March FasTrack is up!

[zooracer]

Just my two cents as a newbie to road racing.
I actually think newer cars are more available/common then older ones. How often do you see an 80's GTI or rx-7 on the road? Same with 85 civic's?
On the other hand, you can find early 90's civics, sentras, etc. all over the place. Most of the kids these days are driving cars from the 90's, not the 80's.
So lets classify these cars competively in IT. If there is a slight advantage with the car, put some weight on it or something. Four classes is enough, just make adjustments within each class.
I also agree about the stupidity of keeping wipers and heaters and such on the cars. If it doesnt cost anything, and there is no measureable performance advantage, why not allow it's removal (or substitution, like the wiring harness for the 240z)?
I really think its the rigidity of the SCCA that makes NASA so attractive to youngsters.
matt

[Russ Myers]

Face it, Everyone wants to be God. "We will make this class in MY image. everything the way I want it." Folks, not every one wants the same things as every one else. I personally want to see all fuel injected cars and ECU's bannished from the earth so that my carb'ed beast doesn't swallow even more bucks. I want all "R" compound tires burned in a large pile (environmental effects noted) because they are expensive. I want my 25 year old Fiesta to be competitive for many years to come so I can finish putting my son through school, remodel the kitchen, and save a little for my retirement, and not sink large capital outlays into the NEW car of the year. I want other rule changes made, but I realize that most, if not all, will never be acted upon, so I work on my POS Mk.I JALOPY as best as time and funds allow, go to the track and enjoy myself. I like to win as much as the next guy, but even running around in last is more fun than leaning on the fence watching.
The SCCA is a wonderful playground. There is really something for all. GT racing for serious deep pocket racers, Prod racing for modifiers, SS racing for those who want the latest NEW, NEW, NEW, cars, but don't want to work real hard at working on them. Form cars, Sports racers, etc. a veritable smorgasbord of car types. IT racing was really a place foe old retired SS cars to have a place to play because those SS racers didn't have the money to buy any more NEW cars. Remember, SS cars were only good for three years back then. But some people want the class remade the way they think is best(for them). As to the tag line "real race cars don't have washer bottles", well, THESE AIN'T REAL RACE CARS. At least they weren't supposed to be. They weren't ment to be. It's a cheap place for folks to play at the track.
Now let me qualify this by saying that I have spent large sums at this racing thing. People told me that SS racing was oh so cheap. One year of nationals and a trip to the Runoffs later, and I was seriously broke. So, of course, I bought a C Prod Datsun. Thank goodness I got married, bought a house, had kids, and got a divorce, or I would have been in real financial trouble. Running against the factories in that beast was tons o'fun, but you talk about money, WOW!
I guess what it is , is that many of us have seen class after class, group after group, slowly, but surly, RUINED by what is now known as rules creep. Sedan became GT, Prod cars are now just mini-GT's, my really cheap SS car is now a really expensive top of the line wonder toy(I knew people who caced National's with $2000 Pintos and WON, Try that now). Find one group(IT) set the rules up, AND LEAVE THEM ALONE FOR AT LEAST TWENTY YEARS. For those who want to tinker, there are many other places to play, and Godspeed to ya. But please, leave just one group alone so those of us with not really much money to spend on race cars can have some place to play too.

Russ Myers
ITC Ford Fiesta

[Ron Earp]

Call me a stupid newbie but why does removing the silly washer bottle or heater core rule mean that 13:1 compresion and $3,000 ported heads are coming?

Can't we fix a few of the "silly" rules that we all agree hvae no real purpose or is a safety issue (who really likes having a glass in their passenger door?) and call it a day?

Ron

------------------
Ron Earp
http://www.gt40s.com
Ford Lightning
RF GT40 Replica
Jensen-Healey ITS
My electrons don't care if they flow through OEM wires, do yours?

[zooracer]

well, you keep saying the words "cheap" throughout, and I completely agree with you on this. I wouldnt even mind if the allowable modifications were even more restrictive (like no bump of half a point in compression, or porting half inch in, or even R tires). Wouldnt it be great if we all had to run toyo's or some such?
But, if removing a washer bottle cost's nothing, then doesnt it meet your criteria of "cheap"?
Also, I also really want your 25 year old car to still be competitive in it's class. Adjusting weights within each class would fix this (just like the pro classes do). This way, a 90's model could race with your fiesta, and both be somewhat equal in performance.
But, the lack of flexibility is hurting us here. Ask any business owner about flexibility. If you cannot adjust to the times, you will not succeed.
matt

[Geo]

Originally posted by Russ Myers:
Face it, Everyone wants to be God. "We will make this class in MY image. everything the way I want it." Folks, not every one wants the same things as every one else.

Boy howdy.

Originally posted by Russ Myers:
Prod cars are now just mini-GT's

Funny you should mention that. Production cars are what GT cars were at the start. Anybody remember Tom Davey's three straight GT3 championships with his Sciroccos? GT went to hell not long after when they started allowing those tube framed "funny cars."


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

[Catch22]

<sigh>

As so well pointed out above, some flexibility in IT is the ONLY hope for 25 year old Fiestas remaining competitive with newer Hondas and such in ITC.
And if you don't classify newer Hondas and such in ITC, within 10 years there WILL BE NO ITC!!! Who is going to race in this class when all of you Fiesta and 510 drivers are dead or in wheelchairs??? It sounds brutal, but its a question that needs an answer. The generations that are coming behind you don't even know what a Fiesta is.

Change does not automatically mean a disaster.
Flexibility does not automatically mean rules creep.
But I will say that I DO now understand how IT became such a mad disaster over the last few years. Man. Its almost hard to believe. What do some of you guys do for a living and has it not changed in the last 20 years??? How do your companies survive?

Nobody is asking for 14/1 compression motors, unlimited attachment cages, carbon fiber body panels, and free cams, so calm down a little.
As a matter of fact, I'd LOVE it if motors were required stock compression and stock heads. No port matching, no valve jobs, no 1/2 point compression bumps. Stock final drives... Hell YEAH!!!
But those rules are there and allowed and its wayyyy too late to change that stuff.

What gets me is this...
Whats more reasonable for a class thats supposed to be relatively budget minded and easy to get involved with... Ripping out the wiper/washer bottle or allowing $1500 custom cut final drives???
Amazingly, we can spend a months house payment on a final drive, but we can't kick the wiper/washer bottle to the curb to make it easier to run brake ducts (cost... zero).

Change, if properly managed, is good.
Flexibility, managed, is even better.
Really.
It is.
Honest.

------------------
#22 ITC Honda Civic
3rd Place 2004 ARRC
1st Place 2004 ARRC Enduro

[Geo]

Originally posted by Catch22:
But I will say that I DO now understand how IT became such a mad disaster over the last few years.

Can you explain to me how IT has become such a mad disaster? I must have missed it.

IMHO when you add up all the changes various people are suggesting, essentially what we would be left with as a different between IT and productin is engine, slicks, lexan instead of glass (and that would probably be argued on safety grounds), and cages attached to the front strut towers (and that would be argued for as how much can 2 2' sections of tubing cost?).

The fact is, there is already a category set up with all these rules some people seem to want. And if you have a car allowed in Production as limited prep, the engines aren't that much more expensive. For instance, for the 944 there are essentially 3 things I can do to the engine I cannot in IT: cam, adjustable cam sprocket (and these have been requested for IT), and alternate rods. I can already shave the head and install alternate pistons. Head prep is otherwise the same.


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

[gran racing]

There are a few discussions here that need some separation. For some of the points being made people are arguing with…I’m not sure who.

Should SCCA classify newer cars within the existing classes? Yes of course. Has anyone objected to this? And it can be done without disrupting the existing cars as others have stated. Why can’t the old Volvos race against the newly classed Golfs and work? Of course it can. It does not matter what year the car is only its performance potential. Stop getting hung up on the year that precedes the vehicle model. Older cars are great to have classed competitively. (As I look at the classified section and see an ’88 Honda Accord Lxi listed for $1,000 running well with a parts car.) Again, I think we are all in agreement that SCCA needs to continue classing newer cars.

About removing stuff from IT cars that is free. When do we draw the line? Washer bottles, fine. Since it was asked, I for one like having the passenger side window. What about cruise control stuff? The dash wouldn’t cost anything to gut. There are bunches of free things that can be done but for what purpose? Most new people to the sport look at what modifications are allowed. Although these modifications are not required, people will perceive that it really should be done. Change is good, but it needs to be controlled.

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

[Catch22]

And if you have a car allowed in Production as limited prep, the engines aren't that much more expensive. For instance, for the 944 there are essentially 3 things I can do to the engine I cannot in IT: cam, adjustable cam sprocket (and these have been requested for IT), and alternate rods.

Yeah, and one can easily drop $1000 on a custom cam. You can potentially add $2k to the price of limited prep prod motor over an fully built IT motor.
And don't forget stuff like $5000 Houseman gear boxes. Thats allowed in limited prep... You know that? Right?
Flared alternate fender panels...
The list is pretty big, even in limited prep.

So don't confuse someone who thinks passenger side glass and washer bottles are stupid with someone who wants to spend another $10K on their car to go Prod racing. Thats just ridiculous.

Should SCCA classify newer cars within the existing classes? Yes of course. Has anyone objected to this? And it can be done without disrupting the existing cars as others have stated.

No Dave. Its pretty much the same argument. All of these things end up being under the same umbrella in the end.
Say for example its the year 2011, and there are a bunch of new 2000 to 2005 model cars in ITC. In order to help me remain competitive, the Board does me a big favor and removes 75lbs from my little 1991 Honda Civic.
Now, thats just awesome. Only problem is... Where is that going to come from?
Well, it could come from the useless things that I'm required to keep right now. Heater core, passenger glass. Thats not 75 lbs, but its a start.

The ITAC is currently using power to weight as a big part of classing cars. Thats a great idea, but why not add more ways to get down to that weight (without skimping on cage, which unfortunately some people do).
Lexan... Sure. Make it legal in IT. If the minimum weights stay the same what damned difference does it make??? The people that need help getting down to minimum weight have another tool to get there, the people who are already there, like me, skip it because we don't need it.

And if it can be argued that a couple of extra cage points or tubes running to the shock towers REALLY IS actually safer, then we should be allowed to do it. Period.
Who is going to argue against that?

The people here that are scared of change are going to be scared of anything that doesn't directly help them. How can anybody possibly argue against the removal of the washer bottle unless its just that they fear any change in general?
Its a friggin washer bottle, it serves no purpose in a race car, it costs nothing to remove, and its right where I want to put my left brake duct. Why should I keep it? Because removing that bottle will result in Improved Touring Anarchy???
C'mon guys. Seriously.

[gran racing]

I don't disagree with the washer bottle.

Send in your letter to the board...

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

[Russ Myers]

It(the washer bottle, door glass, etc.) should stay because this is in the phylosophy of the class. This is how it was laid down from the begining. To change this is to change the PHILOSOPHY and it wouldn't be Improved Touring anymore. It would just be Production Lite.

Russ

[itracer]

Originally posted by Russ Myers:
It(the washer bottle, door glass, etc.) should stay because this is in the phylosophy of the class. This is how it was laid down from the begining. To change this is to change the PHILOSOPHY and it wouldn't be Improved Touring anymore. It would just be Production Lite.

Russ

And we could all run vintage.

Showroom stock has evolved.

It is time for IT to evolve. As long as it does not impact the philosophic idea that it is a good place to start and a good place to race.

I think that the ITAC is doing a good job at evolving, but I think that they need the encouragement to keep going.


------------------
Jason
ITB 17 (NER SCCA)
VW Scirocco

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me give you my thoughts on the washer bottle issue specifically.

I am NOT in support of the stance that 'it is in my way, so I think we should be able to move it'. I really don't care that someone can't run brake ducts because the car they chose is prohibiting the facilitation. That certainly shouldn't motivate a rule change.

I am in support of a change based on the fact that some IT classes (specifically ITB and ITC) are aging rapidly. These classes have tons of cars where parts like this are very hard to find. This would help keep old cars on the legal side of the fence.

Having said that, when do we start to phase out cars like that? In order to keep IT fresh and attractive, new cars must come in. The technology is such that a trickle-downwould have to happen. We can do our best to help the old compete with the new, but it would be handicapping the new in order to keep the old competitive. Any comp adjustments to the old would be against class philosophy and impossible to manage.

It's an interesting philisophical discussion when you drill down a little.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
New England Region, R188967

www.flatout-motorsports.com

[mustanghammer]

From Catch22

The ITAC is currently using power to weight as a big part of classing cars. Thats a great idea, but why not add more ways to get down to that weight (without skimping on cage, which unfortunately some people do).
Lexan... Sure. Make it legal in IT. If the minimum weights stay the same what damned difference does it make??? The people that need help getting down to minimum weight

have another tool to get there, the people who are already there, like me, skip it because we don't need it.

And if it can be argued that a couple of extra cage points or tubes running to the shock towers REALLY IS actually safer, then we should be allowed to do it. Period.
Who is going to argue against that?

Catch,

Not me. I am living this scenario right now. I just completed a refit of my cage and have purposely left out tubes that I know can make a difference in safety and stiffness. Why? Because of the extra weight.

IT cars are RACECARS and requiring pass. door glass, washer bottles, headlights, wiring for crusie control, etc makes NO SENSE. We are not building dual purpose steet/Racecars and most are also not converting old SS cars to IT either.

If the fact that IT 'could' become a Production Lite if we are allowed to remove unnecceassary brick-a-brake from our cars....then so what? If you can't tell the difference between an E Prod racer and it an equvilant IT Racer then you don't know much about cars. I share shop space with a really good E Prod RX7 and the reason why his car cost 3 times what mine does (and my IT car ain't no slouch) has NOTHING to do with alternate battery location, missing door glass or MIA washer bottles.

IT cars are spec'd by weight. The IT rules now allow balasting. What difference does it make how I make weight it the important aspects of an IT car are maintained? You know, stock engine, stock running gear, Stock suspension components, Spec wheel sizes, limited cage constuction, stock bodies, stock brakes....etc etc etc.




------------------
Scott Peterson
KC Region
IT7 #17

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...when do we start to phase out cars like that?</font>

Here's something to get everyone's panties in a twaddle.

When Improved Touring was formed, in 1983, the idea was to give someplace for the old showroom stock cars to go play before they got moved to Production (I know this, I was there). To facilitate that, nothing older than 1968 was allowed in the category.

Chew on that: 15 years old, maximum.

As time progressed, no one ever thought to adjust that rule, and today - over twenty years after IT's inception - We're trying to pigeon-hole 35-year-old cars into IT instead of moving them to Production as was originally intended.

So, those of you purists insisting that we retain the "original philosophy and purpose" of the class, better be careful what you wish for. Because if we cling to that I must insist we place a 15 year moratorium on car classifications; that means effective immediately, anything older than 1990 is outta here and into Production... GA

[cherokee]

I think that IT is no longer a place for SS cars go go when they die. This is now the entry class for SCCA road racing. We have people that still want to build 35 year old cars, thats the car that they picked, that is the car that they want to drive and they want to start in IT perhaps never move up to Prod, not everyone wants to race a jelly bean. Now that some of these old cars have some very hard to find parts and are in pretty bad repair when we get them what is the harm in removing any of the parts above. Who gives a lick if there is no washer bottle, other wireing, no passanger window as long as the minimum weight is met. The weight is the bottom line right...that is what I have been "lead" to believe. The original intent went out the window long ago when shocks,computers,passanger seats,wheel sizes and who knows what else was changed

BTW anybody got a washerbottle for an Opel GT laying around

[Joe Harlan]

ALlowing old cars to fade away is gonna happen. The key is not bringing in cars in an overdog fasion to kill them and not keeping new cars from being competitive. I see some of the new rules being able to do that. If you have reasonable bench marks in every class then we should over a short period be able to adjust to that bench mark quickly. I woek on a lot of 240z's they will not last forever even if the E36 wasn't in the picture. We are running out of factory parts. That will force them off to vintage or production one day but the ones that stick around and are willing to spend the money to stay competitive should be able to as a benchmark. We can't have what we had with the Miata's in ITS that would never be competitive just left to go off and have to start a private class. These spec classes are born out of a need to be competitive and if the miata's and the RX7's had of been treated correctly they would all be IT cars not spec cars.

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by GregAmy:
So, those of you purists insisting that we retain the "original philosophy and purpose" of the class, better be careful what you wish for. Because if we cling to that I must insist we place a 15 year moratorium on car classifications; that means effective immediately, anything older than 1990 is outta here and into Production... GA

Well, I'm sure I'm not a purist, but I would be careful with that 15 year argument. Recent statements in Fast Track have shown the PAC and the CRB is unwilling to classify older cars, they to are trying to inject new sheet metal (fiberglass?) into the class. So if we were to start enforcing the 15 year rule in IT then there will be a lot of old race cars sent for the scrap yard. Not that I think, or hope, that Greg is proposing to get rid of those cars.

Probably the best we can do is stick to the "no guarantee you'll be competitive" statement and the less capable cars will eventually fade away. I don't see that increasing the number of classes is good in the long run. It dilutes the number of competitors and adds one more performance envelope to manage to. I don't envy the job the ITAC has in keeping that performance envelope intact but the recent years have certainly been more confidence inspiring.

Also, keep in mind that we currently have a range of car prep limited by SS on one end and Production on the other. Limited prep rules for production has significantly shortened that range. Pushing too close to SS isn't likely but moving too close the limited prep starts to make us unnecessary and obsolete. Yes, we must adapt to survive, but adapt doesn't automatically mean opening up the rules.


------------------
~Matt Rowe
ITA Shelby Charger
MARRS #96

[Catch22]

"Yes, we must adapt to survive, but adapt doesn't automatically mean opening up the rules.

See, I think this is where the disconnect exists.
I don't think anybody in either of these threads is arguing for "opening up the rules." What some people want is to eliminate the ones they feel are just plain dumb and useless.

There is a HUGE difference between "opening" up the rules and "cleaning" up the rules.

To me, all of this comes under the umbrellas of willingness to change and flexibility. I see no difference in the willingness to move the '87 CRX Si to ITB and the willingness to get rid of dumb, outdated rules. Both have value.

What does change and flexibilty buy you???
Well, I can PROMISE you that if the current state of IT (with open communication, cars getting reclassed and restrictor plates being added to overdogs) existed 4 to 5 years ago there would be no NASA Honda Challenge (NASAs most popular race class, by far). That competition to SCCA club racing wouldn't even exist. Those classes were created mainly to give the unclassed and misclassed Hondas in IT (94+ Integra RS/LS, 1st gen CRX/Civic Si, 92+ Civic EX/Si, etc.) a place to competitively race. Back then, writing a request to reclass some of these cars got you either no response or a terse "car is correct as classed." and you were done.
So what we do? We did what most people do when nobody will adjust unfair rules in a game and won't even listen to your argument... We created our own game. And in the first year we had an average of 21 cars per race take the green flag.
21 doesn't sound like a big number, but it is when you consider that...
1. It didn't even EXIST one year before
2. It was nothing but IT type prepped Hondas.
Thats 21 cars per race that were there for one reason and one reason only... SCCA was unflexible and wouldn't listen.

Now they do listen, and guess what??? IT is starting to steal some Honda Challenge drivers BACK from NASA. Go figure.

In the long term, these things matter and they matter alot. Keep that in mind when you start thinking that heater core removal will result in anarchy. It won't, and that attitude in general is bad for the club.

[Knestis]

The problem is that, wherever the line in the sand gets drawn, it is arbitrary.

In and of themselves, washer bottles don't make any sense. Neither does the requirement for stock wiring harnesses. Neither does the passenger window. Neither does the glass in the rear doors of 4-door cars. Neither does the side backseat glass of 2-doors. Neither does the rear glass. I can't find a windshield for my Cortina, so it only makes sense that I should be able to use Lexan like other real race cars. Fenders are NLA, too so...

This is a completely different isssue from classifying new cars, or aging old ones out. We need to be careful to separate the two.

K