Letter 9387

[evanwebb]

I have submitted this to crbscca:

Letter ID Number: #9387
Title: Allow selective dual classing for ITC and ITB
Class: ITC
Request: In many regions of the country ITC is no longer a viable class. A number of the cars in ITC are substantially the same mechanically as some cars classed in ITB. I request that these cars be identified and allow racers to convert their ITC cars to ITB-equivalent specs by allowing specific substitutions on the vehicle spec line. For instance, the early VW Scirocco 1.5/1.6/1.7 are essentially the same chassis as the later 1.8 VW Scirocco that is classed in ITB. The early cars could run in ITB if they are allowed the 1.8 engine and transmission and the same brakes as used in the later car, and would be specified at the existing ITB weight. The early car would still be at a slight aerodynamic disadvantage compared to the later car and there fore would not be more competitive. There are other cars that could also have a similar dual classing. I realize this is a departure from past IT practice but if done judiciously this will benefit the size of ITB fields by bringing out cars that are currently classed in ITC but are not raced due to lack of other cars in class. I believe this is not a huge leap for IT since some dual classing is allowed for the ITS/ITR BMW 325, and since the VIN rule has been rescinded.

[Knestis]

...but what you are really asking for is an entirely new, additional level of preparation in the category, that breaks the fundamental assumptions behind update-backdate.

It complicates things pretty dramatically because the IMMEDIATE next step is to allow (for example) all MkI and MkII Golfs to run the MkIII ABA 2.0 and bigger brakes. You're proposing changing the entire category.

I also fear you've got your cause-effect backward, Evan. It's not that people aren't entering ITC because the fields are small. The fields are small because people aren't entering ITC.

K

[evanwebb]

I don't think so Kirk since my request is for chassis that are substantially the same which is not the case for the example you cited. The early and late siroccos are both the A1 chassis.

[evanwebb]

Also Kirk you seem to be talking about changes to the spec line of a car while staying in the same class (like an ITB Mk.1 Golf or Mk.II Golf using an engine from an ITB Mk.III Golf). I'm talking about specific changes to a car's spec line to be able to add it to a different class. This isn't really much different than the situation where some Hondas and perhaps others can run either ITC or ITB depending which engine/transmission, etc. is used. The only difference with the case I'm referring to is bodywork difference between the early or late scirocco. Similarly, if you put Mk.I Gti 1.8 engine/trans/brakes in an ITC Rabbit, it would basically be an ITB Mk.I Gti but with different headlights and taillights. Or maybe rescinding the VIN rule already allows what I want?

[EH9racing]

You are talking about a ST*/GT* level of change. That is way way outside of what IT is about.

The VIN rule was done so that people could have a larger selection of chassis with which to pull from for the car they want to run. In Honda land that means you can buy a 94 Civic EX Coupe (1.6VTEC motor, runs in ITA) and change it to a 94 Civic DX (1.5 non vtec, runs in ITB, with smaller brakes, and uprights). In the end the Civic EX car that is changed to a Civic DX in ITB is effectively EXACTLY what the factory delivered as a stock civic DX with modifications already allowed in IT, but it has a Civic EX vin.

[Chip42]

evan - this idea will not get any traction in IT. sorry.

[evanwebb]

aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!! it's different! run away!

[Chip42]

I'm not against the idea in and of itself, but different from IT is not IT. it might make for a good region-specific class, or maybe a sub STL ST class, but it's really outside of the philosophy of IT, and I am not comfortable with allowing it in the ITCS for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the HUGE change in direction it would mean for IT, and massive rules creep.

I doubt the CRB would bite either.

sorry it's just too outside the box for this place. why not encourage ITC to grow in your area, rather than try to abandon it for B?

[Flyinglizard]

Good luck Evan.
I have seen more than one done this way . 1.8 in the MK 1 Rock,

Run Prod, STU,STL ITE, with it.
The IT logic is really missing at this point.
The car is the same, only missing 6 in from the front end. Is the glass the same?? :)
But it is not written in the rules, and we all know the the rules , are the rules.

[Chip42]

Mike,

I tire of the constant IT bashing. I don't know if you noticed but this is ImprovedTouring.com. disagreements about the rules are one thing, but a desire to see the rules change whole cloth to suite a vision you have is not likely to happen.

that said, everythign about IT is about limited modifications to stock cars, as delivered to showrooms in the US. as soon as you get into "well the powertrain is the same, so just bolt it into whatever body from the OEM it fits in" logic, which is eaxactly what this proposal grows in to, you have what is, in effect, a tiered ST class with IT performance envelopes.

it's not a bad idea for "a thing to do with my car" but it's NOT IT, nor is it PROD for that matter. it falls well outside of those philosophies. it's not ST, either, as being ITC chassis, they are likely too old (85+ chassis and motor) and as proposed, definatley too slow. so it's just a good idea in need of a home. and I doubt that there's sufficient interest to make a class of ITB-speed cars with engine swaps. GTL is about the closest thing SCCA has to a home for this idea. chumpcar would take it, I'm sure. all hail chumpcar, yadda yadda.

[Flyinglizard]

ITC is way too slow for a Chumpcar.. I have no love for Chumpcar.It is merely a venue for hassle free racing ,that IT is not. There are no rules, which will fail it. FWIW the market is huge at this point tho( and filled with ex SCCA cars and drivers). Make your own conclusion.

I agree the rules are the rule per ITC.
Creating a car that the OE did not make, is outside of the rule set. Should it be? I dont know.
Maybe, " if the car came in later years with the same suspension/chassis, but updated power, the car can run as the later car,but add 50#." How hard is that?
Does it solve some problems that the membership has? Yes./
Is the resulting car going to be a game changer? No
Are there lots of ITC cars sitting? yes
Do we need them. ? yes.
Do we need to keep their owners happy and racing? yes.
Just keep telling them to get a new car. Not the best move from a business sense.IMHO..

Please dont continue to live in the past. Make small adjustments to the present, to accommodate the current situation.

I do not bash the IT class. I will bash the ITAC for non logic.


When I have the ITAC guys telling me that, 1) AERO cant be estimated or used.
2) 50# wont matter
These two simple things show me that the ITAC is clearly out of touch with reality.
You ,as a ME from a decent school ,should know better.IE aero is big, 50# does matter.
The front running SM guys cross the scales 6# over. Not many cross over more than 20# over. If any of my cars scale more than 10# over, I have failed. There is a reason that the front cars scale and pump out between rounds. We play to win. Spend a little time with a calculator and work the hp to weights, moving 50# here and there.
Removing the outside mirrors from the Rocco gained 2mph, dropping the rear ride alt gained 2 more. Now simple aero has counted for 4mph without any other changes.
I have been doing this way too long to make crap up.
When I have offered my professional services to address some useful classing issues to the ITAC and been scoffed at . I can deduce that the bus is not well driven .
And My cars dont even run IT anymore!!

[jjjanos]

Creating a car that the OE did not make, is outside of the rule set. Should it be? I dont know.

IT is a class for cars that actually existed. What is being suggested is to run essentially a poorly built-out GT car in IT.

[Flyinglizard]

I was under the impression that the car is a legal ITC car.

[EV]

I was under the impression that the car is a legal ITC car.
It is, but he has no one to play with in C, and wants to have allowable mods to make it run in B and be legal.

[Chip42]

mike - aero DOES matter. it's just too hard to codify from available info, especially given the available changes that can be made within the ITCS, most notably mirrors, air dams/splitters, ride height as you have said and We don't need to go off on that AGAIN. it's what we call "warts and all". you pick a car and deal with it's shortcomings. if it can't make the power it's classed with (note I said "cannot", not "is not") then an adjustment is well founded. otherwise it's good enough, that's how the class is set up, and I'm sorry if you don't like it. it's not about engineering, it's about clear and transparent class management. /and it's not just IT. if you think ST or GT is about to start handing out weight brakes to hatchbacks, I'll put $100 on "you're wrong".

and 50#s does matter... when everything else is 100%. there is too much evidence of cars that are ±100 lbs or so to their ideal weights/ each other and staying on an even footing because of prep level and driver and a number of other factors. again, we aren't going for bullseyes here, just good groupings. that seems to be the point you miss.

and we DO allow for the same chassis (i.e. body) to be swapped between different factory configurations. it's known as the "VIN rule". we do not allow for A2 parts in an A1, etc... doing so would opens cans of worms. many, big, messy ones. you view everythign through the prism of ITB A1/A2 VWs. at least you seem to. there are other, faster cars in the ITCS with simillar swap capabilities that could create much different animals - note that there are cars with the same engine in different classes (like the 1ZZ-FE MR2 spyder in ITS vs celica GT in ITA, or 2ZZ-GE gelica GTS in ITR vs. corolla XRS in ITS) so there's already "evidence" that the motor isn't the whole package. swaps would need to be codified to the chassis/engine combo level, and it's not a good idea to trend in that direction.

we absolutely want to keep racers in the club, and on the track, and happy. we'd like to keep them competitive, but that part has a lot to do with them stepping up to the plate, too. long term, a racer will be happy with consistant rules that don't constantly throw them curve balls, and with large, competitive fields. but we can't make a rule that there be large, competitive fields, only rules to nurture them. A class starting from scratch might be wise to include this idea. the one we have I think is to well established for such a change.

I'm sympathetic to evan's situation. there are a lot of cars in ITC that CAN LEGALLY swap to ITB. his cannot. it takes numbers out of an already shrinking class, leaving him no one to race with. that really sucks. But the philosophy of the category cannot change for one man's needs when it could be so detrimental to the overall health of the category. SCCA has other options FOR THAT CAR in the club, if under different rules. Evan, I suggest you either do some work to scare up ITC fields against which to race or look at one of those other classes. I'm sorry that there arent good ITC fields in your area.

[evanwebb]

So this proposal is specific to ITC since that is the slowest class in SCCA and is already not viable in multiple regions of the country, and I think most people would agree that the overall trend is that newer cars tend to be faster and it is unlikely that this class will ever revive. Hence, a controlled transition for this specific class for cars that can be accommodated reasonably within IT would be nice. Otherwise the cars will simply be parted out or converted to Prod or some other higher level of prep if that is an option for that car. My proposal would allow transition to ITB with specific changes that are noted on each car's spec line where that can be accomplished with swapping out stock assemblies in a way that is very similar to what was allowed following the removal of the VIN rule. I don't think it represents an existential threat to the rest of IT as some have implied...

[Flyinglizard]

Itj

[jhooten]

The SOWDIV proposed class for lemons/chump cars was ITSH. Use your imagination.

[Chip42]

Evan, I forgot to mention that your region might look kindly at your idea and allow it. I'm not sure how much help that is to you, as it would be separate from ITB still, but it's another possible option.

[jjjanos]

... as it would be separate from ITB still, but it's another possible option.

The event supps could include these Franksteins as ITB, but that wording would need to be approved by the Divisional CS and the Club Racing Department.

[StephenB]

So I agree that this is a cool idea for YOU in YOUR region. However I DO NOT think it is a great idea for the National IT Rule set in the GCR. (I say national as in covering all of SCCA not just your region. I totally understand it is a regional only class.)

The BEST part of scca is that we are a CLUB. Try to be positive rather than negative like others are including myself at times. Talk to the other IT racers you will race with. THEY ARE THE ONES you want to influence NOT the National office (ITAC, CRB, BOD etc). Remember REGIONAL classes can do WHATEVER THEY WANT within their region as long as it is mentioned in the supplimental regulations! It would be VERY easy for you to create a class called ITB2 with what your describing. Your region can adopt this class and then put in the supplimental regulations that ITB2 can run as ITB in that event or "series" if your doing a season long championship.

Here is an example of that exact same philosophy at work here in the NorthEast (which continues to have strong car counts with this out of the box thinking). I encourage EVERYONE to look at this idea especially Mike as this may resolve lots of the issues you have with SCCA and IT in general.

************************************************** *****************************
TreadZone Pro IT Series Rules 4/8/2012
************************************************** *****************************
2. CLASS ELIGIBILITY
Recognized classes - ITR, ITS, ITA, ITB, ITC, SM

2.1 SCCA Improved Touring (IT) cars - ITR, ITS, ITA, ITB, and ITC; cars must conform to the Improved Touring Category Specifications (ITCS).

2.2 Spec Miata (SM) cars must conform to Spec Miata Category specifications (SMCS). The spec tires for SM are the Toyo Proxes RA-1, Toyo R888 and Hoosier SM6, size 205-50 R15, shaved or unshaved; only one brand may be run at an event. The purpose of this rule is permit competitors to run on any one of three different tires (RA-1, R888 or SM6) without allowing switches during the event e.g. qualify on one tire, race on another. Hoosier H2O rain tires are
permitted for wet weather. When conditions warrant any of these four tires may be used as rain tires; rain tires are free from the one brand rule.

2.3 Showroom Spec Miata (SSM) may compete; SSM must conform to the SSM Technical
Specifications on the NESCCA web site (www.NeDIV.com). SSM will be classified as SM.

2.4 Improved Touring 7 (IT7) and Washington DC Region Spec RX-7 (SRX7) may compete. IT7 and SRX7 will be classified as ITA.

2.5 Non-SCCA classes

2.5.1 Cars built to ‘944 Cup Racing Series’ rules (www.44cup.com) may participate. These include 2 classes: ‘Cup’ must conform to the ITS Rules and will compete in ITS and ‘Super Cup’ must conform to the ITR Rules and will be classified as ITR.

2.5.2 Cars built to NASA® SpecE30 class rules rules (www.spece30.com) may participate, must conform to the ITS Rules and will be classified as ITS.
************************************************** *******************************
Remember if the guys you want to run with WANT you to run with them they can make that happen! I will be honest in saying that I wanted to purchase a continental cup car to race in ITR and asked the guys that were running the class if they would be cool with seam welding and cages welded to the pillars. They all said NO. I accepted that and moved on, building our second RX8 know from scratch which will be more money but hey thems the rules and the guys I am racing with want to play by them, has nothing to do with the ITAC, CRB, or BOD...

Good luck and let us know if it works out for you!
Stephen

[StephenB]

In short if you don't feel like reading all that...

This will work if you want it to but your asking the wrong people.

Stephen

[Chip42]

Great post, stephen. Thank you.

[evanwebb]

Well actually I wasn't asking this forum, I was informing that I had asked the ITAC and CRB. A good general followon discussion would be some honest discussion about the future of ITC since it is seemingly headed in one inexorable direction. My plan would provide a place for some of the existing ITC cars to go and though it is a change from the status quo I really don't think the practical consequence is a big deal.

[downingracing]

Well actually I wasn't asking this forum, I was informing that I had asked the ITAC and CRB. A good general followon discussion would be some honest discussion about the future of ITC since it is seemingly headed in one inexorable direction. My plan would provide a place for some of the existing ITC cars to go and though it is a change from the status quo I really don't think the practical consequence is a big deal.

ITC may be headed that direction in your region - but that isn't the case everywhere. Around here (Ohio) ITC is strong and there are several cars with a very good chance to win each weekend. The competition is so good that there are a few of us thinking about building/buying ITC cars for 2013 to join the fun.

[Knestis]

The C race at the 'fest was one of the best of the weekend, by a long shot.

K

[Flyinglizard]

The new B spec cars will be there in 12yrs maybe. Maybe not
Look around for the ITC engines. Not easy finding even a VW 1.6 or 1.5.. The 1.8 is tough to find. What should these guys do when the engine bits are gone?
Long term IT rules may consider up dated engines? Not likely.

Get all done building the ITC car and it's value is not very high either.
40,50% of build. The Perry Honda was for sale for ever post ARRC win, for maybe 5000$ or less.
AS far as Evans car. I have seen the Mk 1 Rocco run with the JH engine and no - one said anything other than "pretty car".


No doubt the class is lots of fun. Slow and many cars is the best fun , the pain of the pass takes that much longer.
WE had a new car here in CFR ,Honda that was swapped, and really had no class. Won both ITB races. The class talked to him(not tech) and he withdrew his times, took the finish for his novice permit and went NASAracing/.
The easiest road to take with the ITC cars is very regional IMHO.
Vintage or Prod, non swapped. Prod may be much more receptive to allowing the 1.8 in your car.
HP is getting bigger( maybe 10cars) here as many old cars are running HP. The ITC cars are allowed more speed parts and we got beat by a 1.6 Rocco last time out.

Short story , do the above and propose a regional "IT update" class. That is how SM started.

[ShelbyRacer]

Short story , do the above and propose a regional "IT update" class. That is how SM started.

Actually, a while back, I heard that SM started in the NE because- #1 "Miatas probably wouldn't be competitive in IT" and #2 "IT racing has too much contact"

It was probably more revisionist history, but it's damn funny to think that there may have been a shred of truth to it.

[StephenB]

Well actually I wasn't asking this forum, I was informing that I had asked the ITAC and CRB. A good general followon discussion would be some honest discussion about the future of ITC since it is seemingly headed in one inexorable direction. My plan would provide a place for some of the existing ITC cars to go and though it is a change from the status quo I really don't think the practical consequence is a big deal.

Sorry for the confusion. I meant asking the ITAC by sending a letter was the wrong people not on this forum. I would take your letter to your next Comp meeting and ask them along with the drivers in ITB in your area. Those are the poeple to ask not the ITAC or CRB. I think this forum is a perfect place to ask to get a taste of what people will say so you can plan for the questions and concerns that may come up when you do ask them in person.



The C race at the 'fest was one of the best of the weekend, by a long shot.

K
Ummm no actually. It WAS the best! Each ITC race in fact was the best! No offence to others as I was crewing for ITB and that is where my heart is but ITC was awesome to watch!


The new B spec cars will be there in 12yrs maybe. Maybe not
Look around for the ITC engines. Not easy finding even a VW 1.6 or 1.5.. The 1.8 is tough to find. What should these guys do when the engine bits are gone?
Long term IT rules may consider up dated engines? Not likely..

Mike, refer to what the IT7 or spec RX7 guys are looking into. Lots of good reading on this site if you search for it. This problem your facing with your VWs is something that existed long ago with others. What do you suggest the RX7 guys do? Allow them to drop in a renesis and run in ITR?




Get all done building the ITC car and it's value is not very high either.
40,50% of build. The Perry Honda was for sale for ever post ARRC win, for maybe 5000$ or less.
AS far as Evans car. I have seen the Mk 1 Rocco run with the JH engine and no - one said anything other than "pretty car".
I think all cars are worth 40-50% of cost after they are built. But value also declines if their is no interest. For example my 3,000 square foot house is much more valuable in the center of NY city than it is here in the woods of NH. The lack of interest is what you are refering to and that is a mistake you made when deciding to build the car and not seeing what was to come. Ya its a gamble but you can't blame others for that. I built an ITR car not an ITS car because I think that ITR will grow here in the NE and ITS will continue to decline making the value of my car higher if I decided to sell it someday. not sure why you mentioned the MK 1 Rocco and how it is relevent to this conversation.




No doubt the class is lots of fun. Slow and many cars is the best fun , the pain of the pass takes that much longer.
WE had a new car here in CFR ,Honda that was swapped, and really had no class. Won both ITB races. The class talked to him(not tech) and he withdrew his times, took the finish for his novice permit and went NASAracing/.
The easiest road to take with the ITC cars is very regional IMHO.
Vintage or Prod, non swapped. Prod may be much more receptive to allowing the 1.8 in your car.

HP is getting bigger( maybe 10cars) here as many old cars are running HP. The ITC cars are allowed more speed parts and we got beat by a 1.6 Rocco last time out.

Short story , do the above and propose a regional "IT update" class. That is how SM started.



See it is Funny. Here in the NE HP is boring, slowest Prod class, and no cars ever run in it. I would vote to do something to make it go away. (I actually would never do that since it doesn't effect me but you get my point) It all depends on where you are located and what people are running.


Actually, a while back, I heard that SM started in the NE because- #1 "Miatas probably wouldn't be competitive in IT" and #2 "IT racing has too much contact"

It was probably more revisionist history, but it's damn funny to think that there may have been a shred of truth to it.

I think you are correct. they went to a comp board meeting, made up the rules that THEY wanted. When it became a nationaly recognized regional class the rules changed and they created SSM. Those rules everyone didn't like when newer miatas where classed and now we have SM2 here in the NE. So I think we have SM, SSM, and SM2 here in the NorthEast and maybe even some others.

She sky is the limit and since this is Regional Club racing you can pretty much create as many classes as YOUR region wants to.

Stephen

[rcc85]

Evan,

If we could get all 4 ITC cars that raced at Summit Point to show up on the same weekend, that would help. Add in the ITC Honda that I was racing with at the NJMP MARRS race in July (a great tooth & nail battle until my engine blew!!) and the Purple Dodge Colt that has been running in HP (but still ITC legal, I think) and we could get 6 cars.

Maybe we could coordinate our schedules and pick a couple races and designate them as "ITC Special Events" and publize them to bring out more C cars.

Also, I think the VIN rule change hurt ITC in the DC region as the Hondas made the move to ITB.

BTW, Evan, I'm guessing that if the 1.6 Sirrocco was classified in ITB, the minimum weight would not be acheivable, correct?

Bob Clifton
ITC Dodge Daytona

[evanwebb]

So I'll just point out that I am proposing a dual classing: nobody is being asked to leave ITC. It's just another option to be able to run in ITB instead.

Anyway, thanks for the discussion but the thread has done the usual thing of drifting away from the original subject. I'll patiently await the "not consistent with class philosophy" from CRB.

[evanwebb]

Evan,

If we could get all 4 ITC cars that raced at Summit Point to show up on the same weekend, that would help. Add in the ITC Honda that I was racing with at the NJMP MARRS race in July (a great tooth & nail battle until my engine blew!!) and the Purple Dodge Colt that has been running in HP (but still ITC legal, I think) and we could get 6 cars.

Maybe we could coordinate our schedules and pick a couple races and designate them as "ITC Special Events" and publize them to bring out more C cars.

Also, I think the VIN rule change hurt ITC in the DC region as the Hondas made the move to ITB.

BTW, Evan, I'm guessing that if the 1.6 Sirrocco was classified in ITB, the minimum weight would not be acheivable, correct?

Bob Clifton
ITC Dodge Daytona

Bob not sure of your arithmetic but if we could get 6 cars that would really cool. Maybe get Al Bell to bring out his 510, that would be crazy cool. I agree that having all the Hondas run ITB hurts ITC, but hey I would do the same. And yes I'm 50 lb overweight now in ITC, it would probably be 200# overweight in ITB if not more, and I would never expect to get fast enough with the 1.6 to even be remotely competitive.

One of my options is to pull all the racy bits off the ITC car, find a later car that is classed in ITB and swap stuff over. I guess someone in the VW community would want the old shell...

[ShelbyRacer]

Evan,

As a MARRS ITB racer, I'd have no issue with doing what you're proposing locally. I'm not sure it's the Right Way to Go (TM) for IT on a larger scale, but I'd welcome another option to give us some close racing in our area. I'm not sure how much I count, but I think you should look into the possibility and talk to Kevin or Greg or someone else involved at that level in DC Region.

[EH9racing]

One of my options is to pull all the racy bits off the ITC car, find a later car that is classed in ITB and swap stuff over. I guess someone in the VW community would want the old shell...

If ALL the racy bits swap, why not do that instead of attempting to change IT or adding a regional class that only has a few people running it?

Look at it this way. What do you have to do to a car to do what you proposed in letter 9387? What do you have to do to get what I just quoted done? To me it sounds like option 1 requires a running street car (can be wrecked badly with no damage to important parts, like tree crushed roof or something) and a whole lot of convencing people its fair, and option 2 requires a running street car and a roll cage (can be slightly dinged but good condition).

[jjjanos]

Look around for the ITC engines. Not easy finding even a VW 1.6 or 1.5.. The 1.8 is tough to find. What should these guys do when the engine bits are gone?

Get a newer car or convert your car to a class that allows for alternate power-trains.


Get all done building the ITC car and it's value is not very high either.
40,50% of build. The Perry Honda was for sale for ever post ARRC win, for maybe 5000$ or less. 1. Because an ITC car has a limited market because, except for some survivor colonies.
2. The price of a used race car always stinks.

[Flyinglizard]

Please dont use the line" Get a new car". it is the wrong answer. That is why these guys leave.
We must do everything in our power to not say that!!

[jjjanos]

I agree that having all the Hondas run ITB hurts ITC, but hey I would do the same.

For the most part, they did not convert their C cars into B cars. 5 years ago, I think there were 6 regular ITC Hondas. 2 of those drivers moved to ITA. 2 of those drivers parked their cars because life happens. 1 of those drivers made a deliberate decision to sell the C car (it went to the Nelson area) and purchase an already built ITB car. 1 of those drivers used the VIN rule.

[CRallo]

The C race at the 'fest was one of the best of the weekend, by a long shot.

K




Ummm no actually. It WAS the best! Each ITC race in fact was the best! No offence to others as I was crewing for ITB and that is where my heart is but ITC was awesome to watch!



Stephen, reread what Kirk said. His is not the most elegant sentence, I would know as I'm king of that, but the two of you agree on that topic.

[StephenB]

I know chris... I was just "going 1 up" on him saying it really was. I wasn't disagreeing with him at all ;)

Stephen

[JeffYoung]

Please dont use the line" Get a new car". it is the wrong answer. That is why these guys leave.
We must do everything in our power to not say that!!

I agree, generally speaking.

At the same time, the owner of the car can't ask us for anything more than a place to race and a "rough" chance at competitiveness. It cannot be our job to insure that cars in a class with 70 or 80 stock hp have full fields, or that they are all competitive. A place to race? Yes, I agree on that. No delisting of cars or retirement of classes (consolidation maybe).

[mossaidis]

I guess someone in the VW community would want the old shell...

Ah.... lemons or chumpcar!