October 2012 Prelim Minutes and TB

[pfrichardson]

...are posted:

http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472

[Bill Miller]

Looks like they fleshed out the justification of the 30% multi-valve factor for B/C, and talked about using non-standard factors. Still doesn't mean much if the CRB can just chuck it aside.

[Chip42]

the idea was to change the language that had been understood to mean that some cars just got stuck at a certain value, while remaining sensitive to the potential of newer tech cars (unfortunately identified as "multivalve") in ITB and C.

The end result frees the ITAC/CRB relationship from any predetermined multipliers. yes, the CRB can still change recomendations as they see fit. the ops manual is NOT a set of rules everyone has to follow, but it is generally suported by the CRB and that's a huge plus.

[Kai Noeske]

What's the "U" in "ITU" for that Travis suggested? Under 2000 cc ? IT Unlimited (any power/weight naturally aspirated car w/ IT mods) ? IT Unsightly for people who hate fixing bodywork? IT Unobtanium for very rare cars with IT mods? :shrug:

[JeffYoung]

A faster class above R. With R car counts where they are (low but increasing) I don't think we are in the position to do that yet.

[Chip42]

What's the "U" in "ITU" for that Travis suggested? Under 2000 cc ? IT Unlimited (any power/weight naturally aspirated car w/ IT mods) ? IT Unsightly for people who hate fixing bodywork? IT Unobtanium for very rare cars with IT mods? :shrug:

Like Jeff said. Travis actually put a lot of work into the proposal. in order to keep modern "sports" cars in IT, we'll eventually need a faster class. if we're happy with rios and civics, and the miata/MX5, then the current format works quite well. it's not getting done right now, though. last thing anyone wants is another class right now.

[Kai Noeske]

Like Jeff said. Travis actually put a lot of work into the proposal. in order to keep modern "sports" cars in IT, we'll eventually need a faster class. if we're happy with rios and civics, and the miata/MX5, then the current format works quite well. it's not getting done right now, though. last thing anyone wants is another class right now.

Ah, thanks guys! Seems to make a lot of sense to have IT move along with the performance evolution of cars.

[JeffYoung]

It will happen at some point, and honestly should have happened by now. Actually, what should have happned is that ITR should have come along 10 years before it did, and we should be working on ITU now.

Travis did a great job with the proposal. It's just the wrong time for it.

[JLawton]

Maybe time to see if you can work the current ITC cars into ITB and get rid of "C". I know some (most?) cars won't be able to get rid of that much weight but............... :shrug:

[Chip42]

I think that would wind up being a case where we'd kill ITC and just deal with the fallout. we're not talking about it, but there's just about no way most C cars could ever be competitive in B.

we have to move IT forward somehow or it will loose relevance.

[Z3_GoCar]

I think that would wind up being a case where we'd kill ITC and just deal with the fallout. we're not talking about it, but there's just about no way most C cars could ever be competitive in B.

we have to move IT forward somehow or it will loose relevance.

Resurect the old ITD class, and put the -C- cars there.

If you get pushback for adding a class, just remind them that IT is regional only and they won't have to worry about it darkening the door of the Runoffs. One of the benefits of not being a national eligable class.

[erlrich]

Resurect the old ITD class, and put the -C- cars there.

If you get pushback for adding a class, just remind them that IT is regional only and they won't have to worry about it darkening the door of the Runoffs. One of the benefits of not being a national eligible class.

I was just going to say, with IT's regional-only status, why would we need to kill off the class? Just let it die naturally, and until then the ITC guys still have a place to play.

[Chip42]

I don't have participation numbers for ITC handy, but it's not a lot. I undertsnad there are some good clusters in certain areas. I think THOSE areas can keep ITC going region by region, but at a "national" rules level I see no viability to that class in the future. right now, though, I am not trying to kill it, nor is anyone else.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with Earl 100%. I would not support delisting cars, or eliminating a class.

The progression of IT to "faster" cars and "faster" classes is and will continue to happen naturally, in my opinion.

While C is dead in a lot of places, it's not in others and those guys should continue to have a place to race. The BEST race at the ITFest -- by far -- was ITC. Big field, and competitive.

[seckerich]

Maybe time to see if you can work the current ITC cars into ITB and get rid of "C". I know some (most?) cars won't be able to get rid of that much weight but............... :shrug:

You need to update your signature Jeff, it is now an STU Mini Cooper S. :D

[Kai Noeske]

I agree with Earl 100%. I would not support delisting cars, or eliminating a class.


Supported; the ITC racers I have met are usually in older cars that they have loved for a long time, and with the usually experienced love-of-racing drivers and well developed cars, they run similar times as slower ITB cars. Keeping ITC alive does not require extra race groups at Regionals if they keep running with ITB, and does not slow the race groups down either.

Remembering how Fred White drove circles around my 160 hp SSC Civic in his ITC Honda at my NHMS school... and how Tony Christian beat me in his ITC Rabbit when I first started racing at Summit :happy204: .

[dickita15]

I think there will be support for a faster class as soon as we can say “We created ITR because cars are getting faster and is has become a very popular class so it is time to create ITU”
ITR is popular but not yet “very popular” IMHO.
Related question, is there a big enough performance gap between ITS and ITR now/ they seem kind of close.

[jjjanos]

Supported; the ITC racers I have met are usually in older cars that they have loved for a long time, and with the usually experienced love-of-racing drivers and well developed cars, they run similar times as slower ITB cars. Keeping ITC alive does not require extra race groups at Regionals if they keep running with ITB, and does not slow the race groups down either.

Paul Harvey hear... why does SCCA have 137 classes with 2 cars in each class?

Well....

G Prod racers I have met are usually in older cars that they have loved for a long time, and with the usually experienced love-of-racing drivers and well developed cars, they run similar times as slower F Prod cars. Keeping G Prod alive does not require extra race groups at Regionals if they keep running with F Prod, and does not slow the race groups down either.

and now you have..... the rest of the story.....

[JeffYoung]

I think there will be support for a faster class as soon as we can say “We created ITR because cars are getting faster and is has become a very popular class so it is time to create ITU”
ITR is popular but not yet “very popular” IMHO.
Related question, is there a big enough performance gap between ITS and ITR now/ they seem kind of close.

Dick and I talked about this off line a few weeks back and I too would be interested in hearing other folks' opinion on it.

My perception is we got it "just right. There is still (in my opinion) a ton more development in the top ITS cars than ITR save a very few. One of those being Kip VS's 944 S2 which is about 2-3 seconds faster than "the best" ITS cars, which is as it should be to me.

Similarly, the ITR track record at VIR is Mike Skeen in an ITR E36 325 at 2:12, with ITS in.....an ITS E36 at 2:14 by Chet Whittel. Not apples to apples EXACTLY but pretty close, no? And 2 seconds gap is similar to the split in other classes.

[StephenB]

I would guess here in the North East we have some VERY well prepped ITR cars that are 10 10ths. I also think we have 10 10ths ITS cars between flatouts old RX7 and the remaining Autotecnic BMW which actually is probably one of the fastest in the country if I had to guess.

DO I think the ITR times will still drop, yes. But the cars are certainly well developed IMHO. We are running just as quick as the grand am ST cars which is what I think we should be running in ITR.

Stephen

[Prof. Chaos]

SCCA posted the prelim minutes for the October Fastrack (http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472).

In those minutes under suggested rule changes for 2013, it says:

“3. #9046 (SCCA Staff) Require Minimum Windshield Thickness in GCR Section 9
Change GCR section 9.3.55 as follows: 9.3.55 WINDSHIELDS/WINDSHIELD CLIPS/REAR WINDOW
STRAPS
Add a new first sentence as follows: Polycarbonate windshields such as Lexan are allowed except in Improved Touring, Super Touring, American Sedan, Showroom Stock, B-Spec, Spec Miata, and Touring. Alternate windshields must be of 6mm minimum thickness.”

But currently in the GCR under 9.1.4.F.8 Super Touring, it reads:

“All vehicles must use a stock, OEM equivalent, safety glass windshield, or 0.25 inch minimum thickness Lexan replacement, mounted in the stock location, at the stock angle and maintaining the stock profile.”

So starting in 2013 are polycarbonate/Lexan windshields no longer allowed in Super Touring, or is this just an error?

[Greg Amy]

Error, already submitted request for correction. Super Touring can continue with poly windshields; expect updated verbiage in the Sept 20 Fastrack. - GA

[RacerBill]

I think that would wind up being a case where we'd kill ITC and just deal with the fallout. we're not talking about it, but there's just about no way most C cars could ever be competitive in B.

we have to move IT forward somehow or it will loose relevance.

But in Ohio, the ITC gang is the best of show. The OVR Double a couple of weeks ago at Mid-Ohio saw three ITC races that had the crowds on there feet (ok, maybe not crowds) for the entire races. Lead changes, outside passes, you name it. And all of those guys are good friends, to boot. They even padock all together! And that may be an issue with SCCA. Different classes are stronger in some areas of the country than others. It will take the wisdom of Solomon to iron it all out.

[Chip42]

But in Ohio, the ITC gang is the best of show. The OVR Double a couple of weeks ago at Mid-Ohio saw three ITC races that had the crowds on there feet (ok, maybe not crowds) for the entire races. Lead changes, outside passes, you name it. And all of those guys are good friends, to boot. They even padock all together! And that may be an issue with SCCA. Different classes are stronger in some areas of the country than others. It will take the wisdom of Solomon to iron it all out.

I'm not suggesting doing away with ITC - I'm suggesting that if the time came to "roll them in" to ITB, to make room for a new class above ITR, that it would make more sense to me if we just did away with ITC as a nationally maintained ruleset. and as I said, it's on no ones agenda and I'm certainly not runnign the show, I'm just a single vote in an adhoc.

[dickita15]

I do not think the two are related. Making C go away in order to create a new class is not necessary and would just make more enemies. All you need to do is not expend any committee time on ITC and it is not a problem. Wait a minute I guess we are already doing that.

[Bill Miller]

I'm not suggesting doing away with ITC - I'm suggesting that if the time came to "roll them in" to ITB, to make room for a new class above ITR, that it would make more sense to me if we just did away with ITC as a nationally maintained ruleset. and as I said, it's on no ones agenda and I'm certainly not runnign the show, I'm just a single vote in an adhoc.

Not sure where anyone would get the idea that you would need to eliminate on IT class to make room for another one. That was never a consideration when we put ITR together. And since IT isn't a National class, there's no Runoffs impact. The driver behind ITR was that there were a metric shit ton of popular cars, that couldn't be run in IT, w/o being saddle w/ massive amount of weight to fit into ITS. There was never any discussion around needing to drop C to make R fit. I think the same would hold w/ another class above R. You're just defining another performance envelope for cars that are too fast for ITR.

And honestly Chip, I don't think you could make most of the ITC cars light enough to be competitive in ITB.


I do not think the two are related. Making C go away in order to create a new class is not necessary and would just make more enemies. All you need to do is not expend any committee time on ITC and it is not a problem. Wait a minute I guess we are already doing that.

Wow, nothing like telling the ITC crowd that they are insignificant. Where are all these B-spec cars going to age into? Are they fast enough for ITB?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Wow, nothing like telling the ITC crowd that they are insignificant. Where are all these B-spec cars going to age into? Are they fast enough for ITB?

So Bill,

Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I know *I* have been, but seem to recall your position as similar on this concept: The SCCA seems to never have enough balls to consolidate classes for a forward-thinking framework. If we had to bundle ITB and ITC (maybe adjust the multiplier to 17.92 (17 + 18.84 /2) so we could add a class above ITR, why not? The future is certainly in that class I would think.

Those of us who are critics of the 'a class for everyone' syndrome can't also be critical of the CONCEPT of the elimination/consolidation of classes. Short term pain for long term gain?

Maybe.

[dickita15]

Wow, nothing like telling the ITC crowd that they are insignificant. Where are all these B-spec cars going to age into? Are they fast enough for ITB?

Well actually Bill I would say we would be promising stability. They can race in C as long as they have someone to race with. It’s not like we have been adding many new cars. If I and 10 of my best friends raced ITC I would be happy with that response.
As for the B Spec cars they all make much more power, the only question is can they make a reasonable weight.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Does anyone know how many actual B-Spec cars are out there? 10?

[EH9racing]

As for the B Spec cars they all make much more power, the only question is can they make a reasonable weight.

Most of them "fit" into ITB @ 25%, but most would end up at 30% considering the requirement of information. Also most of them are at or near curb weight when processed at 30% (Fit, 2, Versa, Yaris, Fiesta). The Mini would have to carry lead (@30%) and the Fiat (%30) would be hard to get to minimum weight. Two of them would go to ITA (Kia and Chevy).

[JLawton]

OK, it was me who originally suggested doing away with ITC <raising hand> Not Chip or anyone else. I think everyone is on the same page here except for me but after reading the arguments I don't think it's a good idea either.

Sorry to stir things up!!! :rolleyes:

[Ron Earp]

Does anyone know how many actual B-Spec cars are out there? 10?

Ding ding ding.

I was going to say we don't need to worry about where they'll fit because there will only be three or four of them when the time comes around and heck, they could be off in Chump.

But then I remembered this is the SCCA where three or four cars makes a National Runoff Class. Silly me.

[JeffYoung]

We don't spend a lot of time on C .... interest in the class is very low. But like I said, the racing in C at Mid Ohio was eye opening ot me. I don't think I'd ever seen more than 2-3 ITC cars on track at any time.

I'm not in favor of "eliminating" the ITC cars.

I am in favor of trying to consolidate classes.

Andy may be on to something. If we adjusted the power to weight so we could have the "true" B cars weigh a bit more and so we could squeeze most C cars in...might work.....although B guys may not like it because the weights of existing cars would go up.

[Bill Miller]

So Bill,

Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I know *I* have been, but seem to recall your position as similar on this concept: The SCCA seems to never have enough balls to consolidate classes for a forward-thinking framework. If we had to bundle ITB and ITC (maybe adjust the multiplier to 17.92 (17 + 18.84 /2) so we could add a class above ITR, why not? The future is certainly in that class I would think.

Those of us who are critics of the 'a class for everyone' syndrome can't also be critical of the CONCEPT of the elimination/consolidation of classes. Short term pain for long term gain?

Maybe.

Andy, I'm not sure why you would need to consolidate/eliminate anything, to add a class above R. IIRC, when you, I, Kirk, Jake, George, etc., etc. were working on the ITR proposal, I don't think the topic of eliminating ITC ever even came up. I also don't see how adding a class for cars that are too fast to run in ITR is playing the 'class for everyone' game. If IT were a National category, and had to deal w/ the issue of how many run groups they could manage at the Runoffs, I could see it being an issue. But until that day comes, I don't see where adding an additional class would have any impact on the existing IT classes. In fact, the Regions have been doing it for years (e.g. IT7, SSM, SRX7)


Well actually Bill I would say we would be promising stability. They can race in C as long as they have someone to race with. It’s not like we have been adding many new cars. If I and 10 of my best friends raced ITC I would be happy with that response.
As for the B Spec cars they all make much more power, the only question is can they make a reasonable weight.

Dick,

Why should ITC have any more or less stability than any of the other IT classes? And I read your earlier comment as basically no time would get spent on an ITC-specfic business / issues.

And I realize that ITC is in a tough spot. Not many 75hp cars built these days. But if they started winnowing off the bottom of ITB, into ITC, it may give the class a shot in the arm. So, not so much consolidation, as moving some cars down. Mostly ones that don't stand a chance in ITB right now, anyway.

The comment about the B-spec cars was because I really don't know anything about them, or where they would fit in IT.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, I'm not sure why you would need to consolidate/eliminate anything, to add a class above R. IIRC, when you, I, Kirk, Jake, George, etc., etc. were working on the ITR proposal, I don't think the topic of eliminating ITC ever even came up. I also don't see how adding a class for cars that are too fast to run in ITR is playing the 'class for everyone' game. If IT were a National category, and had to deal w/ the issue of how many run groups they could manage at the Runoffs, I could see it being an issue. But until that day comes, I don't see where adding an additional class would have any impact on the existing IT classes. In fact, the Regions have been doing it for years (e.g. IT7, SSM, SRX7)




My comment on the consolidation to facilitate the addition was brought on by the comments made that made it seem like the CRB thought there were enough IT classes now. So if that was the case, we look at the long term health of the category as a whole and adjust accordingly.

The 'class for everyone' was not a comment on a class above ITR but a comment on the SCCA structure as a whole. Everyone complains about how there is no vision for the future yet those same people hold onto their class (no matter how small the numbers are) with a white knuckle grip. Classic 'change is great for you but not for ME' mentality.

I personally think you could add a class above ITR without touching ITC. I don't see the necessity of a one-in, one-out model at this point.

On B-Spec - no need to worry where they will go. There aren't enough of them now, and as I predicted, won't be many more. At some point, people actually have to like the car they race. The guys with the wallets don't want to go into work on Monday and tell people they came in 3rd driving their rented Mazda 2. No cool factor which really needs to be there for most of these guys. It would for me if I had the money. GAC ST all the way.

[924Guy]

Andy may be on to something. If we adjusted the power to weight so we could have the "true" B cars weigh a bit more and so we could squeeze most C cars in...might work.....although B guys may not like it because the weights of existing cars would go up.

As owner (and occasional driver) of one of the fastest and heaviest B cars in the country... I don't have an objection to adding weight to increase field sizes. OK, things may (should) get a bit slower... but let's face it, no-one's running ITB now to set their hair on fire... ITB and ITC are definitely all about the quality of the racing, IMO...

[JeffYoung]

On B-Spec - no need to worry where they will go. There aren't enough of them now, and as I predicted, won't be many more. At some point, people actually have to like the car they race. The guys with the wallets don't want to go into work on Monday and tell people they came in 3rd driving their rented Mazda 2. No cool factor which really needs to be there for most of these guys. It would for me if I had the money. GAC ST all the way.

AMEN. I'm telling you guys, if they did something like B-Spec with V6 Hyundai Genesis, Challenger, Camaro and Mustang? You might see 30 car fields. I would consider it.

[Bill Miller]

My comment on the consolidation to facilitate the addition was brought on by the comments made that made it seem like the CRB thought there were enough IT classes now. So if that was the case, we look at the long term health of the category as a whole and adjust accordingly.

The 'class for everyone' was not a comment on a class above ITR but a comment on the SCCA structure as a whole. Everyone complains about how there is no vision for the future yet those same people hold onto their class (no matter how small the numbers are) with a white knuckle grip. Classic 'change is great for you but not for ME' mentality.

I personally think you could add a class above ITR without touching ITC. I don't see the necessity of a one-in, one-out model at this point.

On B-Spec - no need to worry where they will go. There aren't enough of them now, and as I predicted, won't be many more. At some point, people actually have to like the car they race. The guys with the wallets don't want to go into work on Monday and tell people they came in 3rd driving their rented Mazda 2. No cool factor which really needs to be there for most of these guys. It would for me if I had the money. GAC ST all the way.

You and I are on the same page Andy. The overall good of the category should be the #1 priority. Unfortunately, Club Racing has been too me-centric for a long, long time. I'm not sure why the CRB would take the approach that there are enough IT classes. It doesn't really impact anything, by adding another IT class, expect possibly bringing some more people to the track. The nice thing is, the Regions could implement it on their own, w/o needing any input or blessing from the CRB. The only trick is to get them (the Regions) to agree on a uniform rule set. So, Travis could pitch his ITU proposal to all the regions, get their buy in, and implement it w/o any need for CRB involvement. What would be really cool, is if all the Regions agree to have the ITAC manage the class. :023:

As far as the whole B-spec thing goes, I'm not sure who's brain child that was. But I didn't think it was as expensive as GAC ST. I have a good friend of mine that runs that (John Weisberg), and I'm pretty sure seats are way more $$$$ than a B-spec ride, but I could be wrong.

[Bill Miller]

AMEN. I'm telling you guys, if they did something like B-Spec with V6 Hyundai Genesis, Challenger, Camaro and Mustang? You might see 30 car fields. I would consider it.

They actually used to do that Jeff, I think it was called SSGT.:D

[Ron Earp]

AMEN. I'm telling you guys, if they did something like B-Spec with V6 Hyundai Genesis, Challenger, Camaro and Mustang? You might see 30 car fields. I would consider it.

I like the concept, but the economics of it might not play out as you'd think. Since there are so many aftermarket go fast parts for the V8 Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang, and not many for the V6 versions, it could be cheaper to race the V8. And then on the used market a V8 donor won't cost much more than a V6.

On the other hand, one can argue that since it is a full on race car you'll be designing and making parts and not using off the shelf stuff. Maybe or maybe not.

I do know for sure that a V6 ITS Mustang isn't a cheap proposition and I certainly could have saved some coin had there been some good aftermarket parts, anything from ECU knowledge/know how to rear suspension parts.

[Chip42]

I would NOT support an increase in weight in ITB, for any reason. many new cars in B (and A, and S) are approaching 3k+ lbs and the cars simply aren't strong enough in many cases to take the abuse of that weight in a racing scenario (thinking driveline and hubs here - IT rules don't, and shouldn't, allow updates to account for the added weight and grip). if we ran the weight of B up 1 lb/hp that would work out to roughly 125-135lbs average weight gain, and we have plenty of evidence already to show that gaining and loosing that much has taken cars from reliable to parts-eaters and back again. sure, some cars would be fine, but many aree econohatches and NOT built for the abuse - why risk it? B is a growing class, and doing pretty well after years of stagnation. I'd rather just get the rest of the classified cars processed correctly per the current definition.

I'm FINE with dropping the bottom of B into C, not fine with making B more accomodating of C in a combined class. I'm OK with releasing CRB/GCR coverage of ITC and leaving it alone as a static rule set as the likelihood of cars getting added to it (outside of dropping the bottom out of ITB ) is low. There IS great racing in C, and the best way to preserve that is to leave it alone (seal it). IF we do anythign with C in the near future, it will be fixing the process variables for it because what we have run often appears REALLY far off the mark. moving slower B cars down would require likewise. changes to C would most likely upset the C drivers more than sealing up the class. there are a lot of options and none come without down sides.

B-segment cars don't have to have competed in B-spec to be candidates for IT. there are PLENTY of fits, 2's, rios, etc... out there that would make good IT cars in the future regardless of B-Spec racing's exisitance or popularity.

the B spec concept as applied to larger / faster cars is close to what the continental series offers, really. pro racing admin and competition prep costs add significantly to the bottom line, but "on paper" the cars are pretty cheap.

[S2_ITBVW]

It scares me when folks say that the natural progression of things needs to be towards higher performance, faster classes. I certainly don't have as much time in the club as most of you guys, but no one seems to be mentioning the reason that I think we have to maintain the lower performance classes . . . COST. I can't justify spending more than I do now on my ITB car. As you look around the automotive landscape just about every manufacturer is now producing economy models that will someday fit into lower performance, RELATIVELY inexpensive IT classes. You can buy a very competitive ITB car for waaaay less than $10k (often less than $5k). I don't think we want to make the entry point for racing any more expensive than it is.

And, no, I don't want to race Chumpcar . . . I'd like to continue racing right where I am.

[jumbojimbo]

On the other side of the coin you have the "hey, if we just had a class for (fill in blank) we'd get tons of cars". And then we don't. We should think long and hard before we add classes. Does it ADD cars and drivers or just chop the field into even smaller slices? If we're not adding drivers then adding classes is counter productive.

I think it is unlikely any ITC cars can lose much weight, if any. I'm 100# overweight now. 50 of that is driver, and maybe I could get rid the rest if I really cared. But not much below that.

Maybe I shouldn't say this, but it is possible for most of the ITC cars that run in GLD to become ITB cars. The hondas can switch to fuel injection, the renaults can go to 1.8 motors I think. Not sure about the Jetta. We haven't seen the Fiat in a while.

Here's where I'd like to see some planning. If you said ok, in 4 years you're gonna have to move. We might be ok with that. Especially if you did something to grandfather the cars in. I'm pretty sure the hondas can switch pretty easily, but if there is some difference in the 1.8 renaults or the Jetta, maybe you waive that if it's just something cosmetic and not a performance difference. I don't want to spend $1,000 to move classes, but 5 years from now it might have to happen no matter what.

We might not be leaders in ITB but as long as we get to race, I think we'd be ok with it. The biggest danger for us is that we'd get broken up in a move to B. The great thing now is that have 5 cars that run within 1/2 second without hitting each other, plus several right behind that. Lose that and we lose a lot. If you run 8 drivers out so you can add a class of 2 cars, that would not be good.

[JeffYoung]

On the other side of the coin you have the "hey, if we just had a class for (fill in blank) we'd get tons of cars". And then we don't. We should think long and hard before we add classes. Does it ADD cars and drivers or just chop the field into even smaller slices? If we're not adding drivers then adding classes is counter productive.

I think it is unlikely any ITC cars can lose much weight, if any. I'm 100# overweight now. 50 of that is driver, and maybe I could get rid the rest if I really cared. But not much below that.

Maybe I shouldn't say this, but it is possible for most of the ITC cars that run in GLD to become ITB cars. The hondas can switch to fuel injection, the renaults can go to 1.8 motors I think. Not sure about the Jetta. We haven't seen the Fiat in a while.

Here's where I'd like to see some planning. If you said ok, in 4 years you're gonna have to move. We might be ok with that. Especially if you did something to grandfather the cars in. I'm pretty sure the hondas can switch pretty easily, but if there is some difference in the 1.8 renaults or the Jetta, maybe you waive that if it's just something cosmetic and not a performance difference. I don't want to spend $1,000 to move classes, but 5 years from now it might have to happen no matter what.

We might not be leaders in ITB but as long as we get to race, I think we'd be ok with it. The biggest danger for us is that we'd get broken up in a move to B. The great thing now is that have 5 cars that run within 1/2 second without hitting each other, plus several right behind that. Lose that and we lose a lot. If you run 8 drivers out so you can add a class of 2 cars, that would not be good.

This is a good post, especially since it looks at the big picture rather than one class.

I can assure everyone there are no plans afoot to move any class anywhere -- up, down or out -- right now, and it won't be done (at least with my support) until it's been hashed out at length and we have heard from the participants in the class.

I do think most of the "natural" reaction from both C and B guys will be like Chip's post above, which makes sense. At the same time, the fact is we won't be classing any new ITC cars anytime soon. There just is next to nothing out there with a power to weight ratio to fit. On the other thand, B has had something of a resurgence with newer cars coming in. I personally see some value, if it is possible, of moving the C cars into B, over time or however the class drivers want to do it.

But I think that decision should be driven by what the remaining ITC guys want. Right now, it's just letters on the door. C doesn't require its own run group or anything so it is not like this affects region scheduling, etc.

[Flyinglizard]

Looking at the proposed process. It is still figured wrong. The multivalve cars will not make the same HP increase as the cheap 2 valve cars. Never have never will, (with legal mods)
The 2V cars are all base econo cars with little tiny exhaust manifolds, low compression etc, MPG computers/mapping..
They wake up well with the header, some mapping and legal compression mods. They will make the 25 or 30% number.
The 3 - 4V cars are all the High performance cars with very good exhaust manifolds, mapping , intake throttle body size, cams. They simply wont go 25% better with a header and careful assembly. The do around 10% or even less.
I dont run any IT car anymore and really dont care how you guys are doing this now. But you have a chance to get it right at this point and should do it now.
I built the legal 16V VWs and Toy MR2.
The fastest 16V -VW all had very high compression, the wrong cams wrong cam timing,etc.
MM

[EH9racing]

MM,

You are right that the MR2 can't make much power because it was highly optimized from the factory, however not all 4 valve cars are the same. Any D series motor (D15B2, D15B7, D16Y7) that came in a base model Civic (DX, LX, CX, VX) from 92-00 are all 4 valves and all make very little hp from the factory (between 102 and 107hp), but can be woken up with IT legal mods. Why? Econo minded factory Intake, exhaust manifold, exhaust, and tune. Now they won't make the same horsepower as their Si brethen because of small cam profiles and smaller, less powerful intakes but they will make more then 10%-15% over factory hp figures.

There are other examples outside of Honda land, but I don't know enough about those to site them are examples. What I do know is that blanket statements, like "4 valve cars dont make ____ percent" are always wrong.

[Flyinglizard]

Copy that.
Blanket statements are always wrong...

[lawtonglenn]

Blanket statements are always wrong...


which is a blanket statement in itself, so that means blanket statements aren't always wrong, which means that .....

((brain explodes at this point sending little red bits all around in a mile radius))

"a mile radius???" ... "I know, my mother told me a million times not to exaggerate"

.

[EH9racing]

Copy that.
Blanket statements are always wrong...

You got me. Bad choice of words.

It is still wrong to say 3 and 4 valve motors will never be able to make more than 25%. Just as it is wrong to say all 3 and 4 valve motors are high performance models, with very good exhaust manifolds, mapping, intake throttle body sizes and came. It simply is just not true. Sorry Mike but you are incorrect.

[Flyinglizard]

Yes, you are right .. Not all engines are designed the same . I implied that you were correct.
The VW and Toys, I have had enough time with to know.



RE ITC; There are a few old British - Sprigets ,HP cars that are not happy with the new additions to HP.
They are running ITC times MOL.. DOT tires and there may be a few new cars for ITC and a few semiretired cars from HP.
IMHO.
The bottom of those classes are not dissimilar lap time wise, spec wise, or participation wise. Stock pickup points, 1600cc, etc.

[RacerBill]

RE ITC; There are a few old British - Sprigets ,HP cars that are not happy with the new additions to HP.


Would love to see some of those regional HP cars in IT! Bet they would love not having to build grenades, too.

[Flyinglizard]

I checked lap times again for the old HP cars . Most(2-3) are about 2 sec faster than ITC @Sebring. On Slicks.
,Maybe add some DOT tires and a little weight, and the ITC has some more cars and the HP cars have a better place to play.
The cars are a lot alike, most have been in the family for a while and well loved. Not many new builds.

The regional HP class hovers around 9 cars. ITC maybe 5