The new ITA class

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by 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

As I was riding my bike to work this morning... I realized this... and I wished that I had said what I thought you said when I was thinking I knew what you said and to whom you had said thought you said it...

General message still applies...



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

[Bill Miller]

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...

Not true Darin. Please read the previous comments on what happens to the mean lap times. It just means that the mid-pack cars will get pushed even further back. Slightly more 'impact' than just having a few more cars to choose from.

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...

Thanks for that one Darin, it really made me chuckle! As I've said all along, I don't really care where the new class goes. We just need a greater level of granularity. And, if you recall the title of this thread, aren't we really talking about the same thing? What you're hung up on, is a matter of symantics. Do you break off the new ITA cars, and the old ITA overdogs, and call that IT2, and leave the current ITA mid-packers/back markers alone. Or, do you break out the current ITA mid-packers/backmarkers and call them ITA- (or ITB+), and leave the new ITA alone? Isn't the net result the same?

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

[gran racing]

The MR2 the ITA car to have? Now that's funny! Sorry, but not going to happen at least in regions that have fast Integras, CRXs, 240SXs, ect. In some regions could it be a fairly competitive car if fully built with an excellent driver. But, bring it to the ARRC and see just how well it compares to other cars.

Personally, I have a love hate relationship with the darn MR2. I do think it is a good car overall - well balanced, rear wheel drive, and easy on tires and brakes (this is why I hate it!). Not that I have a problem with buying new tires every other race and watching Jake use the same freakn' tires for the past 3 years. Ah, a little better now.

If you decide to build the MR2 (assuming it stays in ITA) just realize what you are building. A nice car, but it will not be a front runner in many regions.

The MR2 in ITB at 2,500 would make sense if PCAs go through.

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Please read the previous comments on what happens to the mean lap times.

I don't know too many people who race for "mean lap times."... If you want to run at the front of the pack... you will now have several more cars to choose from.

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Thanks for that one Darin, it really made me chuckle! As I've said all along, I don't really care where the new class goes. We just need a greater level of granularity.

No, it's NOT semantics... it's philosophies... You think we need more "granularity", and I believe we need to better utilize the four slots we have. Those are two completely different concepts.

I contend that you can make cars competitive in two ways... You can make them light and fast, or heavier and slower... For IT, the latter makes more sense. It's more expensive on wear, but it's much cheaper on many aspects of preparation, as the emphasis isn't on getting every last ounce of weight out of the car to meet some rediculous minimum weight.

Further, because of the nature of modern technology, IT has undergone a "speedup" of sorts, so this needs to be distributed amongst the classes as well. I just don't believe, and the numbers bear witness, that there is enough utilization of ITC to show that it's going to be highly disrupted by adding some additional cars. And, if they are added correctly, they will be competitive, but NOT be overdogs... The same can be said for ITB, and the same is being attempted in ITA...

We'll just have to disagree, because this is the way I see it... If you want to convince me otherwise, then start putting a list of bottom-feeder ITC cars that would be "disrupted" were some more cars to be moved into the class and present it here for discussion. I've asked twice before, and no one seems to want to quantify the "problem"...




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

[Bill Miller]

I don't know too many people who race for "mean lap times."... If you want to run at the front of the pack... you will now have several more cars to choose from.

So it's just a case of the CRX, etc. all over again. You're now pushing the cars that aren't on the A-list (no pun intended) even further down the results sheet. I can't believe that you don't get this concept. Maybe you just don't want to. Or, is your solution just to move all of the B-list (again, no pun...) cars to ITB?

You're the one that said you could see a class between ITA and ITB, that's what I was chuckling at. But you knew that, you just needed to find some way to disagree w/ it.

As far as moving cars to ITC, I asked the question before, do you think it will bring more cars to the track, or just make existing drivers buy new vinyl?

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

[Knestis]

This last exchange reminds me that, unless there is agreement on the PURPOSE of classification changes, there will never be agreement on the implementation. Is the intent of moving outclassed A cars into B to...

A. Increase category participation overall by giving existing owners of poopy A cars a shot at a trophy?

B. Make reparations to people who bought Toyota Corolla GTS's (et al.) back in the 1908's, thinking they would continue to be competitive?

C. Increase the size of ITB, relative to ITA to balance class participation or group sizes?

D. Encourage people to build fewer IT7/Spec7 cars?

E. Give new racers more options that have a shot at being cometitive in SOME class, to accommodate brand loyalty or other factors?

F. Make racing cheaper? (Hah!)

G. To allow trickle-down economic effects to save ITC from dying?

Hmm?

Dick's point about defining C to finish bracketing the entire cateogory is a good one.

Darin's never going to get his list of C cars under threat because (a) there are only a few die-hards out there still willing to deal with something that's too slow to compete in C, ( racing Darwinism has already discouraged the building of new, bad C cars, © rust is an ally in making this process happen, and (d) the list already exists in the GCR - take the entire ITC field of options and subtract the four or five that appear on the podiums around the country.

K

[Jake]

I choose A, C, E, F, and G.

Don't laugh at F - some of the misclassed cars are incredibly cheap to build/buy/fix and run. Of course if they are correctly classed they might not be as cheap to buy.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
I can't believe that you don't get this concept. Maybe you just don't want to. Or, is your solution just to move all of the B-list (again, no pun...) cars to ITB?

You aren't paying attention if you think I "don't get this concept"... A more appropriate remark might be aimed at being concerned over the amount of weight I put in this happening... If a car is already a backmarker, then do you really think they are concerned with placing 7th instead of 5th or 6th??? I would think that they would rather have a better shot at really competing, and NOT adding cars to the class is NOT going to make that happen...

Again, the best we can do is try to match the physical properties of the cars to the best of our abilities and let you guys take it from there. That is what we are trying to do... It's tough sometimes because there are still a lot of PERCEPTIONS of performance for this car or that, but in the end, this is what we are aiming for. If it makes sense to move the "B-list" to ITB, then I'd support doing that. But defining the B-list might be a little hard to do... We keep hearing how this or that isn't competitive on one-hand, then hear how it's going to be the "car-to-have" on the other... Since you guys seem to like to hide the true figures, we are left to try to decipher what we think we know and work from that.

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
But you knew that, you just needed to find some way to disagree w/ it.

Bill... I have better things to do with my time than bicker with you, so you can count on the fact that I'm not out looking for a way to disagree with you or your concepts... We fundamentally differ in our opinions, and I'm just stating mine... You opinion is just one of many that we/I hear, and I give it no more weight than I give anyone elses...

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
As far as moving cars to ITC, I asked the question before, do you think it will bring more cars to the track, or just make existing drivers buy new vinyl?

I think ITC is not a class that has the potential for a lot of NEWER car growth... I do, however, think that there are a few cars out there that would be raced there, as opposed to NOT being raced in ITB where they are un-competitively classified...

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited May 18, 2004).]

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
(d) the list already exists in the GCR - take the entire ITC field of options and subtract the four or five that appear on the podiums around the country.

This just in.....

The devil orders heavy duty parkas from L.L. Bean.

Kirk! Are you suggesting we use results for classifications and decision making?

I'm just messing with you Kirk.


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

[Knestis]

Har-dee-har-har...

Yes indeedy-doo. It WOULD be appropriate to look at results in this case,since the question I was exploring is, "What are people spending money on making competitive?" - not what chassis have the potential to be so.

Jake's point about cost is one that I confess I hadn't really looked at from the perspective that he explains. That is kind of interesting.

K

[gran racing]

Item F (keeping things less expensive) is why I get so pissy about not giving the same benefits to older cars as newer cars.

I was able to get a free '87 prelude - good engine, many other great parts too! I highly doubt this would happen with a newer (late 90s) car.

Older cars are great! Especially if a person is going to build one from scratch, it can be done so for much cheaper then a newer car.

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

[lateapex911]

Too many points to do the whole quote thing, so...

Kirk. All good points, except the one about the 1908 Coralla GTS. Way ahead of it's time, that car was....
I think all but B are worthy goals/benefits for a trickle down approach.

Geo...very funny...good thing I wasn't eating at the time I read that....

Dave...you? 'pissy'? C'mon...you can't hold a dim candle to Miller! Sorry Bill, you have had your moments!


Seriously though, IT is poised on the verge of its largest philosophical change ever, and we are looking at the chance to make it the best "run" category in the club. Honestly, we need to think of the future at the same time we protect the values that make IT a great place to race.

Stategic goals:

- Protect the competiveness of older cars wherever possible, to help keep racing as financially reasonable as possible, and to respect those that are active investors as well. Saying "tough S&(t" to large groups of active drivers is nuts.

Seek parity to the greatest extent possible. Yes it DOES matter to a mid packer that used to be able to crack the top 10, or the top 5 that he is now relegated to the top 15 or 10, even though he is going faster! I have ahard time swallowing that "racing" isn't competitive, and that competitive people wouldn't want to win.

Hold the final "new class" trump card in our strategic pocket until it is really needed, and then consider using it above ITS, to encourage new growth. Using it now risks making us look like Prod or GT guys...

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited May 18, 2004).]

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Knestis:
since the question I was exploring is, "What are people spending money on making competitive?" - not what chassis have the potential to be so.

No fair Kirk. You are not supposed to change the question to suit your answer .

[Knestis]

Few people realize that the 1908 Corolla was the only car to pose any serious competition to the victorious Isotta-Fraschini Tipo Uno at that year's Targa Florio.

Sadly, the Toyota was sidelined by an unfortunate temporal miscalculation: Tires of a size appropriate for the groundbreaking little car weren't manufactured until almost seven decades after the event was over.

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Sadly, the Toyota was sidelined by an unfortunate temporal miscalculation: Tires of a size appropriate for the groundbreaking little car weren't manufactured until almost seven decades after the event was over.

I hate it when that happens.


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

[Diane]

Originally posted by Jake:
Greg, Diane and I kept up the drive-to-the track tradition up until last year.

Jake
ITA MR2 (with CT plates, registered and insured)

I still do if Tim brings his car. It's only if mine is the only one going (and the van is going) that it gets trailer'd, which is what we did at the enduro last year. I was also crazy enough on a 100+ degree July 4th with Tim 2 states away, to toss the tires in the back of the car and drive to Lime Rock and run. Figured I could hitch a ride home and come back with van and trailer in the next two days if I needed to.

WRT SS cars, as much as I wanted to race my then new 88 EGT when I bought it, I didn't for the very reason mentioned - the cost of paying the loan off on a balled up car & replacing the car. I did have another car to drive (older RWD), but this was the new one with payments and expensive insurance and taxes, no van, no trailer, no support. No W2W. So I did Solo II and some time trials. "Less" risky.

Yeah, I know I'm late to the thread.


Diane
#21 ITB Escort, also registered and insured and sometimes driven to work

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Few people realize that the 1908 Corolla was the only car to pose any serious competition to the victorious Isotta-Fraschini Tipo Uno at that year's Targa Florio.

Sadly, the Toyota was sidelined by an unfortunate temporal miscalculation: Tires of a size appropriate for the groundbreaking little car weren't manufactured until almost seven decades after the event was over.

K

I understand the Italians were considering a last minute rules change that would heve resulting it the banning of the Toyota until the unfortunate tire issue came to light. A good thing to as it would have strained Japanese-Italian relations.


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

497

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited May 23, 2004).]

498

499