Beetle in ITC

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by badal:
Al,

Is Mr. Keane really a pro driver?
What is the delay in returning it to ITB?

How about ITB? Just as vintage, maybe more so.

Nothing has happened-so? We have stable classifications, not the dreaded class creep like ITS.

When I say that about a Pro driver, I look at the RA track record, set at the 2001 ARRC. Randy Pobst, 1:47.916. We have received a letter on it, and voted just recently.

If we thought the NB was better in ITB, it would be there. Look for it's Golf twin to be in ITB at a more acheivable minimum weight.

You say stable, *I* say STALE. Old cars that are hard to find parts for, nevermind rust free chassis to start building one. ITC participation numbers are HORRIBLE accross the country with few exceptions. Why is that? I say because very few have any interest in getting INTO ITC becuase of the cars, their age, and the ability to build and maintain one. If stability was the only factor, ITC would see the same surge in drivers as Spec Miata.

I understand that some ITC folks would be concerned. We think the car will be fine in C.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by pfcs:
Intersting to listen to all you "experts" seriously debate this. I've watched this thread with some amusement but mostly it's depressing. So how come nobody knows or has pointed out that the NB engine/chassis is most decidedly not the same as the newly classified A3, but is totally Golf/Jetta IV.
The engine, although still 2L, is a completely different unit (AEG, replacing ABA). The block is nearly the same as the 1.8T block, sharing the same cambelt driven waterpump, etc. As to it's performance possibilities, I haven't a clue. I guess most of you don't either. Phil

Phil,

Many have mentioned in this thread that they assume the Golf IV would automatically be in ITC given this classification. We have stated that given it's much lighter curb weight, it should be able to make the weight we think it fits in ITB.

We have said many time in this thread ALSO, that we have to make assumptions. Until someone tells us how THIS motor has so much more potential than every other air pump on the track, we think a 25% improvment in IT trim is as resonable for this motor as it is for any other SOHC 2.0.

Any other "HELP" you can provide?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited July 28, 2004).]

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Knestis:
...we have an obligation, to the greatest extent practical, to avoidobsoleting...

Emphasis mine.

I agree 100%, how we define 'the greatest extent practical' and 'obsolete' is where we will probably have IT members all over the board.


I don't know if the NB in ITC is a good/bad thing as I don't know enough about the current crop of cars and the potential of the NB. I like the fact that the ITAC studied the issue before deciding. I also really like the idea that they are much more apt to correct a mistake, if/when they make them.

This whole PCA issue might just become a constant "please adjust this/that because..." exercise. Soon the tools may be in place, the ITAC will probably be flooded with more letters than any issue in the past...no envy there. As frustrating as some of the seemingly canned responses from the old regime might have been, I bet it would be nice (for them) from time to time if the new ITAC would spit out some of the same canned jargon, without explanation. It seems just about any explanation of their logic invites rebutal. If they didn't have to explain their methods or logic how can you successfully argue their logic or method is wrong???

On edit--How did I turn my HTML/UBB mode OFF? More importantly, how do I turn it back on??
Nevermind, figured it out..can't put something in bold AND italics.



[This message has been edited by Quickshoe (edited July 28, 2004).]

[badal]

Andy, the ITB Accord was moved to ITA before Randy ever drove it. Peter Keane put Randy in it either to make the point that it was still not an overdog, or to win the ARRC. He did one, not the other.

I agree that ITC numbers are down, but maybe someone needs to find out why the cars that were out there are not showing up, and fix that problem.

We used to have a good ITS field at Summit Point. 240z's, RX-7's, e-30 BMW's all had a chance at the win. Then the E-36 BMW was put in the class. Now all the other cars stay home. So now we have a newer appearing class, but half the size it was before.

How does that serve the membership?

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

[gran racing]

So the vote for the Accord took place. Are you going to make us wait until next month? At what weight? Somehow I can't imagine the 110 hp version not going into ITB. Definately fits.

I have to say, it is pretty cool that members from the ITAC post here and take the time to explain the decisions being made. Agree with them or not.

About the weight of the Beetle. I would rather a car be classed in a lower class with a bit more weight then in a faster class at a weight that would be tough to obtain. Sure, it might be theoretically possible to obtain some of these weights, but at what cost? -CLUB RACING- Think this important to remember. Much cheaper to add weight then find all of the secrets of losing it.

Just curious, how many members on the ITAC are there?

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

[lateapex911]

Sure you can!

1999: "...new Bettle will be classified in ITC."

2004: "...new Bettle will be classed in ITC, because.....the ITAC feels that, it will producce approc X power in ITtrim, and it will be difficult or impossible to acheive the approprioate weight in ITB."

Wow, what difference a few years make.

HUGE progress, and this Bettle move is a good one. No worries.

'Nuf said, lets see what happens...I predict not much....a pretty expensive build for ITC, so the counts will be low.

(IF we are all wrong we will all get an "I told you so" letter form GRJ!)

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

[Geo]

Originally posted by gran racing:
I have to say, it is pretty cool that members from the ITAC post here and take the time to explain the decisions being made. Agree with them or not.

Thanks so much. It's not easy. One could second guess most of our decisions. It's not like we don't second guess ourselves sometimes. But I am 100% convinved that every member of the ITAC is commited to making IT the very best we possibly can.

Originally posted by gran racing:
Just curious, how many members on the ITAC are there?

At present there are 9 of us.

http://www.scca.org/Inside/Index.asp?IdS=0...70&x=080|070&~=



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

[badal]

Jake said:
.a pretty expensive build for ITC, so the counts will be low.

Yeah, you are probably right. Might as well buy a Spec Miata. So how does it help the nationwide car counts? Not much.

But, someone will build one. And if it is fast, one car will chase away 5 others. Just like ITS.

Andy, George-Bonus question:
Any other cars ever moved up?
I can think of at least 5 moved down to ITC.

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by badal:
I agree that ITC numbers are down, but maybe someone needs to find out why the cars that were out there are not showing up, and fix that problem.

I provided my thoughts on why ITC counts are down, anyone else care to dispute them?

1. Real old cars with VERY limited shells available
2. Cars so old that parts are ultra-hard to find
3. No 'new' cars so no 'new' interst
4. Hard to stay legal becuase of #2

We used to have a good ITS field at Summit Point. 240z's, RX-7's, e-30 BMW's all had a chance at the win. Then the E-36 BMW was put in the class. Now all the other cars stay home. So now we have a newer appearing class, but half the size it was before.

How does that serve the membership?

Al,

You make it seem like the current ITAC put the E36 in place. Frankly, the E36 IS the original catalyst for PCA's. There is no current way to fix that mistake. Nobody here (except E36 drivers) have stated otherwise.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by badal:

Andy, George-Bonus question:
Any other cars ever moved up?
I can think of at least 5 moved down to ITC.

Al,

Not that I can think of off the top of my head. But - what is your point? You tried to prove that it never happened, we said it COULD, you said WHEN and we GAVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

IF the NB is a bad choice in ITC, it will either gain more weight or be reclassed in ITB at a different weight. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Geo:
I must confess. It wasn't Jake. It was me.

I'm sorry Jake.
G. Robert

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Catch22:
I had no itention of a pink slip match or poo flinging contest with him, but if he chooses to be so bold, fine.

PS - It is 180lbs for a driver Jones, you have no idea how much cage a Beetle needs, and go ahead and add 10lbs for a fire system while you're nitpicking.

I am so bold, ever so bold.
And yes I can make an accurate approximation on the cage weight based on the interior dimensions and published wheelbase and after discussion with a professional NASCAR, NHRA, and SCCA cage builder(Pat Bennet Racing in Amherst, VA. (Would you like to talk to him, Scott, you might learn something.)And did you subtract 40 lbs for lighter wheels (While we're nit picking?)
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Sure you can!
(IF we are all wrong we will all get an "I told you so" letter form GRJ!)

You better believe it Jake, together with a request for new management.
GRJ

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Al,
There is no current way to fix that mistake.

Pardon me Al, I 'm sorry to intrude on your dialogue.

Andy, do you plan to add weight to the E36?
GRJ



[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grjones1:
But wait a minute Andy, why haven't you added weight to the E36?
GRJ

I'll take this one Andy...

Because there is NO LEGAL WAY TO DO THAT! That's what we've been trying to say... Without PCAs, we can't do a thing...



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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I'll take this one Andy...

I changed my question after I realized my mistake. But you said if the NB doesn't fit in C, you would either "change the weight or move it up at a different weight." And now you say you can't do that. I know I'm missing something here but it does appear contradictory.
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 28, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grjones1:
I know I'm missing something here but it does appear contradictory.
GRJ

In the case of cars like the New Beetle classification or the Neons, etc...

There is a provision in the GCR that allows for the specifications to be changed within the first year of a classification or reclassification. That would be one method of handling this if it's an immediate problem...

The other way to handle after the first year, is to simply reclassify the car, which is currently the only allowed method of "competition adjustment" per the ITCS, at which time, the same provision mentioned above then can be reapplied... This is all WITHOUT the implementation of PCAs...

Now, should PCAs be accepted by the BoD, and we are basically counting on this happening, then we have another method of correcting this problem...

The issue with the BMW is that it's been classified for well beyond a year, and there ISN'T a higher class to move it to. So, without PCAs, there is not legal way for us to make any adjustments to it... (regardless of what some may think or what has been done in the past...)

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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited July 29, 2004).]

[grjones1]

[quote]Originally posted by Banzai240:

That clears that up. Thank you.
GRJ

[badal]

Al,

Not that I can think of off the top of my head. But - what is your point? You tried to prove that it never happened, we said it COULD, you said WHEN and we GAVE YOU AN EXAMPLE.

The point is that is much easier to move a car down than up after the initial classification.

IF the NB is a bad choice in ITC, it will either gain more weight or be reclassed in ITB at a different weight. WHAT MORE DO YOU WANT?

I want it to be tried in ITB first, where it can't hurt anybody.

AB

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

[badal]

Originally posted by badal:
I agree that ITC numbers are down, but maybe someone needs to find out why the cars that were out there are not showing up, and fix that problem.

I provided my thoughts on why ITC counts are down, anyone else care to dispute them?

1. Real old cars with VERY limited shells available
2. Cars so old that parts are ultra-hard to find
3. No 'new' cars so no 'new' interst
4. Hard to stay legal becuase of #2

1-No, there are alrady built cars, they just stay home.
2-N/A, see #1.
3-see #1
4-no, see #1.

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series