...are posted:
http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472
Printable View
...are posted:
http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472
Looks like they fleshed out the justification of the 30% multi-valve factor for B/C, and talked about using non-standard factors. Still doesn't mean much if the CRB can just chuck it aside.
the idea was to change the language that had been understood to mean that some cars just got stuck at a certain value, while remaining sensitive to the potential of newer tech cars (unfortunately identified as "multivalve") in ITB and C.
The end result frees the ITAC/CRB relationship from any predetermined multipliers. yes, the CRB can still change recomendations as they see fit. the ops manual is NOT a set of rules everyone has to follow, but it is generally suported by the CRB and that's a huge plus.
What's the "U" in "ITU" for that Travis suggested? Under 2000 cc ? IT Unlimited (any power/weight naturally aspirated car w/ IT mods) ? IT Unsightly for people who hate fixing bodywork? IT Unobtanium for very rare cars with IT mods? :shrug:
A faster class above R. With R car counts where they are (low but increasing) I don't think we are in the position to do that yet.
Like Jeff said. Travis actually put a lot of work into the proposal. in order to keep modern "sports" cars in IT, we'll eventually need a faster class. if we're happy with rios and civics, and the miata/MX5, then the current format works quite well. it's not getting done right now, though. last thing anyone wants is another class right now.
It will happen at some point, and honestly should have happened by now. Actually, what should have happned is that ITR should have come along 10 years before it did, and we should be working on ITU now.
Travis did a great job with the proposal. It's just the wrong time for it.
Maybe time to see if you can work the current ITC cars into ITB and get rid of "C". I know some (most?) cars won't be able to get rid of that much weight but............... :shrug:
I think that would wind up being a case where we'd kill ITC and just deal with the fallout. we're not talking about it, but there's just about no way most C cars could ever be competitive in B.
we have to move IT forward somehow or it will loose relevance.
Resurect the old ITD class, and put the -C- cars there.
If you get pushback for adding a class, just remind them that IT is regional only and they won't have to worry about it darkening the door of the Runoffs. One of the benefits of not being a national eligable class.
I don't have participation numbers for ITC handy, but it's not a lot. I undertsnad there are some good clusters in certain areas. I think THOSE areas can keep ITC going region by region, but at a "national" rules level I see no viability to that class in the future. right now, though, I am not trying to kill it, nor is anyone else.
I agree with Earl 100%. I would not support delisting cars, or eliminating a class.
The progression of IT to "faster" cars and "faster" classes is and will continue to happen naturally, in my opinion.
While C is dead in a lot of places, it's not in others and those guys should continue to have a place to race. The BEST race at the ITFest -- by far -- was ITC. Big field, and competitive.
Supported; the ITC racers I have met are usually in older cars that they have loved for a long time, and with the usually experienced love-of-racing drivers and well developed cars, they run similar times as slower ITB cars. Keeping ITC alive does not require extra race groups at Regionals if they keep running with ITB, and does not slow the race groups down either.
Remembering how Fred White drove circles around my 160 hp SSC Civic in his ITC Honda at my NHMS school... and how Tony Christian beat me in his ITC Rabbit when I first started racing at Summit :happy204: .
I think there will be support for a faster class as soon as we can say “We created ITR because cars are getting faster and is has become a very popular class so it is time to create ITU”
ITR is popular but not yet “very popular” IMHO.
Related question, is there a big enough performance gap between ITS and ITR now/ they seem kind of close.
Paul Harvey hear... why does SCCA have 137 classes with 2 cars in each class?
Well....
G Prod racers I have met are usually in older cars that they have loved for a long time, and with the usually experienced love-of-racing drivers and well developed cars, they run similar times as slower F Prod cars. Keeping G Prod alive does not require extra race groups at Regionals if they keep running with F Prod, and does not slow the race groups down either.
and now you have..... the rest of the story.....
Dick and I talked about this off line a few weeks back and I too would be interested in hearing other folks' opinion on it.
My perception is we got it "just right. There is still (in my opinion) a ton more development in the top ITS cars than ITR save a very few. One of those being Kip VS's 944 S2 which is about 2-3 seconds faster than "the best" ITS cars, which is as it should be to me.
Similarly, the ITR track record at VIR is Mike Skeen in an ITR E36 325 at 2:12, with ITS in.....an ITS E36 at 2:14 by Chet Whittel. Not apples to apples EXACTLY but pretty close, no? And 2 seconds gap is similar to the split in other classes.
I would guess here in the North East we have some VERY well prepped ITR cars that are 10 10ths. I also think we have 10 10ths ITS cars between flatouts old RX7 and the remaining Autotecnic BMW which actually is probably one of the fastest in the country if I had to guess.
DO I think the ITR times will still drop, yes. But the cars are certainly well developed IMHO. We are running just as quick as the grand am ST cars which is what I think we should be running in ITR.
Stephen
SCCA posted the prelim minutes for the October Fastrack.
In those minutes under suggested rule changes for 2013, it says:
“3. #9046 (SCCA Staff) Require Minimum Windshield Thickness in GCR Section 9
Change GCR section 9.3.55 as follows: 9.3.55 WINDSHIELDS/WINDSHIELD CLIPS/REAR WINDOW
STRAPS
Add a new first sentence as follows: Polycarbonate windshields such as Lexan are allowed except in Improved Touring, Super Touring, American Sedan, Showroom Stock, B-Spec, Spec Miata, and Touring. Alternate windshields must be of 6mm minimum thickness.”
But currently in the GCR under 9.1.4.F.8 Super Touring, it reads:
“All vehicles must use a stock, OEM equivalent, safety glass windshield, or 0.25 inch minimum thickness Lexan replacement, mounted in the stock location, at the stock angle and maintaining the stock profile.”
So starting in 2013 are polycarbonate/Lexan windshields no longer allowed in Super Touring, or is this just an error?
Error, already submitted request for correction. Super Touring can continue with poly windshields; expect updated verbiage in the Sept 20 Fastrack. - GA
But in Ohio, the ITC gang is the best of show. The OVR Double a couple of weeks ago at Mid-Ohio saw three ITC races that had the crowds on there feet (ok, maybe not crowds) for the entire races. Lead changes, outside passes, you name it. And all of those guys are good friends, to boot. They even padock all together! And that may be an issue with SCCA. Different classes are stronger in some areas of the country than others. It will take the wisdom of Solomon to iron it all out.
I'm not suggesting doing away with ITC - I'm suggesting that if the time came to "roll them in" to ITB, to make room for a new class above ITR, that it would make more sense to me if we just did away with ITC as a nationally maintained ruleset. and as I said, it's on no ones agenda and I'm certainly not runnign the show, I'm just a single vote in an adhoc.
I do not think the two are related. Making C go away in order to create a new class is not necessary and would just make more enemies. All you need to do is not expend any committee time on ITC and it is not a problem. Wait a minute I guess we are already doing that.
Not sure where anyone would get the idea that you would need to eliminate on IT class to make room for another one. That was never a consideration when we put ITR together. And since IT isn't a National class, there's no Runoffs impact. The driver behind ITR was that there were a metric shit ton of popular cars, that couldn't be run in IT, w/o being saddle w/ massive amount of weight to fit into ITS. There was never any discussion around needing to drop C to make R fit. I think the same would hold w/ another class above R. You're just defining another performance envelope for cars that are too fast for ITR.
And honestly Chip, I don't think you could make most of the ITC cars light enough to be competitive in ITB.
Wow, nothing like telling the ITC crowd that they are insignificant. Where are all these B-spec cars going to age into? Are they fast enough for ITB?
So Bill,
Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I know *I* have been, but seem to recall your position as similar on this concept: The SCCA seems to never have enough balls to consolidate classes for a forward-thinking framework. If we had to bundle ITB and ITC (maybe adjust the multiplier to 17.92 (17 + 18.84 /2) so we could add a class above ITR, why not? The future is certainly in that class I would think.
Those of us who are critics of the 'a class for everyone' syndrome can't also be critical of the CONCEPT of the elimination/consolidation of classes. Short term pain for long term gain?
Maybe.
Well actually Bill I would say we would be promising stability. They can race in C as long as they have someone to race with. It’s not like we have been adding many new cars. If I and 10 of my best friends raced ITC I would be happy with that response.
As for the B Spec cars they all make much more power, the only question is can they make a reasonable weight.
Does anyone know how many actual B-Spec cars are out there? 10?
Most of them "fit" into ITB @ 25%, but most would end up at 30% considering the requirement of information. Also most of them are at or near curb weight when processed at 30% (Fit, 2, Versa, Yaris, Fiesta). The Mini would have to carry lead (@30%) and the Fiat (%30) would be hard to get to minimum weight. Two of them would go to ITA (Kia and Chevy).
OK, it was me who originally suggested doing away with ITC <raising hand> Not Chip or anyone else. I think everyone is on the same page here except for me but after reading the arguments I don't think it's a good idea either.
Sorry to stir things up!!! :rolleyes:
Ding ding ding.
I was going to say we don't need to worry about where they'll fit because there will only be three or four of them when the time comes around and heck, they could be off in Chump.
But then I remembered this is the SCCA where three or four cars makes a National Runoff Class. Silly me.
We don't spend a lot of time on C .... interest in the class is very low. But like I said, the racing in C at Mid Ohio was eye opening ot me. I don't think I'd ever seen more than 2-3 ITC cars on track at any time.
I'm not in favor of "eliminating" the ITC cars.
I am in favor of trying to consolidate classes.
Andy may be on to something. If we adjusted the power to weight so we could have the "true" B cars weigh a bit more and so we could squeeze most C cars in...might work.....although B guys may not like it because the weights of existing cars would go up.
Andy, I'm not sure why you would need to consolidate/eliminate anything, to add a class above R. IIRC, when you, I, Kirk, Jake, George, etc., etc. were working on the ITR proposal, I don't think the topic of eliminating ITC ever even came up. I also don't see how adding a class for cars that are too fast to run in ITR is playing the 'class for everyone' game. If IT were a National category, and had to deal w/ the issue of how many run groups they could manage at the Runoffs, I could see it being an issue. But until that day comes, I don't see where adding an additional class would have any impact on the existing IT classes. In fact, the Regions have been doing it for years (e.g. IT7, SSM, SRX7)
Dick,
Why should ITC have any more or less stability than any of the other IT classes? And I read your earlier comment as basically no time would get spent on an ITC-specfic business / issues.
And I realize that ITC is in a tough spot. Not many 75hp cars built these days. But if they started winnowing off the bottom of ITB, into ITC, it may give the class a shot in the arm. So, not so much consolidation, as moving some cars down. Mostly ones that don't stand a chance in ITB right now, anyway.
The comment about the B-spec cars was because I really don't know anything about them, or where they would fit in IT.
My comment on the consolidation to facilitate the addition was brought on by the comments made that made it seem like the CRB thought there were enough IT classes now. So if that was the case, we look at the long term health of the category as a whole and adjust accordingly.
The 'class for everyone' was not a comment on a class above ITR but a comment on the SCCA structure as a whole. Everyone complains about how there is no vision for the future yet those same people hold onto their class (no matter how small the numbers are) with a white knuckle grip. Classic 'change is great for you but not for ME' mentality.
I personally think you could add a class above ITR without touching ITC. I don't see the necessity of a one-in, one-out model at this point.
On B-Spec - no need to worry where they will go. There aren't enough of them now, and as I predicted, won't be many more. At some point, people actually have to like the car they race. The guys with the wallets don't want to go into work on Monday and tell people they came in 3rd driving their rented Mazda 2. No cool factor which really needs to be there for most of these guys. It would for me if I had the money. GAC ST all the way.
As owner (and occasional driver) of one of the fastest and heaviest B cars in the country... I don't have an objection to adding weight to increase field sizes. OK, things may (should) get a bit slower... but let's face it, no-one's running ITB now to set their hair on fire... ITB and ITC are definitely all about the quality of the racing, IMO...
You and I are on the same page Andy. The overall good of the category should be the #1 priority. Unfortunately, Club Racing has been too me-centric for a long, long time. I'm not sure why the CRB would take the approach that there are enough IT classes. It doesn't really impact anything, by adding another IT class, expect possibly bringing some more people to the track. The nice thing is, the Regions could implement it on their own, w/o needing any input or blessing from the CRB. The only trick is to get them (the Regions) to agree on a uniform rule set. So, Travis could pitch his ITU proposal to all the regions, get their buy in, and implement it w/o any need for CRB involvement. What would be really cool, is if all the Regions agree to have the ITAC manage the class. :023:
As far as the whole B-spec thing goes, I'm not sure who's brain child that was. But I didn't think it was as expensive as GAC ST. I have a good friend of mine that runs that (John Weisberg), and I'm pretty sure seats are way more $$$$ than a B-spec ride, but I could be wrong.
I like the concept, but the economics of it might not play out as you'd think. Since there are so many aftermarket go fast parts for the V8 Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang, and not many for the V6 versions, it could be cheaper to race the V8. And then on the used market a V8 donor won't cost much more than a V6.
On the other hand, one can argue that since it is a full on race car you'll be designing and making parts and not using off the shelf stuff. Maybe or maybe not.
I do know for sure that a V6 ITS Mustang isn't a cheap proposition and I certainly could have saved some coin had there been some good aftermarket parts, anything from ECU knowledge/know how to rear suspension parts.