The new ITA class

[Asok #25]

So just cause he was the 3rd fastest ITS car he wins all the respect. Do what?

I look at those results and see a MARRS car losing to a SARRC car. yes. But also an e36 losing to a 240Z on a level playing field in a MARRS race!!! Just because the 240Z does not get MARRS points does not mean it did not win the race.

Are both ITS cars???? YES! The MARRS boys just lost on that day to a fast car.

Ed York is simple one of the best drivers in the nation if I remember right he still won races when he didn't drive an e36. I think yall might want to campain for an Ed York 200lb reward instead of going on a witch hunt.

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
Im lost, what does class intent or affordability have to do with bringing the cars a little closer together performance wise? thats what most asked the CRB for and thats what they are doing.

Since this thread has been all over the place we might as well take it down this path too!

I believe that many people may confuse a cars' ultimate potential within the rules and a cars' potential within a given budget.

[Bill Miller]

Asok,

If Ed York's E36 was the only one dominating, I don't think anyone would be looking for an adjustment to all the E36 cars. Point of fact is that there are several of them around the country that are regularly atop the ITS podium.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[GKR_17]

Originally posted by JoelG:
I have to disagree with this. Every MARRS ITS race for the last 3 years has been won by an e36.
Joel

The MARRS results show that Sam Asinugo won the 10th race last season; I may be wrong but last time I saw him he was in an E30 BMW.

Like Asok said, the reason the E36 is dominant in that series is Ed York. To say that the other cars that did actually beat him didn't count because they weren't in the points for that series adds tons of credibility to the argument...

[GKR_17]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Asok,

If Ed York's E36 was the only one dominating, I don't think anyone would be looking for an adjustment to all the E36 cars. Point of fact is that there are several of them around the country that are regularly atop the ITS podium.

I can think of several Rx-7's and 240Z's in the same situation. Some even seem to beat York.

Sam sold his E-30 since he couldn't catch York's E-36 and is now spending a lot on an E-36. He has won two races, only because York DNF'd.

As far as any 240 or RX-7 catching an E-36 at Summit Point, forget it. The two or three top E-36's regularly post laps that are at least 2 seconds a lap faster than ANY other car, be it a 240, RX-7 or Integra.

A top E-36 in ITS trim such as York's or Sam's is only 1 second slower than the normal EP regional winners. I've seen on the Production boards where the Production racers say that the E-36 has too much potential for EP, and isn't ITS where most, if not the majority of EP cars have come from?

Pull the lights, gut the interior, put on some fiberglass body panels and the E-36 with IT engine specs could run in EP and win. Do some other minor work and the car could be competitive in Regional GT-2.

When the E-30's were first classed in ITS, I was driving an overweight, underpowered "budget" 280Z. I was only 4 seconds off the winning E-30's (Alan Freed in an E-30 rumored to have been prepped by PTG)times. Within one season, the top 240's, RX-7's, and 944's closed the gap and all were competitive.
Now, the mid pack cars that are running times faster than what was the track record in the mid to late 90's are now 8-10 seconds off the leaders times. They routinely get lapped not once, but twice in a 15 lap race, which, at the end of the season if they do all the MARRS series, ends up being one whole race they paid to compete in, yet, didn't get to finish.

[Bill Miller]

GKR,

I don't think anyone said they "didn't count" (I know I didn't). All I did was point out that Ed won that MARRS race. I wasn't the one that decided to have to seperate groups of the same cars, racing at the same time, each running for their own positions/points. If you have issues w/ that, take it up w/ the race organizers.

Funny how you guys are saying that the only reason the car dominates is because of the driver. How about all the other E36 cars that seem to do well around the country? What about James, or Kip, or ????? Ed's a great driver w/ a very well developed and prepared car.

And, a car doesn't have to win every race to be dominant. Even Michael Schumaker doesn't win every race.

You guys are just trying to protect your investments (naturally so).

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
...I believe that many people may confuse a cars' ultimate potential within the rules and a cars' potential within a given budget.

I believe that this is absoutely the case. To this add, "potential while being driven by Racer X."

K

[dyoungre]

All of this discussion brings us right around to the beginning - the objective measureables, such as power/weight, swept brake rotor area to mass, wheel size, CG height and lateral location... If we look across all regions, for the season, and look at best lap for each type of car within a class, do we see any gaps based on car type? Statistics should help us take the variables of vehicle preparation and driver skill out of the equation. Where, then, are we left with class to class overlap, and gaps which suggest within-class disparity? I bet it points to the hardware advantages we've already beat to death...

------------------
Dave Youngren
NER ITA RX7 #61

[planet6racing]

And, since race results don't list weather conditions or other anomolies, it is really difficult to judge performance by just looking at the results sheets on the internet...

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

whatever anyone may say here , at every race I have ever been to, you could poll every driver sitting in his car on the grid and all will agree with this statment. "I Ricky Racer would like to be able to think that with my 10k to 15k IT car if prepped and driven correctly has a chance of getting to the front of this race". If they didnt they would be doing something else that weekend.

[cherokee]

Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
you could poll every driver sitting in his car on the grid and all will agree with this statment. "I Ricky Racer would like to be able to think that with my 10k to 15k IT car if prepped and driven correctly has a chance of getting to the front of this race". If they didnt they would be doing something else that weekend.

Yes they would agree with it but it might not be the reason that they are there. There is not a lot of money if you win, the trophy's are cool but are the realy worth the couple hundred bucks you pay to enter. I am out there for the fun of doing it, I have had more fun fighting for last place the when I won my only race. It is a release for me, a time away from the crazyness of everyday life. It is all part of the experence.

I know somepeople only care about winning and that is fine, and maybe I will change my views after I have been racing for a while, but for now I am just having fun doing it.

[planet6racing]

No offense, but I wouldn't say that. I have clearly defined goals for all of this:

1) Have fun.
2) Learn how to drive the car.
3) Learn how to safely race with others.
4) Learn what to do in all kinds of situations that one may encounter.
5) Learn to trust others and the corner workers.
6) Learn new tracks.

I know that I'm not competitive now, and that I may not ever be competitive in IT. I read the rulebook before I started building my car and accepted that. When I've learned from the above and want to be guaranteed a shot at the front, I'll be changing classes, either to Production, AS, formula car, or Showroom Stock. Until I get to those classes, I do not expect any equalization of the field.

However, I can say that I know of a couple of Saturns that have won in ITA, therefore I know that the car has the potential to win. That could influence the way I feel, but it was also one of the reasons why I built this car.

What was the original topic again, anyway?

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[Jake]

Good points!! I am convinced that even with $15-$20K my little MR2 is not going to win ITA. Actually, knowing that saves me money! But, that fact isn't going to do a thing to keep be off the tracks (for reasons mentioned above).

[cherokee]

Originally posted by planet6racing:
No offense, but I wouldn't say that. I have clearly defined goals for all of this:

1) Have fun.
2) Learn how to drive the car.
3) Learn how to safely race with others.
4) Learn what to do in all kinds of situations that one may encounter.
5) Learn to trust others and the corner workers.
6) Learn new tracks.

I know that I'm not competitive now, and that I may not ever be competitive in IT

I am not offended, But all of those things are fun to me, and you missed the best part of the whole experence the other racers, the down time between races. I went to the races for 3 years just to talk to the folks there and to see new people. Its fun to lounge beside your car and have someone come up to ask to look at it. If you are only in this for winning then you are setting your self up to be unhappy. There is so much more that you can take away from the club racing experence....that sounded corny.

This did drift off topic just a little bit

[planet6racing]

Actually, Cherokee, I'm in the same boat with you. If it's not fun, it's just like work. The downtime is fun, but the most fun is camping overnight at the track and telling wild and crazy stories that may or may not be true.

I was actually targeting more at 7'sracing (can't remember if that is Daryl or Jake) comment about running up front.

That and I'm trying to drive this to 300 posts...

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

[gran racing]

The point really is that if a car is currently in a class and when looking at it in greater detail should be in a lower class, the car should be moved to that class. And small adjustments to weight to help it fit into a class that make much more sense is not a bad thing.

We'll go with Jake's MR2 again. To simply reclassify it into ITB without a small weight adjustment would not be correct. If, as others have said, a little weight were added to the car (say 2,450 lbs) it would be a good fit.

If a car in its present class totally doesn't make sense but would in another, the reason not to do it is why? And no, I'm not saying to go around and start doing this all over the place. And I'm also not saying to take an ITA CRX si, add 500 lbs and put it into ITB. Alright, a little extreme example but you get the point.

Why shouldn't various cars classifications be reviewed from time to time as the classes evolve?

I really think SCCA IT is going in the right direction...

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

[cherokee]

Originally posted by gran racing:


Why shouldn't various cars classifications be reviewed from time to time as the classes evolve?

Just to keep things going....

Because by doing this you would eventually end up with the CRX si in ITC as better and better cars come down the pike. I also think that there is no way the older cars that are already there going to have a chance. The newer cars with the better everything, will just slowly walk away. Independant front and rear setups are just better, just like FI is better then Carbs, cars with no distribuiter<sp>, on and on.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by cherokee:
Independant front and rear setups are just better, just like FI is better then Carbs, cars with no distribuiter<sp>, on and on.

Ummmm.... the 510 in ITC has Independant front and rear...

It's entertaining to see how far you guys will move the extremes when talking about this stuff...

The pattern of this type of discussion is what prompted me to ask the question earlier for a list of potential ITC bottom-feeders that might potentially be displaced by cars moving to ITC...

The fact that not ONE of you has given me even a SINGLE car leads me to continue to question whether this would indeed be a problem.

You guys seem to like to discuss the POTENTIAL for a problem to exist, but when one actually sits down and looks at the situation from a rational perspective with actual data, it becomes pretty clear that the "problem" may not be the thing you are discussing, but rather the belief that there is one in the first place...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 16, 2004).]

[Knestis]

I figured that your list could be inferred simply by taking the three or four frontrunners out of the GCR list.

It seems to me that the combination of "not going to be competitive" with "slow, even if it were" has pretty much chased away all of the 1.4 Alliances, old Hondas, Datsun 1200s, etc.

K