure will generate the same min weight.

I.e. if the speed cannot be explained, the weight does not change.

[JamesB]

Jeff the question would be, if cars already classed use a WO and are well classed, then you would have to prove that the WO was causing this for all cars classed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I.e. if the speed cannot be explained, the weight does not change.

I would say that is an excellent way to look at it. At least *I* think so.