Beetle in ITC

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Why not B, where the 2.0s now reside and see what it can do? Then move it. Why put a car with 400 cc's more than has ever been in the class? I too am glad I'm not on the Board, I prefer people who can think beyond their first impulse: "Let's throw in the Beetle in C and stir up new interest! (And of course outclass every car in the class." Brilliant!
Keep this post, 2 years from now ITC will indeed be "Spec Beetle."
G

We explained why the car didn't make it into B. Weight. Don't think this version of this chassis can make it to 2150ish (without driver) Like I said before, if it was in B, we would get crusified for that.

First impulse? Hogwash. First impulse was ITB. Then when we figured on a minimum weight, it was to low...see above. Much thought and debate were put into the decision and overall, we have come up with the following: A fresh face in ITC that SHOULDN'T dominate. And if it does, we SHOULD have the means to fix the mistake.

IF IT DOES, I have the feeling it won't be because the car ACTUALLY dominates but because a bunch of racers are looking for an option in ITC that they can actually get parts for - and they outnumber the dwindeling few left in their impossible-to-find 510's and early CRX's.

How about jusk asking about the rationale behind the decision instead of this kind of thing? Be happy to tell ya.

AB

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:


This is the kind of attitude that gets to me everytime.

AB

I've got to go on on this one. Please inform me where member input was allowed for the decision to put the Beetle in C?
It took you guys a year to decide that exterior coating should be allowed, yet you somehow come up overnigt with a class addition that may impact every member in the class without member input that I know about. I'm sorry guys but if putting the 2.0 Beetle in C can be equated to putting a $M in a suitcase, I am justified in answering these questions.

And when the all-knowing Board members decided it was ok for VW drivers to use a European-only part, why was it not foreseen that drivers of other makes might want the same consideration?
Feel free to lambast. I can take it. Can you?
G.Robert Jones

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:

..... And VW had stopped selling the Corrado by the time it was a champion. Why promote a car you dont't sell any more?

Dude, you can't have it both ways! First you say VW cares and is involved because they are supplying trick parts for 20 year old cars, then you say they don't care to promote their wins cause the cars are 20 years old! Logic?? None here!

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> Whatever happened to the \"There is no guarantee of the competivness of a particular car.\" (clause) ??</font>

Again, where is the logic?? I imagine THAT very arguement could be tossed right back at you and your car! Where have you been for the e past few years, my friend?? You don't think it hasn't happened (presuming for a second that the Bug is indeed an overdog, which we don't know) in every other class for years??? What about the E36 in S? Or the CRX in A?? (A car with better suspension, the same or more power, and they class it 240 pounds lighter then the then "dominant" car)

Methinks you doth protest too much.

Most of your arguements are really irrelevant anyway. Invoking VWs sphere of influence has nothing to do with determining if the ITAC has classed this car correctly. The bottom line here is wether they missed the mark by a wide margin. I can't see how that agruement could be made to any effectiveness.

Wait and see, but don't lose sleep over it. All your worries should be so minor.


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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited July 24, 2004).]

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grjones1:

Originally posted by ITSRX7:


This is the kind of attitude that gets to me everytime.

AB

I've got to go on on this one. Please inform me where member input was allowed for the decision to put the Beetle in C?
It took you guys a year to decide that exterior coating should be allowed, yet you somehow come up overnigt with a class addition that may impact every member in the class without member input that I know about. I'm sorry guys but if putting the 2.0 Beetle in C can be equated to putting a $M in a suitcase, I am justified in answering these questions.

And when the all-knowing Board members decided it was ok for VW drivers to use a European-only part, why was it not foreseen that drivers of other makes might want the same consideration?
Feel free to lambast. I can take it. Can you?
G.Robert Jones

Getting - pulled - in... HELP....

1. My comment on the 'attitude' was made in reference to your rediculous assertion that VWoA had some influence on this recommendation. HA!

2. The CRB doesn't need to put new classifications out for member comment. If they are on the fence about something and would like to test the waters, yes. What was the last new classifciation that you sent your input to the CRB? Yup.

3. Exterior coatings - "You guys" is the CRB, not the members on this BB, the ITAC. Let's understand who you are throwing your darts at, OK? We can take criticism but not the Black Helicopter stuff you trop out. Come on.

Finally, re-read some of my posts. I have explained in detail how we came up with teh classification. You have the right to think we are nuts, but we think otherwise. Let's just keep the tone to a respectful level. Your assertions are way off base.

AB

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

[grjones1]

A fresh face in ITC that SHOULDN'T dominate. And if it does, we SHOULD have the means to fix the mistake.
an option in ITC that they can actually get parts for - and they outnumber the dwindeling few left in their impossible-to-find 510's and early CRX's.

AB
__________________________________________

Come on AB. There are plenty of 1600cc cars out there people can get parts for and would provide fresh faces that don't offer mechanical advantages beyond anything that presently exists in ITC.

Again I ask did you not look at the gear ratios, computer chipping that motor, and all else the new tech provides. If light weight was the only thing that makes a fast car, my Fiesta would win every sedan race in the country.
The ITB 2.0 Volvos must weigh 2750; they are aerodynamic bricks, and they blow the doors off C cars. Does this not tell you something?
G

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:

Originally posted by grjones1:

sell any more?

Dude, you can't have it both ways! First you say VW cares and is involved because they are supplying trick parts for 20 year old cars, then you say they don't care to promote their wins cause the cars are 20 years old! Logic?? None here!
__________________________________________
I was answering Bill's question on why VW had not promoted the Corrado win. Different issue. VW still sells Rabbits/Golfs and Beetles. Logically they would want to promote those cars.
??

Again, where is the logic?? I imagine THAT very arguement could be tossed right back at you and your car! Methinks you doth protest to much.
________________________________________
Because the Boards have outdated cars in the past, doesn't make the practice acceptable. No matter how many times they do it.

No such thing as too much protest when obvious mistakes are made.
G

[Knestis]

The G-grind cam is not the issue here but I think it was a technical error made by parties at least not atagonistic to the VW cause. Problem is, it can't get undone in the current world.

I buy the logic of the Bug not being able to meet the minimum that would be required for it to be in B.

Regarding the MkIII in B? It's going to suck. I'm positive. Pure crap...

K

[JeffYoung]

STOP! Let the car race in C for a year and see what happens. The Board made its decision, there are reasons for it, and let's see how it pans out. Everything else right now is wasted breath (and keystrokes); let's talk about someting else for chrissakes.

Jeff

[grjones1]

HA!

2. The CRB doesn't need to put new classifications out for member comment. Yup.

3. Come on.
_________________________________________
Does the CRB not ask for recommendations from the ITAC?
And when you've been around as long as I you realize that if it smells like a duck (or a "black helicopter") it probably is a duck.
And if you demand respect, I suggest you exhibit it.
G. Jones

[grjones1]

[quote]Originally posted by Knestis:
[B]The G-grind cam is not the issue here but I think it was a technical error made by parties at least not atagonistic to the VW cause. Problem is, it can't get undone in the current world.
________________________________________
K,
The G-grind is an example of favoritism for the VW people, and as such is part of the issue.
Yes it can. Let me use the XR2 cam and FF head.
G.

[lateapex911]

Maybe I'm just a really visual person, but the quoting graphics make reading the board so much easier...so, Mr. Jones, perhaps you could add a few keystrokes to your quoted responses.

When you want to interject a comment in a quote, end the quote section with a "/quote" and "/b" in brackets ( [....] ), then to restart the quote, use "quote" and "B" in same brackets to reset the quote and bold parameters.

If you want to see how its done, just choose another entry with the proper formatting, hit "Edit" and check out the UBB codes. They will be presented as you will need to enter them.

Thanks.

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Regarding the MkIII in B? It's going to suck. I'm positive. Pure crap...

K

Kirk... Please explain? With 115hp stock, and a decent suspension, why would this car NOT be a competitive B car... especially when it's 100lbs lighter, theoretically speaking, than it should be??? Curious as to the reasons here...

As for the rest of this... (not addressed to Kirk here... just in general... ) Give me a break... There are several of us here who are cautiously optimistic, and ONE guy who is livid... Until some real reasons come out as to why this is an overall bad move, it's really not worth arguing about... The guy is entitled to his opinion. I happen to think he's wrong and seriously misinformed...

This is how this worked... A letter was written to the CRB requesting classification for the NB... The letter goes to the ITAC, we make the recommendation for class and weight, and the CRB (one of whom was in on the con-call where the recomendation was discussed/decided on) either accepts, rejects, or modifies the recomendation. In this case, they approved it as recomended. It does, therefore, lie on the heads of the ITAC. If you have an real complaints, you'd better aim them at us. But don't get pissed off when we actually give you the real answers as to the details of this classification. I would think it would be rather a matter of culture shock to get any details at all concerning such things, and here we are giving you the WHOLE FRIGGIN' story...

For once, we are in a time when we can actually back our decision with numbers... I'd say that's some serious progress...


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

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
I would think it would be rather a matter of culture shock to get any details at all concerning such things, and here we are giving you the WHOLE FRIGGIN' story...

For once, we are in a time when we can actually back our decision with numbers... I'd say that's some serious progress...

Yes, I don't think I have mentioned that point in awhile now.

I am very impressed with the current "regime", if you will, in their approach and accountability.

Think back two years ago. Unless you "knew someone", and could make a phone call, your letter would result in a "not recommended at this time", (or something equally oblique)and that would be that. No reason, no nuttin'

Now, not only are the answers more forthcoming (in general), but those who care to do the most basic of research into their hobby (a google search) will find this BBS, where the members of the ITAC respond, explain, and use this board as both a sounding board and a conduit to the general membership at large.

In general, the SCCA as a whole, and the ITAC in particular have made huge inroads in two way communications and to some degree, accountability.

Big progress, and I for one, am very appreciative.



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

[gran racing]

K,
Silly question...is the MkIII the same at the Golf III?

If so, why do you think it will be bad?

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

[Bill Miller]

VW still sells Rabbits/Golfs and Beetles. Logically they would want to promote those cars.

Robert, the last Rabbit sold in this country was 20 yeaars ago. If anything, the Corrado was probably a mere germ of an idea then. And while they had quit selling Corrados, they certainly were still selling the VR6 motor! And, if your theory was correct, why didn't the Rabbit GTI's get the G-grind cam? Why did the request to move the Rabbit GTI from ITB to ITC get shot down?

You want to run the X2 cam and FF head, do the legwork and get the supporting docs from Ford.

IF VWoA were really looking to use racing as a means of promoting sales of the NB, tell me why thy pulled the support of the Pro NB Cup after two years? This was a Pro series that got national TV coverage. Certainly more marketing exposure than a Regional Club Race. You're reaching for things that aren't there, and just making up stuff to support your position. Believe me, Kirk's comments about getting no support from VWoA for Club Racing are all too true. Mazda, Toyota, and Nissan get more 'factory' support, even at the Club level, than VW does. In fact, any marque that offers any support to Club Racing in this country, gets more support than someone that races a VW. AFAIK, neither Drew Hagstead or Stephane Trahan got any factory support for their VW WC efforts.

All that being said, I'm done w/ you on this one. I'll debate on the technical merits of putting the NB in ITC (I still don't think it should be there, and I'm not convinced that it couldn't make 2450# w/ driver. Note: Darin, did you guys check to see what the spec wt. on the NB Cup cars was?), but you're talking out your ass when you say that VWoA has done anything to influence what parts are allowed, and what classes VWs will run in.

Darin,

Sorry to hear that you've been sick, hope you're feeling better. Have you had a chance to 'run the numbers' on the Rabbit GTI for ITB and ITC? Oh, and I think Kirk's yankin your chain a bit!

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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by gran racing:
K,
Silly question...is the MkIII the same at the Golf III?

If so, why do you think it will be bad?

Dave,

Yes, the Mk III and the Golf III are the same. They're also referred to as the A3 (chassis designation). And, see my commet to Darin regarding Kirk's thoughts.



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

[grjones1]

Darin,
This guy is "livid" because every change I've seen related to ITC in the past 6 months appears to favor VW. I won't bore you with reiteration. I ask for the same considerations for my Fiesta and I am ignored. I've managed to overcome some mechanical disadvantages and I manage to beat the CRX's and the 510's and the Scirrocos/Rabbits on occassion and now you introduce a 2.0. What next? 3000 lbs with 6 cylinders?

I suggest that if you took a little more time to "research" and compare the Beetle, you will see its potential far outstreches anything else in C. Weight is not the only thing to consider and apparently it has been the only consideration. Sophisticated suspensions, aerodynamics, big tires, big brakes and big motors overcome weight. Your argument is 115 HP, but that will change drastically with the new high tech mods available and made legal for IT with such rules as allowing changes to computers. Hell most of the old C cars don't even have computers to put a chip in and VVT is of course part of another planet.
I cherish new competition, but if you must launch wholesale facechanges at least give me some rule changes that may allow old warriors to keep pace with the new cars. Something you appear adverse to doing.

You don't mind introducing newer bigger motors to the class, but you have a huge adversity to changing some rules that allow everyone to be competitive. Is it the work involved? I can see that. And I can see that some cars just like some people must some day retire from the sport, but I ask that it not be done in one fell swoop. Put in some thought and more work and allow us to go out fighting. And beleive me, I'll give any car in C a battle before it rules the class.

G. Jones

[grjones1]

Bill,
Perhaps the rulesmakers were concerned that the ITB GTI has bigger wheels, 1800 ccs, better ratios and suspension, etc. Things the ITAC/CRB appear to be ignoring in the case of the Beetle.
I'm fully aware of when Rabbits changed to Golfs. I raced an SSB/C '83 GTI (Rabbit)and owned an '85 Golf GTI, I still use the terms synonomously because as I'm sure you know Rabbits have always been know as Golfs in Germany. I was victimized by rules changes then when I raced the GTI in SSB, sold it and they changed it to SSC. See sometimes you just can't win.

And Quicksilver attempted to have the FF head accepted for the Fiesta and if Sandy can't get it done, I'm sure my efforts would fall on deaf ears.
There's always more to griping than meets the eye.
G. Jones

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 24, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 24, 2004).]

[Bill Miller]

Actually Robert, the suspensions are the same. You should know that if you raced an A1 chassis car. And, the wheel difference becomes a non-issue if everyone is allowed to run 15's. IMHO, 180# and a better cam make up for the displacement difference and the vented from rotors.

Personally, I'm curious as to just how many of the 1.7 VW's will show up next year. Most people 'in the know' consider the 1.6 to be the better motor anyway. Not to mention that the youngest of these cars is 20+ years old. Don't know how many are currently racing around the country, but I'd guess that you can probably count them on 1 hand. Not to mention that I don't know how many 1.7 motors are out there. Most of the VW crowd give/throw them away.

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

[grjones1]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Actually Robert, the suspensions are the same. You should know that if you raced an A1 chassis car. IMHO, 180# and a better cam make up for the displacement difference and the vented from rotors.

____________________________________________
The stock GTI had sway bars and I believe stiffer springs and don't forget the close ratio box (again something you all have chosen to ignore) the standard Rabbit did not have and the wheels were wider and yes I know suspensions are free and C wheels have to be the same but in the earlier days of IT all things were considered.

And I've heard the longer stroke of the 1.7 holds the revs down, but what about torque? Somehow I believe the 1.7 with the G-grind (I assume they will be allowed to use the omnipurpose cam)will be made to work quite well. You still don't believe 100 cc's can overcome 185 lbs? I do.
The jury is still out.

And agin I ask how can a 2750-lb 142 2.0 Volvo be so fast if weight can be depended upon to slow displacement? Sorry to be so hardheaded but you choose to ignore facts when they are in front of you.
G.


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 24, 2004).]