Concerned about IT's Future

[zracre]

The new beetle is classed, doesnt that make the same platform golf with the same engine classed as well?? I have raced all the IT classes at one time or another as well as a race in a SM...the appeal to build a low budget racer is appealing to anyone wanting to get into road racing...I think it would be great for Grassroots Motorsports, or Sportscar Magazine to do an article on building a bare bones safe legal ITC car to boost numbers...I am always toying with ideas for new race cars as donors are cheap and easy to find in south florida.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by zracre@Oct 16 2005, 07:28 PM
The new beetle is classed, doesnt that make the same platform golf with the same engine classed as well??

[snapback]62769[/snapback]

Unfortunately not.

[Catch22]

You don't even have to go "bare bones" to build a cheap ITC car.

You can build a safe front runner easily for less than $10K.

[zracre]

Originally posted by Catch22@Oct 16 2005, 08:06 PM
You don't even have to go "bare bones" to build a cheap ITC car.

You can build a safe front runner easily for less than $10K.

[snapback]62772[/snapback]

I was thinking less than that...obviously start with a Honda Civic std :119: as they are really inexpensive on ebay and relatively easy to find and do a basic build up w/o rebuilding the motor initially...

[Catch22]

Originally posted by zracre@Oct 17 2005, 01:55 AM
I was thinking less than that...obviously start with a Honda Civic std :119: as they are really inexpensive on ebay and relatively easy to find and do a basic build up w/o rebuilding the motor initially...

[snapback]62782[/snapback]

Don't assume that.
I love my car, but I spent a good bit more than I'd planned to make it competitive. The tranny in this thing is just A W F U L. If you want to be competitive, you MUST do a final drive ($900) and LSD ($650 and up) and get as much power as you can out of the motor in order to overcome the horrendous gearing ($$$$$$). A really good suspension (I have custom valved Konis) also helps as it gets you more corner speed.
Basically, its a two speed car. We drive it using nothing but 3rd and 4th gear. Yes, thats a real challenge.

You can go just as fast in a 85 to 87 CRX/Civic for alot less money and effort. If I had to do it all over again thats what I'd build.

Scott, who bit off more than he'd planned to chew when he chose the Standard.

PS - There IS a cheap way to run up front in a Standard. All you have to do is bolt up a stock transmission from a CRX Si. That'll only cost you about $200... If you choose to do things that way (and some people do )

[zooracer]

"One issue is that a VTS sheet needs to be filled out for a new car to be classed - and it's a decent amount of work for potentially no reward as you don't know if anyone will build one."

I said red tape after reading this...

anyhoo, I thinks its obvious that the larger the pool of eligible cars, the better the chances of someone new to SCCA seeing something they want to race. I mean, imagine my surprise when I saw Suzuki Swift GTI's (which are really rare) in the ITB section of the GCR. My dad just happened to have two with blown motors in his backyard. I had autocrossed one several years back, and thougt it would make a fun ITB car.
A lot of young guys getting in this will maybe have a specific car they like, or happen to own, and will want to campaign it. If it isnt classed, or is way outclassed, then they may go to NASA or something.
Classing is really pretty simple I think. And you can always adjust with weight later if need be...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by zooracer@Oct 16 2005, 10:35 PM
"One issue is that a VTS sheet needs to be filled out for a new car to be classed - and it's a decent amount of work for potentially no reward as you don't know if anyone will build one."

I said red tape after reading this...

anyhoo, I thinks its obvious that the larger the pool of eligible cars, the better the chances of someone new to SCCA seeing something they want to race. I mean, imagine my surprise when I saw Suzuki Swift GTI's (which are really rare) in the ITB section of the GCR. My dad just happened to have two with blown motors in his backyard. I had autocrossed one several years back, and thougt it would make a fun ITB car.
A lot of young guys getting in this will maybe have a specific car they like, or happen to own, and will want to campaign it. If it isnt classed, or is way outclassed, then they may go to NASA or something.
Classing is really pretty simple I think. And you can always adjust with weight later if need be...

[snapback]62784[/snapback]

Ahhh. that ASSUME word...

It would be a lot of work for US to do it, PROACTIVELY. Members who are interested in getting a car classed typically are ready to build one and have the info available to complete the forms. We would have to:

Pick the cars
Fill out the forms
Class the cars
Hope for subscription

When a member goes through the process on thier own, it's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

AB

[Geo]

Originally posted by zooracer@Oct 17 2005, 02:35 AM
"One issue is that a VTS sheet needs to be filled out for a new car to be classed - and it's a decent amount of work for potentially no reward as you don't know if anyone will build one."

I said red tape after reading this...

[snapback]62784[/snapback]

That is red tape?

You've got to be kidding.

Do you just expect the ITAC/CRB/BOD to know everything about every car? Some of this information is vital to get a car classed/weighted properly. Not always, but sometimes. The VTS is not terribly complicated and anyone with an FSM should be able to fill one out reasonably quickly.

[JLawton]

I also think it would help if there was an easy transition from T 3/4 to IT. I think you would also see the touring classes get bigger as well. That 10 year limit with nowhere to go after would make me think twice. I don't have the money to buy a brand new car then build it into a touring car. I would consider a 5-8 year old car if I new it would have a home after.

But come up to the Northeast, plenty of IT cars up here!!

[Bill Miller]

I agree with you Jeff, there should almost be a defined IT class, for the new T/SS cars that get classed. While T/SS cars have a maximum ten-year lifespan, you can race some of them in IT, when they are only five years old. I'll have to go back and look at the cars classed in T3, but from what I remember, there were several that were probably outside the performance envelope of ITS. And once SSB/C become T3/4, I'd like to see T5 added. Be a place to race the Scion xA's of the world, not to mention, be a natural feeder for ITB. To me, these are the kinds of things that the SCCA's strategic plan, for Club Racing, should address. BTW, anybody have any idea what the status of the Strategic Plan is? Been over 2 years now, and we haven't really seen much of anything, except the original PowerPoint presentation.

[zooracer]

From everything I've read on here, it is difficult to get a new car classed, or classed competitively, No?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by zooracer@Oct 17 2005, 11:12 AM
From everything I've read on here, it is difficult to get a new car classed, or classed competitively, No?

[snapback]62808[/snapback]

No.

AB

[Knestis]

Having done a classification request in recent memory - two years ago - I can say that the process is OK. I had to get permission from Topeka (J. Thoennes) to leave a bunch of the VTS slots blank, since I didn't have/couldn't find the necessary info (windshield layback angle???) but, not too bad.

Once the forms were in, it got reviewed and approved in a resonable time.

The problem is NOT there, however. It's simply that CURRENT racers are not likely to go to a bunch of trouble to attract more competition against themselves in different (and perhaps newer, higher-tech, more threatening) makes and models. NEW potential racers don't know how to go about it, or even that they are allowed to request new listings.

There are disincentives to growth of the classes here, in terms of getting new cars - and therefore new people? - into the IT classes. In the name of "being reponsive" or being "member driven," a big piece of what should be strategic thinking for the future of the category is neglected.

I know that the ITAC won't know everything about every car but isn't it possible that someone should be looking at the big picture?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 17 2005, 12:28 PM

I know that the ITAC won't know everything about every car but isn't it possible that someone should be looking at the big picture?

K

[snapback]62813[/snapback]

Well, lets talk about this. I think the "Big picture" needs to be agreed upon before we can move forward. I think half the people I talk to want us to do anything we can to keep ITB/ITC alive (from full revamps of weights to allowing lexan winshields and aftermarket parts due to availability) while the other half wants to invoke some sort of age rule killing cars off.

I like the on-the-fence approach. I think we can do our best to class and reclass cars into these classes keeping things SORT of fresh, while creating a class above ITS for the newer stuff. We have a list of cars, have a target performance envelope and are ready to continue moving forward...but we also need to 'fix' what is here first. If that happens, we can move forward with a vision in a proactive manner instead of being reactionary all the time.

AB

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 17 2005, 12:28 PM

There are disincentives to growth of the classes here, in terms of getting new cars - and therefore new people? - into the IT classes. In the name of "being reponsive" or being "member driven," a big piece of what should be strategic thinking for the future of the category is neglected.

I know that the ITAC won't know everything about every car but isn't it possible that someone should be looking at the big picture?

K

[snapback]62813[/snapback]

It's a good point...

I'm not sure the ITAC should be trying to fill the classes, but perhaps some of the obvious choices could be done, but not a whole bunch.

A better idea is to try to open the process up. I think that streamlining the processes could go a long way. Perhaps the web site could have a section dedicated to the wanna be racer where things like the breakdown of classes was explained, and as a sub point, how anyone can request a car be added to the IT ranks.

That is a section the ITAC would be happy to write, I am sure.

[Knestis]

If nothing else, revisit the VTS form. It clearly has more info than is really necessary - that makes it into the ITCS - and may not have all of the info needed by the ITAC to classify under the new system?

K

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 18 2005, 01:18 AM
If nothing else, revisit the VTS form. It clearly has more info than is really necessary - that makes it into the ITCS - and may not have all of the info needed by the ITAC to classify under the new system?

K

[snapback]62860[/snapback]

I am in 100% in agreement.

[Geo]

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 17 2005, 04:28 PM
The problem is NOT there, however. It's simply that CURRENT racers are not likely to go to a bunch of trouble to attract more competition against themselves in different (and perhaps newer, higher-tech, more threatening) makes and models. NEW potential racers don't know how to go about it, or even that they are allowed to request new listings.

[snapback]62813[/snapback]

Hogwash. First of all, we've received requests for classifications from pure newbies and have classified the cars. If we did not have enough info, we've asked for more. If necessary we have pretty much guided folks thorugh the process.

Secondly, are there really that many cars out there that would be a fit for IT that someone might actually build that are not classified? Perhaps they are not classified because nobody wants to build one. I'm sorry Kirk, but this is totally a tempest in a teapot claiming something on a "what if." Doesn't wash.

Originally posted by Knestis@Oct 17 2005, 04:28 PM
There are disincentives to growth of the classes here, in terms of getting new cars - and therefore new people? - into the IT classes. In the name of "being reponsive" or being "member driven," a big piece of what should be strategic thinking for the future of the category is neglected.

I know that the ITAC won't know everything about every car but isn't it possible that someone should be looking at the big picture?

K

[snapback]62813[/snapback]

See above.

If you want to build a unclassified Cyclops Special, send in the request. But until then, don't suggest that we're clueless or that there is some conspiracy to keep out the young hotshoes in their Cyclops Specials.

[Geo]

Originally posted by zooracer@Oct 17 2005, 03:12 PM
From everything I've read on here, it is difficult to get a new car classed, or classed competitively, No?

[snapback]62808[/snapback]

Don't take all the stuff here as gospel. The only requests we have turned down are cars that either slushbox only, AWD, or clearly too powerful for classification (Z32). We have NOT turned down a car that even remotely fits IT.

[zooracer]

well I have read pages and pages of discussion on the difficulty in getting a new car classed competitively. But no need to bring that pile back up...
I think having new cars competing against older cars would be pretty cool. What is the problem with that? Why would anyone want to phase out older cars?
SCCA should class the cars, not wait for some 19 yr old, who doesnt know anything about the club, to request a new car for classification.
Start with the most popular ones out there and make it so.

When looking at the other ITB cars in the GCR it took me about 30 minutes to figure out that the swift would be competitive. This isnt rocket science.
I mean, the SCCA doesnt have to buy and build the car. They just have to write it down in the GCR as eligible in whichever class.