Beetle in ITC

[badal]

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...

That works only if the ITAC is willing to admit they made a mistake, and based on Andy's tone when I ask some simple questions semms unlikley.

That would also require enough cars be built in a year to give enough data, again unlikely.

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

[Quickshoe]

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

Dispute them? No. I would add:

5. All the same reasons that the VARA race group counts (of ITC-like cars) out number the SCCA Cal Club entires (same geographic area) over 15:1

[Bill Miller]

Phil,

I believe I mentioned that the NB was an A4 VW, like the Golf IV and Jetta IV.

Andy,

The data that I have seen shows the curb weight of the Golf IV to be <50# lower than that of the NB. Not exactly what I would call "much lighter". If anything, the Golf IV should be in ITC w/ the NB, at the same weight (w/ possibly an adjustment up or down, based on the aerodymanics). The Jetta IV is actually heavier than the NB (on the order of 75# IIRC). And the Jetta should be at the same weight as the Golf, based on the precedent set in ITS, when the weights of the VR6 Golf and Jetta were equated. Oh yeah, and that would also be one of those cases where the weight of a car was 'corrected', more than a year after the car was classified.

George,

Darin's the one that mentioned that he had performance data on the motors, I'm just asking him to produce it. And yes, I know that Chris is on the ITAC. His wife posts here regularly.

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,

That's flat out not true. Car weights have been corrected under Errors and Omissions in the past, more than a year after the car was classified. Either that, or those weight 'corrections' were not legal. I don't see any other way to explain it. You can say that it doesn't matter what happened in the past, but that doesn't make it correct. And I'm sure I'll get the "Hey, it happened before we were around." response, but IIRC, the VR6 Golf/Jetta 'correction' was done on your watch.

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

[ChrisCamadella]

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.

I'll address this one. The reason is that cars that were originally classed by our IT forefathers are getting to be pretty old. If we're ever going to class new cars, and still have a relatively even distribution over four classes, then cars are naturally going to have to be moved down as the faster classes are populated with cars of newer design. I'm afraid that you can't continue to count on the fact that your (quite old) Datsun 510 (how long has it been since they were called 'Datsuns', anyhow?) is going to remain the car to beat in ITC - we're going to have to move some of the A and B cars down to maintain an equitable distribution.

For example, when the rules were written, the ancients allowed 7" wheels in ITA and ITS, and 6" wheels in ITB and ITC, a rule which still stands. But at that time, not one car that was classified came with wheels nearly that wide - the ancients were doing you a favor by allowing you to have much wider wheels than stock. Now, 30 years or so later, cars routinely come with 7" and 8" wheels, and folks are having to trade in their stock wheels for NARROWER ones, something which the ancients did not anticipate.

Likewise with ABS brakes, traction control, ECU modification, the list goes on and on.

In order for us to keep up with the changing technology provided for us by the car manufacturers, we are going to have to redistribute the classes to allow some new cars to join - and cars are, in general, getting faster, not slower.

Cheers,

Chris Camadella
ITS Porsche 944S

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by badal:
That works only if the ITAC is willing to admit they made a mistake, and based on Andy's tone when I ask some simple questions semms unlikley.

That would also require enough cars be built in a year to give enough data, again unlikely.

Al,

We are just coming down on opposite sides of the fence. You have obviously not read ANY of my posts if you believe what you type or are just so stuck in your ways that you refuse to believe us. I have stated NUMEROUS times that if it proves to be a mistake, we will/can/should fix it.

As far as your forecast for not many cars being built, I say that it ain't much of a perceived overdog if people ain't building them.

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 29, 2004).]

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
... 5. All the same reasons that the VARA race group counts (of ITC-like cars) out number the SCCA Cal Club entires (same geographic area) over 15:1

Originally posted by badal:
1-No, there are alrady built cars, they just stay home. ...

Both of these explanations fall short of getting at the ultimate "antecedent conditions" (causes, factors, or influences) that are creating the problem of low enrollment in ITC.

I really believe that the class has huge potential in SCCA so want to know why you think they are staying home and/or jumping ship to other organizations.

I buy Andy's four conditions and put a couple others out for consideration:

6. The perception is that it costs relatively little more to go notably faster in ITA

7. There is competitive social pressure to not be in the slowest class on the track

8. Racers willing to spend the dough to run competitive programs don't want to drive what they see as "low class" cars

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:

Andy,

The data that I have seen shows the curb weight of the Golf IV to be <50# lower than that of the NB. Not exactly what I would call "much lighter". If anything, the Golf IV should be in ITC w/ the NB, at the same weight (w/ possibly an adjustment up or down, based on the aerodymanics). The Jetta IV is actually heavier than the NB (on the order of 75# IIRC). And the Jetta should be at the same weight as the Golf, based on the precedent set in ITS, when the weights of the VR6 Golf and Jetta were equated. Oh yeah, and that would also be one of those cases where the weight of a car was 'corrected', more than a year after the car was classified.

Bill,

What bothers me about some of your beefs is that you use history to support what you want. Either the CRB did it wrong in the past and we, as a newer regeame need to get it right going forward OR we HAVE to go by the precedents that were set in the past. Which way would YOU like it to work?

Your Golf IV numbers look good. I would ASSUME the car would hit ITC at a similar weight to the NB. Hopefully some IV's and NB's will be built so we can make sure our decisions were correct.

------------------
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 29, 2004).]

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Darin,

That's flat out not true. Car weights have been corrected under Errors and Omissions in the past, more than a year after the car was classified. Either that, or those weight 'corrections' were not legal. I don't see any other way to explain it. You can say that it doesn't matter what happened in the past, but that doesn't make it correct. And I'm sure I'll get the "Hey, it happened before we were around." response, but IIRC, the VR6 Golf/Jetta 'correction' was done on your watch.

Bill,

You keep accusing me of not using language properely and typing one thing then meaning another, but it's because of mis-information such as this that these conversations get confused...

As we've explained MANY, MANY TIMES before... The cars you mentioned above were corrected as a part of a GROUP of cars that were noticed to be in error. NOT as CAs, as you are suggesting.

The basic scenario was this. A letter was received that pointed out the descrepancy in weight. We investigated and found the weight to be a typo. We figured out what the inteneded weight should be. We corrected all the models that shared similiar flatforms...

Should we just fix them onesies-twosies, or should we be thorough??? When we see a problem, we try to fix it right, and fix it once... If that's a problem, it's one you are just going to have to live with...

As for fixing the BMW weight under "Errors and Ommissions"... that's CLEARLY not what this is, and, like I said before, We are doing things by the book, regardless of what's been done prior to us getting here...

The BMW needs a CA, becuase the original weight set of the car, and the corrected weight it currently carries, were off target based on the performance of the car on-track and in light of new performance data that has been supplied concerning the motor. I don't think that's what "Errors and Ommisions" was meant to fix...



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

[gran racing]

K brought up a good point about perception. I now know I was wrong, but when first looking at SCCA I thought S cars were the highest class, then A... That the fastest drivers would graduate from B to A then S. Maybe I did't word it right, but you get the idea.

Heck, I told my sponsor that I might be moving to a lower class, ITB. His response was "And that is a good thing?".

But if you can get bigger fields with newer cars, that might change.

Side note: I know know that some of the best drivers race in ITC. It takes a lot to keep those cars going and fast. Being in ITA, I race with them and are amazed at watching them NOT brake.

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

[oanglade]

Originally posted by 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'm sorry, but I was there at Road Atlanta in 2001 when Randy drove Peter Keane's yellow accord in ITB and won the enduro. I started the race right next to him in my SM. ITA was in the other race group and not with us.

Here are the results from that race:
http://www.arrc-online.com/results_2001/ra...2001_group8.pdf

Randy finished second to Sam Moore in the 2001 ARRC in ITB in that Accord.

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

[Catch22]

Originally posted by badal:
I want it to be tried in ITB first, where it can't hurt anybody.

But here we go again.
If you class it in ITB FIRST, nobody in their right mind is going to spend the time and money to build one, so you've effectively wasted a potentially good car. Look at all of the Honda Civic DX products that are in ITA when they should be in ITB... NOBODY is building these things and it certainly isn't because they aren't available or that there aren't go-fast parts for them.

What some of you guys are asking for is status quo, and status quo simply won't keep the category healthy. IF the NB comes in and starts kicking the asses of front running ITC cars, I'll be the first to put my name on a petition with GRJ and Al to get it moved to ITB. But we'll never know whats going to happen until someone builds one and nobody is going to build one unless its in the right class.

There's an old (very funny) Saturday Night Live skit that centers around a group of Vikings that kills everything they don't understand. Thats pretty close to whats happened with IT in the past and what some of you guys would like to keep happening. Again, it won't work. To progress and to get car counts up you have to take some risks.

You can't compare the E36 to this situation because of several reasons...
1. Now that its a proven overdog, there is nowhere to move it (a fine reason the AC SHOULD be more conservative with ITS classifications).
2. It doesn't even look right on paper (the Beetle does).
3. When it became an obvious class killer in the first couple of years, nothing happened (and I think something WILL happen if the VW does the same).

Finally, Andy or Darin... Please take a look at the "cars potentially classed in ITC" thread and let me know the best way to proceed about getting these looked at before the 2005 GCR comes out. My email is "[email protected]"

Thanks,
Scott

[RacerBowie]

Ony, the classing had already been changed, effective 1/1/02 or whatever the next year was.

The ARRC that year was the car's "last hurrah" as a B car.

Bowie

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

[Super Swift]

Ony

I think Bad-Al was saying that a fastrack came out moving the car in september or so of 2001 effective Jan 2002. So the car was moved befor the race but not for the race.

Al
Is that right? Or, am I way off?

Bowie (edit) you beet me to it.

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

[cherokee]

I have read this entire thing...it got a little nasty at times, but I will put my two cents in FWIW.

I am fine with putting the NB into ITC, If it is a killer I am going to think that there will be a way to slow it down in the near future or move it. I think with the weight and the skinny tires it will ballance out. I fully expect that my old car is not going to be top dog in any class as new blood comes in. And the new blood will have to be in the form of a car that has some intrest behind it, the NB has a following I doubt that some of the mentioned econo boxes have much of one. I just want to keep running my old car somewhere besides in vintage, so please don't take that away...even if I am the only one running one, and I show up for three races a year.
I have said it before as new cars come in the bar will be raised, its just evolution and I understand that.
It would be frosting on the cake if they would let us older cars do some things that the newer ones can't to try to keep up. (let me put on disc's on the back, change my weight, give me different carbs to play with, those kind of things, perhaps a cam ) I am not asking for anything that any modern car does not come in from the factory. But until there are fields full of Bugs (or whatever) then I would just leave everything alone and see how things fall out.
This might be all about nothing.

[oanglade]

Originally posted by RacerBowie:
Ony, the classing had already been changed, effective 1/1/02 or whatever the next year was.

The ARRC that year was the car's "last hurrah" as a B car.

Bowie

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

Oh yeah! You are correct, of course. Oops.

[p.keane]

I would like to put my two cents in. First, of all I support the NB classification in ITC.

Second, I started out in IT (1989) in a ITC Fiesta (we built for Linda Pobst), later that year I built and raced one for myself. I later built and raced ITC VW's (better car in my opinion). I think I am pretty fimiliar with the class and both cars.

Third, We still have two ITC VW's in the family and if all goes well we will bring them to this years ARRC. We also have no intension of building a NB.

Last, (for Bad AL) in 1990/1991 the Toyota supera was classed in ITA and people S**T themselves, the car was moved to ITS.

Thanks PK.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by cherokee:
I... I think with the weight and the skinny tires it will ballance out. ...

Whoa. I am slow but this just sunk in: I think that, while the steel wheels on a NB are 6" wide, the available alloys are 7". To my knowledge NOBODY builds a 16x6" aftermarket aluminum wheel.

K

[Catch22]

I noticed that back on page 1 Kirk. Thats why I suggested that the car be allowed to run 15" wheels.

And yes, thats a whole lot of weight over the front 6" wide wheels on that car. Frankly, not only am I not worried about it, I wouldn't build one.

[Al Seim]

Not sure it was intended the way I read it, but as an ITC VW Scirocco owner a red flag went up when I read Chris Camadella's reply to Al Bell. Basically, what I heard in that reply was that the integrity of S, A & B are more important than C, and that the competitiveness of new cars is more important than old.

Based on what I've seen in the (very competitive) MARRS series, there seems to be near parity in ITC between the 510, VW Rabbits & Sciroccos, and several Hondas. If you're going to happily obsolete the 510, you just trashed the whole existing class.

Hopefully that isn't really the attitude. And, equally hopefully, the ability to do performance adjustments will avoid having to make some of those choices.

Al Seim
www.actdigital.com

[Geo]

Originally posted by Al Seim:
Not sure it was intended the way I read it, but as an ITC VW Scirocco owner a red flag went up when I read Chris Camadella's reply to Al Bell. Basically, what I heard in that reply was that the integrity of S, A & B are more important than C, and that the competitiveness of new cars is more important than old.

I don't think that is what Chris was saying.


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