Stay in A or move to B?

[Weaver7]

Originally posted by RX767:
Bill,
How are things in the the Northern Tier? Maybe we seen the last of this ice and snow.

I was planning to start the season at Nelson Ledges 5/22-23 and return to NL on June 12-13 for a Central Division regional with IT7. Part of June and July is going to be messed up with grad. school, and I am not sure how the rest of the Summer race schedule will shape up.
Have you raced at NL yet? It is a fun track and they continue to make needed improvements.

Bill Emery
Glen Region
ITA#23

Bill glad everything is going well I agree I'm sick of this weather. Will plan on going to NL in June maybe we can paddock together. If you want e-mail me at [email protected].

I read one of Darins post that mentioned that ongoing competition adjustments will not be applied to IT, all they are going to do is set a limited weight adjustment on newly classed cars, therefore I am converting my ITA rx7 I was saving for my son to EP. I have a 89 240 SX I will build for the kid.

[cherokee]

Us folks with older cars are going to be back markers, but they never guaranteed us anything but a place to race. That is just the way IT is and I think that is the way it is going to stay. You can't bring in the new and expect the old to run with them...it ain't gonna happen...unless you give the older dogs a bone...but that ain't gonna happen eather, no computer to play with and your stuck with a carb, the new cars get all the bones.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
...all they are going to do is set a limited weight adjustment on newly classed cars

That is wrong... I'm not sure which post you are referring to, but perhaps you took it out of context...

PCAs are NOT limited to "newly classed cars"... AND, they are NOT your "Production" style CA either...

There are two things happening here.

First, I have argued, and have the backing of most of the ITAC, that the ITCS and the CGR do INDEED have allowances to change the specifications of a vehicle if it is reclassified. This goes against the traditional thinking that resulted in recent Fastrack announcements. The ITCS specifically states that "...competition adjustments, other than reclassification, are not allowed." (ITCS 17.1.4.B-Intent) When you then consider what "reclassification" means, as well as look at GCR 17.1.12 - Change of Specifications, it becomes clear that moving a car AND changing it's specifications are logical, and allowed. This is being discussed by the CRB and BoD currently and we are waiting to hear their response. We (the ITAC) need this to be realized before we can do any reclassification of current cars. Since we can't reclassify any cars now until the August BoD voting, we will have to wait until then to see what is going to happen.

Second, we have PCAs... These are nothing more than a mechanism to allow the CRB to change the specifications of cars that are NOT going to be reclassified. While there may be a few instances where they could be applied to cars that are too slow (i.e.: speed cars up...), they are intended to be used to correct overdog situations in cases where a car is in a class and proves to be too fast. This applies to ANY car, not just new classifications.

So, in any instance where I have said that CAs are NOT going to be used in IT, I'm referring to other allowances, such as special allowances for cams, carbs, brakes, venturiis, compression, etc., etc., etc...

The ITAC had a con-call last night, and I assure you that the RX-7, as well as many other cars were discussed in terms of what should/could be done to get these cars back into the mix. We are continuing discussions and are working on coming up with solutions.

It's not as simple as many of you might think, because whatever we do has to preserve the Intent and spirit of the IT class. We can't start having special allowances for specific cars, or we will soon be on the road to becoming Prod2...

Another problem, speaking specifically of the RX-7 (keep in mind that I raced and RX-3SP for several years, and was a Mazda NUT up until recently when I went back to my Nissan roots... so I have a little background with the Rotary...), is exactly WHAT people consider developed... If you plug in your standard Rotary crate motor, bolt on an over the counter Racing-Beat Header and the same exhaust that such and such said worked really well for him, then are you truely developed? Many (MANY!!) of the RX guys up here aren't... They run motors for several seasons, and run whatever the next guy runs. Once in awhile, a really nice RX shows up and simply blows there doors off. If Tony Rivera (of E-Production Mazda fame...) built an ITA RX-7, would it still be a mid-packer???

So, we understand that there are cars like this that need to get some help, and I can promise you that we are working on solutions for this. Even if we had them tomorrow, however, the BoD doesn't even vote on rule changes until August, which includes reclassifications, so we have some time to try to do this right.

As for moving to EP...
I don't fault anyone for wanting to go run EP... that's what I was doing with my RX-3 prior to getting my current car. But don't expect that your racing experience will suddenly improve with a simple change in class... especially when you change to the prep level that's required to compete at the Production level... because, even though there are a LOT of RXs racing in EP, there are only a handful in the country that are capable of running in the top 5 at the Runoffs... And if you are only aiming to develop your car to the level that those drivers admit to, you are going to be one step behind them all the way...

Give us some time to get this done and do it right...

Good Luck,




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

[Bill Miller]

We can't start having special allowances for specific cars, or we will soon be on the road to becoming Prod2...

But they've already done that Darin...

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

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller:
But they've already done that Darin...

Be specific please...


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

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240:
Be specific please...

Open ECU's Darin, but I'm not really interested in debating it w/ you.

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

[ITSRX7]

Darin is speaking of model-specific adjustments like in Prod. The is not - and hopefully never will be that type of adjustment in IT.

Right now, think WEIGHT additions or subtractions.

AB

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

[Bill Miller]

Gee Andy, I didn't realize you guys were interchangable now. And ya know, I'm really sorry I even mentioned it. Back to working on the car!

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

[Knestis]

It might be because I am just in a good mood but Darin's summary above describes a pretty reasonable solution, in my mind. If the PTB (powers that be) can keep their eye on that clause about NOT going to car-specific allowances we are a long way toward OK.

If they can TRULY address the issue of what is allowed to "trigger" the PCA process AND establish a system of transparency to out anyone who tries to back-door the process, the world will be fine...

K

[Jake]

Hmmm... dust settling, people getting along, agreement in the air. Maybe we all can actually get along!

[lateapex911]

Thanks Darin, now I don't have to read between the lines putting bits of info together. Nice post.

I think that we should remember that the RX-7 is not the only car with issues, but it is perhaps one of the more "classic" examples. It has done well, but really, it was never an overdog either. But it has had a large following, and the mere odds stacked the deck and it has seen some success. But other cars were classed in such a way as to render it uncompetitive, and then rules changes dealt another death blow. And once one car was classified and was too fast, others were classed to break it's stranglehold. And the RX-7 slipped further and further down the results sheets.

But for every RX-7, there is another car, a BMW 2002, or a Fiero, or something that becomes more and more marginialized with every new addition to the class.

To me, the big picture needs to be kept in view, and from my discussions and from what I read here, it is being done. We have 4 classes, but really the numbers don't distribute evenly. We are wasting space in the lower IT classes.

Solving the problems in ITS (the NEON, et al) excaberates the problems in ITA. The end result looks to be a trickle down strategy, moving the backmarkers down a class and adjusting them accordingly. It could result in a more even distribution of cars, and, as more cars would have a fairer shot at success, more should come out to race.

Utilizing the ability to reclassify and adjust weight at the same time, along with PCAs is a great two prong strategy. And does away with the addition of a new class.

Will it cure all? No. The ITC backmarkers will remain backmarkers in all probibility, and those guys racing unique cars without a lot of numbers will ahave a tough time proving a need to be moved or adjusted. In theory, though, the needs of the many will outweigh the needs of the few, and IT will be a better place.

And to those who say that there are no guarantees, I would submit that that clause doesn't mean that an attempt shouldn't be made to make IT the best it can be.

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

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:


we probably don't have a RX-7 car specific class because I don't think that anyone is confident enough to get a consistant 6 cars (isn't that the requirement?).

Raymond Blethen

PS: I am against the RX-7 cars moving to ITB, they would be to fast legal not to mention many of them that I have seen are a little... ummm fast and I don't think it is all driver. From what people have posted it seems much to easy to cheet and get away with it.

Interesting comments, Raymond.

First, I think we have a pretty good showing of first gens in the NE, some events see more than 6 most are 4 minimum.

Secondly, most "cheats" you refer to in a rotary that are 'easy' require the engine coming apart, and parts being modified. Same as a piston engine. If someone wants to improve their position badly enough, the differences between the two are insignificant relative to the act itself.

Finally, I see most of the races that you see, but I must be missing something....

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> .... not to mention many of them that I have seen (RX-7s) are a little... ummm fast and I don't think it is all driver..... </font>

"Many"? I've thought this over, and I can't agree with you on this. Care to elaborate?

Shoot me a private email to my address below if you don't want to names names in public.

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

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited February 28, 2004).]

[RSTPerformance]

I remember back a few recent years RX-7's were winning ITA in the Northeast. The point is that their are multiple ITA cars that can not even keep up with the RX-7's.

If the RX-7 is moved then I would question how many other ITA cars should/would be moved... will we have any cars left?

The RX-7 is one of the top ITA cars classified. I am not saying it is a top 5 car as their are 3 Integra's and a few CRX's running that will blow its doors off if driven correct but I would still say that out off all ITA cars it is one of the faster cars classified (deffinatly top 1/2).

Andy-

"Come 'on Ray! You race for the fun of it, remember! (I still remember you blasting anyone who complained about the BMW's in ITS...) :0"

It is for the fun of it, but I will address my concerns... changing a car class to make it into a winning car just cause their are a lot of people racing them that "complain" isn't just. I think their needs to be some sort of comon sence when it comes to reclassifying cars and "stirring up the pot"... I am always a voter for the uncommon cars, and I think that their are a lot of cars that should be considered for moving before the RX-7.

Jake-

I havn't seen any cars that are fast because of the car rather than the driver in recent years... I would say that the RX-7's are putting on a good show at present time.

Raymond Blethen

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:

Andy-

It is for the fun of it, but I will address my concerns... changing a car class to make it into a winning car just cause their are a lot of people racing them that "complain" isn't just. I think their needs to be some sort of comon sence when it comes to reclassifying cars and "stirring up the pot"... I am always a voter for the uncommon cars, and I think that their are a lot of cars that should be considered for moving before the RX-7.


Raymond Blethen

Ray,

Big picture buddy, think big picture. The goal isn't to put a car into a class so it can WIN. The goal is to take a car, that is VERY popular, has THE BEST manufacturer support, has a HUGE pocket of built and ready to go examples - and give it a place to be competitive. Competitive is a lot different that 'winning'. Would some win? Yup. Would they dominate? That WOULD NOT BE THE GOAL.

Why would you move an uncommon, underdeveloped and hard to build car? THAT lacks common sense. The ITA RX-7 performance envelope is well documented and would be a much easier car to move ACCURATELY than somethiing that was rare and undeveloped.

AB

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

[cherokee]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Ray,

Big picture buddy, think big picture. The goal isn't to put a car into a class so it can WIN. The goal is to take a car, that is VERY popular, has THE BEST manufacturer support, has a HUGE pocket of built and ready to go examples - and give it a place to be competitive. Competitive is a lot different that 'winning'. Would some win? Yup. Would they dominate? That WOULD NOT BE THE GOAL.

Why would you move an uncommon, underdeveloped and hard to build car? THAT lacks common sense. The ITA RX-7 performance envelope is well documented and would be a much easier car to move ACCURATELY than somethiing that was rare and undeveloped.

AB

And here is the scary part. MY car is not in the same position it was in 5yrs ago so I must have my car moved so I can be on top again....to hell with what is going on in any other class, what it will do to the mix there, all I care about is me, I have a very popular car, huge mfg support take care of me. All we would have to do is change RX-7 to Honda or Spitfire and we could be on the Prod site. And thats what worries me about any of this...I drive a popular car in the class so the class has to be built so that my car can remain at the top.

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

You said it correct, now just say it to yourself... Look at the big picture!!! The RX-7 is a middle of the class car... Moving it and not the other half of the field would not fix anything other than piss off the other half of the field... The entire class structure needs to be re-evaluated, not 1 car, especially not one that still does half way decent. If people such as yourself are looking to better the entire field of IT then you WONT forget about the "little/odd" guys running Capries, Fiaro's, Corvares, MR2's, 914's, RX-3's etc that once dominated the class.

Andy, you seem to be getting very much involved in the SCCA politics and you I think are taking it to another level by actually volunteering... I think that is absolutely wonderful and I am very happy that you are doing such. I am concerned though that you like others are concerned with a majority rather than what is correct... the easy road to being a favorite... I hope I am getting the wrong impression ("The goal is to take a car, that is VERY popular, has THE BEST manufacturer support, has a HUGE pocket of built and ready to go examples - and give it a place to be competitive")

I don't want to make that a personal attack, I just want you to see how some of the really old timers feel. I really do think that most of your ideas are making things better, and I thank you.

Raymond

[Jake]

The truth is that the vast majority of RX7's aren't anywhere near top ITB times. In the NE, most of them run with that pokey ITA MR2 and Prelude. At LRP 1:07-1:08 is typical for the RX7 field. On 13x6 wheels they would probably fit pretty well in ITB. If the PCA initiative allows them to add a couple of pounds to keep the ITB status quo happier - I think that would be even better.

[RSTPerformance]

ok, new view, move the RX-7 but move the rest of the underachievers as well

[apr67]

Many of the other underachivers are so underdeveloped and so rare that moving them presents a danger of creating an overdog.

Has anyone really spent the $30k it would take to make a real MR2 race car?


Just food for thought.