pah! 3 years off this list and you guys are still sharing the same 4ft graphix bong you were sharing in 2001!
hehe
Printable View
pah! 3 years off this list and you guys are still sharing the same 4ft graphix bong you were sharing in 2001!
hehe
400!!!!
Raymond
You can also infer that a leading ITS Integra didn't run and that a 2nd gen RX-7 that qualified in the top five spun off on the 1st lap :-)Quote:
Originally posted by Banzai240:
If I were to infer anything from this, it's that the 240Z is still a great ITS car... The BMW is still an overdog in the class... and that basing our reclassification efforts on the specifications of the CRX, the 240SX and the Acura is the right thing to do...
....that's IF I were to infer anything from this... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
Oh, and that winning CRX is 100+ lbs overweight already (I should know--I need a diet).
----
Gregg Ginsberg
http://www.ginsberg.org
'89 CRX Si -- #72 ITA / H4
2003 WDCR-SCCA Rookie of the Year
[This message has been edited by Gregg (edited May 11, 2004).]
What I can tell, with or without the list is that well driven, well prepared, ITA cars will beat many ITS cars.
It also tells me that any ITS racer in that series without a BMW has their work cut out for them. One can argue "well the next x number of finishers weren't BMW's". 24 second margin...That BMW was in a different area code.
Last thing I want to do is factor the driver into any equation when deciding what class a vehicle should be in, or at what weight. The driver should never enter that equation.
Other forms of motorsports (motorcross and karting come to mind) keep people with a certain level of accomplishment from participating in entry level classes. Perhaps drivers with 3 or more points championships should be excluded from participating in ITB/C? (ducking)
Not exactly.... it means he is good, yes, but it also means the ITS guys are not even close to getting the job done.Quote:
Originally posted by cherokee:
...One good driver that spent lots of time with the car can win overall in an ITB car...I see it all the time (darn fast yellow car), that does not mean that car should be in ITS it just means that guy is very good, and knows his car.
If there is an ITB car that is beating, on the track, in a race, well driven, well prepared ITS cars like an E-36, or an RX-7, or a Z car, then something is very fishy.
Physics is physics, folks.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Well, maybe, but, how did he gain that 24 seconds? Were the guys behind him racing with each other? If so, that can cost 1 or 2 seconds a lap. Or maybe the second place car got there on a good start, held up the pack, then spun? Or...Quote:
Originally posted by Quickshoe:
It also tells me that any ITS racer in that series without a BMW has their work cut out for them. One can argue "well the next x number of finishers weren't BMW's". 24 second margin...That BMW was in a different area code.
See, without complete knowledge, the data point is less meaningful.
Now take this ONE data point, and add it to dozens more, and you may see a pattern. Into that fold some engineering data, and you might be able to draw a conclusion.
I mean I, yes, even I, pass, and even LAP ITS cars from time to time! And here in the 30 car plus fields in the NE ITA class, I struggle for a top ten finish.
Going slow is easy...
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Now I'm quoting myself. Has it come to this? Point being that the faster classes are oversubscribed, while the lower ones are dwindling. Very few are building new ITC cars, lots of people are building ITS and ITA cars. Do other regions see this same trend? The SCCA won't let us get another class until we use the ones we have.Quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
FWIW, we just ran a regional at LRP. Just take a look at the subcribed numbers:
ITS:20
ITA:29
ITB:18
ITC:4
I understand your point about not being there and knowing all the particulars. But, traffic doesn't cost you 1-2 seconds a lap for 12-24 laps in a row. Maybe a lap or two. If there is that much muscling for position while the leader is checking out, they (2-5th place for example) need to sit down with each other and say "to each his own for the first lap or two. If we are just getting in each others' way and letting the leader check out, we need to get in line , whatever it is after lap 2 and help each other catch the leader, then all bets are off."Quote:
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Well, maybe, but, how did he gain that 24 seconds? Were the guys behind him racing with each other? If so, that can cost 1 or 2 seconds a lap. Or maybe the second place car got there on a good start, held up the pack, then spun? Or...
See, without complete knowledge, the data point is less meaningful.
Back on topic, whatever it was http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif
Where to start...
The numbers that were provided are just that; numbers. You can't possibly just look at them and know the full story. Can you think of any pro sports that don't use scouting and review tapes of their competitors? Why do you think that is? It sure would be easier and much cheaper to just look at numbers but doesn't make sense.
As it relates to racing - who showed up to the event? Did some of the faster people not show or have problems? There are many things that it doesn't show. (Pick on Ray's car time) In our recent race weekend, a certain ITB Audi had a difficult day. Just looking at the lap times, what would an outsider assume? But the real story is that the car had some issues to be sorted out and is a very strong car.
Weights / other comp. adjustments - yeah, I've often thought about it too. Works in world challenge, BUT you also need to look at the two forms of racing closer. IT is strictly for the racers, workers and other members. Heck, it might be nice if IT promoted itself and could get money from spectators but it isn't the situation currently. At my local track, they make the money from ticket sales not SCCA. World Challenge is definately concerned with marketing its product. Of course they care about the racing aspect, but it still is (like other forms of racing) trying to reach a target audience and sell.
I would be all for any ways to reduce the costs of racing and rewards for simply spending more money on a car. But I would hate to penalize a people for being good drivers and taking time to study and learn ways to improve upon their driving skills. Should people that spend time and study racing be penalized for their efforts?
Jake - An ITB car beating a well driven, well prepared ITS car (both cars classed competitively)...if all these items were equal, then I would definately agree that something is wrong. Often times though the car may be well prepared but is it being driven to its potential? Or otherwise, it is driven very well but is under developed. Sometimes it can be difficult to determine which is the case.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
OK, lets REALLY confuse things... I'll quote you! Jake quotes Jake....Quote:
Originally posted by Jake:
Now I'm quoting myself. Has it come to this? Point being that the faster classes are oversubscribed, while the lower ones are dwindling. Very few are building new ITC cars, lots of people are building ITS and ITA cars. Do other regions see this same trend? The SCCA won't let us get another class until we use the ones we have.
Your numbers are actually not quite right...my results sheets show that the ITA/ITC group was 35 cars strong. 3 were ITC.
If the no shows had raced, we would have had 37 ITA, and 5 ITC cars.
Off the top of my head, I can think of 4 or 5 ITA guys and 1 ITC guy who are "regulars" but weren't at this event.
With the no shows and them it could have been a full field just with ITA!
Next year? In with the NEONs, the SE-Rs and the NX2000. Out with the Prelude, FX-16.
Net net is about the same, maybe a car more.
So, your point is more than well taken, some form of redistribution should be strongly considered before talk of a new class is broached.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
I can only comment on the car that I have seen doing this. There is nothing fishy about the car it is just very well prepped and the driver is just that good. I have seen a ITS car walk away from it on the straights then get passed back when it gets twisty...after a lap or two the ITS car can't pass on the straight again and the other car is gone. And no the other drivers don't suck this guy is just that good. I have stories of where he got in someone elses car and was over 2sec a lap faster then the guy that just got out, and the guy that just got out was no slow poke. I have also seen other people in his ITB car and "I" could pass them. Put the guy that usually drives the car and I feel good if he only laps me twice.Quote:
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Not exactly.... it means he is good, yes, but it also means the ITS guys are not even close to getting the job done.
If there is an ITB car that is beating, on the track, in a race, well driven, well prepared ITS cars like an E-36, or an RX-7, or a Z car, then something is very fishy.
Physics is physics, folks.
What I was trying to point out is that this guy put time and money into his car developed his skill and now is the guy. To use his performance on the track as a guide to to what should be done with the cars is wrong, to exclude him from running in a class he enjoys just cause he is good is wrong.
And why does his car have to be fishy? I don't know this guy personally but I know that what you are suggesting would be repulsive to him and his support.
If people feel that a car is in the incorrect class one should look at the entire country see how the car is doing across the board, over a couple of years. You will see all the cars with all possible prep levels and driver skills. You should be-able to figure out what the average finishing position of the car is. If over a couple of years you see is start to slide down then it is being passed by newer cars. If you see the number of cars raced go down the people are moving on to different things.
But I still don't think that anything should be done about it, it is just the evolution of the class. Or maybe there should be an IT-Dinosaur class that all the older cars are lumped into...Kinda like vintage but with a IT/Prod set of rules, take the best of both worlds and put them together.
It is sad to say but I think that ITC will start to see its numbers dwindle then it will happen to ITB, lets face it folks some of these cars are getting old, and not too many new cars are likely to be classed in ITB or ITC.
Quote:
Originally posted by cherokee:
And why does his car have to be fishy? I don't know this guy personally but I know that what you are suggesting would be repulsive to him and his support.
It's simple - either the car is way illegal or the ITS cars you see out there are very 'UNDER' - underprepped or underdriven.
I tend to think it's the latter - you are probably overestimating the talent or prep level of the ITS cars in question. Looking at the ARRC results as a small data point, you have to get to 21st ITS position to find someone who qualified slower than the ITB pole - and we don't even know if that car had issues.
No disrespect to the driver you mention - it's just not apples and apples.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
What is sad is that I think we have this now. ITB and ITC are effectivly vintage classes. No new cars can be classed there because even the most mundane cars produced now would exceed the performance parameters of ITB and ITC.Quote:
Originally posted by cherokee:
Or maybe there should be an IT-Dinosaur class that all the older cars are lumped into...Kinda like vintage but with a IT/Prod set of rules, take the best of both worlds and put them together.
The only thing to do to refresh these classes is to trickle everything down. With 3-5 ITC cars running in the second largest Region in the country, ITC is in trouble.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
If B&C could be combined and mods made to both groups to bring the close in performance (this should/would have to include NON-typical IT adjustments).
We might have to think of different brakes,carbs,intakes,cams for some of these cars to get them in line, but these are older cars and it is fairly known what will happen if you let someone swap out drums for disc brakes, or give them a different carb...just some ideas.
We need to think of it as an IT-vintage not as a "real" IT class, kinda like we think of ITE now, just a little more structured.
Then you would have an extra class to shuffle the existing A&S cars into, so you would have ITC with just the old cars and B,A,S for newer cars that don't fit or are too fast for any class now.
The key is to give the people that still love these old cars a place to go with out having to spend too much to get to the new level of prep to be able to win.
I for one don't care if there is an ITB or ITC on the side of my car just as long as I have somewhere to go, in the IT structure.
There are only a few old cars that would not fit very well and I don't have a good plan for them...the TR8 off the top of my head.
If the 24 second victory you are talking about is Chet Wittel's wins at VIR this weekend, it wasn't traffic. Ed York was running close times to him, but broke, but that is another fast, fast BMW.
Two of the best prepped, well-driven RX7s in the region finished 2 & 3, running 3 seconds a lap slower.
A 2:12 at VIR in an S car is an AMAZING lap. Really hard to put it into words.
Gregg, I wasn't there. I really don't know what to make of it, other than the fact IF I had been there, I most likely would have ended up 'racing' with a bunch of ITA guys http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gifQuote:
Originally posted by Gregg:
You can also infer that a leading ITS Integra didn't run and that a 2nd gen RX-7 that qualified in the top five spun off on the 1st lap :-)
From the rest of the results (I left the DNFs out of my list), 2 e36s fell out for some reason, and another one didn't make the start because his car isn't finished yet.
The good finish by the 240Zs is odd: I don't recall seeing anything like that happen since I've been watching the MARRS IT races. I'm wouldn't be surprised if there was a time when it was common for the all the top ITS places to be 240Zs, but that hasn't happened in the sinc I've been around (last 2-3 years).
joel
Very very BAD ideas.Quote:
Originally posted by cherokee:
If B&C could be combined and mods made to both groups to bring the close in performance (this should/would have to include NON-typical IT adjustments).
We might have to think of different brakes,carbs,intakes,cams for some of these cars to get them in line, but these are older cars and it is fairly known what will happen if you let someone swap out drums for disc brakes, or give them a different carb...just some ideas.
Never going to happen as long as the current ITAC and CRB and BoD are around. If you want to change all those things, go to Production.
Cars are going to have to trickle down. Darin asked how many cars were at the bottom of ITC and would be in trouble and nobody, and I mean nobody responded. I don't think it's that big a problem.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
I do see your point and agree to a point, But when talk about moving the 7 to ITB quite a few people had issues with it.Quote:
Originally posted by Geo:
Very very BAD ideas.
Never going to happen as long as the current ITAC and CRB and BoD are around. If you want to change all those things, go to Production.
Cars are going to have to trickle down. Darin asked how many cars were at the bottom of ITC and would be in trouble and nobody, and I mean nobody responded. I don't think it's that big a problem.
Someone up the list said something to the effect that 5 ITC cars in the second largest area is a sign of trouble...perhaps ITC is beginning to fade away, I am not saying anything to make anyone mad just drawing conculisions by what is said here.
What I suggest is that someone can take their ITC car do something semi-cheap and semi-easy and race and have a chance, with quite a few cars to race with. If you want those same people to go to Prod we are talking about new cages for some, fire systems, fuel cells and the list goes on and on just to get the car on the track with a XP on the side of it, and after that you have not a chance in he!! to even come close to winning unless you join the engine of the month club, and learn how to design your own susp. The mods I suggest every 15yr old car crazy kid knows how to do, and would be little different then the ITE "rules" set. (I had a Viper and a Cobra R blow by my ITA MR2 followed by a turbo AWD 911), the only problem I have with that is my race is 5 laps shorter the it realy should be but that is a different topic all together.
I was told long ago that IT was a place for SS cars to go when they get too old. There are very different sets of rules for SS and IT. Think of the IT-vintage idea of a place for IT cars to go when they get too old. An IT level of prep but you can use some different parts. If your 30+ yr old car can't get a cam or piston anymore then you would be ok to use aftermarket parts, do normal "hot rod" kind of things. But not have to design your own susp parts and stuff like that. It would do away with Datusn cam problems and things like that.
You are right though it would never happen, too bad I think it might just work.
Try to think of it as a different class but not a different class kinda like ITE...if that makes any sense http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited May 12, 2004).]
There are some Regional Clubs that allow modifications to move up a class and it works great! (EMRA for example). If there is a year where one of the lower classes is under-subscribed (or all of the competition you want to race against is in a higher class), then you add something like a cam and move up.Quote:
Originally posted by Geo:
Very very BAD ideas.
Never going to happen as long as the current ITAC and CRB and BoD are around. If you want to change all those things, go to Production.
Cars are going to have to trickle down. Darin asked how many cars were at the bottom of ITC and would be in trouble and nobody, and I mean nobody responded. I don't think it's that big a problem.
However, I would agree getting that to work on a National level would be pretty tough.
Jim
Nothing like having an open mind, now is there George!Quote:
Originally posted by Geo:
Very very BAD ideas.
Never going to happen as long as the current ITAC and CRB and BoD are around. If you want to change all those things, go to Production.
Cars are going to have to trickle down. Darin asked how many cars were at the bottom of ITC and would be in trouble and nobody, and I mean nobody responded. I don't think it's that big a problem.
BTW, 12 ITC cars (and 19 ITB cars) at MARRS I at Summit Point.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
{Sound of screeching brakes...then a crash}Quote:
Originally posted by cherokee:
If B&C could be combined and mods made to both groups to bring the close in performance (this should/would have to include NON-typical IT adjustments).
We might have to think of different brakes,carbs,intakes,cams for some of these cars to get them in line, but these are older cars and it is fairly known what will happen if you let someone swap out drums for disc brakes, or give them a different carb...just some ideas.
We need to think of it as an IT-vintage not as a "real" IT class, .....
This is, essentially another "category" altoghether, such as Prod, or GT. IMHO, no. Stop. Enough already! Here are the problems with that idea.
1- Creating a new category for a few old cars is a heck of a lot of work.
2- You are talking about classing all sorts of cars in here, you mention the TR8, as well as presumed ITC cars. How will you ever equilize performance?
3- Now we are looking at things like revised brakes sytems, carbs, etc? Sounds too much like prod to me!
4- But the biggest issue, as I see it, is the loss of an IT class! We curently have 4, albeit one under utilized. We need at least 4 to create fairness and parity. Doing all the work just to lose one is like shooting yourself in the foot.
Regarding the comment about people having a problem with the proposed move of the first gen ITA RX-7 to ITB, well,....DUH!...OF COURSE people objected! Who wants another car thats competitive coming into their class in substantial numbers? Not many.
I sure am pretty unhappy to see cars like the Neon, the NX-2000, and the SE-r being moved into my class as well, and in such a way that they will walk away from half the field. The half that includes me, by the way.
BUT, it's the right thing to do! They weren't ever going to be able to be competitive where they were, so something had to be done, and this was the most reasonable solution. It is my hope of course, that the guys in charge follow thru, and pull us all from under the bus that they tossed us under....
There are several possible solutions, and some are already underway, like the move of the Prelude to ITB. To be fair to the guys in B who are in the "second teir", they will need relief as well, and so on down the line.
If done properly, such a "trickle down" plan will benefit the most, and hurt the least.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited May 12, 2004).]
I am just batting around an idea. Maybe we should think of it as not loosing a class but gaining one, if you combine B&C classes into one you would net one open class for the re-shuffle. Perhaps we should only talk about the existing B&C cars. We would then have 3 classes for existing A&S cars. It is just an idea, the people that would be getting the short end of the stick would be the current ITC drivers, Would they object to a murge of the two classes? The existing C cars would need some help to bring them up to speed with the current B cars. Aren't the Prod guys going through this same kinda thing? The times and car design is changing...the classes need to make some big changes to keep up with the times. Thats why they call it growing pains.
I wanted to add one more thing:
About the Neon and the other cars moving to ITA, there is one big difference between them and the 7 move, those cars are pretty new to the IT system. Moving the 7 to a class that has existed pretty much with out change since day one is a nother thing. I would bet that 90% of the current ITB cars where there when the 7 was put in a faster class....why would that be....becuase the 7 is a faster car then 90% of the ITB cars, at a time in the past it (the 7) fit in a faster class, that time in the past still exists in ITB/C. Unless you are ready to re-write all the classes this is a bad move. I am real sorry that the 7 is not the car to have anymore, but the MR2 is not eather, nor would the Capri be. ITA is trying to change with the times, why would or should I be happy if all I hear is how ITA/S is messed up becuase the X car is too fast, everything is messed up because the ECU's got opened up bla bla bla. Very little of this effects ITB/C because the classes/cars are so darn old, frozen in time. The fix to this problem is not to turn ITB into a dumping ground for the cars getting run over in the other classes because of the introduction of new blood to the class.
What I was suggesting above would help the older cars stay out on the track without some of the looney IT rules and give the upper classes one more class to move cars around to with 3 upper classes above the B/C combined class perhaps the 7 could find a home where it has a chance, sure it is a big change sure it is a lot of work, but anything else will be a band-aid.
Again I am just tossing out ideas and how I see how things are now...I don't mean to PO anybody.
[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited May 12, 2004).]
Oh go crawl in your hole Bill. You wouldn't know about an open mind if it hit you over the head.Quote:
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Nothing like having an open mind, now is there George!
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
The few model-specific, non-IT allowances that already exist (rear discs for the Achieva, big front rotors and calipers for 240SX) are too many. Any changes to allowed modifications MUST be applied to the entire category or we will REALLY be on a slippery slope.
I generally think that if the orphan ITS cars question had been addressed proactively when the first 2-liter was headed for S, we wouldn't be in this pickle. The bulge there is creating pinches elsewhere and trickle-down is a bandaid attempt to fix a lack of longterm planning. But that's water under the bridge at this point.
We are kind of stuck with the situation and have to make the best of it but on-track comparisons of lap time and/or finishing positions will NEVER become a sound, defensible basis for making reclassification decisions in IT - unless someone is willing to do a nationwide statistical examination of the data.
There ARE newer model cars appropriate for but not listed in ITC - Mitsubishi, Toyota, Suzuki, Hyundai, Kia, etc. - and I believe that there are beginning racers out there who would build one, if they didn't also have to know the ins and outs of getting a car through the classification system to make it happen.
K
Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
The few model-specific, non-IT allowances that already exist (rear discs for the Achieva, big front rotors and calipers for 240SX) are too many.
What are you talking about??? The ITA 240SX is allowed it's standard rotors and the ITS 240SXs are also allowed their standard ABS rotors... If you are looking at the "295mm" for the front of the 95-98 models listed in the GCR... that was a typo or otherwise mistake that was corrected in a Fastrack about 2-months ago...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
I don't think anyone would. It's just as cheap to build a faster car. IMHO ITC is going to just die out if we don't do something. I'm not talking about shifting all of ITB down, just some cars that have no chance.Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
There ARE newer model cars appropriate for but not listed in ITC - Mitsubishi, Toyota, Suzuki, Hyundai, Kia, etc. - and I believe that there are beginning racers out there who would build one, if they didn't also have to know the ins and outs of getting a car through the classification system to make it happen.
The only reason I could see someone building an ITC car now is if they already had the car. But how many of these cars (potential ITC) are in the hands of racers or potential racers now? Damned few I'd suggest. And the nature of the racer being what it is, I'd guess if they really wanted to go racing they'd be more inclined to sell that car and buy something faster to go racing with.
Then there is the fact we keep telling people it's cheaper to buy a finished car. How many people would actually spend the money to build a car for ITC today? I just don't see it happening, at least in any numbers to be more than a statistical anomaly.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Sure, just go out an buy another car. For many of us that simply is not an option. You are asking ITC people to scrap their cars - who would buy them from them? I do think that the classing needs to be looked at on a continual basis. Also with the cars that are being moved, they are good matches with the existing class structure.
Look at the cars moving into ITA. They may be competitive, but are not replacing the fast and proven cars. Same with ITB. Oh, one other ITB car in addition to the lude is the Golf III.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
Actually, if you reread what I wrote, I didn't say anything about people currently racing in ITC selling their cars. I said that I don't see folks building new ITC cars.Quote:
Originally posted by gran racing:
Sure, just go out an buy another car. For many of us that simply is not an option. You are asking ITC people to scrap their cars - who would buy them from them?
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
Quote:
Originally posted by gran racing:
You are asking ITC people to scrap their cars - who would buy them from them?
Guys... ONCE again I ask you... Give please list the "underdogs" in ITC... I keep hearing of all these ITC cars being pushed out of the class if other cars are moved there, but no one seems to be able to give us a list of just which cars those would be...
Any car that the ITAC would consider for a move to ITC would be compared against the current ITC crop of cars (510, VW, Honda...) and if it would be uncompatible with those, it wouldn't be moved there...
I've yet to see a real case of a car that would be displaced in ITC were some of the slower cars (that have been traditionally uncompetitive in ITB...) to be moved to ITC...
Please give me a convincing argument as to just how a 1.7L VW, or a older Porsche 1.7L would displace anyone in ITC? There are quite a few ITB cars that would really be better fits in ITC... and I doubt that any currently raced ITC car would be displaced, or any further behind the curve than they are right now...
How about we stop talking about hypotheticals and start looking at what really exists... the picture becomes a little different and not nearly so gloom & doom...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Building a race car is very expensive, I bought my nice turn key MR2 for under 4K and have about 10K in my Opel(don't tell my wife), and it ain't on the track yet. I know it would have been cheaper to build a newer car and a faster car but that is not what I wanted to race. Those old cars generally need LOTS of work, just to get them running and safe, let alone make it a race car.
I think that people will still build ITC cars if that is what they want to build, but these cars are getting old and only someone with a love for the car will spend the time and money on getting one on track, for the reasons listed above. There is just not a large pool of them already built to choose from. I think when people want to race a car other things come into the mix other the just how fast it is, at least for me it was, otherwise we would all be driving BMW's and CRX's. There is a guy on this board that has a pretty new TR8, I am building a new Opel GT why...I love the car, it looks cool, it sounds cool,it is cool http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif I would bet that the TR8 driver went with that car for reasons other then how fast it is.
There are not too many ITC cars around here and I do not drive one or plan on driving one at the moment and have not spent time checking them out so I do not feel qualified to comment on the current crop of ITC cars.
I started following this thread some 400 posts ago - and with the following perspective:
- Getting back into racing after several years off. I've been flagging and watching cars and classes.
- Feb. 2003 I decide to build an ITA 240sx - I liked the potential, rwd, f-inj, etc. The car was starting to show good results in class. FYI the posted weight on the car is absurd there is no way to get the last 100lbs or so out.
- Now I go to get my permit, repass my schools and look - I find that SCCA (us) has reclassed a ton of cars to ITA. Would I have built a different car?
Fortunately, probably not - I chose not to build a Honda even though it is regarded by many as the car to beat.
As far as I am concerned I'm looking at these cars moved down from ITS solely as 'new' ITA cars and dealing with it. The pointy end of ITA probably got a little more full. As to whether these cars should have been in ITS or ITA in the first place - I really don't know or care. There will always be new cars that may make your car relatively less competitve.
Where will the Focus go...? What about any of the other new cars? You either guess and start building a new car now or deal with getting the most out of your choice. The last car I raced was a 1.7L VW Rabbit - would I have prefered to be in ITC at the time - YES. But ignorance and economy made me build a slow ITB car (Nobody would buy it when I tried to sell it). I didn't do that this time.
The biggest problem I see with reclassifying a car is the potential/practice of accommodating someone who made a bad choice and complains loudly about it. There will always be someone willing to buy your dated - once competitive (fill in the blank car) if the price is right.
Thankfully not unhappy with my 240sx choice,
Jason.
"The only reason I could see someone building an ITC car now is if they already had the car. But how many of these cars (potential ITC) are in the hands of racers or potential racers now? Damned few I'd suggest. And the nature of the racer being what it is, I'd guess if they really wanted to go racing they'd be more inclined to sell that car and buy something faster to go racing with."
- Guess I read it too quickly...read it as had existing built ITC cars.
Reclassification - so if a car would make a good match in another class don't move it just because? That is silly! And some cars were recently classified (the '87 prelude was just classified last year).
Look, I don't care how old or new a car is. If it fits well into an existing class, why shouldn't it be put into that class?
Darin, as for the ITC class question - as long as cars are compared to currently classified ITC cars I don't see an issue with moving current ITB cars into the class. Again, as long as it is compared to what is already out there. Heck, it would be good for the ITB and the ITC racers.
From what others have suggested in previous posts, cars could be placed in lower classes that would essentially raise what is deemed the specs to compare what should be in that class.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
This is exactly what is happening in the A&S classes now. Cars are placed in these classes that are raising the bar for the class. And people are upset enough about it that they want cars that have been in the class for years moved, why should we do this to the "lower classes"?Quote:
Originally posted by gran racing:
From what others have suggested in previous posts, cars could be placed in lower classes that would essentially raise what is deemed the specs to compare what should be in that class.
I disagree with your facts. While the ITA bar WAS raised a while ago by the inclusion of several overdogs and a rule change, it is, at this point, stable. Please provide proof that the cars entering ITA (and you cannot mean ITS, because what has been added there that could possibly raise the bar??) are 'raising the bar'.Quote:
Originally posted by cherokee:
Quote:
Originally posted by gran racing:
From what others have suggested in previous posts, cars could be placed in lower classes that would essentially raise what is deemed the specs to compare what should be in that class.
This is exactly what is happening in the A&S classes now. Cars are placed in these classes that are raising the bar for the class. And people are upset enough about it that they want cars that have been in the class for years moved, why should we do this to the \"lower classes\"?
Here are a few data points to the contrary.
At last years ARRC, a well prepped NX-2000 ran in ITS. His time was a 1:45.136 If he was in ITA, he would have been beaten by a flock of cars, all running as low as 1:43.9 I would call that a potentially competitive situation, but it sure aint raising the bar!
As evidence of the bar being raised in the past, look at the IT-7 times, (people call the RX-7 the 'once dominant' car for ITA, but that is untrue, it was popular, but alwyas beatable) compared to the ITA times. The 7s were about 4 seconds a lap off the pace.
Now, while the bar in ITA isn't being raised, the picture has become bleak for a mid/back packer who is being drowned with the sheer number of cars that he doesn't stand a chance against.
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Unfortunately, I don't really have a dog in the hunt anymore since I sold the family Fiat, but I'll chime is with a few opinions.
W.R.T. moving the RX-7/IT-7 to ITB.
Having run against these cars a few times (before they put the SM clowns in our group) I can say that a well prepped IT-7 car is not a bad match for B. A really well prepped 7 with a good driver is a bit of an overdog. IMHO, if you dropped the 7 back to 6" rims (as would be required in B) and added say, 150 lbs, you'd have a car whose spread of prep/driver levels would finish all over tha map.
Want to drop back the power and not add weight to the car?? I might be convinced that the 7 could be slowed down by requiring the stock exhaust manifold rather than a header. Hey, it even cuts costs too!!
RST's point is well made a few pages back when he commented about the proper Stochiometric mix in B. Looking at the ARRC and Enduro run boards show
Volvo, Omni, Golf, BMW, Fiat, Rabbit GTI, Audi Coupe. All of these either finished ran, or qualified in the top 5.
Also, the mix of cars have distinct advantages. The Volvo is hard to touch at VIR, but the golf and rabbits are pretty good at a place like Kershaw. I'd think the Omni would be too as it is equally as torquey. Take these cars to a track like Roebling and I think the Fiat and BMW are looking pretty good. (don't know about the BMW as I've not owned one). The Fiat had excellent balance and wear properties. Roebling is known to kill tires and that would have made it a good late race ride.
Save maybe the BMW, all these can be built for less than 10K fresh, not too bad in my book.
So add them in, but don't kill one of the most diverse classes in SCCA.
Tony,
While I agree w/ most of what you say, I'm not convinced that you could build a top example of those cars for $10k. Maybe, but that's w/ a lot of sweat-equity. We do it all the time, only include the cost of the hard parts and work that we have to farm out. You really have to place a value on your time, as not everyone has the time/tools/skills to build a front-running car themselves.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
It also boils down to how you define 'well-driven' and 'well-prepared' because a B car should not be able to run with them, all other things considered. What you see at the track every weekend is not necessarily the facts of the case, because you are only seeing a limited cross-section of the IT community as a whole, and it may seriously affect your perspective. The day that a B car can beat drivers Whittel in an S car or Stretch in his A car is when we need to start making accusations.Quote:
Originally posted by lateapex911:
Not exactly.... it means he is good, yes, but it also means the ITS guys are not even close to getting the job done.
If there is an ITB car that is beating, on the track, in a race, well driven, well prepared ITS cars like an E-36, or an RX-7, or a Z car, then something is very fishy.
Physics is physics, folks.
------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers
I try real hard not to get too wordy and as a result I don't think I explain my self very well...so here we go http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gifQuote:
Originally posted by lateapex911:
I disagree with your facts. While the ITA bar WAS raised a while ago by the inclusion of several overdogs and a rule change, it is, at this point, stable. Please provide proof that the cars entering ITA (and you cannot mean ITS, because what has been added there that could possibly raise the bar??) are 'raising the bar'.
Lets say that in ITA, we toss in some new cars...the neon and others that where added not too long ago. Now all things being equal, If the average lap for all the cars is going to be slower the the average lap for the new cars, even one new car running is going to bring the groups average up and further away from the old ITA group average and farther away the specific cars average that are already there 7's MR2's and so on. Now as quanity of the newer cars come into the class the average will go up even more. I think that the cars like the Neon will be faster then the 7 or the MR2, as more and more of those cars get built the other cars will move further back and further back.
Now I know that keeping everything (cars) equal is (and I will say it's impossible) there are just too many different cars from too many different years. How are you going to get a 83 RX7 to run with a CRX, it is about as apples and oranges as you can get, but getting the apples and oranges as close to the same basket as the rules makers do shows that they do try to make it all work. There are just soooo many varaibles to take in. Like Lesley was saying, you could put me in an F1 car and I would feel good if Chris only beat me by one a lap http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif. Skill levels of drivers are all over the board, car prep is all over the board. That is what makes it so hard. Because it is the "entry level" class of club racing.
[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited May 14, 2004).]
Cynical viewpoint #1:
Like anything else in life, realize where you are (with your car), and if you don't like it, change it (get another car, one that everyone says is an overdog) then you can be on the podium. This is about racing disparate cars against each other. Everyone seems to know which cars are the fastest, if you want to win, there's your answer.
Some equalization is ok, but if you want everything to be equal, go to SRF or something similar.
I enjoy just getting out there. Yes, I chase track records, dice it up with someone around me or just concentrate on becoming a better driver. Older cars will generally be slower, you can't equalize everything. Remember the spirit of the class, "guy takes his street car, slaps on numbers and a cage and goes racing". No money, no t.v., just fun. It's fun to win, but it's more fun to outdrive a 'faster' car, make the right choice at the right time, or learn from the faster ones. Constant improvement.
My rx is collector plate registered. Perhaps we just need an 'old cars' class.
No porting needed/wanted
------------------
Steve
[email protected]
<A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/jake7140" TARGET=_blank>My racing page
</A><A HREF="http://www.geocities.com/elrss" TARGET=_blank>Elkhart Lake Racing_&_Sipping Society
</A>