October fastrack is out

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by ShelbyRacer@Aug 30 2005, 10:52 PM
OK, so I have a question (go figure).

Were ANY of the current ITAC members on board when the Neon was classified in ITS? If so, WTF was everyone smoking?

Not sure of the exact ITAC configuration, but it safe to say that there have been some changes. Keep in ming though, that the old method, often put a car in S then moved it to it's proper class. THe 1st gen RX-7 was such a car.

I will admit, when I first saw the proposed Miata classification, I about flipped, but I'm starting to understand some of the reasoning (though I may not agree with all of it).

I'd like to respond, but sadly I don't know WHY you flipped. Too light? Too heavy? What?

Unfortunately, this just adds to the questions I've always had about the ITS Neon fiasco. I'm sure this has been beaten to death, so this really is more of a rhetorical question, but one has to wonder...

Ummm so...what IS the question, rhetorical or otherwise?

So, a comment on the roll cage vs. weight issue. I understand the reasoning of allowing the move and making an easy transition, but why would ultimate safety take a back seat to convenience?

Ok, now that you put it that way, what DO you mean, LOL!?
How has safety taken a back seat??? The ITAC didn't decree that the car has a min weight of 2450 but runs a cage for a car that weighs 2200. It weighs the proper amount for the cage that is installed in many current SM cars. The issue is whether, at the speced weight of 2380, the car will fit the class..not too fast, not to slow. The ITAC thinks it will.

Here are a couple truths...the ITAC discussed these items, among others.
1- Race cars either get wrecked, parked, sold or built into another racing class's rules when an owner gets tired of them.
2- Spec Miata will get very serious, and we'll likely see fallout.
3- Some guys have tried SM and found it lacking.

Which means there could be 1.8 Spec Miatas looking for a different home.

So, why not give SM cars an option to race in IT when their owner tires of SM, or decides the class is too serious? It adds a viable bit of value to a car when selling that it be a future candidate for another class as well.

The 1.8 Miate could be a great ITA car...why not give it a place to race?


So, we proposed it be classed in A, where it fits the current process. Remember, any process that makes ANY kind of assumption will have a degree of granularity in it's output. Obviously, the ITAC doesn't have reams of dyno sheets and empirical data on the car, but the ITAC DOES have a lot of information at it's fingertips from the SMAC, which helps reduce the granularity, as well as real world data on 1.6 Miatas in IT trim. In the end, the math was very close, and the final weight was well within the granularity of the process.

Remember.....IF the math used proves to be wrong, the ITAC has options...and frankly, the future holds viable options other than weight. With no safety compromises.

I guess I'm the only one who suddenly sees some guy bringing a Miata and running ITA in one group, SSM in another, and SM in a third, just by unbolting a few things... Then again, I'm not sure if that a horrible thing or not... Maybe it's just sour grapes since I don't own one or have one to sell... :P

[snapback]59356[/snapback]

That wasn't the major goal, and not many will actually do that, as the car won't be competitive in it's SM trim in a good ITA class, but why not let them try!?!

I think the move is a win win, so I am not sure I see the issues.

[zracre]

I was refering to the ITS BMW 325is when I said adjustments. I dont see why they cant grandfather cars in with 1.5X.095 tubing (dated logbook) or just require additional bars for those cars. Race cars get old and become less competitive sometimes. For example, as the ITB Rabbits became less competitive, they did not need to get moved...they can stay in ITB until maybe later down the road if there are enough people want to race them, they are not too far off now and they could get an adjustment, class change or their own class...I dont expect any car I build to be competitive forever...that is just rediculous considering the new technology coming into IT. Just look at Production...not too long ago they started letting "tin tops" and newer cars there and they had a small surge in numbers. Otherwise just look at the field numbers at your next regional.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Jake@Aug 30 2005, 02:30 PM
The ITB weight chosen should make it more compatiable in ITB than it currently is in ITA. I think you'll find that at "well over" 2600lbs it is ouside current ITB classing parameters.

[snapback]59329[/snapback]

Ahhhh...you have hit on the hitch. If you think 2600-2625 is outside the 'classing parameters' (of which there really are none), then you have hit on a tweener.

Top prep RX-7's make 130whp. The RX-7 would have to weigh in excess of 2600 to fit amongst the other cars currently classified.

In ITA, it may not be able to get down to the weight it would need to get to in order to hit the bullseye of the...so you have a car that is too heavy for a slower class and can't be made light enough for a faster class...

TWEENER.

As far as the Neon, SE-R, (insert your 140hp DOHC car in ITS here) in ITS...no idea how they got there. Makes no sense to me. Can't speak about history like that. Hopefully most think we are on the right track.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

I'm confused. How would a car be 'too heavy' for the lower class? Would it be because you'd have to change the cage? If that's the case, and that's what you would want to avoid (which I think is a good thing), there are other ways around it. If you can't add any more lead, reduce the horsepower. If a current ITA-prep 12A makes ~130 whp, and you'd have to throw too much lead at it to make it fit the ITB performance parameters, figure out what size restrictor you would need to reduce the whp to ~100 (or whatever it needed to be) to fit into ITB and not be so heavy as to require a new cage. IMHO, this is how 'tweeners' should be dealt with.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Aug 31 2005, 02:41 AM
So, why not give SM cars an option to race in IT when their owner tires of SM, or decides the class is too serious? It adds a viable bit of value to a car when selling that it be a future candidate for another class as well.

Emphasis added - is that one of the criteria for decisions now adding value to the cars? If so how do I sign up my car for that program?

The 1.8 Miate could be a great ITA car...why not give it a place to race?

Why not give a lot of cars that could be great IT cars a place to race? For example the 1998 & 1999 Subaru Impreza RS?

It would seem that Miatas are being given a lot that everyone has been told not to expect by the SCCA.

- There is no guarantee your car will have a place to race, except for Miatas which will be assured 4 classes.

- There is no guarantee your car will be competitive, except for Miatas whose owners can't hang in SM will do just fine at the front of ITA.

- Added Miata bonus SCCA will make sure that the prepared car is treated so as to add a viable bit of value to the car.

But the Neon goes to ITS....

There are some things that at some times give a lot of ammunition to people that think there are cars with favored status in the SCCA.

[Bill Miller]

Ed,

You're only now comming to this realization????

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Aug 31 2005, 09:13 AM
Ed,

You're only now comming to this realization????

[snapback]59375[/snapback]

Always suspected but recently confirmed and an opportune time to vocalize it. The slowness comes from the universal internet forum IQ relationship. A forum poster's relative IQ level is generally inversely related to their relative membership number level...

[Knestis]

Did I miss a memo? Isn't the Neon in A now?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

Didn't explain it well I guess. Too heavy for a class would mean it wasn't able to actually get to a weight it would be competitive at. So:

The VW XXX would need to weigh 2000 to be in the mix in ITB but it can only get to 2200 at best. At the same time, the XXX would need to weigh 2500 in ITC to be competitive by not rock the class...

So a 'tweener' as I define it is something like that, too heavy to get to target weight in a higher class and maybe too much weight for the chassis to carry to be at the target weight for the lower class.

Current tweeners IMHO - the 12A RX-7 and the MR2 in ITA and the 944 in ITS. YMMV.

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let's ease up on the favoritism thing. The Miata is a great car and it works well everywhere. Is that a classing issue? No. It's a design issue. How many Honda's are classed? How many BMW's? These cars work well and people build them.

A Subaru Impreza???? I have never seen a request to class one since I have been on the ITAC...you know why? Because there is no interest. If there was, people would be asking. If you want it classed, do it! It's gonna be ITS.

164 hp right?

2600lbs sound fair? Send in your VTS sheets.

Let's also get off the Neon thing. We have NO idea how it got classed like that. Since the newer guys started, we have put into place an infrastructure that can correct issues like this - and HAVE. If you have issues with ANY car and it's clasification, write in and get it on an agenda.

AB

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Aug 31 2005, 01:55 PM
Bill,

Didn't explain it well I guess. Too heavy for a class would mean it wasn't able to actually get to a weight it would be competitive at. So:

The VW XXX would need to weigh 2000 to be in the mix in ITB but it can only get to 2200 at best. At the same time, the XXX would need to weigh 2500 in ITC to be competitive by not rock the class...

So a 'tweener' as I define it is something like that, too heavy to get to target weight in a higher class and maybe too much weight for the chassis to carry to be at the target weight for the lower class.

Current tweeners IMHO - the 12A RX-7 and the MR2 in ITA and the 944 in ITS. YMMV.

AB

[snapback]59382[/snapback]

Andy,

Thanks for the explanation. And maybe I didn't do the best job explaining my position. To use your example, if the XXX needed to weigh 2500# to 'move down' a class, to get it w/in the performance parameters of the new class, but that's either more weight than the chassis can carry, OR, it would require the current cage (assuming that people build them to the min. specs) would have to be ripped out and replaced, I would suggest that the hp be throttled back, via a restrictor, so that you wouldn't have to saddle the car w/ a boat-load of lead to move it down. That's the beauty of using a pwr/wt ratio as your starting point. You can adjust the number by changing either one (or both) of the component values.

For example, if the desired wt/pwr ratio for XXX's new class is 20.0, and XXX is currently at 17.5 (2200#/125hp), and you can't add any more weight to XXX, why not restrict it down to 110hp (2200#/110hp = 20.0)?? GT should have hp reduction data for the new SIR rule, would be a good place to start.

Please don't take this the wrong way, but the tools to address the 'tweeners' are already there.

[turboICE]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Aug 31 2005, 10:00 AM
A Subaru Impreza???? I have never seen a request to class one since I have been on the ITAC...you know why? Because there is no interest. If there was, people would be asking. If you want it classed, do it! It's gonna be ITS.

164 hp right?

2600lbs sound fair? Send in your VTS sheets.

[snapback]59384[/snapback]

Part of that is because we have been told time and again that AWD will not be permitted in IT or it will be given a weight penalty of overreacting proportions.

In general AWD classing tends to focus on the distribution of grip but then completely denies the parasitic drag that reduces total torque application to the ground (i.e. they get weight/brake power ratios as if they were 2wd drive train loss rather than AWD loss)

However, ITS at 2600# would be a fair starting point relative to other weights that have been suggested when the topic has come up.

VTS will be filed.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by turboICE@Aug 31 2005, 10:22 AM
Part of that is because we have been told time and again that AWD will not be permitted in IT or it will be given a weight penalty of overreacting proportions.

In general AWD classing tends to focus on the distribution of grip but then completely denies the parasitic drag that reduces total torque application to the ground (i.e. they get weight/brake power ratios as if they were 2wd drive train loss rather than AWD loss)

However, ITS at 2600# would be a fair starting point relative to other weights that have been suggested when the topic has come up.

VTS will be filed.

[snapback]59395[/snapback]

Ahhh, the 2.5 RS. Now I understand...you weren't specific as to the model Imprezza you were talking about. AWD is currently not allowed in IT. Instead of filing the VTS sheets, I would write a letter asking for the allowance of AWD.

I am personally against it...it creates crazy weather dependant overdogs - and the HUGE money guys end up bringing two cars to the track.

Oh ya...if Mazda comes out with an AWD Miata, I won't vote for THAT to get classed either... :mellow:

AB

[madrabbit15]

As far as SM goes I have to agree with Kirk on this one and then some.........


The majority of SM racers have come at the expense of other classes. As spec miata numbers have gone up all and I mean ALL other IT class entries have gone down. Maybe not in one region or a specific race weekend, but as a whole. I know several races who went from ITS to SM. Spec miata's claim is that it was suppose to be a affortable competitve class anyone could jump into. That was only true the first year. Ever since then a competitive SM costs way more than competitive IT anything. All SM is a SS miata for the most part. Everyone knew way before the into of SM how much a competitive SS car cost. SM may be affortable to run at the back.

I suspect it all had to do with who was willing to spend the money, just like the pending spec miata tire deal.

I do not see anything wrong with the current IT classes, there have always be competitve cars an uncompetitive cars. I think greater car needs to be done in research and where cars are placed. You cant put an exact formula on how cars are classes, there are too many attributes for every car for that to work. It is a work in progress and no matter how they do it, there will always be growing pains.

Like other posts have mentioned if you go making new classes you just create smaller fields in each class. (Yeah, I cant wait to win a championship when I only raced against 3 cars all year!) Look at NASA, they have a class to make just about anyone happy, and from what I have seen their numbers in each class are not all that great. I really cant wait until SM go to nationals, its probably where they belonged all along.

One additional note, rx7s should never be put in ITB, here is the SE they are atleast 2-3 seconds a lap faster than eveyones favorite red volvo. That alone makes that a mute point.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Aug 31 2005, 03:36 PM
Ahhh, the 2.5 RS. Now I understand...you weren't specific as to the model Imprezza you were talking about. AWD is currently not allowed in IT. Instead of filing the VTS sheets, I would write a letter asking for the allowance of AWD.

I am personally against it...it creates crazy weather dependant overdogs - and the HUGE money guys end up bringing two cars to the track.

Oh ya...if Mazda comes out with an AWD Miata, I won't vote for THAT to get classed either... :mellow:

AB

[snapback]59398[/snapback]

I know others have previously voiced this as a concern, but what is the real probability of this happening? Are the people w/ these kinds of budgets really going to do this to win an IT race? Yeah, I guess some might, but you can probably count them on one hand. As has been pointed out, you can't control how much money people will spend. This needs a pretty simple risk/reward analysis done. If the most significant risk is that someone will build a 'wet' car, then, IMO, that's not much of a risk. If the cars prove to be dominant in the dry, adjust them. Class the cars!

[turboICE]

Impreza RS only came in 2.5 and am pretty sure all Subaru were AWD in 1998-99

There are a lot of comments everyone makes on weather competitiveness - but I have yet to see anyone be able to provide an example of it occurring in competition in statistically meaningful measures. At this point absent competition results that show consistent disparities that are weather related that are greater than the disparities that already exist between models in differing weather, track, time of day differences - I think it is all conjecture.

[Bill Miller]

Don't WC and GAC allow AWD cars? Heck, they're in T2 and T3 in Club Racing. Where's the data that support these killer 'wet' cars?

[turboICE]

WRX and STi are listed in WC but only the WRX has a sheet.

WRX has run in USTCC - it ran well in all conditions but largly because of the driver.

In both those situations there is REWARDS weighting though - so would be hard to say how they would play out in club racing.

The 04-05 Impreza is also classed in SSB. In 3 years can I go to the ITAC and say "Why not give that car someplace to race?" It is a mere matter of time before in consistent fairness equitable to all club members that IT accept AWD unless they are going to tell selected SSB cars to find some other organization to run with while making sure the Miata MX-5 has 8 club classes it could fit into in 6 years.

So again I ask why can't the same approach be taken with all cars "why not give it a place to race?"

And yes internally inconsistent policies, rules and conclusions will always bring cries of favoritism.

[Andy Bettencourt]

What is inconsitant about not allowing ANY AWD cars in?

Where is the data to support AWD will dominate in the rain? Are you kidding me? This weekend in NER, ITS had a rain race. The usual top BMW's and RX-7's were WALKED on by a (soon to be ITA) VW Golf 2.0 16V. That same sort of delta could EASILY be expected between FWD and AWD...and then you have a CRAZY difference between RWD and AWD.

You have to draw th eline somewhere. "Class my 2001 ZO6 in IT" Do we have to give that guy a place to race? No - it doesn't fit. Neither does AWD IMHO. I creates weather -dependedant deltas that can't be classed around.

Here is a real suggestion. Get some guys together, build the cars and run a local class called IT-AWD. Petition the ITAC to help you set weights for the cars in your series and then gather some data and have fun. If people like it, it will flourish.

As far as SM is concerned, take a poll amongst SM drivers...I am willing to bet the farm that there are MANY more drivers from outside of IT (and Club Racing for that matter) than you think. The class has EXPLODED - WITHOUT hurting ANY other classes. IT and SM are at record highs in the Northeast. Over 100 cars for just those 5 classes at each Regional.

Probability of 2 car racers? Small I would say...but what fun is it if you come to the track and know you have no chance of winning because of a vastly different and superior driveline layout simply due to weather...

AB

[dickita15]

ed
dude you need to relax a little, either that or you need a little longer historical view. a lot of cars got stuck in the bottom of ITS a few years ago. no on the ITAC was there then. As a matter of fact I am not sure the ITAC existed then.
the ITAC has been addressing this problem hence the nean, ser, nx2000 ect coming down to ITA. the 1.8 miata is exactly the same. the 1.6 is not on the level of the top three cars in A. good call.

it is ironic that you sugest that the neon got screwed because of favortism. with the long historical view the neon was scca was accused of catering to the neon in SS and solo.

as to awd in IT, it may come but it will be slow. as they say you can not put the genie back. when it happens it will happen cautiously. in the mean time I think the ITAC's time is better spent on other more pressing issues.

Bill
I think the IT community expects more stable rules that the Touring and SS community. they are used to the car of the year thing