The new ITA class

[Geo]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
George,

There was another request, made by someone else, to add a new class. It had nothing to do w/ IT2, and was shot down w/ the reason that PCAs would eliminate the need for a new class. I didn't make that up, it was printed in FasTrack!

Got it. We were talking about IT2 and you were talking about something else.


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

[captdanh]

[quote]Originally posted by Banzai240:
[b] Kirk,


The only car to this point that I feel hasn't received fair treatment of those we've considered is the MR-2. It's not sufficient for ITA and belongs in ITB in my opinion, and according to the process described above...


Hello all. I am new to this forum.
I was racing an H production MG Midget for the last couple of years. But due to budget constraints, I am looking for a more affordable car to race.
So I began looking at IT. I like the Toyota MR2 and was considering building one.
Then the wind is taken out of my sails!
I come to this forum to learn about the car, and discover that I will be a backmarker in ITA.
But,many people agree it could be competetive in ITB and should be moved, but the powers that be say it stays in ITA.
So I ask. Will I be wasting my time building one with the hope that it will be reclassed? Or should I move on to another car?


[This message has been edited by captdanh (edited May 16, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Ok George, see if you can follow this. Yes, I agree that Kirk's original IT2 proposal was just too different than 'regular' IT, to stand a chance. I also agree that that's why it was shot down. Now, explain why it got shot down when it didn't have any of the original IT2 'baggage'.

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

[JeffYoung]

Captain Danh, like most of the other sweeping "this is the way it is" pronouncements on this forum, the statement that the MR2 is always a backmarker is not correct.

First, you don't see many of them which leads me to believe two things. The ones that are out there are not fully developed and second, the drivers probably aren't fuly developed either. No knock on the MR2 drivers out there, I'm just saying I doubt someone has been driving and improving the car for the last 15 years like they have the 1st Gen RX7.

I just ran against a MARRS MR2 that ran 2:26s at VIR, which which while not a front runner is competitive in ITA (would have finished top 5 in a normal ITA race). Also, that's about 6 seconds faster than the regular ITA MR2 that shows up. So again, car level prep and driver ability is key and blanket evaluations of cars just don't work.

Another case in point. The IT7 track record at VIR -- a HORSEPOWER TRACK -- is faster than the ITA CRX record. Why? Driver and car are top notch. Not only that, but the fastest IT7s (there is a group of 3-4 of them) run in front of most A cars most of the time. Why? Good drivers, well prepared cars.

[Jake]

Capt - No the MR2 is not going to be competitive in ITA unless you cheat a lot or you run where there isn't any good competition. It WOULD be a good ITB car, but that may not happen.

That said - that's not a reason not to build one. I built my MR2 fully knowing that it was outclassed in ITA and never expecting a move to ITB. It is a VERY affordable and fun car to run. Not only is it incredibly reliable, but it is easy on brakes and tires like almost no other car. I bought 4 RA1's in 2002 and am STILL running on them after well over a dozen races. In an admittedly underdeveolped car, I am usually smack midpack in ITA in the second largest region in the USA. If you want specifics check out my site www.racerjake.com

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by JeffYoung:
Another case in point. The IT7 track record at VIR -- a HORSEPOWER TRACK -- is faster than the ITA CRX record. Why? Driver and car are top notch. Not only that, but the fastest IT7s (there is a group of 3-4 of them) run in front of most A cars most of the time. Why? Good drivers, well prepared cars.

Well, Jeff, thats true, but it is only half the story. The ITA half is an important part of the equation.

Another data point: Check out some of the better and well known drivers like Jim Susko of G-Force Engineering. A good driver, and it's debatable if there is a better prepped 7 in the nation. At the ARRCs, he ran against some well known ITA guys like Fowler, and my fellow regional competitor Anthony Serra, who set fast race lap. Susko was about 4 seconds off the pace. (sorry Jim!)

Now I will agree that the post race scrutineering is not an absolute guarantee of legality, but the tear downs DO mean more than the casual glance at the average regional.

Good drivers will beat so-so drivers, no doubt. But good drivers will get beaten by equal drivers in better cars.

The MR-2? No offense Jake, but we both know that your car could go faster with more testing,time and $. Will you run down Anthony Serra and turn the required 1:01.7 at Lime Rock???? Um ....no. No way in this reality. I bet you could squeak a bit more, maybe a second or two, but the difference of the front guys at 1:01.8 and the ITA "lite" guys is night and day.




------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Now, explain why it got shot down when it didn't have any of the original IT2 'baggage'.

I, for one, would like to try and work within the current framework within the context of PCA's before we add a class.

Simple.

AB


------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[Knestis]

To be fair to Geo, my point about the "me first" paradigm was really about the part of MY IT2 proposal that he argues against - the part where cars are listed because they have similar qualities, rather than because someone asked. He's been consistent in his objection and I understand where he's coming from. IT2 - as a new class - just seemed like a chance to experiment with a new kind of thinking...

Bill is however right about grega's not-encumbered-by-a-formula proposal being shot down, so the round is tied.

I appreciate your vote of confidence, volunteer-wise, Geo. Since this strand has been about everything else, it would be interesting to see how many people would support me in some kind of official advisory position. I suspect not many but won't lose any sleep about it.

K

[Jake]

No offense taken at all Jake. I know there's more in my car. I've never run Hoosiers, I have NO engine mods, I don't even run a header. I agree with you entirely.

I'm suprised Susko was still 4s off the pace. I've read his book, he really knows his shite. I would highly doubt that anyone could make a faster 7 than him.

I still can't get over the misconception that nobody has really developed an MR2 or a RX7 yet. These are vehicles that have run in very high numbers in IT for a long time. Zillions of each were built. It's completely illogical to think that these haven't been deveolped while somehow the relatively newly classed cars have.

[captdanh]

Thanks for the MR2 info. I'm in the S.E. division, and there are some fast ITA cars down here.
I fully understand that a fast car has to be developed,(including the driver!). And no one should expect to be a front runner right out of the box.
Different cars may have advantages over others at certain tracks.
All I want, (and I think most drivers will agree) is to know that if you bust your hump and REALLY develop your car, you have a chance to be competetive with the rest.
That said, I'm still going to give the MR2 a serious look. I just like them.

[Speed Raycer]

On the MR2... wait til you guys get a load of Norm's (ITA-MR2) MR2 when it's done. From what I've heard he's decided to make the MR2 the car to beat. He was already running towards the front of A. It'll be neat to see when he's done. It'll definitely set the MR2 bar a little higher.

------------------
Scott Rhea
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it

Izzy's Custom Cages

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

Why not use both tools? New class now, and PCAs to fine-tune everything. Again, a win-win.

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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

Why not use both tools? New class now, and PCAs to fine-tune everything. Again, a win-win.

I hear ya - but I don't know that another class is needed if PCA's can be successful. There very well may be the need for both but should we walk before we run?

AB


------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited May 16, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Wouldn't it pretty much work like this:

Add a new class... Existing cars in ITA and ITS get redistributed amongst the new class and ITS/ITA... No net change in ITB/ITC... ITC dies a slow death due to lack of interest or cars for the class... IT ends up with 4-classes...

Adding a new class would certainly be a short-term solution, but would do nothing to increase participation in ITC, and would ultimately lead to a 4-class IT structure... just like we have today.

Doesn't sound like the best way to approach things to me... Doesn't make any more sense than it makes to do the same for Production when HP is so lightly contested...

I vote to keep working within the framework we have and see what we can do with that. If all were to work out in my perfect IT world... we'd have 4 competitive classes again, and then perhaps a 5th ABOVE ITS for the new... REALLY fast cars... (RX-8, 340Z, S2000, etc...)

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

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I vote to keep working within the framework we have and see what we can do with that. If all were to work out in my perfect IT world... we'd have 4 competitive classes again, and then perhaps a 5th ABOVE ITS for the new... REALLY fast cars... (RX-8, 340Z, S2000, etc...)

then we need to find cars that can be moved down to ITC. that really seems like the first step, define itc and its and we will have a better idea what the distribution should be in the middle. is the itac working on a list to move to itc.
dick

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

My take would be that if you're going to make changes, make them all at once and get them over with. Maybe I don't understand why you want to use an adjustment tool (PCAs) to make the kinds of wholesale changes that are apparently needed. As I said, it seems like you guys have already defined the performance envelope for the class between ITS and ITA.

Darin,

Who says ITC is going to 'die'? I haven't seen the results from the SARRC/MARRS double at VIR, but there were 12 ITC cars at the first race at Summit Point this season. I believe that was a better turnout than ITB had at Pocono this weekend. Also, I'm curious as to how you think moving cars from ITB to ITC will help the situation that you perceive. Is it going to bring a bunch of new cars out, or is it going to just siphon off existing ITB drivers?

And just what in the world does HP have to do w/ ITC, or any of the other IT classes?

Also, IIRC, we still haven't heard what's going to happen w/ the ballast rule if PCAs are introduced.

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

[Knestis]

Apropos of nothing (I love to say that), I think that the window of opportunity has closed on another IT class.

I've obviously done a lousy job over the years explaining the rationale - based on all of the ways my intentions have been mis-quoted. SET ASIDE the weight-setting formula part of the issue (which, BTW was submitted as an explicitly severable clause of my proposal) and the "proactive" aspect was planning for a new pplace to put all of the cars now going into A, specifically so there wouldn't be any impact on the existing classes.

But that was then and this is now: Another class lower than the existing index of ITS will only complicate things. "We could move all of the cars that have just been proposed for A, OUT of A and..." Nah. There's no gap anywhere else large enough for another class to make sense.

The course has been set and for the near term, we should follow it. I'm glad that Jake and others are confident that it won't be a problem but (typically) I am less sure.

The idea of another class above the existing S index WILL make sense down the road at some point however...

K

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
[B]Apropos of nothing (I love to say that), I think that the window of opportunity has closed on another IT class.

That's NOT what I said, and it's COMPLETELY NOT TRUE! I said "I vote to keep working within the framework we have and see what we can do with that"...

It was MY OWN personal opinion on the matter... There are those on the CRB who have suggested to the ITAC that we may be considering adding another class as one possible solution to some of the perceived problems in IT and car classing. I am certainly not closed to the idea, not that my one voice makes that big a difference anyhow.

There is no need to go driving the dagger through your heart yet guys... All of this is just works in progress, and NOTHING has actually changed in IT as of yet anyhow, so all of this could be for NOT come August... The final say on ALL of the adjustments so far rests in the hands of the BoD...

That being said... The cars being proposed for ITA from ITS fit RIGHT IN with the existing top 3-5 cars in ITA right now, so the only "impact on the class" is that now you have a couple more cars to choose from...

The classes that would TRUELY be impacted from all of this is ITB and ITC... It can be agrued that the introduction of the 240SX, CRX, and Acura to ITA, many years ago, created a situation in ITA were some cars were truely relegated to backmarker status... These cars are too fast for ITB, but clearly not up to par with ITA... so I can actually see a class between ITA and ITB... RX-7s, MR-2s, etc... would likely fit nicely there...

Or, we could just add a class in-between every class... then EVERYONE could have a trophy on any given weekend!

To Bill,

I feel there are very few new cars that will actually fit into ITC... There are, however, cars currently in ITB that haven't got a prayer in that class, and would fit much better against the 510s, Civics, VWs, etc., of ITC... And the parallel with Production was one of similiar situations... 4-class structures where the lowest class is too restrictive to allow any newer cars to fit due to potential... and a withering on the vine due to lack of action to do anything about it... I know you guys think HP is making a resurgence, but from the results I've seen for the last two years, it still looks like this phenomenon in strictly in specific regions and is NOT being reflected across the nation... People just aren't turning out for HP, and while 12-ITC cars at a major event is good... this hardly appears to be the norm at any given Regional...

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

[Geo]

I think Darin is correct here. The window is not permanently closed. But, there are courses of action in motion and they will have to either be seen through or be rejected before another course of action would be open for consideration.

That said, given the state of ITC currently, with some judicious changes, there may only be a need the current 4 classes.


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

[Knestis]

I didn't say that's what you said, Darin - I said what I think, and think that I've said before. I think.

K