March FasTrack is up!

[Bill Miller]

Here

http://www.scca.com/_Filelibrary/File/05-0...03-fastrack.pdf

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

[Bill Miller]

Haven't had a chance to read the whole thing, but here's something I did notice.

2.0 16v VW Golf/Jetta goes from ITS to ITA.

Golf gets a 255# weight addition, and the Jetta gets 405#

How do two cars that share the same chassis/engine/transmission/suspension end up getting spec'd ~450# apart? Especially after the weights on the VR6 versions were set to be the same?

ITAC guys, can you shed some light on this?

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

[Catch22]

Its good to see the Accord and the early Si Hondas go to ITB where they belong.

Then again, the request to move the 88-91 Civic DX has been denied in order to monitor the performance.
Well, it will be pretty hard to monitor the performance of a car nobody will build because its terribly uncompetitive.
Quite simply, theres nothing to "monitor".
Nobody in their right mind would build a 92hp Civic DX for ITA when they can build a 108hp Civic Si.
NOBODY!
What a waste of several thousand cheap and easily built chassis.

I guess you gotta take the bad with the good.

[Jake]

"monitor performance" - at least that's something. I noticed they are also "monitoring" the performance of the first get RX7 - that's better than the "classified correctly" stuff I got when I asked to move Mr. Two.

[R2 Racing]

Originally posted by Catch22:
Then again, the request to move the 88-91 Civic DX has been denied in order to monitor the performance.
Well, it will be pretty hard to monitor the performance of a car nobody will build because its terribly uncompetitive.
Quite simply, theres nothing to "monitor".
Nobody in their right mind would build a 92hp Civic DX for ITA when they can build a 108hp Civic Si.
NOBODY!
What a waste of several thousand cheap and easily built chassis.

This is one of those things that as I look at the GCR, it just friggin cracks me up:
'88-91 Honda CRX Si - 2140lbs
'88-91 Honda Civic Si - 2175lbs
'88-91 Honda Civic DX - 2225lbs

uhhh, HELLO?! MCFLY?! That DX would be a great addition to ITB and frankly, I'm shocked (and kind of want to vomit a little bit but that might have something to do with the buckets of beer last night) that it got shot down.


------------------
Kevin
Ruck Racing
'92 ITA Acura Integra RS
'92 ITC Honda Civic CX
'85 ITC Honda Civic S
'95 ITS Honda Prelude Si

[Catch22]

That exactly my point.

In this case, the "monitor" thought process simply won't fly because there just isn't anything to monitor. Look at those numbers Kevin just posted... Only a complete MORON would build a DX for ITA.
For ITB... Excellent. Great car.
ITA... Thats funny.

If someone wants to donate $15K so I can build an ITA Civic DX and run ITB lap times... So the AC can have something to monitor... I'll be glad to do it. Otherwise, I guess this particular chassis is dead.
Too bad.

[K_speed]

Speaking of this “monitor thought process,” can anybody explain to me how the SCCA goes about monitoring a car? I’m asking this because it just so happens that I am one of those NOBODYS (as stated above) that built a ’90 Crx DX for Improved Touring. I guess it was out of sheer ignorance more than anything. So call me a complete moron but the fact of the matter is that I built one and would like to know what I need to do to try to put it in its rightful place in ITB. Also, being a novice to road racing, and only having my school requirements complete I figure that this car will be a great learning tool in the world of road racing even if it doesn’t get its chance in ITB. But it never hurts to try get it to be more competative.



------------------
Konrad K. mem# 323927

Underpowered 1990 Honda CRX DX- ITA, hopefully in ITB soon!
[email protected]

[ITSRX7]

On the VW, that has to be a typo. We will check the notes.

On the Honda's: I think we can all agree that there are some issues. Most of them are ones that we have inherited. By monitoring, right now we want to make sure the moves we have made over the last 6 months are the right ones. Moves like the variety of ITS cars that have come down into ITA. We need to make sure we are doing the right thing and using the right target number etc. We think we are, but before we start trying to sell a whole pile of changes to the BoD/CRB, we need to know our baseline stuff is correct.

ITB is much more 'dusty' than ITA. A wrong move into ITB could really hurt the class so we want to move with caution. It's obvious that those Honda's aren't ITA cars to me, but we have to make sure that they ARE ITB cars...and make sure our performance envelope in ITB can be met but not exceeded by these cars. Honda's are typically faster than they are on paper so we want to err on the side of caution for now. *I* think ITB is the right choice but we shall see.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
Spec Miata 1.6 (ITA project)
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[Banzai240]

Guys... again, the sky is NOT falling...

It's only January... NO decision we make today is going to take place until 2006, at least not so far as car classifications are concerned...

That said, I am suppose to have a meeting with the CRB in March to discuss the ITACs view on the future of IT, as well as how to best utilize PCAs. Once some understanding is gained there, we will either be able to make some moves that make sense to us, or we won't be able to make moves that would otherwise make sense to us... I can assure you that I will do what I can to try to get everyone on the same page...

Until then... go race your cars just as you always have, as you've been provided a "place to race", as is the purpose of IT as stated in the ITCS...

Enjoying it or not... I'll leave that up to you...

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

[Catch22]

Nobody said the sky is falling. I actually think you guys are doing a great job.

I was only pointing out that its hard to monitor the performance of a car that isn't being raced. Now, if the intention of the "monitor" statement is to look at all the recent moves as a whole, and not intended to be a monitor of the particular chassis in question... Then, OK. That makes sense. I'll buy that.

This is my same argument that I had supporting the Beetle in ITC. Put it in ITC and if its a killer you can move it up. Put it in ITB and it looks horrid on paper so nobody will build one. If you do that, there was no sense in classing the car in the first place.

You guys are taking risks, which will mean some mistakes will be made, but on the whole all of IT will benefit.
Keep taking risks. Just be extra careful with ITS since there ain't nowhere to move a mistake thats made there.
But in ITA through ITC... Get crazy and go with your gut.

Just my humble opinion.

[gran racing]

Andy, so the 1:06s I’ve been doing at LRP are really 1:04s? I always thought timing and scoring has a little Honda multiplier. (We have to try to get Darin a bit less grumpy, right?)

Konrad – In all honesty going into ITB for a year or two might be the best thing for you. I say this coming from personal experience. My Prelude was originally classed in ITA and I was a bit upset about the classification. But looking back, that was probably the best thing that could happen to me. When in ITA, there was little motivation to spend much money on the car so I spent the majority of my efforts on myself. If I went directly to ITB, I’m not so sure I wouldn’t have spent more money on the car and less on me (seat time as one example). I’m sure you will find plenty of people to battle with and have a great time as I did in ITA.

Catch – I can’t say I agree with the moving cars more abruptly and see what happens method; then if a mistake because of not looking at it as thoroughly / using more caution then necessary move it back up a class. I would be very, very upset if the club moved a car down to a class and I spent money and time on it only to have it moved back up. It would not be doing people a favor who currently races the car a favor. Then think about the people who all of a sudden go out and buy now that it’s in a lower class. You are right it is hard to monitor what isn't happening, it really is a just we need some time to think things out and are considering it response.

That said, there are cars that really should be re-classed. I’m looking forward to other cars being looked at more.


------------------
Dave Gran
NER ITB #13
'87 Honda Prelude si

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Guys... again, the sky is NOT falling...

It's only January... NO decision we make today is going to take place until 2006, at least not so far as car classifications are concerned...

That said, I am suppose to have a meeting with the CRB in March to discuss the ITACs view on the future of IT, as well as how to best utilize PCAs. Once some understanding is gained there, we will either be able to make some moves that make sense to us, or we won't be able to make moves that would otherwise make sense to us... I can assure you that I will do what I can to try to get everyone on the same page...

Until then... go race your cars just as you always have, as you've been provided a "place to race", as is the purpose of IT as stated in the ITCS...

Enjoying it or not... I'll leave that up to you...

Darin,

The way I read it, the Honda (Accord, Civic, CRX) moves were effective 1/1/05.

BTW, please take Greg's advice

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">On the VW, that has to be a typo. We will check the notes.</font>

Thanks Andy!



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

[evanwebb]

Hey Darin, I don't know you at all (or anyone else on the ITAC for that matter), but I have to say this: IT has had some aspects of its philosophy and rules seriously screwed up for years, and I really like the way things are starting to go now. I definitely think IT is headed in the right direction. I know you guys on the ITAC are busy and you don't want to do too much too fast, and also it obvious that you don't want to do too little either, as evidenced by all the great moves you have made recently. Great job and thanks for all the hard work to benefit the IT community as a whole.
I have a few ideas on additional changes that can be made to the class as a whole (generally of the "admit that IT cars are real race cars and allow us to do some more things to the cars that are fun and don't cost much" variety) that I will put up on this website to get some feedback and then I'll send them in for consideration. But again, so far, job well done.

[JLawton]

Andy,
I think the Honda's should stay in ITA!!
Not that my personal feelings are involved here.........

I have to say, you guys are in a tough position where there will ALWAYS be unhappy people. Keep up the good work!!

------------------
Jeff L
#74 ITB GTi

[ddewhurst]

***(generally of the "admit that IT cars are real race cars and allow us to do some more things to the cars that are fun and don't cost much" variety)***

Every time I read someones statement that they want "to do some more things" with their IT race car I wonder if at the present time they are winning a large % of the races they enter. What people need to remember is that there is a class called Production where the modifications that can be made are pretty wide open compared to IT. Step up to the plate with your need for more modifications. Oh, & bring your dollars just like the fast guys do in Production.

Have Fun
David Dewhurst
CenDiv

ps: Production cars were like todays IT cars in the pre 70's.

[Catch22]

I don't know what exactly Evan has in mind, but I think he may be talking about things like wiper washer bottles, passenger side door glass, and heater cores. These things cost nothing to remove and serve no purpose on a race car.

Frankly, I'm surprised that we're not required to remove the door glass for safety reasons. It baffles me that we are actually required to KEEP it.

Higher compresssion, cams, ect... I agree. Just go to production if you want to do that.

[Joe Harlan]

Removal I can see as an ok thing, it is getting very hard to find stock replacments for some of this stuff. Cam compression wide open ECU's should make the next leap. I think the problem with moving to prod is there is not as much competition in most cases.

[ddewhurst]

***I think the problem with moving to prod is there is not as much competition in most cases.***

Joe, ya can't say stuff like that. Some one's going to tell the teacher. If ya can't find a part it's time to retire the car.


***I think he may be talking about things like wiper washer bottles, passenger side door glass, and heater cores. These things cost nothing to remove and serve no purpose on a race car.***

How do YOU draw the line & when do the changes stop? That is the same thought process that got Production where it is today. Sorry, but facts are facts.

Have Fun
David

[Joe Harlan]

David I don't really disagree. I think when you can't buy a washer bottle for a 240z you should be able to replace it with a JC whittney universal unit though.

As far as telling the teacher goes you know how I feel about that. I have been told many a time if I just learned to suger coat it most people would like me......

Problem is I hate suger.

[ddewhurst]

***I think when you can't buy a washer bottle for a 240z you should be able to replace it with a JC whittney universal unit though.***

Joe, as you would say real sugar coated like. The person would need some real SAK to protest a JC washer bottle.

Have Fun
David