"...and this just in" Honda Accord

[Bill Miller]

Mark C.,

The only 'formula' used in IT is the one that they use to set the spec weight (sometimes). It is:

(curb weight x .98) + 180# (driver) - 180# (allowed removals) + 115# (rollcage), rounded down to the nearest 5#. What this all says, is that for cars ranging from 2000# - 3000# (which fits a large number of the IT cars), the cars spec weights, w/ driver should be 40# - 70# over their curb weights.

The problem is, this formula is considered a 'rule of thumb' by the CB and the ITAC, and is not applied to all cars. In addition, there are other 'rules of thumb' that may or may not be applied to certain cars.

The real problem is that it is all done w/ a "Star Chamber" methodology in some 'back room'. I have no idea why this is such a secretive process. However, I do know that one of the best ways to keep people from asking questions is to limit the amount of solid information that they have to work from.

As far as what determines if it's an ITA, B, C, or S car, I have no idea. I thought that a long time ago there were some loose guidelines that went something like this:

ITC: 8v 4cyl <= 1.6 liter
ITB: 8v 4cyl <= 2.0 liter
ITA: 8v 4cyl >= 2.0 liter, <= 2.5 liter, 16v 4cyl >= 1.6 liter, <= 2.0 liter
ITS 8v 4cyl > 2.5 liter, 16v > 2.0 liter, V6 <= 3.0 liter.

I don't remember where I heard this, but it was several years ago, and was only supposed to be a very loose guideline. A quick look at any of the IT classes will show several exceptions to this.

As Tony said, check out the "Competition Adjustments in IT" thread in the general forum for more discussion on this topic.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI

[p.keane]

I do not know if you guys have seen the 2001 ARRC results, but once again the killer ITB Accord did not win. In fact it was completely covered by the red Volvo and Mike Flynn's Audi. I would also like to state that when I origanally had the Accord classified in ITB, I spent four month sending Accord data to the comp board so they could make sure the car was correctly classified. I do not know if there was any formula, but they sure wanted evey detail of the car. From the comp board review the '86 to '88 was classified, but the 89 was not (disc rear brakes). At that time, the general opinion with everyone I talked to (Honda tuners)was that the car was to heavy and would never be competitive in ITB.

[bill f]

Bill Miller. From the text of your post, can one infer that the formulae is currently being applied, but was not used in the past? Also, it would seem that only WEIGHT is the consideration, and not the weight per horsepower? Is horsepower, or was horsepower ever a consideration for inclusion into IT classes?

Was this formulae that you present fact, or rumor...how factual can we expect the information to be?

This is not ment to be a challenge, just trying to get a handle on the workings of the Great Body of Working Minds in Topeka (?). Sorry if it sounds like one.

Good racing. Bill

[Knestis]

I won't pretend to answer for Bill M. but, having been around in the very early days of IT (before it was a "national" regional class), I might have an interpretation - if not THE answer.

Originally, the category was intended to literally be a "put safety equipment, shocks, bars and a seat in it and go racing" kind of thing. The "no automatics, no wagons" rule was included as a gesture to the notion that the SCCA was about real racing cars!

The "purpose", if there was one at that time, was to introduce people to racing, get them licensed and out onto the track. Since so little could be done to the cars, there was no provision for any "competition adjustment" (the source of that current problem, I think). This wasn't a problem however, since (and this is going to sound odd) there was dominant paradigm in place that said that these were NOT real racing cars. We live with the vestiges of this in the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause.

As much as I think things are dorked up, I think that there is a chance that quibbling over individual makes/models/weights/classes is going to be counter-productive unless a couple of fundamental issues are clarified, specifically:

1. What is the "purpose" of IT? If the CB is applying a "misson statement" that differs from the folks running the cars, there will never be any accord (hah, get it?).

2. How, in a general sense, are cars classified and are specs set, and is the process aligned with the "purpose" or philosophy of the class?

I have made enough noise about the power/weight ratio games that I have been playing so will not bore anyone with that stuff again but, whatever system gets applied, it needs to be clear enough that you can figure out for yourself - in advance of submitting the request to the CB - where a new car will be classified and how much it will need to weigh.

Sorry - short answer to the actual question? I would be stunned if anything was ever put in writing, formula-wise.

Kirk

[apr67]

First let me say that my opinion is biased. I've raced and crewed for ITB VW's for quite some time.

Second, I have not sent a letter to the Comp board or BOD since I suggested weighing with driver (the 180lbs was my idea, hate me or not).

But part of what shocked me with the honda was seeing the lap times they turned last year, in their first year of compeition, with very little development. To me, the accord seemed to be the demise of the class. Much like the CRX did to the RX's in A, the accord had to possiblity of turning every competitive car into an 'also ran' overnight.

To me, its one thing to see a car that has been classed for a while (a few years) start kicking butt. It takes time to fully develop a car, the much hated volvo's have been raced since 1972.. And they still get a little faster every year. The accords were as fast or faster than the Volvo's on the first year.

That said, I think the Accord drivers got a bum rap. The SCCA had in the past gone out of its way to classify new cars into a class higher than they thought they would run. Then a few years latter when a fully developed car was considered to be moved down, it was easy to justify. It happened with the ITB Rabbit (yes they ran in ITA), and it happened with the 8v 1.8 Golf (they also ran in ITA).

In time, the volvo's will take care of themselfs. I've heard that they have a shortage of pushrods and were petitioning for an aftermarket piece. Given a few more years they just may end up moving out of IT due to lack of spares. The Audi is another problem.. Just remember, no Audi has ever survived a tear down at the ARRC (nor honda for that matteR). I don't prusume that anyone in particular is cheating, but it happens often enough that I just don't feel confidant until I've seen the tech crew measure the piss out of it.

In the end we have to petition the board to allow comp adjustments in IT. Charlie Clark, the new member from the MidWest is said to be in favor of it, so I suggest you keep those cards and letters comming.

--Alan

BTW, anybody for classing the ITB Rabbit into ITC?

[p.keane]

APR67, I would like to resond to your last post. First of all I was developing my Accord in 1998, but my Golf GTI was better. So I took the Golf to then 1998 ARRC and finished 5th. Second, I ran my Accord in 1999 and finished 5th in touch with the lead pack and then had my decent run in 2000 ARRC, but failed to finish. My Accord has gone through four years of developement and more thousands of dollars than you need to know about. The shock package was sent back to Carrera four times and when that was not right, I bought Koni's. The Accord is being moved because I did not run an add in Sportscar and let all of the people at the top of ITB that I was working on the development of my car. Last, My Accord has been in the tech shed every year I have run at the ARRC and it has always pasted their scrutiny, including this year. The sad part about the Accord is that I have not been able to win a race in the Northeast. There are (2) Volvos, an Ople and (2) Winston cup Rabbit GTI that are better, But only Eric Currans Volvo has been to the ARRC. Thank you for letting me rant.

[Bill Miller]

Bill f,

I was given that 'formula' by a couple of CB members. I was also told that it was not being used when the Rabbit GTI was originally classified in IT. I was also told that it was only a 'rule of thumb', and not necessarily applied to all cars (as well as their being other 'rules of thumb', but I've already brought that up).

apr67,

I know both A1 and A2 GTI's ran in ITA at one point in time. However, many of the cars currently running today were running in higher classes back then (late 80's - early 90's). The current ITC VW Rabbit 1600 was an ITB car back then. And the 1st gen. ITA RX7 was in ITS.

Again, I think Kirk's right on point w/ his idea that we need to get the CB to take the lead from the drivers as to what the purpose and the intent of IT should be. While I wasn't involved in IT 'back in the day', I have spoken w/ several people who were. And I've heard various versions of the 'let them put the safety equipment and shocks in their street cars, let them drive them to the track and "race" them (even though they're not real race cars), and we'll get them hooked on Club Racing and they'll eventually move into a "real" race car (Prod, GT, formula, Sports)'. IT was a marketing tactic that was intended to be an entry point, not a final goal. It was supposed to support the long-term, strategic goal of boosting membership and participation in the SCCA.

I imagine that the people who originally developed the IT concept never imagined that the cars would be where they are today. After all, they're daily drivers and grocery getters, people won't 'develop' them. They didn't need to worry about things like data-based classification guidelines and competition adjustments because, after all, they weren't real race cars. Nobody would think of them as such, and the people who were driving them would move to "real" race cars if they wanted to really compete w/ other drivers.

So, since the purpose of IT racing has certainly changed, and the CB has acknowledged that change, it's time to complete the transformation and bring the rules in line w/ where IT racing is today. I don't want to try and make a 'Regional Production' class out of IT, but I do think some clearly stated guidelines on how cars are classified, an attempt to normalize the cars in a given class through a weight specification formula that takes into account more than just the stock curb weight of the car, and an ability to adjust spec weights based on emperical performance data (in addition to reclassification) are things that fit with where IT racing is today and is going in the future. I see the creation of the IT7 class (and resultant popularity) in various regions around the country as strong supporting evidence for this position.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI

[bill f]

Thanks for the reply. For the record, I totally agree with you on this point.

On a different note, I am also studying the advisability of changing over to EP (car in not classified at this time), and wonder what moved you to that direction? I realize the frustrations of IT, but is there more than that?

Thanks again. Bill

[Bill Miller]

Bill f,

There are a couple of things that have me inerested in Prod racing. First, all of the guys I paddock w/ at the MARRS races run Prod cars, and I want to be able to race w/ them as well as paddock w/ them, they're a great bunch! Second, it would be nice to be able to run Nationals and maybe one day go to the Runoffs. Third, it seems that I can probably do this for maybe a 20% upcharge over the cost of running an IT car. Fourth, w/ the restrictions on engines, they should live for quite a while (at least as long as a well-built IT motor). Fifth, there's actually some room to do some development on the car.

HTH

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI

[apr67]

I sure did not mean to infer that your car wasn't well prep'ed. I can see quite easily (on a stopwatch) that they car is very well developed at this point.

Furthermore, I will not get into comments of which specific car is legal not legal. I can only comment on cars that I have driven and worked on. Anyone who belives someone is bending the rules should either put the money up, or hush up (IMHO).

In the end, no matter what decision was made, someone was going to feel like they got screwed. Until the stakeholders in the class activly revolt and get the SCCA to deal with the performance differences of new cars, this problem will continue to be around in one form or another.

Anyway, this is my last post on the topic, I'll go back to lurking. Sometimes (as you well know) a significant life altering event changes the importance of things in your life. Bitching about the SCCA's treatment of IT is much lower on my list than it used to be.

Congrats to you and your crew for a job well done.

Alan Russell

[p.keane]

Thanks Allen, I agree that there are a lot more important things to worry about than the SCCA. I just think there is a major force out there not to change ITB: move the Accord to "A", not allow the 2 liter/ 8 valve golf (at 2500 pounds) and not allow the HT motor in the sciracco. I do not know the documentation of the HT, but all of these move would allow for newer cars to be competitive in ITB and not have people search the globe for 30 year old vehicles.

[Bill Miller]

Peter,

I don't have the total story on the HT motor in the Scirocco, but from what I understand, it was only available in some of the very last of the '88 Scirocco 8v's that were built before the Scirocco model was discontinued and replaced by the G60 Corrado.

What I'm not sure of, is what the CR of the HT motor was, as delivered. I've heard that it was 10:1 and that it was 8.5:1. The only thing I'm sure of is that it was a hydraulic lifter motor w/ the 40mm/33mm valves.

For some reason, Denver can't seem to get its act together w/ the VW's in IT. The list the '85-'89 Golf 8v as a 10:1 CR, for all models (GL/GT/GTI) and let them run 13" or 14" wheels, yet they list the Jettas from the same period (all models, GL/GLI) as an 8.5:1 CR, and list only 14" wheels. The GLI was the only one that came w/ the 14" wheels, and it was a 10:1 CR motor (same as the Golf GTI 8v).

They also list Scirocco II ('81-'84) w/ a 1.7 liter motor at 2110# (same as the Scirocco I w/ the 1.7), yet the list the Scirocco 8v ('83-'88) w/ the 1.8 liter motor at 2270#. Point is, there were no '84 Scirocco w/ the 1.7 motor, and how did the car gain 160# just from a 100cc displacement increase? They did the same thing for the Rabbits w/ the 1.7 in ITB ('81-'84) at 2050# yet make the '83-'84 Rabbit GTI w/ the 1.8 weigh 2180#. And the '84 VW sales brochure for the Rabbits shows a range of ~50# (not including the Cabriolet), w/ the GTI being in the middle.

This is why there needs to be a well-defined, evenly-applied process for classing and spec'ing IT cars.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI