Lay it on the line - Rear Wheel HP - ITS 2nd gen

[ITSRX7]

I am with you in theory Jared! Just QUOTING numbers from BimmerWorld directly.

From the research I have done, the IT rules alow reciprocating piston engines to gain a lot more than the Wankels. Not a complaint, just facts from rules.

AB

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Easy there guys.</font>

No ill will intended. Just jealousies. <grin>

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I disagree about his comparison between the Speed Touring cars and the ITS BMWs....The Touring car record is in the 59 second range when they ran BFG tires.</font>

OK, I'll accept that at face value. I'm quite surprised, but there it is.

However, to the original point of the discussion: the perceived "dominance" of the E36. I didn't get to watch the race, as I finished almost a lap behind you guys <grin>, but as I understand it from my crew and video tapes, I didn't really see where you had much competition except among yourselves...

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I had the pole in the first race with a time of 1:01.3, this would have placed me in seventh place on the Touring car grid.</font>

Are you certain? I recall the grid sheet I saw on Saturday and the pole time for Touring was in the 1:02 range. I do recall several of us making the comparison and being quite impressed.

Besides, we agree it's an apples to oranges comparison, but an enlightening one nonetheless.

I'll renew that now and in the future, to be competitive in ITS will require the E36 BMW. I do wish you the best; I just wish SCCA would not classify my 2-liter four-cylinder FWD car in the same class using "no guarantee of competitiveness" as a blanket excuse.

I tooks my chances that I could get it re-classified, so I'll takes my punishment for having misguided faith in the system...now all I gotta do is figure out how to beat Tom Blaney and his 1:02-and-change ITA Honda CRX!! <grin>

Greg Amy
Milford CT

[Knestis]

SPEED Touring pole was a 1:01.137 and there were 20 cars in the 1:01s. 1:01.3 would indeed have been 7th (in qualifying) but the distinction is evidence only of how close things are on an ST grid.

That is all academic, however, since even if the e36 won every ITS race at every track in the nation, for a whole season, there is NO provision in the rules to allow anything to be done about it. The ITCS is specific that there will be no competition adjustments, other than reclassification - where are they going to put it, in AS? Those of you who are hoping that the RX7s and others will get some kind of relief have ordered a big reality sandwich, with no drink to wash it down.

This is a problem but it won't get addressed - let alone fixed - until there is a fundamental re-assessment of the philosophy and fundamental approach to the IT classes. The crime here is that Greg's car started life as a SS racer and the founding principle of IT was to give retired showroom stockers a place to race.

Having said that, Greg and his Nissan seem to have done a pretty damned good job, considering...

Kirk

[lateapex911]

Hey Greg....

Nice job! I understand you drive the car to the events.....I used to drive my ITA RX-7 to and from the races, loaded to the gills with tools tent and girlfriend...ah...those were the days! I saw your car at the event and I honestly thought that the board had classed you temporarily in ITS to see how it goes....they can't be serious...can they?

yes the BMWs were very quick....on one hand I have to wonder.... they sounded great too....some said too great. On the other hand, if a CRX can go solid 2s, the ITS cars had better go 1s! Too bad you couldn't see the races...it was fun watching those guys go after each other!

[BrianB]

Improved Touring is a popular class,with great potential for growth! Why not make few more classes .Why try and fit existing and future eligible cars into 4 classes? Why create frustration and disparity,when you can have close competition for a wide variety of cars? Why not preserve the competitiveness of cars that members have invested so much into?It can be as simple as adding an S to ITS(ITSS) for the newer more powerful cars, or to ITA(ITAS) for cars like Greg's Nissan.
Having a chance to win is what drives this sport!
BB

[ITSRX7]

I respectfully have to disagree with Kirk here: Are you saying that there is no way that the SCCA can change the minimum weight for E36 ITS BMW's for the 2003 season?

HAS to be. I see in EVERY FASTRACK these requests either referred to their respective advisory committees or rejected without recommendation.

AB

[Jared91]

The weight of the E36 325 was already increased by 100lbs and then this was overturned because it was considered a "Competition adjustment" which is not currently allowed.

The big question is how can we make all cars equally competitive? Look at how much work is required in World Challenge to get the cars "equal". Each car is allowed to make different modifications, and they also make constant adjustments to restrictor size, weight, etc. to make sure one car doesn't have an advantage.

This is probably why SCCA doesn't want to get into competition adjustments. Also, the disparity in driver skill is much greater in club racing than in pro racing. The top 10 drivers in World Challenge would be better matched in driving ability than the top 10 drivers in an ITS race. What I suggest we could do it add rewards weight to cars that finih in the top three. This would have the effect of slowing down good cars as well as good drivers and make it closer racing.

[Greg Amy]

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Hey Greg...Nice job!</font>

Well, thanks for the sentiment, but the congrats truly go to Jason and Kip. They are in the right equipment, prepared well.

Me? I showed up for my first gunfight with a knife...<very big grin>. To be honest, though, I was quite satisfied to do as we did in the first race for the car. I think there may be 2-3 seconds left in that car with some development and tires.

Watch out, Jason, I'm gunnin' for ya!

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> I understand you drive the car to the events....!</font>

I do, but we had the absolute luxury of the use of my brother-in-law's Plymouth Voyager, which doubled as driver evening accomodations...hell, I used to drive my SSA Shelby CSX all across the country with a little trailer in tow with tires and tools; LRP was my first real race since 1992 and I was AMAZED at the truck and trailers within the IT ranks.

I've also taken significant note that the ITCS has removed the statement about the philosophy of the class having to do with street-driven cars...oh, well.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...saw your car at the event and I honestly thought that the board had classed you temporarily in ITS to see how it goes....they can't be serious...can they?</font>

Dead serious. Take a look at the last few Fastrack and you'll see in there the consistent renewal that 'the request to move the NX2000 and Sentra SE-R (as well as other 4-cylinder cars) to ITA have repeatedly been requested rejected due to competition potential.'

I note with glee that I got TROUNCED by Tom's ITA CRX Si. Yeah, I'm gunnin' for you, too, baby!

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">Why not make few more classes. Why try and fit existing and future eligible cars into 4 classes?</font>

Kirk is spearheading a grassroots movement to do just that: to find a place for the cars of my ilk, popular 90's 2-liter FWD coupes and sedans that are 'too fast' for ITA and too slow for ITS, to be placed in their own class, IT2. See details at:

http://www.2litre.itgo.com/

Your support (letters and emails to Important Folks) is much appreciated. It worked for SM and IT7, I'd really like to see these cars placed in their own class.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">I respectfully have to disagree with Kirk here: Are you saying that there is no way that the SCCA can change the minimum weight for E36 ITS BMW's for the 2003 season?</font>

The ITCS and the Comp Board have made it very clear: absolutely no weight adjustments for the purposes of competition potential and the only course of action is reclassification. Since they have repeatedly rejected moving the IT2-class cars to ITA (see repeated rejections of other cars such as the Neon) it leaves an entire class of popular foreign and domestic small sedans and coupes with no competitive place to play.

About those occasional weight adjustments you see? Those are "corrections" due to improper weight info, not competition adjustments.

To learn more, visit Kirk's site above, and peruse other letters that I have sent to that effect to SCCA:

http://www.gatm.com/cars/nx2000/scca.pdf

And their responses:

http://www.scca.org/news/fastrack/02-02.pdf
"Reclassify Chrysler Neon from ITS to ITA. (Brown) This issue has been revisited numerous times and the decision is still to leave the car as an ITS."

http://www.scca.org/news/fastrack/02-03.pdf
"Reclassify 4 cylinder cars from ITS to ITA (Amy) There are too many exceptions to the proposed rule from a performance standpoint."

http://www.scca.org/news/fastrack/02-05.pdf
"Reclassify NX2000 to ITA (Amy) This has been reviewed previously and it has been determined that the car would be too fast for ITA."

http://www.scca.org/news/fastrack/02-07.pdf
"Reclassify all 4-cylinder cars from ITS to ITA (Gauldfelt) Reclassification of cars is done on a car-by-car evaluation"

Sorry for hijacking the topic, but you can tell it's a subject important to me. On topic: I estimate my NX2000 gets about 155-160 crank horsepower. I'll post dyno numbers when I get them (ain't planning on seeing 225 fwhp!!!)

Encourage competition: Long Live IT2!

Greg Amy
Milford CT


[This message has been edited by grega (edited June 04, 2002).]

[ITSRX7]

First off: Great thread.

I am really dissappointed that there can be nothing done. It just doesn't allow for 'mistakes' to be made. These kind of mistakes happen in all forms of racing.

I do love the additional weight ala Touring. Makes for really fair racing - and everyones investment is protected!

AB

[lateapex911]

Ah ......the dreaded "competition adjustment" phrase has been brought up....sooooo let's discuss the sitation in IT due to the recent rules change allowing electronic modifications.

Back in the stone age, IT was a great place to play...cheap (we DROVE our cars to and from (sometimes!) the track), competitive...any number of cars had a legit shot at the front...and it was FUN. Well, now it's not expensive (relatively!), but it's not dirt cheap either. That's just the nature of the deal though...and I think it's still fun.

But I take issue with the board relaxing a rule that affects cars already classified!!!!
THAT is a competition adjustment and absolutely has had an affect on parity. If the board wants to have no adjustments, fine.... but it shouldn't then change a rule that makes it possible for a certain number of cars to benefit at the expense of the rest of the class. I certainly understand the boards position....they couldn't effectively police the electronics of fuel injected cars.....fine, but just throwing in the towel effectively threw the affected cars a huge bone! And instantly made scores of other, popular cars uncompetitive.

The pandoras box has been opened and the board needs to repair the damage and restore the order. Solutions? Well I'm sure this would be hottly debated but something is better than nothing.....either give the rest of the cars that don't benefit from the rules change a weight break, or add weight to the affected cars.

Other options would include reclassification, or a restucturing of the classes (Popular in Solo, but they have to deal with STOCK cars, and the board has more options open to it when they classiy a car for roadracing) or more classes, but that gets crazy...where do you draw the line?

Also, I appreciate the earlier comments about how difficult it is in the Pro ranks to create parity, but keep in mind that they are dealing with much greater diversity...think about it...a Corvette and an Audi A4 in the same class??? Geeeez!

I agree that comp. adjustments would be a lot of work, but I think the time has come for them on a limited basis. IT is one of the most popular classes in the club and the board needs to spend a little more time with it.

Reactions?


------------------
Jake Gulick
ITA 57 RX-7

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 04, 2002).]

[This message has been edited by lateapex911 (edited June 04, 2002).]

[Allen Brown]

It looks like we have moved off thread a bit, but I'mm going to follow suit.

I'm on the rules committee for WCMA (Western Canada Motorsports Association). This past winter we have adopted the SCCA IT rules almost in it's entirety.

However, our car counts are quite a bit lower that that I here attending most events in the US. We have made some deviations for SCCA's rules....

No. 1, The rules can be changed if there is a need for it. Our organization is a lot smaller, which gives us the luxury of changing items (fine tuning) as required.

No. 2, because of low car counts, we are trying to use WEIGHT (add or subtract) as a means of evening out the field. You'll never have a perfect solution for everyone, but we hope to have a place where everyone can race, and if the car is prepped to the max of the rules. The rest is up to the driver...as it should be IMO.

But from what I can see, the SCCA IT rules are a great starting point...IMO, they just need tweeking in a few small areas.