IT V8 Isn't it time? [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

Cobrar05

07-10-2011, 11:14 AM

at present scca is becoming a small bore racing body. the options for V8 cars outside of the narrow scca national classes are few and unrealistic. meanwhile nasa in many regions are fielding 12 to 15 cars in american iron. in cmc2. in st2. in gts3.

these cars could all be built to a single competitive class. nasa seperates them for business reasons. scca doesnt have that restriction.

if nasa can attract 40 cars in what might be a single class, you would think scca could attract 10-12. that many cars in a single class would be very successful.

is there any support for this here? or is it time for V8 drivers to move on?

opinions?

Flyinglizard

07-10-2011, 12:02 PM

The GTA cars are way better. Cheap, fast, and close racing. The NASA has a few really good cars, but has a huge speed differential among the class.
T 1,T2 ,GT 1, 2, AS, TA-2, STO , what else would you want?

Cobrar05

07-10-2011, 12:47 PM

shall we start with the fact that most of those v8 classes dont fit well with the majority of existing v8 racers. i have a mustang fr500c. i can race grand am gs or world challenge gts. depending on configuration i can race nasa american iron and nasa st2. in scca, ive got squat.

t1, t2, as are dying. sto is not a realistic option. again. my point is that nasa is fielding quality mustangs, corvettes, m3's, camaros and so forth that run competitive. the c5 corvettes that fill nasa
st2 are in far greater supply than the nasa st1 cars that crossover as STO cars. the St2 car might could work in T1, but that car is aging out of t1 anyway.

i am just saying that there are a lot of race cars available to race in a single V8 class that have no place to race at present in scca

ITEGT

07-10-2011, 04:20 PM

Most of the guys here already have a specific IT class that they built or bought a car to race in. I doubt you'll generate much interest in building another IT class for V8 cars built to other rule sets to come play in. Sounds like ITE to me.

All the vettes and vipers bailed out of ITE for STO.

ITR is the hot ticket right now from the posts Ive read on here. Lots of well built cars either racing or taking shape across the country as I type this.

Knestis

07-10-2011, 04:49 PM

When ITR was coming together, it became clear that only the lowest-performing of the 8's from IT-period cars would fit. We talked about, "What about the faster cars?" but the consensus was to let R get established, then ask the question.

I don't think it would be a problem but one wonders if there's enough interest to support it. ITE will already capture pretty much any NASA AI (etc.) car so it kind of seems that if there were a lot of interest, there would at least be regional pockets of entries there.

K

JeffYoung

07-10-2011, 06:45 PM

I think some of this is guys buying a car and then wanting a class to run in rather than looking at the rules and building a car.

You can run, as Kirk notes, ITR in a Fox or SN95, with the lower hp versions of those cars.

We on the ITAC are just scratching at the surface of a new class about ITR that, roughly speaking would see stock hp in the range of 240 to 310ish (Travis Nordwald has done good work on that). But my guess is that class is several years out and probably a lot more than that.

I frankly would like to see less classes in SCCA racing in general, and to a certain extent IT as well. I'm not sure of the need for say IT7, and SRX7, and would rather they get folded into B (or A, where those cars are now). I would be generally opposed to a "V8" only IT class that ran outside of the regular IT class structure. Note at one point we had that with ITGT. On the other hand, I'd personally do anything I could to encourage additional V8 builds within the existing IT classes.

Ron Earp

07-10-2011, 07:58 PM

I don't agree that V8s do not have a place to race in the SCCA, but one does get the feeling from time to time that the SCCA is an import/small bore club. There is AS and SPO, but neither class is for limited prep (IT-like) builds on V8s cars.

There are some pony cars in ITR and it was a big battle to get them included in the mix. I'm glad they are there but after talking with an AS racer I'd not relish running a V8 pony car in IT trim using stock brakes. At 3200 lbs the AS guys have an expensive brake and tire bill. Sure, ITR pony car speeds will be a good deal less but they still weigh 3200-3300 lbs.

And I agree with the others that have posted here - less is more in the SCCA. We've already got too many classes that draw a handful of cars, both regionally and nationally. SSM, SRX7, IT7, etc - all look like good ITB or ITC fodder to me.

Do we need a ITV8 class that draws a couple of cars a weekend? ITR is already in that position and has a wonderful group of cars to choose from. For whatever reason it is experiencing extremely slow growth in most regions. And, as Kirk points out ITE handles V8 cars nicely (at least in the NCR SCCA it does) and gives anyone with a car built to IT safety specs a place to race.

Maybe an ITQ class would give more V8 cars a place to race. 350Z, 370Z, Mustangs, BMW M3s, and other cars in that 240-320hp range might be a nice addition to IT. However, with ITR being stagnant I don't know that a surely more expensive IT category is going to take off.

Knestis

07-10-2011, 08:43 PM

...and remember that to a substantial degree, the racers of many of those V8 cars that have been in Club Racing have only themselves to blame for the current state of affairs. American Sedan has it's roots in SSGT and (where it happened) ITGT, but it turned into a poster child for what happens when racers get their wishes about additional rules allowances.

That said, what's wrong with AS...?

K

Ron Earp

07-10-2011, 08:58 PM

That said, what's wrong with AS...?

K

Obviously I can only write for myself but it might be that my line of thinking is similar to others' with respect to AS.

I've considered AS but after talking with one AS guy at VIR and another at RRR I've come to these conclusions:

The fields seem very light. One AS car came to each VIR race this year. Maybe the national race was more populated but I'm a regional guy and the fields are small.
AS motor prep is far above what I want to do. 7000+ RPM V8s making 400+ rwhp is exciting but these motors need to be rebuilt often if turned up to their full potential. Outside of my budget.
Brake and tire bills are more than I can afford. Apparently a 3200 lb car goes through a few sets of tires per year and lots of brake pads.

AS is far from IT-like and if IT is your flavor then AS is probably not going to do it for you. I like the imperfect but interesting multi-marquee racing that we have in IT.

ITEGT

07-10-2011, 11:30 PM

Rules creep sucks period. I'm glad that IT has remained mostly unchanged for so long.

What's wrong with A-Sedan....

16" wheels
carbs
race gas only
small front brake rotors

All the AS cars are mostly equal in HP, road racing is about different classes of cars on track at the same time.

I'll stay and play in ITE, even if I am all by myself in class, I still wont be alone out on the race track!

17" wheels
Fuel injected
Pump gas only
13" 4 piston Brembos

TomL

07-11-2011, 01:08 AM

I I'm not sure of the need for say IT7, and SRX7, and would rather they get folded into B (or A, where those cars are now).

How about the fact that for most of the last dozen years IT7 has been the fifth most popular SARRC class. Even with a drop off in IT7 numbers in the last 3-4 years, it's still the seventh most popular class we have. And a large percentage of those numbers (AKA entries and money for the regions) would disappear if they got stuck back in ITA again. Don't believe it? I refer you back to when IT7 started - in 2000, there were 248 entries in IT7, 239 in ITA (487 total). In 2002, there were 263 IT7s and 234 ITAs (497 total). In 2001, SEDiv followed your advice and eliminated IT7. The combined ITA (including RX7s) dropped to 334 entries for the year. So about 150 entries went away because we got rid of an "unneeded" class.

Remember why IT7 exists. A hugely popular car was rendered effectively uncompetitive in ITA when CRXs and the like got dropped in. Either IT7 happened or a large percentage of RX7s would have disappeared. Yes, I know the "process" has helped with competitiveness (but I think it's silly to argue that a 100 pound weight loss that is difficult to achieve restored the RX7 as a truly competitive ITA car). I've seen discussion that the RX7 would be a very good ITB car at close to its previous weight, but no one in authority seems interested in actually putting it in that class. And, yes, IT7 is declining in numbers, but at last check there are 37 other classes that draw fewer cars.

Its always easy to get rid of somebody else's "unneeded" class. Maybe we should combine ITR with ITS. After all, with all its growth, ITR now up to almost half as many entries this year as IT7, so surely it would be a prime candidate for "unneeded". And ITRs and ITSs are very close in speed whenever they run together, so what objection could the ITS guys have?

Knestis

07-11-2011, 07:18 AM

>> So about 150 entries went away because we got rid of an "unneeded" class. ...

Things are rarely that simple, Tom. Did SARRC entries as a whole increase, decrease, or stay the same for the same year-to-year period you cite?

And if R and S cars are turning the same lap times, that's evidence that the R entrants still have a lot of homework to do.

K

JeffYoung

07-11-2011, 07:32 AM

I understand all of the reasons why IT7 was formed. I know and like a lot of IT7 drivers (yourself included). I just think class proliferation is a bad idea. I would be perfectly fine collapsing S and R together into one class if it could be done in a way such that all cars in the combined class had a shot at meeting their power/weight ratio. Fewer classes, not more -- if possible.

To me, and I am coming late ot the party, the 12A RX7 is an ITB car using the Process, and yes I understand the issue with cages and wheel widths.

Single marque sub-classes within IT in my view - in the long run -- hurt SCCA not help it, although I fully agree with you IT7 was well-intentioned and has been very successful on its own.

How about the fact that for most of the last dozen years IT7 has been the fifth most popular SARRC class. Even with a drop off in IT7 numbers in the last 3-4 years, it's still the seventh most popular class we have. And a large percentage of those numbers (AKA entries and money for the regions) would disappear if they got stuck back in ITA again. Don't believe it? I refer you back to when IT7 started - in 2000, there were 248 entries in IT7, 239 in ITA (487 total). In 2002, there were 263 IT7s and 234 ITAs (497 total). In 2001, SEDiv followed your advice and eliminated IT7. The combined ITA (including RX7s) dropped to 334 entries for the year. So about 150 entries went away because we got rid of an "unneeded" class.

Remember why IT7 exists. A hugely popular car was rendered effectively uncompetitive in ITA when CRXs and the like got dropped in. Either IT7 happened or a large percentage of RX7s would have disappeared. Yes, I know the "process" has helped with competitiveness (but I think it's silly to argue that a 100 pound weight loss that is difficult to achieve restored the RX7 as a truly competitive ITA car). I've seen discussion that the RX7 would be a very good ITB car at close to its previous weight, but no one in authority seems interested in actually putting it in that class. And, yes, IT7 is declining in numbers, but at last check there are 37 other classes that draw fewer cars.

Its always easy to get rid of somebody else's "unneeded" class. Maybe we should combine ITR with ITS. After all, with all its growth, ITR now up to almost half as many entries this year as IT7, so surely it would be a prime candidate for "unneeded". And ITRs and ITSs are very close in speed whenever they run together, so what objection could the ITS guys have?

Ron Earp

07-11-2011, 07:36 AM

Remember why IT7 exists. A hugely popular car was rendered effectively uncompetitive in ITA when CRXs and the like got dropped in. Either IT7 happened or a large percentage of RX7s would have disappeared. Yes, I know the "process" has helped with competitiveness (but I think it's silly to argue that a 100 pound weight loss that is difficult to achieve restored the RX7 as a truly competitive ITA car). I've seen discussion that the RX7 would be a very good ITB car at close to its previous weight, but no one in authority seems interested in actually putting it in that class. And, yes, IT7 is declining in numbers, but at last check there are 37 other classes that draw fewer cars.

Its always easy to get rid of somebody else's "unneeded" class. Maybe we should combine ITR with ITS. After all, with all its growth, ITR now up to almost half as many entries this year as IT7, so surely it would be a prime candidate for "unneeded". And ITRs and ITSs are very close in speed whenever they run together, so what objection could the ITS guys have?

Some years ago, before ITA became super competitive, Ricky Thompson ran a 10/10ths RX7 in ITA and did pretty well with it. So I think it is inaccurate to call the car uncompetitive in ITA but it definitely appears to be disadvantaged. But that aside, it seems like a perfect B car. Why didn't the cars get put into B in the first place instead of making another splinter class specific for one model car?

The ITR/ITS class merger doesn't stand up to scrutiny. First off, ITR is composed of many different cars, not just one car, and the cars have a performance potential that is far outside of ITS. The 1st generation RX7 is just one car and it clearly fits into the IT class frame work as is. Now with respect to performance, some of the ITR cars that have been built were done well and run much faster than ITS cars, i.e., KVS's Porsche 944 S2. But many others have not been nearly as developed and run ITS times. As Kirk points out these folks have a lot more work to do and they don't need their cars classed in ITS due to their lack of development.

I'm not sure what the future of IT7 is going to be. A couple of people I know say they are on their last motor and that when this one gives up they are moving to ITS or ITR. And others I know are wanting to stick with it and make a new "IT7" class that will incorporate changes to keep the cars viable for the near foreseeable future.

Russ Myers

07-11-2011, 08:23 AM

Ron Earp

07-11-2011, 08:35 AM

How can you think an RX-7, which was an SSA car, be thought of as a car to run against a Pinto, which was an SSC car??? Not that it will happen, but where is the logic in that.? There was obviously a reason one was in "A", and one was in "C".

Russ

What difference does it make where the cars were classed in Showroom Stock? IT is a different set of prep rules than Showroom Stock and IT is a power/weight class.

Boy, we're now far and away from talking about any V8s.

JeffYoung

07-11-2011, 08:39 AM

All power to weight Russ. If the RX7 and Pinto have similar power to weights in IT prep in ITB, then that is the logical place for them.

How can you think an RX-7, which was an SSA car, be thought of as a car to run against a Pinto, which was an SSC car??? Not that it will happen, but where is the logic in that.? There was obviously a reason one was in "A", and one was in "C".

Russ

Flyinglizard

07-11-2011, 09:10 AM

The IT7 makes a lot more power to weight than the ITb cars. When IT7 and B were in the same group, I was on the pole in the VW. The RX7s rolled me so bad on the front straight that I was about 7th going into T1(Sebring short pro course south) The RX7s handled poorly and I was back to 4 th by the end of the first lap. The power they make is way above ITB @ their race weight. They would need about 200# to be square in ITB.
V8? The GTA class is the hapening thing. There are plenty of V8 classes. All of which will require fresh tires, pads and lots of fuel per race. The ITB cars are about 200$ per hr. The Cup style cars are 1200$ per hr. The stock brake, big cars are big money because they dont stop and eat lots of gas.
Most of the racers here have decided that there is no money @ the end of the road . racing is racing. The closer the racing, the better. IE Spec miata, spec Ford,etc. Reduce the cost per race and we can do it more often. Race the whole race without passing anyone and the money is wasted.
If youwant to drive your V8 stang, do track days @ 96% effeort and race a real race car.
MM
V

JeffYoung

07-11-2011, 09:40 AM

Sure they do, at 23xx or whatever their race weight is in ITA. In ITB, they'd weigh more.

And Tom L -- just to clarify, these are internet musings of an ITAC guy. Nothing it is gong to happen to IT7 and I'm not even sure we on the ITAC can make any real recommendations about it, since it is a regional class. We just make recommendations as to where teh 12A goes in A/B etc.

Philosophical question for you, as a long time IT7 guy -- if the 12A was competitive in ITB, do you think that would help or hurt overall 12A participation numbers (which I agree is the ultimate goal here)?

The IT7 makes a lot more power to weight than the ITb cars. When IT7 and B were in the same group, I was on the pole in the VW. The RX7s rolled me so bad on the front straight that I was about 7th going into T1(Sebring short pro course south) The RX7s handled poorly and I was back to 4 th by the end of the first lap. The power they make is way above ITB @ their race weight. They would need about 200# to be square in ITB.
V8? The GTA class is the hapening thing. There are plenty of V8 classes. All of which will require fresh tires, pads and lots of fuel per race. The ITB cars are about 200$ per hr. The Cup style cars are 1200$ per hr. The stock brake, big cars are big money because they dont stop and eat lots of gas.
Most of the racers here have decided that there is no money @ the end of the road . racing is racing. The closer the racing, the better. IE Spec miata, spec Ford,etc. Reduce the cost per race and we can do it more often. Race the whole race without passing anyone and the money is wasted.
If youwant to drive your V8 stang, do track days @ 96% effeort and race a real race car.
MM
V

lateapex911

07-11-2011, 10:53 AM

Ron, you stated, "Before ITA became super competititive, one guy ran well".

So, ONE guy, (I love Ricky, and will say that he is THE most thorough and leave no stone unturned guy I know) ran well in a class that wasn't at it's full strength, of HUNDREDS of similar cars tells us something, if we are talking results which we seem to be doing here.

Also, MM, keep in mind that there are, shall we say. "regional differences" with IT7 cars. And that part of the country is known for having unique power levels, according to my sources from the area.

Fact is, moving to ITB is a bad idea because of three issues.
- The Process fails it in ITA. It will, of course, fail it in ITB. The ITAc has stood on a power level that is, from what I've seen over the years, impossible to achieve in a legal car (cake in a slightly tweaked car). And it ignores tq, IIRC, which is in the 104 range on a car with an assumed 130-135 whp. Class that strut/live axle chassis in ITB, using those numbers, the resultant weight will be in the 2600 pound range.
I guarantee you that if you look at the ARRC laptimes (The best ITb guys vs the best IT7 guys on the same track on the same day, presumably ) thru the years, and I bet you'll see maybe three guys who run faster than ITB times out of ALLL the IT7 entries. Adding 300 lbs and taking an inch off wheel width makes them ITB field fillers.
- Wheel changes. I have four sets of 13 x7 wheels in a weird pattern. Now I, and EVERY IT7 driver gets to sell them to what, EIGHT Prod guys who might want them? Pfffft, THAT will be a good return on investment. THEN I get to spend my proceeds of $50 on four sets of 13 x 6 wheels in an odd pattern. OR 14 x6 wheels AND a new final drive.
- I should reread the cage rules, but at the time it was last discussed the existing IT7 cars were deemed to have cages in half of them that would be illegal at the new weight. The CRB refused any exceptions at the time. In a car worth $3500 on a good day, recaging and re quivering the wheel inventory (ignoring tires!) is going to be upside down money. Dumb.

My opinion is that the IT7 class (which I resisted for years) does far more good than harm. Should the cars be moved to B, I suspect the value of the cars would drop to zero, (assuming IT7 were to go away as Jeff would like) and entries would disperse.

Disperse: Some would get a SM (Many IT7 guys have done that already), some would remain in IT in a different car, and some ...the smart ones...would get a boat.
;)

(What SHOULD have happened, is the Process should have come to power 7+ years before it did, it should have handled the cars better and they should have been moved to B. But, the time for that has passed by AT LEAST 7 yrs or a decade. The horse has left the barn, has raced for another stable, and has gone to pasture.
Now, you can not get new core engine parts, you can't repair the worn ones legally, you struggle getting decent brake discs and certainly other parts are becoming scarce, at best. It is what it is. Too late now guys)

Cobrar05

07-11-2011, 10:59 AM

* ITE. Ive been trying to develope ITO in SARRC for some time now. We narrowed the performance specs allowed to create some competition. Catch all classes like ITE mean there are often few cars in class of wildly different preformance levels. Meaning there are ITE cars that should be in STO.

* Regional only classes are nearly impossible to recruit for. Its not in the book.

* AS: You are kidding, right? I have a perfectly good race car. To be AS legal all that i could use from it is the chassis. The class is dying. pushrod, carburated, race cars with tiny brakes and wheels. they are racing in the past.

* Bottom line is that when NASA can bring 12-15 cars per class and 40-50 cars in basically the same performance catagory to many of its events, scca's inability to have a place for these cars to race is a reason that the scca is struggling for car count. I am just suggesting we work on this.

* Last point. The biggest class in world challenge this season is the new GTS class. Mustangs, Camaros, Caymans, M3's. The cars are readily available and are inexpensive to sprint race. At the NASA level these cars are coming to the track in droves. NASA race weekends can be very disappointing with track time getting squeezed and races getting shorter and shorter.

there's a real opportunity here. i go to a nasa event and ive got 10+ cars to race in class each time. i go to a sarrc event and there's poo. this often includes the arrc.

i am fighting the good fight here, but with budgets getting tight i can only go on so much longer without some support.

oh yea....ive got a perfectly good race car. selling race cars to buy another one in this economy makes no sense at all. and....have you ever been on the track with GTA drivers?

JeffYoung

07-11-2011, 11:02 AM

Rob, not trying to be difficult, but didn't you sell one Mustang recently to get another? Would it have been possible to build an SN95 ITR car?

What would you envision this class's rule set to look like? IT rules? Meaning stock brakes, tranny, etc? Or something else?

TomL

07-11-2011, 11:48 AM

Jeff - I understand the desire to cut down on class proliferation. I wouldn't mind a serious discussion of how to bring that about. You admit that IT7 has been successful and understand why we have it. But you nonetheless cite IT7, the only non-GCR class that actually draws a lot of entries, as your example of what to get rid of. I don't consider that a serious discussion, so forgive me if I get annoyed.

Ron - I wasn't being entirely serious about combining ITS and ITR, just pointing out that the same arguments could be applied there are is used when the IT7-back-to-ITA issue comes up. After all, BMW 325s used to be in ITS, too, so what's the objection to putting them back in that class? I agree that Rickey's 10/10ths ITA RX7 regularly beat a moderately fast ITA field. Current ITS cars also regularly beat the current moderately fast ITRs (i.e., when the 10/10ths cars of Rickey and KvS don't show up). So, yes, RX7s are (sorta) competitive in ITA. And everything else was (sorta) competitive in ITS when the 325 was in the class. But in truth, lots of people were getting screwed in either case because the cars in question belong in another class under the "process". But your problem has been fixed. Mine hasn't. Y'all seem ok with screwing IT7 drivers, I'm (not-seriously) okay with screwing non-BMW ITS drivers. As I said, it's oh-so-easy to call for the elimination or combining of someone else's class for the greater good.

I'm not sure of the long term viability of 1st gen RX7s, either. I'm prepared for a good while (three good engines), but I know most people aren't. If the IT7 numbers continue to fall, ultimately it may be appropriate to eliminate it as a separate class - combined with reclassifying 1st gens to ITB. However, when IT7 is still drawing three times the median number of entries for all classes, I find it hard to take seriously the argument that IT7 is an example of a class we need to get rid of.

Kirk - You're right. The numbers overall were down that year (actually the numbers look somewhat anomalous, some classes way down, others up). Overall, it was down about 20%, but other IT classes were down only about 15% and the combined ITA class down about a third from the previous and following year's IT7 and ITA. So some of the 150 or so missing entries is probably due to the general decline. But I was there and I know a fair percentage was due to the RX7 drivers feeling they were getting screwed again. First, they had CRXs dropped on them and after they came up with a fix (IT7), that got yanked away, too. Regardless, it's still a very popular class that a lot of people are happy with, as is.

Rob - Sorry for the thread hijack.

JeffYoung

07-11-2011, 12:00 PM

Tom, I certainly understand your commitment to IT7 and I agree it's been a good class (primarily for the SEDiv).

Let me say this -- nothing is going to change with IT7. It's not going away from a rule making perspective. If it does go away, it's only going to be because the parts are no longer available.

But let's take a step back in time to see how the lack of a Process caused the problem with the 12A RX7.

The 12A was, as I understand it, originally classified in ITS. It got moved down to ITA when it became clear a 100 hp RX7 would have a difficult time with the Z cars, etc.

And then, in A, back when we were classing with curb weight, etc., the introduction of the CRX to ITA (although the Miata, or a well developed Integra or SE-R would have done the same thing) upset the applecart. The power to weight ratio (not used in classing) for the RX7 (which also had a live rear axle) was out of whack with what a CRX could do.

But there was no way to fix that other to than to move the RX7 down, and I'm sure the guys in B would have opposed that at the time.

The "real" fix in my opinion, and the one that should have been implemented IF we had a "Process" would have been to reclass the car in B as early as possible -- back in the early part of the 2000s before the CRX started to dominate.

From a theoretical standpoint, I think classes like IT7 are "bad" for IT on the whole in that they dilute fields and make classing look confusing to outsiders. If we had -- from the start -- created a place for the 12A to remain competitive, then the entire need for IT7 would have been eliminated.

So again, from a philosophical standpoint, do you think IT7 is more attractive than:

a. ITB if the 7s had been moved to B back in the early part of last decade at a competitive weight?

OR

b. ITB now?

At this point in time, I think Jake is right and the ship has sailed. IT7 is the answer for the 12A. But I wish this had been fixed -- or more accurately the tools had existed to fix it -- back before a special subclass was created.

mossaidis

07-11-2011, 12:00 PM

(Full disclosure... I am high on coffee. I will repeat what ya'll saying here cause I feel like it.)

A few things needs to happen in parallel, SCCA needs to condense to fewer class categories: someone mentioned it before... SS->T, AS & Prod -> GT, AS -> ST and continue to fertilize those condensed groups. (So you are left with T, IT/SM, ST, GT, nice ugh? IT goes national? more debate I guess. SM will not forcable merge with IT, get over it.) Maybe this is already in process, in which case :happy204:

There is nothing wrong with looking ahead and planning our future to help recruit drivers and help cars move along the car classification ladder. Someone mentioned that we wait for ITR to fill in ranks before expanding. I say "whoha". Folks like IT for the variety even though we didn't/don't get it "right" all the time. We're living proof that we need to continue clarifying the rules, the process and decision making process until it's 100% perfect and still fun. Don't stop... work on ITB, work on ITC.

I like the idea of ITR+ classes, i.e. ITQ, ITX, ITO, etc. For cars that are light, more hp coupled with better than "street" brakes, this can be a great idea especially if that someone is is on a limited budget and ST is NOT in the cards yet. I agree though we do have a problem with heaviers, higher hp cars with smaller brakes... so if you make brake allowances in IT, then IT becomes blurred with ST, not uncommon in SCCA and perhaps down again the slippery slope... don't do it. Some cars will fit, others won't, let the owners decide yet cya, make full disclosures... no brake allowances.

rant over.

mossaidis

07-11-2011, 12:06 PM

So again, from a philosophical standpoint, do you think IT7 is more attractive than:

a. ITB if the 7s had been moved to B back in the early part of last decade at a competitive weight?

OR

b. ITB now?

At this point in time, I think Jake is right and the ship has sailed. IT7 is the answer for the 12A. But I wish this had been fixed -- or more accurately the tools had existed to fix it -- back before a special subclass was created.

c. ITA with ported RX7's, removing the need for IT7 so that RX7's can again compete in ITA.

Ron Earp

07-11-2011, 12:10 PM

Guys, I'm not here to argue that IT7 should be rolled into ITB nor to convince you that it should be. In my opinion the SCCA needs fewer classes and some of these single make/model classes or slightly modified classes should be rolled back into their parent class. Just my opinion and I believe others here will certainly make points along those lines.

seckerich

07-11-2011, 12:19 PM

Or we just pirate the NASA rules for the cars, list them in the supps, and let them run our races.:023: Cake!!

TomL

07-11-2011, 12:39 PM

Jeff - Sorry I got side-tracked in midcomposition and posted without rechecking what you'e put up in the meantime. I really don't think that moving the cars to ITB is going to have any real effect on 12a participation. All the IT7 guys I'm sure will stay in IT7. Unless you get rid of IT7 - then I'm sure the numbers will go way down. A few might go to ITB, but for the reasons Jake cites, I know it won't come close to the number you'll lose from IT7.

In the grand scheme of things, yes, it would have been better to have put rx7s in ITB back in the day, but Jake is right - that ship has long ago sailed. IT7 is the way to go until the class dies a natural death. Just don't single it out for euthanasia, ahead of dozens of less subscribed classes.

BTW, unless the allowed weight goes up by 420 pounds (to 2700 lbs) in a switch to ITB, current IT7 cages will at least still be legal under the new cage rules. It would have been a problem under the old [idiotic] cage rules for SS cars where the cage weight limit for 0.095 x 1.5 was at 2200 lbs w/o driver (i.e. 2380 lbs all up), instead of the current 2700 all up.

Jake - That's at least the second time you've implied that the IT7 cars down here aren't legal. I can't speak for all of them but I'm pretty confident that all the serious ones down here have legal engines. I 'm sure mine are and I haven't been noticeably outrun on a straight in years. I used to have it happen occasionally but that was at least 6-7 years ago. So unless you want to name names, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop smearing our integrity.

Cobrar05

07-11-2011, 12:48 PM

mr young: i sold a cobra r race car and bought an fr500c project. i gave no thought to building an itr mustang. that said, you are effectively creating a new direction of road racing mustangs with itr. what i am talking about is the hundreds of currently racing mustangs and camaros and firebirds that won't be going to the ridiculous AS rules and race entirely in NASA. I also refer to the numerous grand am gs, wc gts, mustang challenge race cars that are and will continue to be available for club racing like mine.

rules: some combination of nasa and world challenge gts rules would do the trick.

JeffYoung

07-11-2011, 12:51 PM

I agree with all of that. My "IT7 is not a good idea" thinking is purely "let's go back in time and fix things" thinking. I would still support a move of the car to ITB if the existing drivers were behind it, but I agree with you (and Jake) that that time has probably passed.

I more concerned about this -- a very popular car getting marooned in an uncompetitive position such that the need for a marque specific IT class is generated -- not happening again.

On the "fast IT7 cars in the SEDiv," I think all of the front running cars in IT7 over the last few years (you, Neil, Steve Saney, Chuck Hines, etc.) all seem legal. Hell, I know Neil builds his OWN motors (and you may as well). But I've heard enough too about IT7s back in the day having an acceptable level of porting to believe it may be true. Irrelevant though, as it seems pretty clear to me you guys have a very clean, very legal class right now. Maybe even cleaner than ITS/ITA since you guys all know those cars so well.

Jeff - Sorry I got side-tracked in midcomposition and posted without rechecking what you'e put up in the meantime. I really don't think that moving the cars to ITB is going to have any real effect on 12a participation. All the IT7 guys I'm sure will stay in IT7. Unless you get rid of IT7 - then I'm sure the numbers will go way down. A few might go to ITB, but for the reasons Jake cites, I know it won't come close to the number you'll lose from IT7.

In the grand scheme of things, yes, it would have been better to have put rx7s in ITB back in the day, but Jake is right - that ship has long ago sailed. IT7 is the way to go until the class dies a natural death. Just don't single it out for euthanasia, ahead of dozens of less subscribed classes.

BTW, unless the allowed weight goes up by 420 pounds (to 2700 lbs) in a switch to ITB, current IT7 cages will at least still be legal under the new cage rules. It would have been a problem under the old [idiotic] cage rules for SS cars where the cage weight limit for 0.095 x 1.5 was at 2200 lbs w/o driver (i.e. 2380 lbs all up), instead of the current 2700 all up.

Jake - That's at least the second time you've implied that the IT7 cars down here aren't legal. I can't speak for all of them but I'm pretty confident that all the serious ones down here have legal engines. I 'm sure mine are and I haven't been noticeably outrun on a straight in years. I used to have it happen occasionally but that was at least 6-7 years ago. So unless you want to name names, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop smearing our integrity.

JeffYoung

07-11-2011, 12:53 PM

That's fine, but that's not really "IT V8" is it? I'm not knocking the concept, I'm just saying you may be posting in the wrong place.

Out of curiousity, why did you give no thought to running an ITR Mustang? You seem very interested in SCCA, and our weekends/series/rulesets -- it seems like it would have been a good fit?

mr young: i sold a cobra r race car and bought an fr500c project. i gave no thought to building an itr mustang. that said, you are effectively creating a new direction of road racing mustangs with itr. what i am talking about is the hundreds of currently racing mustangs and camaros and firebirds that won't be going to the ridiculous AS rules and race entirely in NASA. I also refer to the numerous grand am gs, wc gts, mustang challenge race cars that are and will continue to be available for club racing like mine.

rules: some combination of nasa and world challenge gts rules would do the trick.

lateapex911

07-11-2011, 01:38 PM

Jake - That's at least the second time you've implied that the IT7 cars down here aren't legal. I can't speak for all of them but I'm pretty confident that all the serious ones down here have legal engines. I 'm sure mine are and I haven't been noticeably outrun on a straight in years. I used to have it happen occasionally but that was at least 6-7 years ago. So unless you want to name names, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop smearing our integrity.

Tom, I brought that up in response to MM and his comments regarding being walked on the start. Keeping in mind the mice on a wheel torque level of the engine, it seems odd that the RX-7 can walk anybody, LOL

Now, I have been told in the past that when I came to the ARRCs in the past I was "bringing a knife to a gunfight"....and i was told that by guys from the area who seemed pretty sure of themselves. And while there i've seen things on cars that were clearly obvious non legalities...some were pretty harmless, some were beneficial. Of course, I see stuff on ALL cars all the time.

My bottom line on the subject is that I feel that amongst the legions of cars, some have been less than clean, but I think the incidence of that is mostly behind us. I feel, like you, that the top dogs I've run against, like Jeff Ryan and yourself in Atlanta, and the boys at VIR have been clean. But I know I've run against some cars that were not, (I've been told first hand to "Don't feel too bad about that, Jake, you were keeping up and beating a ported car"). And I've strongly suspected others. My games not so bad that i should get walked 10 car lengths on a straight after having so much exit speed that i got completely alongside. And it's not just in your area.

My comment was the usual "Don't assume that those cars were straight" warnings, followed with the oft mentioned regional issues. Heck, I just read yesterday a thread that commented on how cars from certain close by areas that you'd think would run great at Atlanta, oddly never show.

No slight intended to you, but I'm know IT7 -like any class- has it's dubious runners. And to the point, they shouldn't be used as yardsticks.

TomL

07-11-2011, 02:12 PM

Yea, I know I shouldn't take it personally, but it sounded more like a blanket statement. On the ITB vs. IT7 issue, I should have mentioned that I last weekend we ran with ITBs, which normally doesn't happen. It was actually very even, with a couple of fast ITBs (a crx and a civic) running marginally faster times than I did both days. I beat them both by a few seconds on Sunday. On Monday, the CRX passed me a few laps from the end and the Civic was right on my bumper. And both of them were about dead even with me on top speed down Roeblings's long front straight.

And the ITA winner (also overall ahead of some good ITS runners) was a mere 4+ seconds a lap faster, so I think that's a good indication of which class would have been more appropriate for rx7s. I know Hoosiers are better than RA1s, but they're not 4 seconds better. :)

lateapex911

07-11-2011, 02:35 PM

But Tom, how would that race have gone if you added 300 plus pounds and took an inch of rim width away?

Knestis

07-11-2011, 02:42 PM

Objection, your honor! Calls for inferences from anecdotal evidence...

K

EDIT - To expand on my smartie-pants post, Tom mentions not running the fastest tires available. Etc., etc., etc.

Cobrar05

07-11-2011, 03:12 PM

jeff: when i moved to the new platform, i may not have know that itr had a mustang option. but had i known i still would have moved elsewhere. ford racing was putting great effort into their road racing mustangs for grand am and spreading that wealth into
club racing.

as a mustang magazine writer there was just no interest from the editor and sponsors for a low horsepower, very basic pre 2005 platform mustang race car.

consider how many fr500c, fr500s, boss 302r, boss 302s, american iron 2005 or newer mustangs there are racing and how many itr mustangs there are.

i have an interest in racing ITR, but i am waiting to get my hands on a Honda S2000 for that.

almskidd

07-11-2011, 03:14 PM

Don't old world challange cars have a home in ST*? That seems like a good fit for what you are talking about. Open rules on brakes, and engine to chassis combinations. Why not go there? Just a question maybe I am missing something.

JeffYoung

07-11-2011, 03:21 PM

STO, but that is big dollars.

Butch Kummer

07-11-2011, 03:30 PM

Late to the party, but don't we already have ITV8 (ITO) in SEDiv? It's in for full SARRC points, it's part of ECR, and it includes all the NASA & Pro classes Rob mentions - yet it still languishes in participation numbers. We cannot seem to get those NASA cars to run with SCCA in appreciable numbers.

What I've found over the years (and was reminded of recently by Ron Earp) is that for the most part people want to race where they're "comfortable". We have pretty much been total failures in enticing existing IT/SM racers into GTA regardless of how much financial sense it makes compared to what they're already spending - most of our growth has come from folks already running stock cars in other classes (SPO) or circle-track racers that grew tired of repairing their cars every weekend. We (Atlanta Region) have also had SP2 & SP3 on the books for two years to give the 944 Cup guys a place to race with us and we've yet to see more than 3-4 on a given weekend. Again, they have a group of friends that run PCA and NASA events and they're not that interested in what we have to offer.

Rob - I guess you're angling toward national recognition of an ITO-type class, but you really need to build the participation numbers at a divisional level to warrant that consideration. The folks you need to sell are the CMC, AI, and GTS guys that are looking for a new (hopefully better) place to race. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder, so you need to trumpet the additional track time, less disparity in the run groups, and the lack of "schedule squeezing" when things go south. They would also get to run some tracks (Barber, Roebling, Daytona for instance) that they wouldn't get to run with NASA or at a reduced expense compared to GrandAm. You've gotta give them reasons to step outside their comfort zone and try something new, then once car counts start to grow you have a better chance of attracting converts from other IT classes. Rest assured, however, that I will continue to tout the benefits of GTA to all that will listen (and some who won't)! :rolleyes:

And I'm not sure what your point was about being on the track with GTA drivers! :shrug: If I was a sensitive person I might be offended by that statement...

Cobrar05

07-11-2011, 04:30 PM

benspeed

07-11-2011, 04:39 PM

To chime in with Butch, GTA is one of the best classes ever. Very fast cars that are solid, light and reliable, super safe and inexpensive to run. I would never have gone back to IT if GTA took off in the Northeast but at the end of 2 1/2 seasons with hardly anybody to race (except at Summit) I had to go ITR and get back in the Improved Touring game where the fields are much larger.

The subject of class consolidation is something that needs serious focus yet the club has introduced ST... we are not moving toward consolidation but away...however well intentioned to have a home for former pro cars going into club racing....but the rules were changed such that ST no longer appears to be the home for the former pro cars anymore...at least not in STU.

The direction of where the club wants to go with classes seems to vascilate and I predict will be the issue that allows other clubs to grow and prosper at the expense of SCCA...

Cobrar05

07-11-2011, 04:55 PM

gta is a fun class. i like watching them more than sharing the track with them. lets just put it that way. i am sure its exciting to race.

benspeed

07-11-2011, 04:59 PM

LOL - can't blame you there Rob! :-)

I just posted on another thread that I don't like running ITR in big bore

seckerich

07-11-2011, 05:14 PM

The other problem you run into Rob is the seam welding and a few other things that go past the level of IT and are not somewhere IT needs to go. We have enough rules creep as is and that goes down the road to body in white builds to run at the pointy end. As I stated before it is not a problem to ask regions to allow NASA classes to be allowed to run a race weekend. I could still most likely get these classes added to the CMS race if you thought some drivers would come make it worth while.

Unlike the 25 plus ECR cars I got promised for years.:rolleyes:

lateapex911

07-11-2011, 06:47 PM

Objection, your honor! Calls for inferences from anecdotal evidence...

K

EDIT - To expand on my smartie-pants post, Tom mentions not running the fastest tires available. Etc., etc., etc.

Hear you Kirk....
Guilty as charged.

Butch Kummer

07-12-2011, 09:34 AM

butch

i have been working the regional agenda for 3 years now or longer. the main obsticle that i run into is the reality that its very hard to inform racers that the class exists when its not a GCR class.

i may have two or three nasa st2 or pta class corvettes coming to the arrc, but the reality is that it doesnt sell as a "real" class.

Rob,

ITO first became a SARRC class for the 2009 season, but until this year (your first on the ITO Advisory Committee) it was very much a "run whatcha brung but make sure it's on DOT tires" class. That "ITE-like" quality is what you felt was limiting the growth of the class by discouraging the CMC, AI, and GTS folks so, at the AC's request, it was changed for 2011.

The SEDiv GTA rules are in the same place as the ITO rules. Does that mean GTA is not a "real" class because it's not in the GCR?

ITO is approved for SARRC and ECR, we've restricted the rules to keep the "over the limit" cars out, and there's an existing supply of cars currently running other series (don't forget the FFC cars - they are still part of ITO as well). Your challenge is to (1)make those people aware that ITO gives them a place to play competitively with SCCA and (2) let me know how I/we can make our events more attractive to that market.

by next season you will no longer be competition director and who knows where the class goes .

It's true I announced at the 2010 ARRC by GRM that this year would be my last as Competition Director for Atlanta Region. I have since reconsidered that decision. I no longer have the patience to deal with the political wranglings of being on the AR BoD (which is why I also withdrew my name for consideration for the CRB ), so I will no longer be the Asst. RE for Atlanta Region. I will, however, offer to continue as Competition Director dependant on who the new RE is (Tere Pulliam is adamant she is stepping down after this year). But since ITO is a divisional class I have little or no influence over it's future regardless of my position in Atlanta Region.

And you STILL haven't said why you don't like GTA drivers! :blink: If it's because we have some very intense racing I have no response to that (the intense racing is one of the things that attracts me to the class). If it's because you think we're a bunch of inconsiderate wankers that hit everything but the Pace Car then we need to talk more.