January 2014 Fastrack

[pfrichardson]

...are posted:

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

[Greg Amy]

January Fastrack Preliminary Minutes/Tech Bulletin

12/09/13- Preliminary Minutes (http://www.scca.com/assets/January2014prelim%20minutes.pdf)
12/09/13- Preliminary Tech Bulletin (http://www.scca.com/assets/TB%2014-01.pdf)

[Greg Amy]

What Do You Think
ITR
1. #11955 (Lee Niffenegger) Move 2006-Up Civic SI from ITS to ITR
The Club Racing Board seeks your input on this question. Please submit responses to crbscca.com. Should the 2006-2008 Civic Si remain in ITS at 3000 lbs or be moved to ITR at 2605 lbs?
ITS
1. #11724 (Willie Phee) Classify Acura TSX in ITS
The Club Racing Board requests member feedback for this question. Please submit letters to crbscca.com. Should the 04-08 Acura TSX remain as currently classified in ITR at 2760 lbs or be moved to ITS at a weight of 3175 lbs?


I sent a letter to the ITAC/CRB (http://crbscca.com/) pointing out that no matter what you do, you're gonna piss someone off, likely someone already running or building a car. So let's stop dancing this silly little "where do you want this car to be?" tango and approve dual classifications in Improved Touring.

Done. - GA

[Kai Noeske]

What Do You Think
ITR
1. #11955 (Lee Niffenegger) Move 2006-Up Civic SI from ITS to ITR
The Club Racing Board seeks your input on this question. Please submit responses to crbscca.com. Should the 2006-2008 Civic Si remain in ITS at 3000 lbs or be moved to ITR at 2605 lbs?
ITS
1. #11724 (Willie Phee) Classify Acura TSX in ITS
The Club Racing Board requests member feedback for this question. Please submit letters to crbscca.com. Should the 04-08 Acura TSX remain as currently classified in ITR at 2760 lbs or be moved to ITS at a weight of 3175 lbs?


I sent a letter to the ITAC/CRB (http://crbscca.com/) pointing out that no matter what you do, you're gonna piss someone off, likely someone already running or building a car. So let's stop dancing this silly little "where do you want this car to be?" tango and approve dual classifications in Improved Touring.

Done. - GA

When my "tweener" 99 Civic Si was classed, there was some back and forth between people wanting it in ITA at higher weight, because there were plenty of former SSC cars that could have run without a massive stripping-down effort. After initial claims the car could not make ITS weight, some builds claimed it could, so it was moved to ITS. The argument for that procedure was, as I was told, that "we want every car in the class where it has its lowest attainable weight."

I can see the merit of this approach, but it seems inconsistent with what they do now, ie ask people about their preferences. As Greg said, this approach will piss people off no matter which way it goes; with a consistent "lowest reasonably attainable weight" procedure, there'd be at least a consistent rule to point to that would prevent some of the bickering and arguing, and perpetual requests for reclassifications.

Yes, dual classifications would be the way to go IMO. No violation of the process, with the downside of request for power/weight assessments, special allowances, etc being submitted for the same car in 2 classes; I'd assume the increase of such letters would be rather mild though, since most cars are pretty firmly planted in one class.

EDIT: Dual classifications would also lower the entry barrier for new car builds, and mix up the competition. Beginner car and not worried yet about winning? Leave your fresh build at the heavier weight, leave the sound dampening and nasty underside coating on and the glass in and go racing. Car a bit of an underdog in one class? Maybe try the other; could increase diversity in the fields.

[gran racing]

I'd assume the increase of such letters would be rather mild though, since most cars are pretty firmly planted in one class.

It would be interesting to see how that played out. I'd be curious at what weight and if my car could be competitive in ITA.

[jjjanos]

What Do You Think
ITR
1. #11955 (Lee Niffenegger) Move 2006-Up Civic SI from ITS to ITR
The Club Racing Board seeks your input on this question. Please submit responses to crbscca.com. Should the 2006-2008 Civic Si remain in ITS at 3000 lbs or be moved to ITR at 2605 lbs?
ITS
1. #11724 (Willie Phee) Classify Acura TSX in ITS
The Club Racing Board requests member feedback for this question. Please submit letters to crbscca.com. Should the 04-08 Acura TSX remain as currently classified in ITR at 2760 lbs or be moved to ITS at a weight of 3175 lbs?


I sent a letter to the ITAC/CRB (http://crbscca.com/) pointing out that no matter what you do, you're gonna piss someone off, likely someone already running or building a car. So let's stop dancing this silly little "where do you want this car to be?" tango and approve dual classifications in Improved Touring.

Done. - GA

Or we could be charitable and assume that they aren't asking who will get pissed but instead are uncertain whether the car can reasonably make the ITR and want input.

I also don't have a problem with dual classifications, especially if a car is being moved from one class to another.

[Greg Amy]

Or we could be charitable and assume that they aren't asking who will get pissed but instead are uncertain whether the car can reasonably make the ITR and want input.
Then since we don't know, let's dual-classify them and let the competitors do all the figuring out for us, instead of using WAG and POOMA.

Open market and all that.


I also don't have a problem with dual classifications, especially if a car is being moved from one class to another.
Yes, dual classifications would be the way to go IMO.
Then write a letter.

http://crbscca.com

[mossaidis]

I LOVE the off-season. To make things easier for tGA, I have updated my signature.

[Greg Amy]

I LOVE the off-season. To make things easier for tGA, I have updated my signature.
:happy204:

[RSTPerformance]

What Do You Think
ITR
1. #11955 (Lee Niffenegger) Move 2006-Up Civic SI from ITS to ITR
The Club Racing Board seeks your input on this question. Please submit responses to crbscca.com. Should the 2006-2008 Civic Si remain in ITS at 3000 lbs or be moved to ITR at 2605 lbs?
ITS
1. #11724 (Willie Phee) Classify Acura TSX in ITS
The Club Racing Board requests member feedback for this question. Please submit letters to crbscca.com. Should the 04-08 Acura TSX remain as currently classified in ITR at 2760 lbs or be moved to ITS at a weight of 3175 lbs?


I sent a letter to the ITAC/CRB (http://crbscca.com/) pointing out that no matter what you do, you're gonna piss someone off, likely someone already running or building a car. So let's stop dancing this silly little "where do you want this car to be?" tango and approve dual classifications in Improved Touring.

Done. - GA

Agreed... Letter sent!

- Raymond

[dgragu]

Why not let them race in either class and let the weight decide

[jjjanos]

Because.

[StephenB]

Dual classification is against SCCA philosophy... oh miata... Never-mind :-)

I AM 100% FOR dual classing. I have yet to ever hear 1 good reason not to other than "because we don't do that"

Stephen

[dickita15]

I have yet to ever hear 1 good reason not to other than "because we don't do that"

Stephen

it will confuse the spectators.....oh wait:D

[Flyinglizard]

Dual class makes sense unless it bounces over the cage size limits.

[Chip42]

crossing cage size/ car weight limits is a problem with straight reclassing too. of the 3 cars we considered last month, 2 cross the 2700# threshold moving up or down. 1 is up for member input (06-09 Civic Si), the other was denied, again (99-00 Civic Si). the TSX is safe by 60#, and depending on what permutation of the ITR process you like, it might have dropped under (I'm guessing, I haven't checked). though being on the cusp is an easier place to just opt for the "heavier" cage than when you are fighting for ounces 300# below it.

I personally have no objection to dual classing, but I respect that some others do. we'll have to discuss it on committee and see where we stand. send letters if you feel strongly about it.

[ShelbyRacer]

I'm not personally fond of dual classing, but I'll read any letters to that effect with great interest.

One of the sticky points on some of these cars is that they also have stock HP numbers outside the typical envelope for the class (Civic Si is certainly one in ITA, but there are others to be looked at).

In the end, there is also another factor in *my* mind- if the car works in both classes numbers-wise, where does it "fit"? In the case of the Civic, my feeling is it's a better fit in ITA, but the numbers are such that it seemed better in ITS. When I joined the ITAC, it was actually one of about 10 cars that I "processed" on my own to see where the numbers all were and to get completely familiar with the process math. When the numbers didn't work, I checked the ITAC letter history. If I didn't find it, I asked why, and learned more about the decisions and how they get made.

Personally, I'd like to put several cars out to the membership that are fence-sitters. tGA- you can make fun of me if you desire, but I'd prefer to get member input in more cases. We are an *appointed* body, overseen by another appointed body, who answers to people elected to run the entire club (side note: when typing "run", I mistyped it as "ruin". Freudian slip?). I don't want to bog down the process, but *at least* in cases where we on the ITAC can't clearly see one way or another, I'd prefer the member input process. But, as I said, that's because I'd prefer *not* to dual classify.

To go to the oft-cited nth degree, why wouldn't we dual classify everything? In fact, why not just adopt the system where we post stock hp, process multiplier, and adders for every car for confirmation purposes, and then allow a competitor to pick their own class? I could conceivably run an 83-86 Camarobird in ITS at 3370 (195hp stock, 1.3 multiplier, +100 torque)... Not sure if I'd get the 10.5" front discs to last 20 laps at Summit (let alone other tracks), but hey, that's my problem... Especially since I'm really not sure I'm going to be able to get down to its classified weight in ITR. Please keep in mind this question is NOT meant to be sarcastic by any means, as I'd actually like to know if people think this would be The Way To Go (TM). I would've used my ITB Charger as an example, but there is NO WAY I could legally get the car down to its sub-2000-pound ITA weight...

Final thought- since our statement of class philosphy specifically mentions that dual-classifications aren't part of the plan, then we'd need to run that up the CRB/BoD flagpole for approval, and I for one would sure as heck want member input for that...

[jjjanos]

To go to the oft-cited nth degree, why wouldn't we dual classify everything?

We kind of do already. First-gen CRX si is in three classes....


I could conceivably run an 83-86 Camarobird in ITS at 3370 (195hp stock, 1.3 multiplier, +100 torque)... Not sure if I'd get the 10.5" front discs to last 20 laps at Summit (let alone other tracks), but hey, that's my problem... Especially since I'm really not sure I'm going to be able to get down to its classified weight in ITR.

IMO, such a car would be the target for dual classification as it is neither fish nor fowl. Too piggy to be an ITR car and too hard to woe to be an ITS car. I wouldn't build one because of that, but it appears at least one person has wood over the car -- let them decide where it races.

And if you are moving a car down a class, leave it in both. I know I'd be really pissed off I owned a mid-pack ITB car that got dropped to ITC. I'd much rather be working hard for 9th place in a 16-car field than being guaranteed a second place finish.

[JeffYoung]

I don't like it (dual classification).

In almost all cases, there generally IS a "right" class for the car that comes from acheivable weight and achievable HP. If someone is asking for a dual classification, in my opinion, at least in some cases they know something the ITAC doesn't and are seeking an advantage.

[ShelbyRacer]

We kind of do already. First-gen CRX si is in three classes....



What three IT classes is it in?

[Greg Amy]

If someone is asking for a dual classification, in my opinion, at least in some cases they know something the ITAC doesn't and are seeking an advantage.

Whaaa...? Using that logic, any member requests for reclassification should also be viewed in the same cynical light and should be immediately rejected.


In almost all cases, there generally IS a "right" class for the car that comes from acheivable weight and achievable HP. I don't advocate wholesale dual-classification. But I do advocate making it a viable tool for the ITAC to give consideration to dual-classing where appropriate.

You can always say "no". I'm just requesting to give you the ability to say "yes" once in a while.

- GA

[jjjanos]

What three IT classes is it in?

Didn't say IT. :p

[Chip42]

Didn't say IT. :p

1st gen CRX is in ITC and B (Si) 2nd gen CRX IS in 3 classes IIRC, C (lowly cars), B (DX/Std), and A (Si). as is the civic of the era (EF chassis).

Other notable "multiple IT class" models (by body and model, separated by trim)
Del Sol is in S A and B
96-00 civic in A and S (could add B for the Y7 if requested)
RSX is in 2 (-s in R, regular in A or S)
DC Integra in 3 (LS/RS A, GS-R S, Type-R R)
2000 era celica is in 2 (GTS in ITR, GT in ITA)
ZZE corollas are in 2 (XRS in S, rest in A)
1st gen RX7 (GSL and under in A/7, GSL-SE in S)
SN95 mustang (V6 S, V8 R)
many BMWs
...

and we do have dual classification on some BMW(s?) and a prelude, both into S and R.

[ShelbyRacer]

Right, but IIRC, the BMW is one of only 2 "true" duals, with both the same body AND powerplant in two classes. Even then, the S car has a SIR... I guess the Prelude needs attention. :)

Heck, even my lowly Shelby Charger is in 4 classes that I can recall (ITB, EP, FP, GT3). Theoretically, I could get it classified in SPU as well...

[Chip42]

My point was only that on track confusion already exists inside IT.. when one body can be a B A or S car, you can't rely on "knowing the model in your mirror", you need to know the livery, class, driver, etc... or just know when you are getting passed, man up, and deal with it.

[JeffYoung]

Prelude was is like an appendix. I think it and the 4th gen Supra were classed in ITS and then when we did R, we mistakenly put them there as well. Not done intentionally.

Only one done intentionally was the BMW, and the members have spoken. I don't remember the last time I saw an ITS E36 when at one time (sans SIR of course) it was one of the three most popular cars in the class.

[Greg Amy]

Only one done intentionally was the BMW, and the members have spoken. I don't remember the last time I saw an ITS E36 when at one time (sans SIR of course) it was one of the three most popular cars in the class.
Exactly. Who made that choice, the ITAC/CRB or the membership...?

Why shouldn't those persons be allowed to do so in other cases as well? Or does the current ITAC/CRB have some glorious insight as to which way future choices would go...?

The members speak...but only if you let them.

- GA

[Knestis]

One of the sticky points on some of these cars is that they also have stock HP numbers outside the typical envelope for the class (Civic Si is certainly one in ITA, but there are others to be looked at). ...

It may be the case that, more than we really understand, the differences between classes are about total power, rather than power-to-weight ratios. I'm basing that thinking on some of what we've seen in STL recently. If it's the case, it is of course going to be track-specific to some degree.

I personally think dual classing is a little silly, not believing that - ASSUMING the car is run to the same, correct process in both classes - the difference between being in A or being in S is the real decision-maker on whether to go racing, or what car to run.

As Jake G has so accurately explained, if the process lets the 1st gen RX7 down in A, it will do the same in B.

I suppose that different priorities (ease of construction vs. ease on parts) would potentially motivate two entrants to choose different options but at the end of the day, it's just a complication without much payoff, I don't think.

K

[lateapex911]

Exactly. Who made that choice, the ITAC/CRB or the membership...?

Why shouldn't those persons be allowed to do so in other cases as well? Or does the current ITAC/CRB have some glorious insight as to which way future choices would go...?

The members speak...but only if you let them.

- GA
Well, Bob Dowie, technically, made the decision. After testing the SIR, he made the call on the SIR size, and the CRB endorsed not just the SIR concept, but the sizing.

I was, at best, skeptical about the future of the ITS cars. The good news was that the cars/owners didn't just say "FU", and go away entirely, some remained and forged their way into ITR.

I wouldn't say that, in that case, the members had two equal choices given to them to choose from. Even though they HAD ITS cars, the ones that stayed, got the heck out of ITS.

Dual classing is, in theory, more of an 'equal choice". But, is it??

In the ITA RX-7s case, it kinda is. The car fails in A because it doesn't make the predicted power. Assuming the power assumptions are left as is (a safe assumption based on my experience with the ITAC), the car will be a dog in ITB as well. As is, it's running ITB times. Processed to ITB weight will add hundreds of pounds AND remove wheel width. So, the RX-7 WOULD, indeed, be given an "equal chance' in B or A. That is to say, equally crappy. Choose your poison, boys.

But other cars, well there may be differences that result in changes in class competitiveness. Or, ITS sent straight to ITA at ITA weight could be big dogs.

HOW the car races will certainly change. A car with ITS winning power will be overweight vis a vis ITA cars. And will be a dog in the corners. But, given a long straight, while it will be slow off the corner, it will be fast (er) than the rest of the class down the straight.
So, where it could race well at light weight in S, fighting for wins, in A, where it's heavy, it could dominate at long tracks. (hold them up in the corners, blow them away on the straights).

All of that assumes cars driven and prepped to the nth degree. Which we don't normally see in huge numbers at every race. So, it's a bit of a theoretical issue.

[webhound]

1st gen CRX is in ITC and B (Si) 2nd gen CRX IS in 3 classes IIRC, C (lowly cars), B (DX/Std), and A (Si). as is the civic of the era (EF chassis).

Other notable "multiple IT class" models (by body and model, separated by trim)
Del Sol is in S A and B
96-00 civic in A and S (could add B for the Y7 if requested)
RSX is in 2 (-s in R, regular in A or S)
DC Integra in 3 (LS/RS A, GS-R S, Type-R R)
2000 era celica is in 2 (GTS in ITR, GT in ITA)
ZZE corollas are in 2 (XRS in S, rest in A)
1st gen RX7 (GSL and under in A/7, GSL-SE in S)
SN95 mustang (V6 S, V8 R)
many BMWs
...

and we do have dual classification on some BMW(s?) and a prelude, both into S and R.

This isn't the dual classification we are talking here, is it? Just chassis classification? Because the EF is technically in 3 IT classes, but all are totally different trim levels. No double dipping opportunities exist there, there are all sorts of motor and trans swaps needed.

Will

[ShelbyRacer]

My point was only that on track confusion already exists inside IT.. when one body can be a B A or S car, you can't rely on "knowing the model in your mirror", you need to know the livery, class, driver, etc... or just know when you are getting passed, man up, and deal with it.

Understood, but I believe JeffJ's original point was that there are cars that can pick a class while only changing perhaps ballast or wheels, and I only see the Prelude as being able to do that.

Will, I believe the dual classification to which most of us are referrring is allowing the exact same chassis/engine combo on track, at a different weight (and then possibly small things like wheel size and such that are class specific).

[mossaidis]

The 4 spd tranny I believe is in ITC, same motor with 5 spd is in ITB.

[Chip42]

The 4 spd tranny I believe is in ITC, same motor with 5 spd is in ITB.

different motor.

to will - yes, I was listing only "bodies" that are seen in multiple classes. each class has a specific motor

[joeg]

Not really a different motor; just an intake gasket.

[Chip42]

... which must be there in ITC, thus it meets the D15B1 not D15B2 specs. same mechanicals? I'm not sure, but I know there are enough B2s in the world that I wouldn't sweat it.

[preparedcivic]

A TSX at 3175 in ITS??????? Wut? An E46 325 is at 3000, with a rear-drive chassis, more displacement, and equally variable valve timing with the ECU cracked.

The process came up with this weight how? 500+lbs more than the ITR listing?

[lateapex911]

A TSX at 3175 in ITS??????? Wut? An E46 325 is at 3000, with a rear-drive chassis, more displacement, and equally variable valve timing with the ECU cracked.

The process came up with this weight how? 500+lbs more than the ITR listing?
I'm going with "More stock Horsepower" for $1000, Rob....


Quick search shows 205 for the tsx, and the ITS E46 has 181 hp. Can't remember the ITS factor off the top of my head, but I THINK it's like 12 or so, so 12 x 25 is...a lot. 300 actually. Fold in other adders (FWD, possibly struts? ) though and the weights get closer.

[preparedcivic]

I'm going with "More stock Horsepower" for $1000, Rob....


Quick search shows 205 for the tsx, and the ITS E46 has 181 hp. Can't remember the ITS factor off the top of my head, but I THINK it's like 12 or so, so 12 x 25 is...a lot. 300 actually. Fold in other adders (FWD, possibly struts? ) though and the weights get closer.

My frame of reference comes from the AutoTechnic E46's, and the whp of those cars at 3000. The chassis probably come out even, with double wishbones but with front drive on the Acura and struts and rear drive for the BMW.

A 535lb delta between ITR and ITS seems strong, especially since S is limited to 7" wide wheels.

[Chip42]

The BMW also has a restrictor...

[Andy Bettencourt]

The BMW also has a restrictor...

Not the E46 323...

Stock HP is the answer.

[JeffYoung]

Plus the E46 323 has never been processed with "what we know." My guess is it makes significantly more than 25%, based on my experience with Irish Mike's car.

As it sits, it may be the only remaining true overdog in ITS.

[preparedcivic]

Plus the E46 323 has never been processed with "what we know." My guess is it makes significantly more than 25%, based on my experience with Irish Mike's car.

As it sits, it may be the only remaining true overdog in ITS.

It is one of those "we'll never know for sure" deals, but I've been told anecdotally that once the Vanos code is cracked with a good build they are at close to 220 at the wheels.

[Greg Amy]

Final is up:

http://www.scca.com/assets/14-fastrack-jan.pdf

[Greg Amy]

Interesting notes:
BF Goodrich will continue to sponsor a Super Tour with a subset of Majors events designated as a Super Tour events. Saferacer will continue sponsorship. Of interest to drivers and Region merchandise and Tech and Stewards, there will be new Saferacer Club racing sticker replacing the old SafeRacer national racing stickers and the “plain Jane” SCCA Club Racing” stickers.
When we went to Saferacer support a few years ago, we had to replace the stickers for the Nationals, but they gave them away for free. Wonder with this change if we'll charge "Regional" racers for the replacements...?

I've got a short stack of "Classic" SCCA stickers - both Regional and National - that may go for millions on eBay in a few years...
Region website landed with KS region live and other regions are evaluating. There are some improvements and updates scheduled for SCCA.com.
They're planning on consolidating all Region websites? That's actually a preyty good idea from a marketing perspective. Each time I got to a new website I'm confused by differences in style, location of information, results, schedules, etc. We really do need to make our message(s) consistent.

Rules Season Discussion
A good read for all members. This will give you a rough idea of the guidelines we' follow as rulesmakers throughout the year.

[lateapex911]

It is one of those "we'll never know for sure" deals, but I've been told anecdotally that once the Vanos code is cracked with a good build they are at close to 220 at the wheels.
I've felt that that car was worth a strong consideration were I to go ITS. I can't confirm, or deny 220 at the wheels, but, thats what, about 260 crank?? Somebody correct me if my backwards math sucks, I'm out of practice). An 80 hp bump seems reaaalllllly strong.

[Z3_GoCar]

I've felt that that car was worth a strong consideration were I to go ITS. I can't confirm, or deny 220 at the wheels, but, thats what, about 260 crank?? Somebody correct me if my backwards math sucks, I'm out of practice). An 80 hp bump seems reaaalllllly strong.

The motor's a M52tub25

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BMW_M52

Stock it's rated at 168hp/181ft-lbs, mathwise you're a little conservative more like a 98hp gain (266hp/219whp).

[lateapex911]

A TSX at 3175 in ITS??????? Wut? An E46 325 is at 3000, with a rear-drive chassis, more displacement, and equally variable valve timing with the ECU cracked.

The process came up with this weight how? 500+lbs more than the ITR listing?
I stand corrected. I'd gotten my BMW Hps crossed up. The 323 has a stock rating of 168/181t as James points out. It's weighted at 3000 in ITS, unrestricted.

it's actually 2.5L, so it gives up a little to it's big brother, displacement wise. I'm unsure as to the casting differences, the intake and similar differences, but the big brother put 217 to the wheels (as near as we can ascertain without the guys with the info crying "No way!") and was rated stock at 179.
That engine was known to be underrated from the factory. It wouldn't surprise me that the 323 (mis- labeled as it was actually a 2.5) was wink wink, nudge nudge, a tad conservatively rated as well. But, all things being roughly equal, 22o wheel would be pretty strong.

[benspeed]

I'm a fan of the 323 having spent a great many races watching the rear bumper of the auto tech its cars from my 968 ITR car. Rob and Jeff are both excellent drivers. Pretty close power to my car.

[gpeluso]

I wish I knew how that motor could make over 200hp...... Many experiments conducted ..

Greg

[benspeed]

According to autotech it is all about cracking the ecu. They have a fortune invested in that. Until they got that done they had no luck with the 323.

[Andy Bettencourt]

To be more specific, it's about getting control of the cam-timing and then knowing what to do once you have the control.

[Ron Earp]

I don't doubt a 100% IT-built 2.5L BMW could hit 200+ rwhp hp. With a stand-alone or cracked BMW ECU, full control of the valve timing is a tremendous advantage.

For a reality check IT-built 240Z/260Z engines, wearing carbs, SOHC 2 valves per chamber, a non-cross flow head, and less legal compression than the BMW engine can make 175+ rwhp.

But try and explain these numbers to a Z enthusiast, or a BMW enthusiast, and you'll be met with disbelief. The worlds of "bolt-on-off-the-shelf output" and "IT output" have little in common.

[gpeluso]

I cracked the code... We have control and got gains

[faketree]

Then I guess we need to add weight. :D

[Bill Miller]

As Jake G has so accurately explained, if the process lets the 1st gen RX7 down in A, it will do the same in B.



I never looked at it like that. Jake makes an excellent point. :happy204:All else being equal, and the car being processed fairly, I would think that people would want to run at the lower weight in the higher class. If nothing else, for the better brake and tire wear.

One advantage I can see for dual-classification is the ability for some to double-dip. That means more money for the regions, and potentially can expose someone new to club racing ("Hey, you can run my car in ITx while I run it in ITy"). This may or may not work, depending on how the race groups are set up.

[highwayracer]

Unless the car can't make weight. Would you rather have a car that is never going to make process weight in A or a heavier car with you adding weight where you want (somewhat) in B? I would think the answer would be "it depends on the car", hence another argument for dual classification.

[ShelbyRacer]

As Jake G has so accurately explained, if the process lets the 1st gen RX7 down in A, it will do the same in B.



Actually, it's worse. The higher lb/hp ratio means greater weight differential on any "error" (read: shortcoming) in the process. 10hp off in ITA=145lb., whereas 10hp in ITB=170lb. Again, that difference is only proportional to the disparity between ideal and actual, but it can be significant.

This is one of the reasons why ITB (and even moreso ITC) are so sensitive to changes, and why we are trying our hardest to quantify, qualify, and document everything we do that departs from the standard process.

The previous ITACs gave us this great tool in The Process. But often, the better the tool, the easier it is to make something into scrap of you're not careful.

[lateapex911]

Thats a good point, Matt. When I ran the numbers based on the ITACs accepted HP for the RX-7 to see how it would sit in B, I thought, "Holy lead, Batman!".
EASY decision that B was a BAD idea.

An easy way to visualize how much the weight added to a car is is to imagine the number of cinder blocks you'd have to load into it. IIRC, moving the RX-7 to ITB meant that I'd have to load over EIGHT blocks into my car AND ditch the 9 lb wheels I'd worked years on to get to seal and balance, and dump 3 other sets of wheels and tires....
...and find all NEW sets of wheels and tires....in an inch narrower size. AND re-set the car up for the increased weight, and the reduced rim width. Yea, it was going to do GREAT in iTB! :blink::shrug:

That really didn't hold much appeal......

Too little, too late.