Stay in A or move to B?

[Geo]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
With their typical responses they are still reminding we poor folks that the WEALTHY started the club. & when track costs got to high for them they let the poor folks in with a SCCA member as a sponser.

You know what?

From where I sit, all of us who race can be considered wealthy. Sure wealth is relative, but my God, we spend thousands on a hobby. A bloody hobby.

If that is not considered wealthy, then perhaps we need to reconsider the definition.


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

[ddewhurst]

***If you can't do it for everyone, should you do it for SOME? I say there ARE cases when it makes sense to do so and IMHO, the ITA RX-7 is one that should be heavily considered.***

Andy, I will jump back to my previous post with reference to the potential of the RX-7 being moved to B.

***How high on the numbers list do you think the IT class would be. Oil the wheel that brings in the CASH.***

I was not refering to a pocket of cars (RX-7 or any other model) in the IT group. I was refering to & I will guess that IT overall is one of the largest classes (factual numbers required please) in the SCCA. OIL THE WHEEL THAT BRINGS IN THE CASH. The SCCA is oiling the Spec Miata class. They oiled the SRF class.

On the other hand what are the total number of options looked at by the ITAC before you all started talking about moving the RX-7 to ITB with 6 inch wheels ?

& just to set things stright I don't beleive most of us could run at the point with equally prepared cars. Example, take a look at the Spec Miata races. Same same at the front. This past summer I was at a race with my car, paddocked with a friend with a 1st class Daniels Spec Miata, another driver was asked to do one Q run in the car & he went 2 plus seconds faster with the same setup & the first time in the car. Would be the same in any IT class.


Have Fun
David

[ddewhurst]

***I am not about to alter the basic IT rules in an effort to cater to ONE marque.***

Darin, all said with a . IIRC this kind of thought process is exactly how Production ended up with cantilever tires.

***Posted by Geo***

***From where I sit, all of us who race can be considered wealthy. Sure wealth is relative, but my God, we spend thousands on a hobby. A bloody hobby.***

Geo, my sister & brother inlaw have more money tied up in a fishing boat that many of us have in a race car. A stinking fishing boat. The friken thing has a 200 plus hp motor. All they do with this boat is FISH.

My mom gave me some crap once when I started (1999) puting the race car together. Crap about all the money (wealth in your words) & I reminded my mom that I have a sister who owns a boat that is worth 3 plus times as much as my race car.

It's recerational money & we all spend our recreational money in different ways.

***If that is not considered wealthy, then perhaps we need to reconsider the definition.***

IMHJ, the cat that is driven to the paddock with attache in hand would be wealthy.

Continue the Fun
David

[ITSRX7]

Well, I will agree to disagree with some of you. No problems - just make sure your letters come in if/when any suggestions like this hit Fast Track.

I can't stress enough that the purpose isn't to put the RX-7 at the front - it's to get it back in the game - and it's just a consideration at this time.

You think all the ITA guys are going to feel the same way when the Neon hits their class???? (And I hope everyone realizes that with well prepared and top drivers, the CRX is NOT the only car that car win - the Integra and 240SX are RIGHT THERE, so it's not as simple as slowing down one model...)

I guess we need a thread on what's good for IT on the whole instead of "then MY car moves back another grid spot"...Where are all the people screaming NGOC now?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

[cherokee]

Originally posted by Dave Ebersole:

Why not address the original problem instead of just pushing it off onto smaller collections of cars that don't have the same voice/support?

IMHO Because ITB&C are not the flashy IT classes, although I think my car is pretty flashy even if it is still in primer.

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited March 05, 2004).]

[RX767]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:"I've been saying this for ~ 3 years now.
Here's a thought for the ITA RX7 crowd. Keep 'em in ITA and let them street port the things and add 200# to them!
That should make the Honda/Acura/Nissan crowd happy!"

I am all for this idea. I can get off this insane regiment of running, lifting, and a low carb diet. As Jake Gulick mentioned in another thread, it's a means of lightening things without opening the tool box.
Of course, these are the ravings of a man who misses cheesesteaks and full bodied beer.

I am not in favor of going to 6" wheels since I dropped $900 in Circle Racing Wheels and plan on buy on buying a couple more to mount spares on. I suppose if that happens, maybe I will wonder into limited prep..

Bill Emery
Glen Region
ITA#23

[cherokee]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:

You think all the ITA guys are going to feel the same way when the Neon hits their class???? (And I hope everyone realizes that with well prepared and top drivers, the CRX is NOT the only car that car win - the Integra and 240SX are RIGHT THERE, so it's not as simple as slowing down one model...)

You are right...but should we do anything about it? There was a winning Capri a little further up this page. When newer and newer cars came in did this driver do the same thing, or did he build the next new car?
I said it before...it might just be evolution, and that might not be all bad. You still have a place to run, and your own class that you can win in unlike the Capri. If you still want to run up top with that car you can go to prod.

On one hand I like the no guarantee clause, it lets the Capri come out an play forever if it wants to. On the other if you change the clause that will be the first step to prod.

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

To specifically answer your question I think that yes it would make things better but not nearly as good as they could be.

Now to continue...

I think that moving 1 car make to a different class opens doors, and as mentioned before moving 1 car that was NOT classified wrong does not fix the problem of classifying cars incorrectly.

I have 4 scenarios of what I think could be done to fix the "IT" problem:

1: If we add weight to the 3 cars in ITA that are dominators on my list (Acura Integra, Honda CRX, and Nissan 240) in the other thread I think that we would have a very different list that would include the RX-7. That would fix all of the ITA problems and ITB would be a non-issue as most are satisfied with the current classifications. All we would have left is a major problem in ITS and a problem with classifying future cars.

2.If you move the RX-7 to ITB then we have not fixed the ITA problem (you will still need to have one of those 3 cars to win). I do agree and think that ITB would not be that badly effected, if anything ITB would be better as their would be more competition. We obviously would still also have the problems with ITS.

3. If a class was added between ITA and ITS the three top ITA cars could move up to "that" class. The underdogs such as the Neon and other IT2 classed cars (no idea how many) could be bumped down to "that" class and maybe have some weight added. This would fix ITS, fix ITA, make another great class of competition and winners, and it would not affect the already good ITB and ITC.

4. re classify all cars due to the changes that have occurred over the past 20yrs (This is the 20th anniversary of IT isn't it?).


Raymond "I am repeating myself" Blethen

[Knestis]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
...

3. If a class was added between ITA and ITS the three top ITA cars could move up to "that" class. The underdogs such as the Neon and other IT2 classed cars (no idea how many) could be bumped down to "that" class and maybe have some weight added. ...

Proposed it - twice, in essence - as did others and it didn't take. Looking at it again for the first time in a long while, it STILL amazes me how blind the club racing community is to this simple solution.

Now, if I were a 'conspiracy theorist' or 'evil conflict of interest crusader' (CT and ECIC for future brevity), I would think that the CRX Si cabal was behind quashing the idea, to protect their market domination.[1]

K

[1] This doesn't mean that I don't believe that ITA Honda people would oppose the move - many of them clearly did when I suggested it. I just don't believe they are any good at conspiring to oppose it...

[RSTPerformance]

(Sorry for the hijack, but I wanted to explain why we don't race the Capri... It has no bearing on the competitiveness of the car, it is a no-time factor)

We still have the Capri, but crashed it in the early 90's, back then frame machines were a lot more money and a Toyota dealership offered my dad 2 MR2's to be built for racing only. My father ran that for a few years successfully (back when MR2's and 914's had a fighting chance). Then my father got a fully paid ride for MT. Washington Hillclimb that included all NE SCCA Races. That has lasted for 10 years now in various cars. Now that MT. Washington is gone he will be running the National series in an AS.

When my brother and I started racing dad let us use his car and my brother crashed the MR2 bad in Canada. We could not afford to fix it so we don't have that anymore (sold it to someone who fixed it!!!).

My brother and I started to fix the Capri, but switched course to the Audi's shortly after fixing the frame. We would love to finish fixing the Capri (if we had time) for Vintage, and a few IT events. The Capri is a classic as it was one of the original IT cars raced when the class was introduced 83(?) 84(?).

Many people wanted to buy the car but it was my parents wedding gift and my dad’s baybe... We have such a problem with space and storage at the house, but somehow it manages to stay stored away in a hidden garage

Raymond Blethen

[ITSRX7]

Glad Kirk jumped in here. The full-on class restructure is one of MANY things being seriously considered by some members for proposal.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

[Speed Raycer]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
3. If a class was added between ITA and ITS the three top ITA cars could move up to "that" class. The underdogs such as the Neon and other IT2 classed cars (no idea how many) could be bumped down to "that" class and maybe have some weight added. This would fix ITS, fix ITA, make another great class of competition and winners, and it would not affect the already good ITB and ITC.

Nawww... that's way too simple! What was the response in fastrack last month to that proposal??? No need for an additional class if PCA's are passed.. or something like that. Hmmm which would be easier, PCA for the entire IT field or add a class for the fast miss-classed.

I'll race my 7 wherever they'll let me. I'm out there to race my hardest and enjoy some dicing with other mid-packers, whether they be in IT7,A,B,C or whatever. I feel sorry for anyone who just dropped a big chunk of change on 7" wheels though, but, just think of the guys that went out and bought RR shocks when they were legal... The rules sometimes change, that's part of racing.



------------------
Scott
It's not what you build...
it's how you build it

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

Your comments regarding the RX7 and moving it to ITB show that you're too close to this issue and have lost your objectivity. Advocating something because of the popularity of one car, and then saying that it will be good for the entire membership???? How is moving the RX7 to ITB good for anyone but an RX7 driver?

Dave Ebersole,

Please email me millerwj _at_ yahoo.com

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

[Banzai240]

Gentlemen and any Ladies that might be lurking...

What makes the most sense for IT is to get cars with similiar performance characteristics, both perceived and demonstrated, grouped into classes where they are competitive with one-another...

THAT is the goal here... and THAT is what the majority on the ITAC would like to see done...

HOW we get there is the issue at hand.

The way I see it, you take what you have now and evaluate it FIRST. We have been doing this as a group, as well as individually.

For example, I have a pretty good handle on what I think the performance standards are for ITC, ITA, and ITS... Not having lot of ITB cars up here (OR/WA area...), and not being familiar with the specifications of the Volvo, 2002, etc., I am still working on this class, though I THINK I have an idea of what the target will turn out to be.

Knowing the standards for each class, one can then evaluate the cars in that class, and how they relate to the standards. This is ongoing, but takes some time.

Based on some rough, and very unofficial calculations, a well-built RX-7 would currently need to weight about 2100lbs to be competitive in ITA, when compared to a CRX, Acura, or 240SX..., and would need to be about 2450lbs to fit into ITB. Both of these figures should put the car right in the lead pack for either group...

Now, I am certain that there is no way to get an RX-7 to 2100lbs in legal IT trim, so at that point, what do you do? The ITB guys, especially the Volvos and 2002s are going to "feel" as though they are being "dumped on" if this car, and others in similiar situations, get moved. However, if the move was done correctly, then everyone would have more competition, which "should" make the racing experience more fun... MORE of what it is suppose to be about.

I think the later part of this is what is GOOD for IT racing. The key is to have tools in place to help correct for mis-judgements or mis-calculations... i.e.: when we over/underestimate the performance. That's what PCAs are for. (As I've said before, I believe the language already exists to support moving cars WITH weight changes... so reclassifications aren't really an issue in my mind...)

In all of this, however, I can't think of anyone on the ITAC that is in favor of beginning a string of "special allowances" for IT cars... ESPECIALLY for competition purposes. If you want these kinds of allowances, maybe you should look at LP Production (I still chuckle everytime someone gets fed-up with IT and thinks that LP Prod is going to be the greener of the grasses... Have you READ those rules???).

If the intent and integrity is to continue in IT, then we have to do what we can do within the existing framework, perhaps with a couple of tweaks to that framework to smooth things out...

That's what's happening, and we welcome your comments.

Stay tuned...




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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis:
Proposed it - twice, in essence - as did others and it didn't take. Looking at it again for the first time in a long while, it STILL amazes me how blind the club racing community is to this simple solution.

Kirk... the idea is not dead yet... It's being considered, along with several other options... It certainly hasn't been ruled out...

[lateapex911]

There is NO DOUBT that one of ITs issues exists in the lower S and upper A area. Adding a class for the "tweeners" makes a lot of sense. But we all know how 'they' hate "New classes"...at least that's what they say, somehow new classes keep popping up!

I think we need to keeep in mind that a new class has little chance with the BoD. So, what's the next solution? OK, well the A cars have gotten lots faster than anybody ever figured, maybe the tweeners (ne: the NX2000, Sentra SeR, Neon, et al) should go to A. ........

NOW how do all the A folk who aren't in a 240SX, an Integra, a Miata, or a CRX feel? Further down the food chain, that's for sure! Don't think those cars are going to get moved down in such a way that they will be backmarkers in A just like they were in S either!

And so it trickles down. Neither Andy or Darin said that this was a done deal with the 7, and I would bet money that other cars are being discussed as well.

As for the B boys, I don't buy the fact that any front runners chances at a win are going to be damaged, except numerically. And any racer who wants better odds just isn't a real racer. Around here, I think the front running B guys would get their feathers ruffled by maybe 1 or 2 RX-7s, and it would be a race...a good race. Isn't that what it's all about?

But the backmarkers in B are the ones who have a right to complain, and perhaps they will see their cars recast as C cars.

We have FOUR classes, but the participation numbers are skewed to the top three clsses. We probably need to use the classes we have effectively before we ask for new classes.

If any of you have autocrossed with the SCCA, none of this should come as a surprise.

Finally, I'm sure there are those who consider my comments as self promoting, but I would remind you that for years I have been campaining for similar actions, not just for my car, but for others who have found themsleves in the same boat. I have been racing a 1st gen RX-7 in ITA since '93, long before the inclusion of many of the frontrunning cars, and before the advent of the ECU rule. I know about the class history. If there are large pockets of other cars with similar history and development data, I will champion their cause as well.

We race in a manipulated environment, with 4 performance slots, and not utilizing the mechanisms to balance the 4 classes is a waste.

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

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
David,

So - UNDERSTANDING that you CAN'T do it for everyone, the question I have for David, Cherokee, Ray-Ray, etc is simple:

If you can't do it for everyone, should you do it for SOME? I say there ARE cases when it makes sense to do so and IMHO, the ITA RX-7 is one that should be heavily considered.

AB

Of course you should, and you should do it for as many as you can as long as they can provide the data points required to prove that they can never be competitive in their present class. Which is to say, well prepared, well driven, and well documented programs. And more than one!

I haven't seen a Cosworth Vega (sorry Britt, where-ever you are!) or a Corvair on the track in IT since 1993. I'm sure there are SOME out there, but hey, moving the RX-7 actually HELPS them! They will move UP the grid with the counts of 7s gone!

In a way, it's like an ER, or a MASH hospital...if you have limited blood supplies, do you deny treatment to all because there isn't enough blood for all? No, you ration, you don't waste it on the longshots, and to some degree it's first come first served. You do the best you can with what you've got to help as many as possible.



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

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,

I think you and John have been spending too much time under the bridge!!! (inside joke).

Actually, we should think about that...when are you going to be passing thru again? Maybe Mexican this time?

RX7 never dominant in ITA? C'mon now. Let's not even get into this one.

Actually, it was a very successful car in IT, due to the population counts. It had better odds of doing well purely because of the percentage of entrants in RX-7s. But I would submit that it was never an overdog, never "THE" car to have over all others. A well driven RX-3SP for example, could give a 7 fits. Ask Kurt Weiss, CRB chairman for those who don't know that name) who, when I was thinking about getting a 7 for ITA said, and I quote, "Good car, but I've never been out qualified, or beaten by one." He drove an RX-3SP.

And, are you saying that because the RX7 is in ITA, and that it isn't running at the front, that the CB screwed up?

Well, they added one car to the class, and weren't aware of it's potential. Then, to molify that mis judgement, added one, then two more. On top of that, the first (and second? have to check the timeline) car got a post classification comp adjustment in the form of the legalization of the open ECU rule. (I know you're with me on that one...) And it isn't just the RX-7 that got boned! MOST of the class came up gasping after that one! But the RX-7 seems to be the standard bearer, for the rest of the class.

And I agree, falling back on the IT PP&I is getting old. But here's a news flash, the CB does it all the time, and until the PP&I gets changed, they, and others, will continue to point to it.

And, the RX7 folks do have a chance to race hard, just not necessarily for the win. That my friend, is the story of IT racing. So, either fix the root problem (PP&I), live with it, or move on.

I think we agree here, kinda, but I am asking that the CRB attempt to do better...while understanding that in many cases there isn't anything that can be done. But where there ARE solutions they should be excercized. No change in the PP&I needed, it just needs to be utilized less often as a crutch.

I think that the boys in the ITAC understand that, and are actually doing something , and I have to tell you it's refreshing.

Think about it Bill, two years ago, could we have had this discussion with the guys who are volunteering their time to work on the ITAC, and have had the chance to not only make our case but to debate and discuss it with them???

IT has turned a corner.



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

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Andy,

Your comments regarding the RX7 and moving it to ITB show that you're too close to this issue and have lost your objectivity. Advocating something because of the popularity of one car, and then saying that it will be good for the entire membership???? How is moving the RX7 to ITB good for anyone but an RX7 driver?

How am I too close to the issue? I drive neither in ITA/ITB nor do I drive a 1st gen RX-7?

As far as it's being good for IT as a whole, if you can't see the benefit, then I can't argue it anymore. Giving a large group of drivers a place to feel good about their chances retains and ads members - and that is the ULTIMATE goal. Onsie-twosie 'fixs' for individual cars isn't feasable nor does it get the job done.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

I only have one thing to say, have any of you EVER driven a rx7 on a racetrack with 6" wheels and 185x13 tires? its like ice racing.