Printable View
Fair enough. I on the other hand want more cam, more compression, better brakes, mess with carbs or FI. But I don't want to move susp pickup points, spend 10k on a tranny, have a engine with so much compression it is only good for a couple of runs. I think, and hope there is a place for that, and it would attract people.
It is a mess over there no doubt about it, I would like to see it get cleaned up. If it gets people DOING SOMETHING...ANYTHING it is a step in the right direction.
(And not meaning to be a dick) then go for it, man!
There's not a darned thing stopping you from building exactly the car you describe and running it in Production. Right now. Today.
But you don't want to just participate. You want a shot at a win. Spending exactly the budget you have established.
So you get these new rules codified, so a car built to them CAN win.
And along comes someone willing to spend 2x your budget - UNDER THE NEW RULES - and you get relegated back one more spot in the pack.
Until the class gets very popular (that whole National Champ thing on the line) and 20 more guys come in, willing to outspend the guy who outspent you.
You are now a tail-ender.
I've watched it happen over the last 20 years with IT. Used to be you could slap a set of struts, a header, a seat, cage, harness, and a cute little air dam on a stock car and run competitively with it. I've watched it happen to Production - no need to go into the gory details of that. I've watched the Sedan classes become the GT classes, become GT Lite, (become extinct?). Ditto. Many would argue SM has been a victim of its own success, in a different manifestation of the problem.
The same forces are at play in all cases.
It's the natural course of things unless a very fundamentally different approach is applied. See my fear explained in the FasTrack conversation elsewhere.
K
(not trying to be a dick, either) What's the answer? SRF is tightly controlled with (seemingly) very little advantage gained in having triple the budget of your fellow racer. Same with FSCCA (FE). Personally, I feel that "money racing" is a fact of life in racing in general, whether it's Formula 1 or 1/18 scale R/C cars. My brother and I have to split expenses and drive in the CCPS as co-drivers and on a very limited schedule to race at all, even as (usual) back markers. I would LOVE to find a way to afford to go wheel-to-wheel with my fellow competitor with an equal chance of victory AND at a price that the "average" person can afford. If someone can find a solution to THAT problem, you could make a mint. Not meaning to hijack the thread, but if you could start with a clean slate and build a class that would meet the aformentioned criteria, what would you do/what would it be?
I'd design a category that looked pretty much exactly like IT.
I'd have a East/West/Shootout semi-pro series for new cars (up to X years old) and National, Divisional, and Regional amateur championships for cars hat have aged out. Both would run to exactly the same rules and specs.
I'd let the realities of goals and budgets sort themselves out through drivers aspiring to different championships, rather than different levels of preparation.
I'd let the marketplace take advantage of both IT's economies of scale and the interest afforded by manufacturers to something that would showcase their new cars.
I'd get the hell rid of Showroom Stock, Touring, Production, and WCTouring.
I'd have huge fields, deep competition, and races ranging from 20 minutes to 24 hours in length - again, all to the same rules.
I'd talk with club rally organizers and the SEB and show them the light, creating cross-disciplinary championships (a la the old world driver's championship or whatever it was called).
I'd go racing a lot.
K
I'd vote for all that.
I'd vote for all that.
I'd vote for all that.
***But on the other hand why did you not want to run the 7 where it is classed now? Is it the expense of prepping the car?***
cherokee, some of us know at what speed our talent :eclipsee_steering: runs OUT.
You want cams? compression? better brakes?? But youdon't want to spend big money on a trans??Quote:
Fair enough. I on the other hand want more cam, more compression, better brakes, mess with carbs or FI. But I don't want to move susp pickup points, spend 10k on a tranny, have a engine with so much compression it is only good for a couple of runs. I think, and hope there is a place for that, and it would attract people.
It is a mess over there no doubt about it, I would like to see it get cleaned up. If it gets people DOING SOMETHING...ANYTHING it is a step in the right direction. [/b]
Be careful what you ask for...those couple of seconds on the track will cost you...
They'll cost you weeks developing that cam, and an exhaust that gets the most of that cam, and an induction system and tune that gets the most from that setup, and then, what about head development!? Eveytime you chage ONE thing, you dive in a pool of research...sure, you can just bump your compression and get more power. But so can Bob...except Bob knows a few more tricks, because he tried more combos on the dyno.
Jim Daniels did 200 dydno pulls one season on a SM motor.....learing about it, tweaking things, and he didn't have the bunch of variables you suggest.
I'm not saying that your idea of a "New Production class nirvana" is wrong, but keep in mind that the bottom line to most racers is.....racing. And thats what happened to Prod. The racing got replaced with building cranks, dynoing a zillion cams, making dashboards, replacing windows, moving batteries, making 4 speed transmissions with revers into 5 speed transmissions with no reverse, making molds for hoods, and argueing over it all. And making "friends" where it was deemed to be profitable to do so.
If you ask me what it would take to make me race Prod, I'd have to be honest...nothing. I race in IT because of the ruleset, and the stability, and the trust in the guys who guide the category. I think the exact opposite of Prod..
If you made a set of rules up that were a copy of the ITCS, and you named them Prod, well, I'd think about that...;)
Well, at least the Z3 and Miata are classed at the same weight with the same level of prep. Kind of makes you wonder why...... :blink:
If I didn't have the wide-track rear, didn't have to cut my windshield off, and run 15" slicks I'd race e-prod.
James
Hey james??? We get it...dead horse, and all that....Quote:
Well, at least the Z3 and Miata are classed at the same weight with the same level of prep. Kind of makes you wonder why...... :blink:
If I didn't have the wide-track rear, didn't have to cut my windshield off, and run 15" slicks I'd race e-prod.
James
[/b]
The draw in production is that you can do more to the car. Production is for the people who say "what can we screw with now" and think it is fun to innovate. It has gotten a little carried away in the past with sequential shift trans and the like but the basic premise is good. Fuel injection and newer cars is the only way to get new blood in the class. Just move forward without killing the investment made by those who have been in the class forever. Just look at the number of long time production drivers who jumped into limited prep versions of their cars when the chance came up. No more 3 hour motors with 15-1 compression that only come out for the runoffs. Now that the cage rules are somewhat sensible and I hope stable it looks like something to go back to. Limited prep is more like old time production and will be the only way it survives.
I've read about a thousand posts on this issue, and I cannot for the life of me understand any reason other than some form of misplaced elitism why anyone would oppose IT cars "As-is" being classed in Production, if:
1- IT prep is all that is allowed, nothing else. No slicks, no nothing, your existing demonstrated performance
level is all you get. As a trade-off, you don't have to add or remove anything that keeps you from
running in IT also; cage, fuel cell and fire system requirements are just unnecessary. This is the key--NO
CHANGES!!
2- IT classes with a well-established upper level of performance (meaning the race-winning guys) are placed
in an existing Prod class with a similar upper level of performance. No IT car would be allowed to become
an overdog over the top full-prep Prod cars without a comp. adjustment or reclassing upward if
necessary. Production was created for those who want to push the prep limits, and that philosophy
shouldn't be sacrificed just to swell the ranks.
3- Just as in IT, nobody is given a guarantee to be competitive, just a reasonable place to race.
What could possibly be wrong with this? If it doesn't swell the Prod ranks, no harm has been done; if it does, then the problem is fixed. Why would anyone care what level of prep the cars you are having a ball racing wheel-to-wheel with have? Spridgets may rule, but no class to run them in drools. If only the rules wonks and the CRB, as usual, won't stand in the way, we all win.
James Wiley
#72 HP (ex-IT) Midget
Atlanta Region
Jamers, pose the question another way:
Do you support IT allowing non IT cars into IT? Another prep level, in other words.
The recent Spec Miata issue illustrated that 99% of IT drivers do NOT want to allow SMs into IT as is. They cited huge numbers of SMs running and displacing true IT cars for racing room, trophies, points and tracktime.
I wonder if the Prod drivers might see your suggestion similarly?
Jake you must have been in a different discussion. Most IT racers opposed dropping SM as is into IT because the SM already has the option of legally preparing for both classes, and IT racers are wary of making special allowances for one car that would then be governed by a different set of rules.
There were a few, but not majority that mentioned track time, finishes etc., but all of the logical arguments centered around health of the class.
This is the reason that I suggest IT cars should only race in Production if they are legal for production. It is a classing issue, not a blanket rule issue. I am allowed to run a welded cage, a fire system, window clips, a fuel cell and to gut my doors in IT trim. So now I need to pull my headlights to legally run Production correct? Seems reasonable - PROVIDED THE CAR IS CLASSIFIED. There is no reason to further bastardize their ruleset to fit IT cars in.
If production wants more cars, they need to get them classed. Use the newly developed process and classify as many cars as you can. Start with the most popular IT cars, as there are plenty of feeder cars out there with logbooks and cages.
I am starting to beleive that the National/Regional issue will be addressed, and IT will have a shot at the runoffs before Production settles things to the point that I am willing to build my car to be competitive there...
Chris, his premise was "As is"...NO changes, which relects a different prep level/ruleset.
Secondly, IT can run in other classes if they so choose.
OK - we agree on the point of the original post. I was just stating that the miata drama was less related to "huge numbers of SMs running and displacing true IT cars for racing room, trophies, points and tracktime.", and more related to taking good care of the class. I thought the sentiment of that discussion was not accurately reflected by your quoted statement.
As noted I have similar feelings about Prod, but regardless would not consider running a 'straight IT car' in prod because I want to be competitive when I race. That is just what racing is to me.
Perhaps MT2?Quote:
I don't think it is "what I don't like about IT" it is more of I want to do more things to my car then IT allows, but prod is scarry. The attraction would be getting to do more to your car then you can in IT, and have a light at the end of the tunnel. Know you are going to get somewhere.
What I am suggesting production offer the it racers is things you can't do in IT. Most IT racers are "tinkers" most have some basic mechanical knowlage. And some would like a little more but don't see a place to get that. What I am suggesting in a nut shell is:
Limit the CR to X over stock, 2 points for example
Factory susp attach points
Factory valve sizes
Open cams
Open carbs, TB
Open brakes
A "factory" type trans.
My ideas are all over on the prod site. The things I suggest are aimed at cost control, and reliability all the while giving you room "tinker" a little more
Offer something inbetween full prep, heck even LP and what IT offers. You would end up with a faster car, some very common "bolt on" and "tuner/hot rod" type mods.
A car that you could take to 10/10's and not break the bank in both time and money. More $$ then IT but then you are doing more to the car. Those 4 piston brembo calipers might cost more then oem calipers. But they would work better with those new rotors.
I think that there are some IT racers, and other "car guys" that would be intrested in a class like this.
Would you be intrested?
[/b]
http://www.it2.evaluand.com/compare.php3
Jake poses an interesting question, and I guess the answer is that the necessity of adding cars to save dying classes is the only reason I would suggest running IT cars "as-is" in Production, plus the fact that many IT cars should fit fairly comfortably in various Prod classes. The upcoming weekend at Barber has ITC and (I think) ITB in the same run group as Prod, so we will get a look at how that might work. The SM-to-IT thing is another issue entirely, as it involves classes that are not threatened with extinction. I don't know that there is any basic difference in prep between SM and IT; can't they run ITA or ITS now, anyway? When I was running ITC grouped with SM, I hated it because there were so many of them running in packs with little regard for whoever was in their way; I'm glad to be in Prod and away from that insanity! The fast Prod guys seem to have more of a clue about proper racing manners...
James Wiley
#72 LP HP Midget
Atlanta Region
There's a blast from the past, huh? :DQuote:
If Prod racers as a group decide that it's in their best interest to write the rules with another level of preparation identical to current IT rules, that's totally within their rights. It doesn't make sense however, because one of two situations must exist:
1. IT cars are listed where they are not competitive - there will be no real incentive to run under that allowance, so numbers won't really climb and the category won't be "saved."
2. IT cars are listed so that they ARE competitive - this option, since it's arguably cheaper (note the qualifier) becomes the preferred route, the numbers go up and the Prod classes essentially become IT.
The latter is a workaround to de facto National status for IT, which is why some folks support it I'd guess. Note that both of my examples run the outcome to its logical, pure extreme which we know won't ever be the case. It's strictly illustrative of the logic - or illogic.
K
No kidding. I wrote those rules, what? five years ago...?Quote:
There's a blast from the past, huh? :D[/b]
The Internet is forever...
***The fast Prod guys seem to have more of a clue about proper racing manners...***
James, manners come real easy when there are not enough competitive (Production cars within a single class) cars to run wheel to wheel in packs as you call it. If you were a spectator only, would you prefer to watch a group of Spec Miats racing wheel to wheel or would you prefer to watch a mix mash of 4 production classes intermingled with the faster classed cars lapping the slower classed cars. < This is not a slap at anyone, it's a fact of life with SCCA racing. ;)