May 2012 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

Prelim Tech Bulletins are up, no link yet for the CRB minutes.

http://www.scca.com/assets/TB12-05AprilMeetingMayFastrack.pdf

[CRallo]

There is the Corvette!!!!!!!!!!!

[coreyehcx]

So did I read that right about JDM/EDM motors being approved on a case by case basis for ST? I'm assuming that would apply to STL.


Any chance at getting the aero package in STL closer to ST and not IT? Front splitter with the STU allowances would be nice.

I sent letters in on aero, denied for rear wing and no word on front yet.

[Knestis]

so did i read that right about jdm/edm motors being approved on a case by case basis for st? I'm assuming that would apply to stl. ...

orly?

K

[coreyehcx]

Really? Do you feel special now?

[red986s]

2. #6947 (Jerry Hooten) Dissolve IT classes
Thank you for your input. The CRB has no plans to change the IT rules or philosophies in the directions you are suggesting.

Who pissed off Mr. Hooten? B)

[Matt93SE]

So did I read that right about JDM/EDM motors being approved on a case by case basis for ST? I'm assuming that would apply to STL.

It's a recommended rule change for next year. :happy204: PLEASE write your local congressman and express your support. :023:
And yes. It says ST. It doesn't say STO or STU-- it says ST.

[mossaidis]

2. #6947 (Jerry Hooten) Dissolve IT classes
Thank you for your input. The CRB has no plans to change the IT rules or philosophies in the directions you are suggesting.

Who pissed off Mr. Hooten? B)

Seriously, I would love to hear the back story.

[CRallo]

Link? Please.

[Ralf]

Link? Please.

http://scca.cdn.racersites.com/prod/assets/12-fastrack-may-club.pdf

[Ron Earp]

Seriously, I would love to hear the back story.

Me too. Anyone know the fellow and his reasoning?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am betting that it was more of a 'restructure' or 'return it to the way it was' type of request.

[pitbull113]

Me too. Anyone know the fellow and his reasoning?a quick google search and I found out he's a regional executive for the lone star region
Jerry Hooten Regional Executive [email protected]

[preparedcivic]

Probably something to do with all of us with IT cars on on a straight to hell road to Production now that we can remove washer bottles, pumps and lines.

[JeffYoung]

Andy is right. He was making the argument that others have made that IT has "become Prod." If I recall it correctly he wanted to dissovle the existing IT classes, start over and move IT to LP in prod (or something, I don't remember).

Ship ....... sailed......

And all that.

Input is always appreciated but sometimes spending time on a request that just gets e-submitted one night when someone doesn't like something IT chews up a lot of our time, and we are getting more and more of that.

[jhooten]

Seriously, I would love to hear the back story.


Ok, here you go. We were having a discussion about the IT classes, the class philosophy, rules creep, how IT cars today are more race prepared then the Prod cars of a few years ago, so on, and so forth. It was suggested that a letter be written in such away to get the CRB to elicit a written reply as to if the continued rules creep and productionifacation of IT was in the spirit of the class philosophy. I drew the short straw.

You are free request any and all performance enhancing rules changes you so desire, the precedent has been set with the ECU, motor mount, and other allowances, and the CRB has given its blessing.

While I believe IT should be the place for retired SS/T cars and a place where beginners can build a lower cost entry level car that can be competitive, I now formally withdraw all my former objections to IT rules creep. And since my work in progress ITS Supra was destroyed in the labor day wildfire I don't have to worry about building another copy of the EP Supra (Also lost in the fire) to keep up with the other ITS cars. Oh, wait, I was building the ITS Supra because ITS, as a class, had all but died off in SOWDIV.

Any who, It is now on record that the CRB is fine with what IT is becoming and that was the purpose of the exercise. And now you know the rest...

[pitbull113]

Thanks for coming on here and clearing that up :023:

[red986s]

Huh interesting! I can see that, some what. Some folks are 5 or less mods away from being Prod so....

Bet the Prod guys would love that. A bunch of wild-ass IT guys jumping in the mix! :rolleyes:

[lateapex911]

Funny how we always hear how IT has become Prod.
Then I hear the Prod guys threaten death to the guy who put the Prod and IT classes in the same group at a Regional.
"The cars can not race together! The IT cars are crude, and have heavy bodywork which will crush out carbon fibre fenders in any body to body contact! And the IT cars will hold us up in the corners, because they are crappily suspended and....and...and.."
Appears the Prod guys don't think IT cars have become Prod cars at all......

[Ralf]

Pretty much happened at Hallett. SM and IT cars entered in STL and caught by the fast Prod guys. The first cars were caught by lap 6 of a 25 lap race and had to be passed on the grass. Bet they loved that.

http://youtu.be/N7JpcIQyQOI

[red986s]

I was thinkin, man I would love a dog ring! Then, uh never mind! Good to see Yergler and Bettinger out there.

[seckerich]

Ok, here you go. We were having a discussion about the IT classes, the class philosophy, rules creep, how IT cars today are more race prepared then the Prod cars of a few years ago, so on, and so forth. It was suggested that a letter be written in such away to get the CRB to elicit a written reply as to if the continued rules creep and productionifacation of IT was in the spirit of the class philosophy. I drew the short straw.

You are free request any and all performance enhancing rules changes you so desire, the precedent has been set with the ECU, motor mount, and other allowances, and the CRB has given its blessing.

While I believe IT should be the place for retired SS/T cars and a place where beginners can build a lower cost entry level car that can be competitive, I now formally withdraw all my former objections to IT rules creep. And since my work in progress ITS Supra was destroyed in the labor day wildfire I don't have to worry about building another copy of the EP Supra (Also lost in the fire) to keep up with the other ITS cars. Oh, wait, I was building the ITS Supra because ITS, as a class, had all but died off in SOWDIV.

Any who, It is now on record that the CRB is fine with what IT is becoming and that was the purpose of the exercise. And now you know the rest...


Seems like more of an observation of what IT needs for your part of the world, more than what IT needs Nationally. You are correct that a low buck IT car will most likely not run at the front in the faster classes, but there is still a good chance to win with many of the $5000 cars in the slower ITC and some areas in ITB.

You state that IT should still be the place SS and TT cars go to die. Have you looked lately at the classes slated to be consolidated or killed? Many are SS/TT based and quite frankly an insult that lowly regional racers should just be waiting for their meager castoffs. Need to drop the 20+ year old justification for IT, it no longer fits.

I got a call this past week from a driver that was a long time IT racer that went to prod, and then GT over the past 10 years. He is building a new IT car because he was tired of the politics of the National classes and was amazed at the STABILITY in the IT rules since he left. Very happy the ECU was opened up so he could use a megasquirt and stop leaning out motors. I think that was the best compliment anyone could give to the ITAC and the catagory in general.

IT in many areas does have very high dollar builds, and is very healthy and competitive. That is not due to your perceived low buck vision, but more that it is a destination for many racers, we help new drivers get into the classes, and there is a point where more money does not make the cars faster, we just like developing our cars. Many classes are popular in areas, and dead in others. That is not the fault of the class, but more a cause and effect of what was popular when they were introduced to racing with SCCA.

Racing is a hobby for most and is the first to go when times are tough. It only makes sense that the classes with the fewest "big rigs" would loose entries at a higher rate in a down economy.

Feel free to give me a call Jerry and I will be happy to share some of the things we do as a region to make the races more fun, easy to enter, and customer centered. From a fellow RE I admire your willingness to take the daily beatings. :023:

Steve Eckerich
CCR RE

[Andy Bettencourt]

Seems like more of an observation of what IT needs for your part of the world, more than what IT needs Nationally. You are correct that a low buck IT car will most likely not run at the front in the faster classes, but there is still a good chance to win with many of the $5000 cars in the slower ITC and some areas in ITB.

You state that IT should still be the place SS and TT cars go to die. Have you looked lately at the classes slated to be consolidated or killed? Many are SS/TT based and quite frankly an insult that lowly regional racers should just be waiting for their meager castoffs. Need to drop the 20+ year old justification for IT, it no longer fits.

I got a call this past week from a driver that was a long time IT racer that went to prod, and then GT over the past 10 years. He is building a new IT car because he was tired of the politics of the National classes and was amazed at the STABILITY in the IT rules since he left. Very happy the ECU was opened up so he could use a megasquirt and stop leaning out motors. I think that was the best compliment anyone could give to the ITAC and the catagory in general.

IT in many areas does have very high dollar builds, and is very healthy and competitive. That is not due to your perceived low buck vision, but more that it is a destination for many racers, we help new drivers get into the classes, and there is a point where more money does not make the cars faster, we just like developing our cars. Many classes are popular in areas, and dead in others. That is not the fault of the class, but more a cause and effect of what was popular when they were introduced to racing with SCCA.

Racing is a hobby for most and is the first to go when times are tough. It only makes sense that the classes with the fewest "big rigs" would loose entries at a higher rate in a down economy.

Feel free to give me a call Jerry and I will be happy to share some of the things we do as a region to make the races more fun, easy to enter, and customer centered. From a fellow RE I admire your willingness to take the daily beatings. :023:

Steve Eckerich
CCR RE

Post of the year.

[tdw6974]

[QUOTE=jhooten;335715]Ok, here you go. We were having a discussion about the IT classes, the class philosophy, rules creep, how IT cars today are more race prepared then the Prod cars of a few years ago, so on, and so forth. It was suggested that a letter be written in such away to get the CRB to elicit a written reply as to if the continued rules creep and productionifacation of IT was in the spirit of the class philosophy. I drew the short straw.

You are free request any and all performance enhancing rules changes you so desire, the precedent has been set with the ECU, motor mount, and other allowances, and the CRB has given its blessing.

While I believe IT should be the place for retired SS/T cars and a place where beginners can build a lower cost entry level car that can be competitive, I now formally withdraw all my former objections to IT rules creep. And since my work in progress ITS Supra was destroyed in the labor day wildfire I don't have to worry about building another copy of the EP Supra (Also lost in the fire) to keep up with the other ITS cars. Oh, wait, I was building the ITS Supra because ITS, as a class, had all but died off in SOWDIV.


Jerry, Thanks for clarification! Sorry to learn of the loss of your project cars and sincerely hope they were the limit of the loss to you. Tom Weaver

[jhooten]

Let me put it this was, I no longer have to worry about repairing the leaky roof on the house.

I have a 2002 Camaro in the local Spec Miata builder's shop getting a cage installed. The big question is can I make it fast enough to keep up with the Viper in STO or should I go Limited Prep AS?

Steve,
The racing program here is more divisional with three regions in the division hosting club races. As long as the emphasis with the other regions and the division is on the national events I am fighting an uphill battle all the way trying to revitalize the regional racing program, which not too long ago was our bread and butter/cash cow. With IT cars being allowed in STU to build up the class participation levels in that class, never
mind I don't even want to go there. The last R/R race on of the regions hosted there were about a dozen total cars entered as IT. We used to get that many in ITS alone.

And no I don't mean for the SS/T to go to IT to die. I would like to see them passed down to the next generation of racers to have a place to compete in safe, less maintenance intensive race cars that they can take to the track and concentrate on the racing and not spending all their free time turning wrenches to keep the car running for the next session, like the drivers of the British roadsters, sports racers, and formula cars seem to be constantly forced to do.

Lone Star has a reputation for being customer friendly and hosting the best participant parties. Come on out for the Memorial Day weekend pig roast and race to see what I mean.

[Greg Amy]

Understanding how posts in Fastrack tend to get abbreviated, I am unsurprised by what Jerry is saying; hell it's nothing that Kirk or I have not been saying for years. To that end, I couldn't not help but laugh out at the following...boldnificationness mine...


I got a call this past week from a driver that was a long time IT racer that went [away] over the past 10 years. He...was tired of the politics of the National classes and was amazed at the STABILITY in the IT rules since he left. Very happy the ECU was opened up so he could use a megasquirt and stop leaning out motors...
We all have our differing unstable lines that should never be crossed in the name of "stability"...irony, thy name is Improved Touring.

In summary, we get what we ask for. Kudos to Jerry for asking.

GA

[jhooten]

BTW, the readers digest condensed version of the letter is:
Return the IT classes back to original intent of the class, being a limited prep racing class. If this is not possible because of the allowances that have been made reclassify the current IT cars in the appropriate ST/Prod class then dissolve the current IT classes and create a new set of limited prep/entry level classes similar to the original intent of the IT classes.

There was no intent to step on any toes or take away anyone's beloved car. The names would have been changed to protect the guilty, that is all.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with the old maxim that racing classes continue to "progress" through rules creep until they inevitably seem to kill themselves. The desire to make changes in the name of "progress" or "safety" or whatever is human and probably hard if not impossible stop entirely.

A few observations though:

1. I think Steve's post is spot on too, and while Greg makes a good point it seems clear to me that the pace of rules change/creep in IT has been far less than in other classes. Call that rules stability or call it something else but I think it remains one of the key reasons we (IT) are the highest suscribed multimarque race class in the SCCA if not the country.

2. Most of the nostalgia for "the way it was" seems to come from folks who raced IT years ago. It also seems to me that most everyone else has no desire to race a car with a full stock interior, etc. We do get the class that we ask for, but in some ways that is necessary to avoid irrelevancy.

3. When I review the IT ruleset from the late 80s, two things amaze me. First, the complete lack of rhyme or reason to car classification and two, how close 90% of the rules are to what we have now.

Despite all the bellyaching about change, it seems to me to have been fairly limited. More interior stuff out. Coil overs allowed. ECU rules open. Some other non-essential items can be removed. But the core IT values? Stock suspension, brakes, engine, tranny, bodywork? All unchanged.

The pressure to keep the rules stable is a necessary and good thing. At the same time, sometimes I want to tell the doomsayers that claim IT is now Prod the following:

Settle down Beavis!

(said with affection.....)

[benspeed]

I like where Touring is going and wonder if Production is the class that gets subsumed by ST...? At the end of the day I think fewer classes with bigger fields will make the club better and the racing better.

[seckerich]

Let me put it this was, I no longer have to worry about repairing the leaky roof on the house.

I have a 2002 Camaro in the local Spec Miata builder's shop getting a cage installed. The big question is can I make it fast enough to keep up with the Viper in STO or should I go Limited Prep AS?

Steve,
The racing program here is more divisional with three regions in the division hosting club races. As long as the emphasis with the other regions and the division is on the national events I am fighting an uphill battle all the way trying to revitalize the regional racing program, which not too long ago was our bread and butter/cash cow. With IT cars being allowed in STU to build up the class participation levels in that class, never
mind I don't even want to go there. The last R/R race on of the regions hosted there were about a dozen total cars entered as IT. We used to get that many in ITS alone.

And no I don't mean for the SS/T to go to IT to die. I would like to see them passed down to the next generation of racers to have a place to compete in safe, less maintenance intensive race cars that they can take to the track and concentrate on the racing and not spending all their free time turning wrenches to keep the car running for the next session, like the drivers of the British roadsters, sports racers, and formula cars seem to be constantly forced to do.

Lone Star has a reputation for being customer friendly and hosting the best participant parties. Come on out for the Memorial Day weekend pig roast and race to see what I mean.


Very good points Jerry. Reality is that most of these showroom stock, touring cars you want to send to be so easily raced are $20,000+ these days and not so cheap to run. Most touring cars have shocks worth more than a few IT cars I know. Showroom stock is also far from "showroom" not even counting the trunk kits.

For reference I came from production and raced Spitfires for years. Two motors went to every race. Ran minimum laps to qualify to keep time off a hand grenade motor that was north of $8000 to replace. Started in IT because the wife wanted to start racing and we could run the then very popular ECR series. Drivers and teams from that series are now most of the Grand Am pro teams. Went back national racing with an EP Mazda RX7 a few years back and remembered why I left. Sold both cars and currently building a new ITS RX7 and finishing an ITR RX8. Guy that bought the EP cars is retired from racing and both are for sale in this months Grassroots if Production is such a great place.

Take into account inflation and your cheap $5000 IT car of the 90's is now the $10,000 car of today and most in that range can win with a good driver and cost very little to run. If you see this this rash of drivers working on IT cars like prod cars of the past then their prep sucks and the class letter will make no difference.

Your division focus on Nation racing is most likely your main problem as you state, but adding enduros to give drivers the chance to share cars is the biggest draw on a regional level. Not asking the CRB to change the world to your divisions needs. Good luck with your program, my region also has a big race Memorial Day weekend so I will have to skip the pig roast.

[jhooten]

Our enduros usually end up being a shoot out between SM and SRF for the over all win with a few IT cars circulating for the fun of it. But the numbers for them have fallen steadily for the last 4 or 5 years with the last one only having about 20 cars entered.

One of the region board members brought up doing an IT festival. Just IT cars and single class race groups. It would take a lot of out of division cars participating to make it work. Would there be interest from the members here in an event like that?

[Xian]

Pretty much happened at Hallett. SM and IT cars entered in STL and caught by the fast Prod guys. The first cars were caught by lap 6 of a 25 lap race and had to be passed on the grass. Bet they loved that.

http://youtu.be/N7JpcIQyQOI

No dog in the fight but that looks like typical "insert faster class" coming up on slower lap traffic that's not paying attention. I've seen the same stuff happen within IT classes/groups. :rolleyes:

As far as speed differentials go, the in car video shows that he passes Prod traffic about as fast as IT/SM traffic... I really think it's just a case of pointy-end car/driver relative to backmarker/mid-pack car/drivers.

Christian

[Matt93SE]

Our enduros usually end up being a shoot out between SM and SRF for the over all win with a few IT cars circulating for the fun of it. But the numbers for them have fallen steadily for the last 4 or 5 years with the last one only having about 20 cars entered.

also keep in mind the enduro has been on again, off again for the last several years with the main point of blame going on TX A&M having a game that weekend and sucking up all of the hotels. Racers quit going because they weren't sure if it was going to happen or not until it was too late to get the car ready and find crew +drivers.

I've already heard the one penciled in for next year has been scrubbed, so I'm not holding my breath on having another one. that was one of the big races I was really hoping to make since I started building the car, and I was planning my STU engine build to be enduro-able specifically for this event. Since I don't know what's going to happen, then I'll build a sprint race-only engine instead. so be it.

[R2 Racing]

I like where Touring is going and wonder if Production is the class that gets subsumed by ST...?
Uhm.....wat?:blink:

I've got to be a part of some very interesting discussions over the past two months with some BOD, CRB, and Ad-Hoc members as all of this "class consolidation" business was being hashed out. I can assure you that the current Prod classes aren't going anywhere, and in fact they're looked at as one of Club Racing's brightest spots of recent years. While almost every other class is trying to stop the bleeding, the Prod classes have resurrected themselves to having three of the strongest, most competitive classes in all of Club Racing, during a time of craptastc economy. By and large, almost everyone is quite happy with where Prod is right now.

Meanwhile all five of the T & SS classes have fallen to being some of Club Racing's worst subscribed classes.

[Z3_GoCar]

Uhm.....wat?:blink:

I've got to be a part of some very interesting discussions over the past two months with some BOD, CRB, and Ad-Hoc members as all of this "class consolidation" business was being hashed out. I can assure you that the current Prod classes aren't going anywhere, and in fact they're looked at as one of Club Racing's brightest spots of recent years. While almost every other class is trying to stop the bleeding, the Prod classes have resurrected themselves to having three of the strongest, most competitive classes in all of Club Racing, during a time of craptastc economy. By and large, almost everyone is quite happy with where Prod is right now.

Meanwhile all five of the T & SS classes have fallen to being some of Club Racing's worst subscribed classes.

Funny that you're best subscribed classes is one of our worst and one of your worst is one of our best. Six cars in T1 is better than any IT class outside of ITA with it's miatae fillers, it also matches the current number of E-Production cars, which is larger than I've seen it in the past few years.

Seriously, sounds like the club needs to be split at the Missippi river or maybe the Appalachian mountains. The needs out here are just that different....

[Ron Earp]

I can assure you that the current Prod classes aren't going anywhere, and in fact they're looked at as one of Club Racing's brightest spots of recent years.

Do overall participation numbers bear this out? If a Prod class goes from an average of two entries to four it has increased participation levels 100% and that looks great on a spreadsheet, but the entry levels are still too low to amount to much.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Do overall participation numbers bear this out? If a Prod class goes from an average of two entries to four it has increased participation levels 100% and that looks great on a spreadsheet, but the entry levels are still too low to amount to much.

Latest numbers I could find were from August of 2011. EP and FP were both in the top 10.

Average participation at a National:

#5 EP: 6
#7 FP: 4.5

#1 SM: 19.2
#28 SSC: 2.0

[Ron Earp]

Average participation at a National:

#5 EP: 6
#7 FP: 4.5

0

It is a bit concerning that #5 and #7 on the list, "in the top ten", only averages 6 and 4.5 respectively.

What are numbers 1-4 in the top ten? How do these average entries compare to regional classes?

[seckerich]

I emailed Jim Creighton who usually has those numbers at hand. Let you know what I find.

[shwah]

Combining regional and national numbers from 2011, and looking at cars per eligible event you get:
STU #7 - avg 6.6 entries/ race
EP #9 - avg 2.4 entries / race
FP #11 - avg 2.0 entries / race
HP #12 - avg 1.9 entries / race
STL #20 - avg 1.2 entries / race
STO #23 - avg 1.2 entries / race

I agree that Production is very healthy. Even though in some areas people only run them in Nationals, dropping the cars/available event, they still are higher on the list than people realize. Looking at National only numbers, and realizing that an AVERAGE over the year of 3 or 4 or 6 cars means that in areas with strong club racing participation you likely see about double digit entries at most events, I don't see how anyone could legitimately claim that Prod is in any sort of trouble.

BTW for us IT guys - ITA, ITS and ITB are # 3, 4 and 6 in cars per available event. Not too shabby in this down economy.

[Ron Earp]

I agree that Production is very healthy. Even though in some areas people only run them in Nationals, dropping the cars/available event, they still are higher on the list than people realize. L

Prod aside, I just can't agree that any class with 2.4 or 2.0 entries per race is healthy. That means on an average weekend you and one other joker are racing each other.

I wish to see an SCCA where the top ten classes have double digit entry averages. I realize my own ITS class doesn't meet this goal, but so be it. If the club is to grow and progress we really need to be very objective about our analysis.

[924Guy]

For reference, latest/current Nationals participation numbers:
http://www.scca.com/assets/2012_National_Participation-MAR1.pdf

Of course, this early in the season there's not really any representation from the upper half of the country, Left Coast excepted.

Unfortunately, they keep screwing up this spreadsheet; actually a total of 17 races, not 13 as noted. But that puts the 2.5 bar at 42.5 cars/17 races... which means everything from CSR-down wouldn't qualify.

A different data point, if you were to say 3.0 were a good bar (an actual full podium)... nearly half the classes don't make that (60 cars total)...

[seckerich]

Numbers so far this year are.

Currently, the three prod classes have the following attendance and averages for 22 races.
EP- 117-5.32 rank 4
FP- 91-4.14 rank 9
HP- 87-3.95 rank 11

For IT- I am currently counting 34 races.
IT7--28- 0.82
ITA--221- 6.50
ITB-- 39 -1.15
ITC-- 23- 0.68
ITS-- 85- 2.25
ITR-- 32- 0.94
ITE-- 16- 0.47
ITX-- 11- 0.32
ITO- 7- 0.21


Keep in mind IT in some areas does not really exist and skews the numbers. IT in southeast,Northeast, etc is much higher. Note number of entries in ITR for those that call it dead compared to the other IT classes. This does not include enduro numbers either.

[Ron Earp]

For IT- I am currently counting 34 races.
IT7--28- 0.82 = 28 racers entries
ITA--221- 6.50 = 221 racers entries
ITB-- 39 -1.15 = 39 racers entries
ITC-- 23- 0.68 = 23 racers entries
ITS-- 85- 2.25 = 77 racers entries
ITR-- 32- 0.94 = 32 racers entries
ITE-- 16- 0.47 = 16 racers entries
ITX-- 11- 0.32 = 11 racers entries
ITO- 7- 0.21 = 7 racers entries

Average is 50 racers per class, but the standard deviation is 67, which tells us exactly what you know intuitively, that the class distribution is heavily skewed.

Do we simply have too many choices and classes?

I wonder how hard it'd be to balance ITB/ITC into one class and ITA/ITS/ITR, or, ITA/ITS into one class. Boy that'd be a fun discussion for the winter!

[JoshS]

For IT- I am currently counting 34 races.
IT7--28- 0.82 = 28 racers entries
ITA--221- 6.50 = 221 racers entries
ITB-- 39 -1.15 = 39 racers entries
ITC-- 23- 0.68 = 23 racers entries
ITS-- 85- 2.25 = 77 racers entries
ITR-- 32- 0.94 = 32 racers entries
ITE-- 16- 0.47 = 16 racers entries
ITX-- 11- 0.32 = 11 racers entries
ITO- 7- 0.21 = 7 racers entries

Average is 50 racers per class, but the standard deviation is 67, which tells us exactly what you know intuitively, that the class distribution is heavily skewed.

Do we simply have too many choices and classes?

I wonder how hard it'd be to balance ITB/ITC into one class and ITA/ITS/ITR, or, ITA/ITS into one class. Boy that'd be a fun discussion for the winter!

I have to wonder if these regionally-spec'ed classes are hurting IT participation in some areas too. Our region has an ITE (nothing like IT, shouldn't be called that) and an ITX (for double-dipping ITA/B/C cars), but ITO, ITU, IT7 ... we don't have those. Our ITE&ITX don't hurt IT participation. But in some regions, do these non-GCR "IT" classes pull participation from the GCR IT classes? Just wondering aloud.

[Ron Earp]

But in some regions, do these non-GCR "IT" classes pull participation from the GCR IT classes? Just wondering aloud.

I think they do. I've written it before and I know I'll be skewered for writing it again, I don't think we should have these classes that are very similar to other classes such as SRX7 and SSM. There are probably others around as well but those are the two I've seen at the tracks I visit. However, they are regional-only classes and someone there in the region wants them to exist. Not sure they shouldn't have just been told "no", but it is what it is.

I'm not sure what ITX is all about, but I bet it wouldn't be too hard to combine ITO/ITE/ITX into one class - "For cars that are built to IT safety rules be they production cars, tube frame cars, replicas, kit cars, etc." One of those run what you brung classes, as long as it is IT-safe.

[JeffYoung]

In the SEDiv, I'd say IT7 does pull a significant amount of cars from S/A/B. I don't think the other ITx classes do (ITE, O, X, etc.).

S and A certainly could be combined but the power to weight ratio would need to move up some for S and down some for A. The problem with a "broader" swath of stock hp ratings is that you have more cars on the fringes that have a hard time making their low spec weight, or have to "ride heavy."

Note in the numbers above, that A is skewed high due to SM crossovers. I did a quick average for ITS participation in the SEDiv and it's over 10 cars per race so far. VIR and Sebring had great turn out.

[Ron Earp]

I bet you could do something like this:

IT0 = ITR and a future ITQ
IT1 = ITS and ITA
IT2 = ITB and ITC plus first generation RX7s

Yep, there would be difficulties there with some cars and classifications. But, that is why the ITAC gets paid the big bucks. Number One, make it so.

[JeffYoung]

I thought it was number 1, go take a number 2?

I think by luck or by chance, we kind of got the power to weight spreads on IT "right." We have a few tweeners but not many. You throw S/A together and fewer cars fall in the sweet spot I think.

I need to run some cars using an "IT2" (say A and S) power to weight modifier and see what we get. If we move it to say 13.5 it might keep the A cars heavy enough to still make race weight and not make the S cars TOO heavy at the top of the heap -- but cars like yours would gain weight staying in S.

[Greg Amy]

In the SEDiv, I'd say IT7 does pull a significant amount of cars from S/A/B. I don't think the other ITx classes do (ITE, O, X, etc.).
While likely correct in context, beware making such sweeping generalizations. It's a common conclusion to make - many people do - but it assumes that these competitors are racing to be racing, and not racing because they like to race their IT7s. In other words, you're assuming that if IT7 (or these others) were banned as a class that these competitors would "definitely" compete in ITA or at least another SCCA class, versus leaving racing entirely.

Likely, but not assured.

GA

[Ron Earp]

I need to run some cars using an "IT2" (say A and S) power to weight modifier and see what we get. If we move it to say 13.5 it might keep the A cars heavy enough to still make race weight and not make the S cars TOO heavy at the top of the heap -- but cars like yours would gain weight staying in S.

Hell, cars like mine need to gain weight in S. A 3.8L V6 motor classed at 2470 lbs - no, that isn't right. Should be up around 2700 to 2775 lbs, which is about what the car weighs.

Not much sense in running through such an exercise as there isn't any way in hell IT will see any merging of classes.

[JeffYoung]

While likely correct in context, beware making such sweeping generalizations. It's a common conclusion to make - many people do - but it assumes that these competitors are racing to be racing, and not racing because they like to race their IT7s. In other words, you're assuming that if IT7 (or these others) were banned as a class that these competitors would "definitely" compete in ITA or at least another SCCA class, versus leaving racing entirely.

Likely, but not assured.

GA

Oh, I certainly get that. I've had this very conversation with some of the IT7 contingent about why they haven't moved to ITS RX7s, etc.

Hell the fact that some of them are spending a good chunk of change to convert to a Renesis to run IT7R supports your point.

BUT -- I do think that for the most part, if IT7 had never been created those cars and drivers would have stayed in IT, either in the 7 in B or A, or in another car. It is these "fractured" classes in particular that I think are a problem. I know and am very good friends with the core group of IT7 folks in the SEDiv, and I know I frustrate them when I say this, but I really do think it would be better for the club and them in the long run if they were folded into a "standard" IT class.

[Chip42]

Not much sense in running through such an exercise as there isn't any way in hell IT will see any merging of classes.

The strength of IT is in the stability, but cars keep getting faster, and heavier. as long as those trends move together we'll still be able to match the power to weight specs, even if it leads to "heavy" cars on track with "light" ones, but eventually the initiatives by the OEMs to shed weight will bear fruit and the slower classes will effectively be locked out to new cars. at that point, we should allow the old slow classes to pass into vintage. I think a lot of SCCA should be passed into vintage, but then I'm an oddball in the club in that I don't have a 60's BMC fetish...

combining B and C would be harder than splitting A into B and S, or S into A and R. S and R are pretty close anyhow, and lately we get a lot of tweeners on the A-S cusp. I think the middle here could be fruitful IF we were to look at such a merger. Doing so would undoubtedly upset a number of people.

"ITQ" will need to happen within ~5 years in order to allow most of what is new and "sporty" into the ranks and stay relevant to the manufacturers and potential membership. The current civic Si will be an ITR car, and it seems every 3rd generation moves up a class (disregarding the EM/EP/FA-FD inversion which is due to a huge increase in the minimum achievable IT weight of the cars). I'm honda-centric so that's my yardstick. There should always be a class above the civic Si, and a quick look at a used car lot will show you that's still true.

to Jeff's point about tweeners: there will be tweeners wherever you set the weight breaks between classes. today's tweeners could be tomorrow's bogey cars - it's all what you define the sweet spot to be.

[lateapex911]

While likely correct in context, beware making such sweeping generalizations. It's a common conclusion to make - many people do - but it assumes that these competitors are racing to be racing, and not racing because they like to race their IT7s. In other words, you're assuming that if IT7 (or these others) were banned as a class that these competitors would "definitely" compete in ITA or at least another SCCA class, versus leaving racing entirely.

Likely, but not assured.

GA

Right, I'll go out a bit on a limb here and say that in the NE, where we resisted the IT7 pull for longer than we probably should have, it has resulted in more entries for the region.
I was one of the only guys duking it out in A. Then we did IT7. In spite of the economy etc, the number of RX-7s increased. More entries for the region, more fun for the racers. Sometimes the IT7 crowd (often) was larger than lots of other classes like ITC. 4 -5 cars was pretty 'normal'.

It's safe to say that if the cars had been left in A, MOST of the guys would simply not be racing. The cars are cheap, the racing is fun, and because they feel like they get a fair shake, they show up.
Now, you CAN say that they COULD be more competitive than they were in A, with better efforts, after all SOME IT7 guys were running near the front, and even grabbing a win when the rains were biblical. Some might suggest that they weren't 'true' competitors. (Thats a line in the sand that gets drawn to the level of convenience of whoever is drawing it!) On the other hand, running at that level required a pretty aggressive spending effort (I'd say ITA in the NE has some fast cars) and development effort, and I think that was beyond the scope of some of the guys. (most of the guys) And...at that level (the car I'm thinking of broke and set records across the NE at 9 different tracks)...a top RX-7 is STILL lucky to be gridded 4th in a 20 car ITA field.

It just aint competitive. The B move should have happened long ago, but even if it did happen the ITAC refuses to class the car at an appropriate weight... so whats the point of moving the car, changing wheels, just to be marginalized in another class? The classing powers that be failed this car.

So, the bottom line is that those classes exist to fill a need in the marketplace, and the net net is more money for the region and more guys racing...which, last I checked, was the point of the whole exercise.

[shwah]

Prod aside, I just can't agree that any class with 2.4 or 2.0 entries per race is healthy. That means on an average weekend you and one other joker are racing each other.

I wish to see an SCCA where the top ten classes have double digit entry averages. I realize my own ITS class doesn't meet this goal, but so be it. If the club is to grow and progress we really need to be very objective about our analysis.

Yeah for an average of the 310 events in the dozens of regions you are correct. In reality we can all see what is happening in our regions and divisions, and choose not to build a car that has zero entries - which is a lot of what creates those low numbers. My point was that there are a lot of events where there are no competitors in a class for a lot of reasons. For instance in CenDiv, there is a whole lot more national participation than regional. As a result, some of the national classes - specifically the prod classes - get really weak participation at regional weekends.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let's also remember that Regionals are all about putting on great events and making money. Local classes that add entries for the cost of an ashtray here and there are fine as long as they don't screw up run groups that thrive.

Nationals, now that another story...

[Ron Earp]

I agree. I feel that in general:

Fewer Classes is better than More Classes



Nationals, now that another story...

The SCCA should have given up the National/Regional distinction long ago. There should be classes, racers, races, and a SCCA Championship.

[TStiles]

I agree. I feel that in general:

Less Classes is better than More Classes



The SCCA should have given up the National/Regional distinction long ago. There should be classes, racers, races, and a SCCA Championship.

True and True :dead_horse:

[mossaidis]

Oh, what the hell... I will join you! YA!

:dead_horse:

[red986s]

We should dissolve all IT classes, who's with me?:cavallo:

[Greg Amy]

Fewer Classes is better than More Classes...
Almost everybody in the Club thinks that fewer classes is better than more classes...as long as you leave my class alone...

[Ron Earp]

Almost everybody in the Club thinks that fewer classes is better than more classes...as long as you leave my class alone...

Almost Everybody

But not everybody. Some people have enough sense and vision to look at the larger picture and put the club needs before their own. Many of us here would accept changes, merges, or elimination of our own class if the club would be healthier for it.

[Greg Amy]

But not everybody. Some people have enough sense and vision...
Yes, but both of us are dramatically outnumbered. And, we're both human (as far as I know) and we both have to interact on the weekends with the other 99.999% that wants classes eliminated...except for theirs.

Ask any other person if they'd be willing to give up their class for the betterment of the Club if the hierarchy deemed it so; "yes or no", no debate on why their class is not "the" one to go away. I'm willing to wager you'd ask a lot of folks before you got a "yes"...if you ever got one.

While it's not a true democracy (more a meritocracy, actually) it's still a club. I commend the CRB for giving this consolidation thought and presenting it to the membership. I think it'll happen, because there's enough strong wills to move forward with it. We'll see.

GA

[Matt93SE]

Almost Everybody

But not everybody. Some people have enough sense and vision to look at the larger picture and put the club needs before their own. Many of us here would accept changes, merges, or elimination of our own class, as long as we didn't have to spend any more money and could run at the front of the new class, and if the club would be healthier for it.

Fixed that for ya. :p

[TStiles]

Would it be the end of the world if we just adopted :

- DOT Tire / IT-ST Prep : HP to Weight Classes 1- ???
- Slick Tire / Prod Prep : HP to Weight Classes 1- ???

I know this is overly simplistic , but we could spend a bunch less on engine development.

If you want to slice and dice a little more you could add X pounds for aero , x pounds for ???

BTW : The objective is not just fewer classes , the objective needs to be fewer groups and that a whole other can of worms ( much more difficult )

[Chip42]

Would it be the end of the world if we just adopted :

- DOT Tire / IT-ST Prep : HP to Weight Classes 1- ???
- Slick Tire / Prod Prep : HP to Weight Classes 1- ???


no, it wouldn't be. but people have spent a lot of time and energy honing their cars to a class that is itself still viable and while that won't necessarily be "wasted" effort under such a scheme, it certianly changes the direction of development and could cause the work to be less valuable. I'm not saying that the omlet won't require breaking some eggs, but while merging classes that are already in the same run group might make for better racing it won't help the number of run groups. pising off customers looses customers. the short period between loss of current and gaining of new / regaining old could spell the death of the club.

if I were king, there would be touring and GT (and SM). everything prod and GT would be in GT and all SS/T/IT would go to T. ST would be split between them. this still wouldn't help the number of run groups but it would certainly reduce the number of glasses (and the merger would be painful...)

[red986s]

IMHO, if you want change, now would be the time to implement it. SCCA has let be known which classes they want to see thrive. "IT" wasn't on the list. Merging into Prod or ST, to me, would be a natural progression.

[seckerich]

IT wasn't on the list because regional only classes are not relevant to their discussion. Had IT gone National it would be a completely different conversation. As it is ST is the "end around" to fix the last bright idea the CRB had for World Challenge cars to go die. Very similar to the start of this thread where SS and TT were to go die. Same discussion except pissed off drivers don't go away mad, they just go away.

[Spinnetti]

Seems to me you guys are taking an org centric vs. customer centric view of things. Lots of guys will run whatever wins, but some of us like our cars and want to fit in somewhere. Seems to me there should be less classes and use weight/restrictors like in so many other series to even things up. With all the squabbling over minutea, crap can racing will take over what IT used to be... No problems filling up those fields! Heck I haven't run my fully prepped IT car in years (kinda feel bad about that).

[jhooten]

We should dissolve all IT classes, who's with me?:cavallo:


Didn't I say that already?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Would it be the end of the world if we just adopted :

- DOT Tire / IT-ST Prep : HP to Weight Classes 1- ???


I know this is overly simplistic , but we could spend a bunch less on engine development.

If you want to slice and dice a little more you could add X pounds for aero , x pounds for ???



Guess what? The way you describe this is just about what it is now. IT classes ARE power to weight classes with adders. The flaw in the ointment is that validating classes with a dyno is just dumb. Sorry guys but that dog won't hunt. Too easy to cheat, too hard to logistically manage event to event.

The REAL simplicity is what we have. 'Here is what you can do, here is what you weigh, race.' You max out what you can do at your leisure.

[JoshS]

Guess what? The way you describe this is just about what it is now. IT classes ARE power to weight classes with adders. The flaw in the ointment is that validating classes with a dyno is just dumb. Sorry guys but that dog won't hunt. Too easy to cheat, too hard to logistically manage event to event.

The REAL simplicity is what we have. 'Here is what you can do, here is what you weigh, race.' You max out what you can do at your leisure.

To expand on that idea:

Andy is right, of course, dyno-based enforcement is a bad idea, so we'll have to limit the rules so that the horsepower is predictable so that the power-to-weight listings in the rulebook make sense. So the IT allowances could say:

1) If it doesn't affect horsepower, you can do it.
2) Among horsepower-related modifications: you may do only the following things:
[ and then list the existing IT horsepower-related allowances ]

The problem with that, of course, is that there are a lot of handling, aero, or braking modifications you could do in that case. So, do you want to limit those too, or leave it unlimited like the power-to-weight classes that you love so much? Because unlimited costs a lot more money (mostly in fabrication and testing). And if you decide that you don't want unlimited handling, braking, and aero mods, and so then start to list them, then you really have something that looks just like the current IT.

So I conclude (with Andy) that the current IT structure is the natural conclusion of a power-to-weight-based classification.

[chuck baader]

Bang on Josh! If you want an education in power to weight, visit your local NASA race and talk with the GTS guys. Everyone thought it was a great way to do things but over the last couple of years racers have been pouring money into their cars to get the hp/wt as close as possible for their class. Furthermore, I have seen a dyno at one NASA race and that was 4(?) years ago. You send in your dyno sheet the first of the year and figure your weight. After the race you are weighed to make sure you are compliant with the weight. Turn your timing back on the dyno, sent in sheet, and race with 50 more hp and no one will enforce the rule at a local race. And don't even get me started with the hp+tq divided by 2 for your hp figure!!

[FLATKITTY]

jhooten ... "But the numbers for [IT cars] have fallen steadily for the last 4 or 5 years w/the last one only having about 20 cars entered."

I am new to your area (just finished up an IT car) & have been wondering how you folks in the SW Division went from 30 ITS cars (2003) to 21 (2004) to 19 (2005) to 15 (2006) to 18 (2007) to 8 (2008) to 13 (2009) to 9 (2010) & then POOF ... nada for 2011? :shrug:

Sometimes complete class domination by a single driver &/or marque can kill off a class, but, looking a past class winners, that does not appear the case here at all.

As for IT cars being more like (older ... as in pre-flare) Production cars, as a long time IT supporter, I take that as a compliment. IT has that nice "visual integrity" that current production & GT cars lack. The IT class is a throw-back to when the cars were directly connected (visually) to what was driven on the street. I have never had an issue w/"rules creep" that 1) everyone could take advantage of; & 2) did not cost anything. Examples that come to mind are the removal of items ... heater & A/C systems, washer bottles, seats & interior trim items, etc. One item that I would disagree with that just popped up recently was the request for a non-power steering assembly for cars that never had them. This, IMHO, would be a highly discriminatory ruling that 1) only a select few could take advantage of; & 2) would cost money.

IT has been, & still is, a less expensive class to get started in, or just enjoy a long-term 'relationship' with. I have competed in every IT class but ITR. And I have always enjoyed the competition AND the competitors. Well, most of 'em anyway. :D

If you noticed, I specifically indicated that IT was a "less expensive" class ... as opposed to "cheap". The word "cheap" & "racing" are, for all intents & purposes, contradictory. We could all start racing Dollar Store wheelbarrows tomorrow &, w/in a VERY short period of time, there would be titanium handles, carbon fiber buckets, a shock system, low-resistance bearings, a half dozen different tire compounds & aero devices. It's just the nature of racing.

And tho I do disagree w/some of the things done in IT, I really do try to, as some of you are fond of saying, "let that ship sail" & just enjoy the racing.

As I indicated earlier in this rant, I have just finished my latest IT race car. My only reason for building it is to travel around the country & drive all of the SCCA tracks that I have never had the opportunity to drive, or that have changed since I last drove them. So if you see this older guy who looks just a bit confused as to where to find that last 10 seconds to a lap record, stop by & say HI.

[jhooten]

jhooten ... "But the numbers for [IT cars] have fallen steadily for the last 4 or 5 years w/the last one only having about 20 cars entered."

I am new to your area (just finished up an IT car) & have been wondering how you folks in the SW Division went from 30 ITS cars (2003) to 21 (2004) to 19 (2005) to 15 (2006) to 18 (2007) to 8 (2008) to 13 (2009) to 9 (2010) & then POOF ... nada for 2011? :shrug:

Sometimes complete class domination by a single driver &/or marque can kill off a class, but, looking a past class winners, that does not appear the case here at all.


As I indicated earlier in this rant, I have just finished my latest IT race car. My only reason for building it is to travel around the country & drive all of the SCCA tracks that I have never had the opportunity to drive, or that have changed since I last drove them. So if you see this older guy who looks just a bit confused as to where to find that last 10 seconds to a lap record, stop by & say HI.

It is not just ITS, About the only viable IT class we have left is ITA and that mainly because of double dipping SM cars. And now most of them are leaving ITA and going to STU/L.

I'll admit I have a 2001 Camaro being prepped for STU. But I started in an ITS 85 Supra and there is one for sale here on the board which will be headed south as soon as I get recovered from the recent disaster and can fund the purchase. There is just something about and I6 and the way it drives off the corners.

If I'm not racing I'm usually in the tech shed harassing drivers. Since you are a sure bet to be in the top three I'll see you there.

[Bob Roth]

Whatever you do, please consider having two values in mind. 1st Value. For club/regional racing, the objective should be to maximize the car count. 2nd Value - Protect the car owner's investment with stable classes and rules.

To that end, I think club racing should have more classes built around popular/attractive cars. From what I've seen, NASA '944 spec seems to have a good cluster of cars. Same with Honda challenge. I wonder if we ought to have several Miata classes based on generation. The attraction is once you form those classes, they tend to maintain and police themselves. They also protect drivers investments because of stable parity.

Most everybody I see in 25 years of IT racing has stuck around and not moved up. They are doing it for fun. I think more trophies, and more classes based on popular cars encourage people to get involved, and keep them around because their cars aren't obsolete as some new flavor shows up.

[chuck baader]

Or we could just play the hand we are dealt and leave well enough alone. Chuck

[seckerich]

Or we could just play the hand we are dealt and leave well enough alone. Chuck

Come on Chuck, like congress we have to keep making new laws or we look irrelevant. :rolleyes:

[Chip42]

To that end, I think club racing should have more classes built around popular/attractive cars. From what I've seen, NASA '944 spec seems to have a good cluster of cars. Same with Honda challenge. I wonder if we ought to have several Miata classes based on generation. The attraction is once you form those classes, they tend to maintain and police themselves. They also protect drivers investments because of stable parity.

Most everybody I see in 25 years of IT racing has stuck around and not moved up. They are doing it for fun. I think more trophies, and more classes based on popular cars encourage people to get involved, and keep them around because their cars aren't obsolete as some new flavor shows up.

IT has the potential to continue to be stable for many years. it's up to a couple of key things:
1 - ITAC and CRB do their homework. newer cars and technology will respond differently to the IT allowances, and in some cases may require new or revised rules (i.e. how to deal with gasoline direct injection). that stuff has to be worked out on the front end as much as possible. B spec, world challenge, conti challenge can be a great asset here. the goals are to keep the allowances minimal, the rules stable, and the existing cars relevant.

2 - membership has to help. The ITAC really can't do much of anything within our own bylaws unless you guys send us data. IT is a power to weight category and without real power outputs, most stuff is a somewhat statistically driven stab in the dark. turns out it's a pretty god stab much of the time, but when it isn't, it can be fixed with input. this is true if your power is high or low.

There is no reason a brand new car and a 73 datsun can't run door to door using a power/weight system*. weights will be different, strengths will be, too. but that's the best part.

*cars are getting faster, and technology marches on, so yeah, slower classes are going to shrivel and die naturally, and power/weight won't take the more nuanced improvements in handling and braking etc... into account, so newer cars may displace older ones in that way, but I think that's good in that a class full of 50 year old cars isn't appealing to new members, and its should be a long gentle slope, not a hard drop like in SS/T or a protectionist rule set as prod was for many years (and may still have elements of).

[Matt93SE]

So if you see this older guy who looks just a bit confused as to where to find that last 10 seconds to a lap record, stop by & say HI.
You could start by getting some good tires vs. those All-Season Yokohoamas you were running on. ;)

[Knestis]

...The ITAC really can't do much of anything within our own bylaws unless you guys send us data. IT is a power to weight category and without real power outputs, most stuff is a somewhat statistically driven stab in the dark. turns out it's a pretty god stab much of the time, but when it isn't, it can be fixed with input. this is true if your power is high or low. ...

It's getting to be ancient history but this isn't quite what the framers of the Process had in mind. Not all decisions should require "data" in the form it's come to be thought of (i.e., dyno outputs).

A stab in the dark is close enough for what we do and I'd hate to think that decisions might be paralyzed because we're afraid to get out the knife while we're waiting for someone to find us a laser scalpel. Do we currently have any requests in limbo in this regard...?

K

[JeffYoung]

It's getting to be ancient history but this isn't quite what the framers of the Process had in mind. Not all decisions should require "data" in the form it's come to be thought of (i.e., dyno outputs).

A stab in the dark is close enough for what we do and I'd hate to think that decisions might be paralyzed because we're afraid to get out the knife while we're waiting for someone to find us a laser scalpel. Do we currently have any requests in limbo in this regard...?

K

No, nothing is held up in in large part due to the 25% default rule. If we have no data, and there is nothing of substance in the form of technical information, etc. otherwise, then we default to 25% until data does appear.

[Chip42]

KK, the point was that we make a default 25% classification without good reason to do otherwise. Data helps us justify making a change to the default, and there's also triggers like you know so that obvious over/underdogs get looked at. We do our own research when we feel there reason to do so.

The real point though, as you and other "framers" have made clear in the past, is that an oddball car is hard for us to make good judgements on. We need to know prep level and output to make judgements in those cases. When a borgwald is in P1 everywhere in the country then we have a reason to worry and look into it. If something like a tr8 shows up, it up to the sadist running the thing to make it clear that reasonable efforts are or are not getting it to the ballpark. WE can't just know that.

I'll be damned if I'm going to sit on an itac that makes adjustments off the cuff because they feel right. I need some data, and with the nature of our rules and some of the cars we have classified, that information is often not really out there.

But you knew that already.

[Knestis]

Thanks for reaffirming that, guys. I was worried about "can't do much of anything within our own bylaws unless you guys send us data." That seemed kind of extreme.

K

[JeffYoung]

No worries.

You guys set up a great system. It works. It really does.

[benspeed]

I know that I'm guilty of bitching about a few items but rest asssured, the ITAC has created a fantastic program for Improved Touring.

Somebody mentioned what's going on with NASA GT and the power to weight measured by the dyno...that's turned into a giant sinkhole for cash. Friends who went to that program are now dusting themselves off and realizing they've poured huge cubic dollars and have no real way of policing. Dyno's are are easy to fool and some smart guys have cooked up some pretty intricate and crafty ways to do it (not that the dyno is at the track much anyway...)

[lateapex911]

I know that I'm guilty of bitching about a few items but rest asssured, the ITAC has created a fantastic program for Improved Touring.

Somebody mentioned what's going on with NASA GT and the power to weight measured by the dyno...that's turned into a giant sinkhole for cash. Friends who went to that program are now dusting themselves off and realizing they've poured huge cubic dollars and have no real way of policing. Dyno's are are easy to fool and some smart guys have cooked up some pretty intricate and crafty ways to do it (not that the dyno is at the track much anyway...)

Yup-
SOUNDS good, until you think about even sorta hard. We've had some discussions here about it, and NASA supporter shout that it's the only way. Honestly, I shake my head, and i've probably been less then diplomatic, but it's just DUMB to think that a dyno...even at the track is going to ensure parity.
A key issue that people fail to realize is a subconscious one. We self police. IF I cheat, I'm actively screwing the RX-7 who finishes behind me. I know him. He's loaned me parts.
However, if the officials come to check us all, well, THATS another story. Subconsciously, it's now us vs them, not us vs us. I always chuckle when guys in NASCAR are apologetic for cheating. Ha! of COURSE you're trying to get away with something! you'd BETTER be, because everyone else is too.

The dyno thing is asking for cheating. Without thinking hard at all, I can think of a dozen ways to fool the dyno, with an ECU or without. Soooo easy.

Bottom line: sealed engines