Here
http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/05-0...03-fastrack.pdf
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Printable View
Here
http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/05-0...03-fastrack.pdf
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Haven't had a chance to read the whole thing, but here's something I did notice.
2.0 16v VW Golf/Jetta goes from ITS to ITA.
Golf gets a 255# weight addition, and the Jetta gets 405# http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif
How do two cars that share the same chassis/engine/transmission/suspension end up getting spec'd ~450# apart? Especially after the weights on the VR6 versions were set to be the same?
ITAC guys, can you shed some light on this?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Its good to see the Accord and the early Si Hondas go to ITB where they belong.
Then again, the request to move the 88-91 Civic DX has been denied in order to monitor the performance.
Well, it will be pretty hard to monitor the performance of a car nobody will build because its terribly uncompetitive.
Quite simply, theres nothing to "monitor".
Nobody in their right mind would build a 92hp Civic DX for ITA when they can build a 108hp Civic Si.
NOBODY!
What a waste of several thousand cheap and easily built chassis.
I guess you gotta take the bad with the good.
"monitor performance" - at least that's something. I noticed they are also "monitoring" the performance of the first get RX7 - that's better than the "classified correctly" stuff I got when I asked to move Mr. Two.
This is one of those things that as I look at the GCR, it just friggin cracks me up:Quote:
Originally posted by Catch22:
Then again, the request to move the 88-91 Civic DX has been denied in order to monitor the performance.
Well, it will be pretty hard to monitor the performance of a car nobody will build because its terribly uncompetitive.
Quite simply, theres nothing to "monitor".
Nobody in their right mind would build a 92hp Civic DX for ITA when they can build a 108hp Civic Si.
NOBODY!
What a waste of several thousand cheap and easily built chassis.
'88-91 Honda CRX Si - 2140lbs
'88-91 Honda Civic Si - 2175lbs
'88-91 Honda Civic DX - 2225lbs
uhhh, HELLO?! MCFLY?! That DX would be a great addition to ITB and frankly, I'm shocked (and kind of want to vomit a little bit but that might have something to do with the buckets of beer last night) that it got shot down.
------------------
Kevin
Ruck Racing
'92 ITA Acura Integra RS
'92 ITC Honda Civic CX
'85 ITC Honda Civic S
'95 ITS Honda Prelude Si
That exactly my point.
In this case, the "monitor" thought process simply won't fly because there just isn't anything to monitor. Look at those numbers Kevin just posted... Only a complete MORON would build a DX for ITA.
For ITB... Excellent. Great car.
ITA... Thats funny.
If someone wants to donate $15K so I can build an ITA Civic DX and run ITB lap times... So the AC can have something to monitor... I'll be glad to do it. Otherwise, I guess this particular chassis is dead.
Too bad.
Speaking of this “monitor thought process,” can anybody explain to me how the SCCA goes about monitoring a car? I’m asking this because it just so happens that I am one of those NOBODYS (as stated above) that built a ’90 Crx DX for Improved Touring. I guess it was out of sheer ignorance more than anything. So call me a complete moron but the fact of the matter is that I built one and would like to know what I need to do to try to put it in its rightful place in ITB. Also, being a novice to road racing, and only having my school requirements complete I figure that this car will be a great learning tool in the world of road racing even if it doesn’t get its chance in ITB. But it never hurts to try get it to be more competative.
------------------
Konrad K. mem# 323927
Underpowered 1990 Honda CRX DX- ITA, hopefully in ITB soon!
[email protected]
On the VW, that has to be a typo. We will check the notes.
On the Honda's: I think we can all agree that there are some issues. Most of them are ones that we have inherited. By monitoring, right now we want to make sure the moves we have made over the last 6 months are the right ones. Moves like the variety of ITS cars that have come down into ITA. We need to make sure we are doing the right thing and using the right target number etc. We think we are, but before we start trying to sell a whole pile of changes to the BoD/CRB, we need to know our baseline stuff is correct.
ITB is much more 'dusty' than ITA. A wrong move into ITB could really hurt the class so we want to move with caution. It's obvious that those Honda's aren't ITA cars to me, but we have to make sure that they ARE ITB cars...and make sure our performance envelope in ITB can be met but not exceeded by these cars. Honda's are typically faster than they are on paper so we want to err on the side of caution for now. *I* think ITB is the right choice but we shall see.
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Guys... again, the sky is NOT falling...
It's only January... NO decision we make today is going to take place until 2006, at least not so far as car classifications are concerned...
That said, I am suppose to have a meeting with the CRB in March to discuss the ITACs view on the future of IT, as well as how to best utilize PCAs. Once some understanding is gained there, we will either be able to make some moves that make sense to us, or we won't be able to make moves that would otherwise make sense to us... I can assure you that I will do what I can to try to get everyone on the same page...
Until then... go race your cars just as you always have, as you've been provided a "place to race", as is the purpose of IT as stated in the ITCS...
Enjoying it or not... I'll leave that up to you...
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg
Nobody said the sky is falling. I actually think you guys are doing a great job.
I was only pointing out that its hard to monitor the performance of a car that isn't being raced. Now, if the intention of the "monitor" statement is to look at all the recent moves as a whole, and not intended to be a monitor of the particular chassis in question... Then, OK. That makes sense. I'll buy that.
This is my same argument that I had supporting the Beetle in ITC. Put it in ITC and if its a killer you can move it up. Put it in ITB and it looks horrid on paper so nobody will build one. If you do that, there was no sense in classing the car in the first place.
You guys are taking risks, which will mean some mistakes will be made, but on the whole all of IT will benefit.
Keep taking risks. Just be extra careful with ITS since there ain't nowhere to move a mistake thats made there.
But in ITA through ITC... Get crazy and go with your gut.
Just my humble opinion.
Andy, so the 1:06s I’ve been doing at LRP are really 1:04s? I always thought timing and scoring has a little Honda multiplier. (We have to try to get Darin a bit less grumpy, right?)
Konrad – In all honesty going into ITB for a year or two might be the best thing for you. I say this coming from personal experience. My Prelude was originally classed in ITA and I was a bit upset about the classification. But looking back, that was probably the best thing that could happen to me. When in ITA, there was little motivation to spend much money on the car so I spent the majority of my efforts on myself. If I went directly to ITB, I’m not so sure I wouldn’t have spent more money on the car and less on me (seat time as one example). I’m sure you will find plenty of people to battle with and have a great time as I did in ITA.
Catch – I can’t say I agree with the moving cars more abruptly and see what happens method; then if a mistake because of not looking at it as thoroughly / using more caution then necessary move it back up a class. I would be very, very upset if the club moved a car down to a class and I spent money and time on it only to have it moved back up. It would not be doing people a favor who currently races the car a favor. Then think about the people who all of a sudden go out and buy now that it’s in a lower class. You are right it is hard to monitor what isn't happening, it really is a just we need some time to think things out and are considering it response.
That said, there are cars that really should be re-classed. I’m looking forward to other cars being looked at more.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
Darin,Quote:
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Guys... again, the sky is NOT falling...
It's only January... NO decision we make today is going to take place until 2006, at least not so far as car classifications are concerned...
That said, I am suppose to have a meeting with the CRB in March to discuss the ITACs view on the future of IT, as well as how to best utilize PCAs. Once some understanding is gained there, we will either be able to make some moves that make sense to us, or we won't be able to make moves that would otherwise make sense to us... I can assure you that I will do what I can to try to get everyone on the same page...
Until then... go race your cars just as you always have, as you've been provided a "place to race", as is the purpose of IT as stated in the ITCS...
Enjoying it or not... I'll leave that up to you...
The way I read it, the Honda (Accord, Civic, CRX) moves were effective 1/1/05.
BTW, please take Greg's advice
Quote:
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">On the VW, that has to be a typo. We will check the notes.</font>
Thanks Andy!
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Hey Darin, I don't know you at all (or anyone else on the ITAC for that matter), but I have to say this: IT has had some aspects of its philosophy and rules seriously screwed up for years, and I really like the way things are starting to go now. I definitely think IT is headed in the right direction. I know you guys on the ITAC are busy and you don't want to do too much too fast, and also it obvious that you don't want to do too little either, as evidenced by all the great moves you have made recently. Great job and thanks for all the hard work to benefit the IT community as a whole.
I have a few ideas on additional changes that can be made to the class as a whole (generally of the "admit that IT cars are real race cars and allow us to do some more things to the cars that are fun and don't cost much" variety) that I will put up on this website to get some feedback and then I'll send them in for consideration. But again, so far, job well done.
Andy,
I think the Honda's should stay in ITA!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/biggrin.gif
Not that my personal feelings are involved here.........
I have to say, you guys are in a tough position where there will ALWAYS be unhappy people. Keep up the good work!!
------------------
Jeff L
#74 ITB GTi
***(generally of the "admit that IT cars are real race cars and allow us to do some more things to the cars that are fun and don't cost much" variety)***
Every time I read someones statement that they want "to do some more things" with their IT race car I wonder if at the present time they are winning a large % of the races they enter. What people need to remember is that there is a class called Production where the modifications that can be made are pretty wide open compared to IT. Step up to the plate with your need for more modifications. Oh, & bring your dollars just like the fast guys do in Production.
Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David Dewhurst
CenDiv
ps: Production cars were like todays IT cars in the pre 70's.
I don't know what exactly Evan has in mind, but I think he may be talking about things like wiper washer bottles, passenger side door glass, and heater cores. These things cost nothing to remove and serve no purpose on a race car.
Frankly, I'm surprised that we're not required to remove the door glass for safety reasons. It baffles me that we are actually required to KEEP it.
Higher compresssion, cams, ect... I agree. Just go to production if you want to do that.
Removal I can see as an ok thing, it is getting very hard to find stock replacments for some of this stuff. Cam compression wide open ECU's should make the next leap. I think the problem with moving to prod is there is not as much competition in most cases.
***I think the problem with moving to prod is there is not as much competition in most cases.***
Joe, ya can't say stuff like that. Some one's going to tell the teacher. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif If ya can't find a part it's time to retire the car. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif
***I think he may be talking about things like wiper washer bottles, passenger side door glass, and heater cores. These things cost nothing to remove and serve no purpose on a race car.***
How do YOU draw the line & when do the changes stop? That is the same thought process that got Production where it is today. Sorry, but facts are facts.
Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David
David I don't really disagree. I think when you can't buy a washer bottle for a 240z you should be able to replace it with a JC whittney universal unit though.
As far as telling the teacher goes you know how I feel about that. I have been told many a time if I just learned to suger coat it most people would like me...... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
Problem is I hate suger. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
***I think when you can't buy a washer bottle for a 240z you should be able to replace it with a JC whittney universal unit though.***
Joe, as you would say real sugar coated like. The person would need some real SAK to protest a JC washer bottle.
Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David
It's not about protesting someone else. It's about "myself" fielding a legal car.
------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA
Well, David, its simple really. I draw the lina at the simple stuff. The things that have no function in a race car but we are required to keep.
The things I mentioned above.
Its understandable in Showroom Stock, because as the name implies, the cars are s supposed to be showroom stock. So they SHOULD have all the stuff on them that they had when they rolled out of the factory doors. They should even keep things like the Air Conditioning and stereo if it was standard equipment on the car.
Anything that isn't a safety issue (like air bags) should stay. Otherwise it should be called "Kind of Stock."
But in IT... No reason to keep some of these items on the car.
Washer bottle... Why?
Heater Core... Why? (unless you just WANT it because you live in Oregon)
Pass Side Door Glass... Why?
Rear Wiper... Why?
Thats where I draw my line David. Its easy, folks like you that try to suggest that every little rules change will turn IT into a "Production Lite" disaster just need to take a deep breath and get over it.
If changes are mismanaged, yes, disaster can ensue.
But just because mistakes have been made in the past, you can't fight every attempt at improving the rules because "We tried that in 1974 and it was a complete failure."
Keep that attitude and our beloved IT classes, already known to many of the younger generation as "ITJ" (Improved Touring Jalopy), will die when we die. That would kind of suck wouldn't it.
I can see it now. The "backwards bizzaro world" version of David D. in the year 2030...
"I remember back in 2005 when they wouldn't update the rules of IT to reflect new technology and trends. That was when everything really started to fail and NASA took over in 2015. It was worse than the Production fiascos of the 70s" .
I don't know, guys. I tend to side with Mr. D. on this issue. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif I don't think that it's washer bottles and door glass that's likely to keep the next generation from thinking IT is cool.Quote:
Originally posted by evanwebb:
..."admit that IT cars are real race cars and allow us to do some more things to the cars that are fun and don't cost much" ...
The fact that there are still a lot of cheap, available, potentially useful cars that aren't classified MIGHT help do that, though. It's not realisitic to expect a kid who thinks Kias or Hyundae are cool to go through the VTS/request process to get an ITB or ITC car listed. And the old guys - like many of us are or are becoming - are past our car brand formative years, so WE sure aren't likely to go to the trouble...
What was the question, again?
K
Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
I don't know, guys. I tend to side with Mr. D. on this issue. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif I don't think that it's washer bottles and door glass that's likely to keep the next generation from thinking IT is cool.
I agree Kirk, I was just using the washer bottle thing as an example of a silly rule that has no real purpose. Yet, if someone mentions the word "change," there are folks that start getting ready to pack up the family and move down to the storm shelter.
You're right though. We need to start getting the low bucks cars from the 90s classified in IT. They are the future, and the fear that they will obsolete the Fiestas and 510s and 70s Rabbits just needs to go away.
OK, I've been out for a day and I have stirred the pot. Yay! Scott Giles is exactly correct in his suspicions about what I had in mind. Basically simple stuff like: get rid of door glass, gut the passenger door, get rid of dumb stuff like washer bottles and heater core/hoses, put the battery wherever you want and use whatever kind of bettery you want, cut off brackets to things you were allowed to remove, and be able to cmo up with some kind of rule that says you can modify or replace the electrical harness in the car as long you don't violate another rule is the process.
On the last point, I find it absurd that I just had to pay $355 for a brand new stock fuel injection electrical harness for my Volvo 142 because the old one was falling apart due to being 33 years old. It's just frickin' wire! I could have built a new harness for $50 out of wire and connectors I mostly have laying around the garage. Stupid. These are race cars: all of what I just said could be done for almost no cost, the reason I know this is because I did it when I converted my ITC car to HP. It really doesn't cost much to take parts off the car. If you want to keep them, fine, you aren't required to remove them any more than you are required to pay Rebello $5000 or whatever to build you a motor. I don't really understand any argument that says that IT is turning into the current form of Production because you moved the battery. Get real. The E36 BMWs have the battery in the right rear trunk, why can't I put the battery in my Volvo there? It doesn't cost anything (OK it costs a little...) and it's an easy way to get the weight balance right on the car. Taking out the dumbass washer bottle sure doesn't cost anything. For me it's a question of aesthetics: what the hell is a washer bottle doing in my race car? Well, actually, it's doing nothing.
And Mr. Dewhurst, I'm really not sure what my winning pecentage has to do with it, or whether I race production (which I also do with an HP Scirocco), but in my racing career over the last four years I have entered about 15 races or so and I have won two, both last year. Which is about a 6% winning average, more or less. I'm pretty sure I've come dead last on at least two occasions as well, which would also be about 6%.
OK, bring on the flames!
Mwah-hah-hah! (sinister, not hysterical)
Kirk (who hopes that it rains for 12 hours in WV the first weekend in June, so we can beat not only all of the other ITB cars but EVERYONE who took out their washer bottle and defogger.
http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif
K
The issue with allowing some of these additional modifications is that it may cause unintended consequences. I realize that people would still have the option to keep the stuff as is, but the perception especially from new people would be that it should be done. The goal of IT is to provide people a relatively “easy” way to enter into racing and this just makes it slightly more complicated. The washer bottle? Fine, that one can go however I would keep mine in and have benefited by keeping just a bit of fluid in it. Like Kirk alluded to with the heater core, there are definite benefits to having that in the car. It may be more evident in northern states, but it does. Taking the passenger side window out…that may create storage issues for people. Sure I can throw a plastic tarp over the car / window but now it opens things up to vandilizim and other issues.
Do you really think that not allowing some of these minor modifications (as it is being termed) keeps younger people from IT racing? That is simply not the case. And people that these things keep them from racing IT or SCCA, maybe this isn’t the right place for them. Getting newer model cars such as Civics will certainly help. There are many other reasons I believe more younger people have not become involved in club racing and none of them relate to washer bottles, battery relocation, or passenger side windows. I’m am in the opinion that we need to focus on making club racing less expensive (or at least change misperceptions) and easier to get into.
------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si
This ain't so much because the cars are old as it is the average IT car is a POS. If the average driver took as much time and effort into car prep (both race and cosmetic) as they do trying to figure out why everyone else is faster, it wouldn't have that rep.Quote:
Originally posted by Catch22:
Keep that attitude and our beloved IT classes, already known to many of the younger generation as "ITJ" (Improved Touring Jalopy), will die when we die. That would kind of suck wouldn't it.
Jalopy:
Pronunciation: j&-'lä-pE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural ja·lop·ies
Etymology: origin unknown
: a dilapidated old vehicle (as an automobile)
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited February 02, 2005).]
I think that new cars should be classed but if you think that it is going to get the bling bling 20 something in to racing I think you are mistaken, and running after the wrong thing. I would bet that 90% of the people under the age of 30 in SCCA have a family member involved in SCCA in one form or another. My 8yr old thinks that GT6's are the coolest car in the world, and he has only been around for a couple of months has not even been to a race yet.
I do not think that the for the most part the desire to shell out a minimum of 3k for a car 1k for safety stuff 2k for a season that exists of getting to run your car maybe 12 times for a grand total of about 12 hours is something most young adults are going to do, other things to spend their money on road racing is expensive at the entry level. Why do you think so many kids drag race, get a DOT helmet for 29.99 and go.
I think we need to spend less time trying to get the 20yr olds and pay closer attn to why we are loosing our market share to people like NASA and mark specific classes, what are they doing that makes people want to run there? You can't be all things to all people but the fact that there are classes like H#,American Iron ect proves that there is something wrong.
Quote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
Mwah-hah-hah! (sinister, not hysterical)
Kirk (who hopes that it rains for 12 hours in WV the first weekend in June, so we can beat not only all of the other ITB cars but EVERYONE who took out their washer bottle and defogger.
K
You still have an upper left coast mindset in North Carolina Kirk.
Its called Rain X, and it works on both sides of the glass. No defrost/defog needed. And if its cold enough to have ice forming on the inside of the glass... The water in the washer bottle will be frozen too.
We need to discuss this over beerz. Its hard to get your point across on a web board.
I'm not saying that pass side glass and washer bottles will keep the younger folks out. I'm saying the resistance to change that is evident in the "If you allow washer bottles to be removed you'll get rules creep and eventually unlimited compression will be allowed" mindset will stagnate things and keep the younger crowd away.
And I agree Andy, to a degree. But it takes alot of time and money to keep a 30 year old race car looking good. A 7 year old one doesn't take so much. But Ohhhhhh... If we classify the 1996 Honda Civic DX in ITB then my 25 year old Rabbit will be uncompetitive. Change BAD! Change BAAADDDD!!!.
And when I refer to the younger crowd I'm not referring to the NOPI car show baggy pants and cocked cap crowd. I don't want those people anywhere near me.
But, if you've never been to a NASA event you're missing HUNDREDS of people in their 20s racing and doing HPDEs. Mostly in cars that are not IT classed. The ones that are classed at all aren't done competitively so.
Everyone I know that attends both NASA and SCCA events say that the one thing that sticks out the most to them is the age difference. While the SCCAs experience level is great, all of these people are going to eventually die. Given that, I think its a good idea to try to start taking some people from NASA.
A good start is to not be scared of rules changes, especially the easy ones, and to forget about trying to keep 25 year old cars competitive and move forward.
I own a 1991 model race car, and if I'm still driving it I EXPECT it to be uncompetitive by 2011. If its not, then there is something WRONG.
If you want the rules to keep cars competitive until they rust into dust, you are holding back the entire club. Sorry, its true.
I could not agree with you more. Why are they there? That is what needs to be fixed, and fixed quickly. Will it ruffle some fethers yep, but in the long run it will be better.Quote:
Originally posted by Catch22:
And when I refer to the younger crowd I'm not referring to the NOPI car show baggy pants and cocked cap crowd. I don't want those people anywhere near me.
But, if you've never been to a NASA event you're missing HUNDREDS of people in their 20s racing and doing HPDEs. Mostly in cars that are not IT classed. The ones that are classed at all aren't done competitively so.
Everyone I know that attends both NASA and SCCA events say that the one thing that sticks out the most to them is the age difference. While the SCCAs experience level is great, all of these people are going to eventually die. Given that, I think its a good idea to try to start taking some people from NASA.
I own a 1991 model race car, and if I'm still driving it I EXPECT it to be uncompetitive by 2011. If its not, then there is something WRONG.
If you want the rules to keep cars competitive until they rust into dust, you are holding back the entire club. Sorry, its true.
And I agree again I just built a 33yr old race car, however I think you can keep the old and the new together just not in 4 classes. I do not see what the big deal is over adding a class, I run at the same time as ITC and ITE cars. I see no difference if you have a class above ITS, I doubt it will be faster then the Viper and the Cobra R that I have to share the track with now.
This is one of the reasons why the Ontario Region of CASC as adopted the bracket racing rule to road racing. Basically "run what you brug", and they will stuff you into a class. Just dont go any faster than your class, or they will bump you into the next faster class. It seems to work for them.
Yes, I realize all the issues regarding "sand bagging" etc. but it seems to work. ie: if you want to race your GT1 Camaro in the same class as that young kid with the B16 Turbo Civic with his Super Touring wing - then Bob's your uncle.
I'm not suggesting for IT to go that route, but it sure eliminates all the politics, protests & policing in road racing...
Interestingly enough, at the Convention last week, discussons evolved surrounding:
The loosening of regs in PDE's;
The possibility of "bracket" classing for road racing;
The additional exposure for the Club that would be afforded by a few well placed sponsorship links on tuner and marque websites (kids spend more time surfing than watching Speed Channel!);
Other topics.
You guys really should consider going - full registration, with the $65 a plate sandwich luncheons, is a bit expensive - but it's common knowledge that you don't have to register to attend the seminars (and the bar).
They are there because the SCCA has a rule book that weighs more than their sound system's amplifier. Seriously. Cars are fun and rules are boring. The two don't mix at that age.Quote:
Originally posted by cherokee:
I could not agree with you more. Why are they there? That is what needs to be fixed, and fixed quickly...
The younger drivers are not going to spend Sundays in the hammock reviewing the Fastrack. If the time and money needed to follow the rules is minimal, they will do it. Otherwise, forget it. I know a guy who drag races his street car nearly every weekend. He could easily break 12 seconds, but if he did he'd have to install a cage, so he doesn't bother.
G
IT'S DR. EEEEVIL!!! http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gifQuote:
Originally posted by Knestis:
Mwah-hah-hah! (sinister, not hysterical)
G
I am in favor of changing the rules about washer bottle, door glass, battery placement, etc. because the current rules are goofy, not because I think that it will attract 20-somethings. Why do the rule changes only get discussed in that context? We are living with the mother of all screwups in the rule that say you can change out the ECU in your car as long as the new one fits is the old box. That's unnecessary, a completely insane escalation and completely unfair to prople with old cars and yet, it hasn't made IT go away, has it? Please, everyone raise a ruckus and let's get rid of that rule (just like they got rid of the remote reservoir shocks) and go back to the old way. Anyone who could afford to buy a Motec in the first place can afford to take a loss on it and sell it on Ebay to a ricer drag-racer. It is for the good of the category that ECU rule get rescinded. In comparison, the relatively simple proposed changes I mentioned are completely within the character and philosophy of IT.
These web-boards gererate good ideas and bad ideas. If anyone feels strongly about there idea, write an e-mail to the CRB and get ot on one of our agendas.
crb (at) scca.com
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
Andy,
Any luck finding that weight on the 2.0 16v Jetta?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Quote:
Originally posted by Catch22:
And I agree Andy, to a degree. But it takes alot of time and money to keep a 30 year old race car looking good. A 7 year old one doesn't take so much. But Ohhhhhh... If we classify the 1996 Honda Civic DX in ITB then my 25 year old Rabbit will be uncompetitive. Change BAD! Change BAAADDDD!!!.
First, yes, (duh) new stuff should be classed..we have four classes...lets use 'em!
But BS, on the old vs. new cost comparo. Not that simple. Old cars, popular ones can be very cheap due to the commonality and ease of getting inexpensive parts. New carfs can cost a ton ...it all depends.
No, it's not true.....Quote:
A good start is to not be scared of rules changes, especially the easy ones, and to forget about trying to keep 25 year old cars competitive and move forward.
I own a 1991 model race car, and if I'm still driving it I EXPECT it to be uncompetitive by 2011. If its not, then there is something WRONG.
If you want the rules to keep cars competitive until they rust into dust, you are holding back the entire club. Sorry, its true.
Nor should it be! We have 4 classes! Look,,...there are two basic ways to do this. First, establish performance parameters for each class, and add cars appropriately. New additions should not overrun the class...if they do, they were added incorrectly and need adjustment. OR, two, add the new cars, let the class performance escalate, and move the formerly "in the hunt" cars that have now become backmarkers down a class. Its EASY! A little weight adjustment can balance things nicely.
There is no reason to disenfranchise large groups of customers merely because they are driving cars whose age is not what you want. I think it's kinda cool to see a mix of origins and age all fighting it out ...we aren't pro racers, we aren't shilling for Volvo or BMW...there is no reason why we all can't race together effectively, and competitively.
As for moving the battery et al, ....why? It's more work, it is a post classification change (very bad), and it does cost money. Same for the defroster/heater core..what harm does it do? The rules allow the hose to be blocked if the fear of hot water is too great...Too much ado about nothing....
------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
Quote:
Originally posted by gran racing:
The issue with allowing some of these additional modifications is that it may cause unintended consequences. I realize that people would still have the option to keep the stuff as is, but the perception especially from new people would be that it should be done. The goal of IT is to provide people a relatively “easy” way to enter into racing and this just makes it slightly more complicated.
Just like the ECU rule...
------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA