The new ITA class

[Bill Miller]

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.

Nothing like having an open mind, now is there George!

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

[lateapex911]

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, .....

{Sound of screeching brakes...then a crash}

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).]

[cherokee]

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).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Nothing like having an open mind, now is there George!

Oh go crawl in your hole Bill. You wouldn't know about an open mind if it hit you over the head.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[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. 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

[Banzai240]

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

[Geo]

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.

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.

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

[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? 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

[Geo]

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?

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.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

[Banzai240]

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

[cherokee]

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 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.

[timelapseracing]

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.

[gran racing]

"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

[cherokee]

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"?

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by cherokee:

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\"?

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'.

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]

[eh_tony!!!]

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 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.

[Bill Miller]

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

[OTLimit]

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.

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.



------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

[cherokee]

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'.

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

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 . 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).]

[jake7140]

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>