Tweeners - Multiple Class Listings

[Andy Bettencourt]

To build on Greg's suggestion, let's list the cars we think are 'tweeners'. My definition is simple, cars that:

- Not currently competitive in it's current class
- Can't get light enough to be competitive in its current class
- Would be an interesting option in the class 'lower' at a higher weight

Some suggestions:

ITA RX-7 to ITB at 2650?
ITA MR2 MK1 to ITB at 2500?

Let's hear from guys with experience with each car...can it be made lighter? Can it compete? Why?

This is for cars that seem to be caught between two classes...

AB

[Bill Miller]

I like the idea Andy. See my comments in another thread, about cars being classified in more than one IT class. I say, if those are what the process numbers predict, go with it. I'm not sure how to address the cage issue. I see three options:

1) the cars will need a cage that conforms to the specs for the weight of the car

2) the cages get grand-fathered in (I don't really support this option, and think it becomes a liability issue)

3) require some as-yet-to-be-determined modifications to the existing cage, that would be determined to be compliant w/ the rules. This would be only for currently log-booked cars that were moving. Any new car would have to be built to the specs for that weight.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 04:01 PM
To build on Greg's suggestion, let's list the cars we think are 'tweeners'. My definition is simple, cars that:

- Not currently competitive in it's current class
- Can't get light enough to be competitive in its current class
- Would be an interesting option in the class 'lower' at a higher weight

Some suggestions:

ITA RX-7 to ITB at 2650?
ITA MR2 MK1 to ITB at 2500?

[snapback]64485[/snapback]

First, I'd like to suggest that we understand that this would be something to work on for NEXT season... this isn't something that could possibly happen by 2006... I've already presented the 2006 Plan to the CRB, and that's about all that we could hope to get pushed through...

Also, I'd like to qualify the definition above to say that BY THE PROCESS, their CLASSIFICATION SPECIFICATIONs show that they are "not competitive in it's current class"... On track performance can support this, but in the end, it's the specs that really tell the story... at least the part of it we have any kind of control over. For example... Some would say that the Capri in ITA can't be competitive, but if you look at it through the process and compare it's specifications and potential to the "target" for ITA, it's classified fairly competitive. You can't really use on-track data, because there isn't enough of it to support a stance and, as with most on-track data, there isn't a good way to qualify it...

Otherwise, I think it's a viable idea, so gathering data about it is great. Let's see what we come up with...

[Chris Taylor]

The first gen RX7 can be made lighter, but aside from allowing removal of door windows and mechanisms it's all in the realm of Production. So, the answer is "No, it can't be significantly lightened and still remain an IT-prep car".

But 2600 pounds?! Jeesh, I'd rather keep it in ITA... that would define the term "pig".

[Jake]

I’ll answer it this way -

I often get contacted thru my website from people who want to race their MR2s. And why not? They're cheap, fun to drive, and reliable. My advice is not to do it because they're hopeless in ITA. If you want to race, buy a CRX or Miata. If the ITB classing is added, I would encourage them to build.

As for weight-

With a new minimum thickness cage, SSR wheels, and gutted doors I might be able to get close to the current 2370 spec weight - but no lower at any cost.

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Chris Taylor@Nov 3 2005, 05:58 PM
But 2600 pounds?! Jeesh, I'd rather keep it in ITA... that would define the term "pig".

[snapback]64516[/snapback]

Ditto on that one Chris,

..Not to mention the amount of cracked brake rotors are going to escalate.

Andy,

.... I know this is an attempt to make things better. But please remember that not all RX7s are "tweeners" IMHO . The option to stay or switch sounds good to me.
.... What about the 94-95 GSLSE ? Will it be dropped from ITS and put in ITA? Seems only fair. I have one that just sits and collects dust because it is not competitive in ITS


...Far from being a "T-weener"
...Rick Thompson...1st place ITA @ VIR .SARRC 2006

[Knestis]

I think that the idea of listing a Hyundishi Exage or whatever in two classes, at different weights, is a really bad idea. It's just one step closer to different specs for different cars, no matter what the argument. It's already bad enough, having multiple class groups, but having multiple examples of the same car running in different classes - and conceivably different GROUPS - is going to be awful.

The reason we want more makes/models eligible is arguably to make racing more accessible, to more people, with more and different goals, priorities, and tastes. Creating an inherently more confusing category makes the entire exercise less accessible, to my mind, viewed in the macro sense. Sure - it might get someone to build a new Exage, who might otherwise not, but it creates a more convoluted show for everyone, adds another layer of complexity to the rules, and opens a whole new can of worms.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Chris Taylor@Nov 3 2005, 01:58 PM
The first gen RX7 can be made lighter, but aside from allowing removal of door windows and mechanisms it's all in the realm of Production. So, the answer is "No, it can't be significantly lightened and still remain an IT-prep car".

But 2600 pounds?! Jeesh, I'd rather keep it in ITA... that would define the term "pig".

[snapback]64516[/snapback]

So here is the issue...a car with the horsepower potential of the RX-7 (Jake G. can interject with actual crank numbers) needs to be pretty heavy in order to fit the mix.

So what do we do?

AB

[RSTPerformance]

Darin-

I was shocked you mentioned the Capri in ITA, because that was one car I was going to suggest... We used to run one granted it was 12 years ago and technology has chnaged... but I really don't think it is feasable to make it competitive IMO. It would also be nice to see the good old Corvair back into it!!!

Raymond "Anyone remember when Micheal Reece drove an ITA Capri?" Blethen

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 06:43 PM
So what do we do?

AB

[snapback]64528[/snapback]

....How about putting the 84-85 GSLSE on the same spec line (with a little more weight?) and let us build some 13Bs

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 3 2005, 02:39 PM
I think that the idea of listing a Hyundishi Exage or whatever in two classes, at different weights, is a really bad idea. It's just one step closer to different specs for different cars, no matter what the argument. It's already bad enough, having multiple class groups, but having multiple examples of the same car running in different classes - and conceivably different GROUPS - is going to be awful.

The reason we want more makes/models eligible is arguably to make racing more accessible, to more people, with more and different goals, priorities, and tastes. Creating an inherently more confusing category makes the entire exercise less accessible, to my mind, viewed in the macro sense. Sure - it might get someone to build a new Exage, who might otherwise not, but it creates a more convoluted show for everyone, adds another layer of complexity to the rules, and opens a whole new can of worms.

K

[snapback]64527[/snapback]

I agree to a point. However, some think that SM is being populated by IT-jumpers. What kinds of cars do you think these guys are driving? Ones that don't have a chance I bet. We can't (and won't) try and balance every class on the head of a pin, but we can try and make what is wrong, right.

I think there may be 3-5 cars out there that are true tweeners - that people have built - or will build if they think they can compete...but as already been demonstrated above, some of these weights can shock you. When looked at them in the context of the class, however, they make sense (Some Volvos have to weigh almost 2800 in ITB - although they have big brakes).

So do tweeners just live a life in Purgatory? Maybe.

AB

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 3 2005, 02:58 PM
....How about putting the 84-85 GSLSE on the same spec line (with a little more weight?) and let us build some 13Bs

[snapback]64532[/snapback]

That thought has crossed my mind!

One issue is that we have never seen a well-prepped 84-85 13B. I would ASSUME they could make around 175 crank HP (135 stock - right?) going by what the S4 and S5 cars make over stock...but that car would have to weigh 2550 in ITA...would anyone build that?

AB

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 3 2005, 02:39 PM
I think that the idea of listing a Hyundishi Exage or whatever in two classes, at different weights, is a really bad idea. It's just one step closer to different specs for different cars, no matter what the argument. It's already bad enough, having multiple class groups, but having multiple examples of the same car running in different classes - and conceivably different GROUPS - is going to be awful.

The reason we want more makes/models eligible is arguably to make racing more accessible, to more people, with more and different goals, priorities, and tastes. Creating an inherently more confusing category makes the entire exercise less accessible, to my mind, viewed in the macro sense. Sure - it might get someone to build a new Exage, who might otherwise not, but it creates a more convoluted show for everyone, adds another layer of complexity to the rules, and opens a whole new can of worms.

K

[snapback]64527[/snapback]

The thing is Kirk, we've already got that situation today, to varying degrees, depending on the region you're in. And a large portion of that, was done by the drivers of the tweener poster child, the 1st gen RX7. They didn't like the way things were, so they took things into their own hands. That's why you end up w/ things like IT7. Same prep as an ITA car, just different stickers on the side. You see folks running SM cars in both SM and ITA (and maybe even SSM).

The other thing is, we're not talking about tons of cars here. The more I thought about Greg's 'narrow the bell curve' idea, the more I thought that maybe it's not the right approach. Deal w/ the tweeners now, but future classifications should be spec'd much more around the center of the class performance distribution.

Andy,

I think the idea of putting the 13B 1st gen. on the same line as the 12A cars is a good idea. As long as the differences, and associated weight difference, are clearly spelled out, why not? And I'll say this right up front, I've got another reason for supporting this. It should help get rid of the pesky VIN# rule. There, I said it, I've got alterior motives!!

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Nov 3 2005, 06:57 PM
Darin-

I was shocked you mentioned the Capri in ITA, because that was one car I was going to suggest... We used to run one granted it was 12 years ago and technology has chnaged... but I really don't think it is feasable to make it competitive IMO.

[snapback]64531[/snapback]

First off... "competitive" against whom?? The current ITA leaders? OR, the target we've set for the class... This is an important point...

I don't want to try to justify this here, because my data is at home, but we did talk about this one and I believe we found it was within the envolope... I'll research at home and get you a better answer later...

Also, there really aren't that many out there, so it's really tough to justify making much of a change, because there simply isn't a lot of data to go by. Most of the other cars have at least some performance data to go by...

But again, we did talk about this one and it appears to be within the envolope...

Please understand that the while a utopia would have us able to make EVERY car work, that's simply not possible to achieve. We are trying to get everyone close, but we have to be realistic. We are, after-all, still estimating IT-Prep output levels on most of these cars. There is a lot of info to bounce those estimates off of, but they are still estimates.

The biggest improvement is that EVERY car considered goes through the same hoops, so the chances for error appear to be smaller. So far, it seems to be working...

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 3 2005, 08:20 PM
I think the idea of putting the 13B 1st gen. on the same line as the 12A cars is a good idea.

[snapback]64544[/snapback]

Guys,

Why, if we KNOW that this car is capable of achieving and acceptable ITS weight, would we move it to ITA???

If it's output is what you guys are suggesting (175hp), it's ITS weight should be similiar to what the 12A is in ITA... That's totally achievable, and you'd have a car that's truely on-par with the targets in the class. Would be much more fun to drive in ITS at 2350lbs or so than it would be in ITA at 2600lbs... And, I think more would be built...

As for the vin# thing... isn't it legal to do "factory approved" or factory style firewall repairs??? "Oh Darn... My Vin tag got damaged... I need a factory replacement... What, they aren't available from the dealer any longer... guess I'll have to go out and use an identical aftermarket replacement..."

[dickita15]

Darin I for one absolutley understand this is something to talk about for next year. I understand you (the ITAC) have made your recomendations for the 06 season and it must be hard to just sit back now and wait for the powers that be to rule.

I think we should strongly consider the dual classing posibility under the following conditions.
1. after running the car thru the formula with adjustments a car is found to be impossible to be made competitive within the performance envelope for the class.
2. the car is not so rare (old) that it will create a ringer that most people will not be able to build.

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance@Nov 3 2005, 06:57 PM
Darin-

I was shocked you mentioned the Capri in ITA, because that was one car I was going to suggest...

[snapback]64531[/snapback]

OK, It's all coming back to me... We DID discuss the Capri, but it was last season... If you look in the 2005 ITCS, you'll see it's already been reclassified to ITB @2300lbs... Should be a VERY nice fit in that class!

Hey... YOU try to keep all this stuff straight!

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 3 2005, 07:10 PM
That thought has crossed my mind!

One issue is that we have never seen a well-prepped 84-85 13B. I would ASSUME they could make around 175 crank HP (135 stock - right?) going by what the S4 and S5 cars make over stock...but that car would have to weigh 2550 in ITA...would anyone build that?

AB

[snapback]64534[/snapback]

Andy,

......I certainly would Another benefit would be the bigger brakes ( which we so desperately need ) and the ability to get away from the stupid 4 X 110 bolt pattern that makes it so hard to get wheels for a good price without special ordering them.:angry: .

Banzai 240

.......Why move the first gen RX7 GSLSE from ITS to ITA you ask. Have you seen anyone driving one lately? Last one I saw was three years ago. And it was a back marker at best. And the driver was a good one. So I would say it was the car.

.......So why not give the RX7 a shot in the arm ( 13B with bigger brakes & 4 X 100 wheel bolt pattern ) instead of a Boat Anchor ( more weight on overworked brakes and narrower wheels)

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 4 2005, 12:56 AM
.......So why not give the RX7 a shot in the arm ( 13B with bigger brakes & 4 X 100 wheel bolt pattern ) instead of a Boat Anchor ( more weight on overworked brakes and narrower wheels)

[snapback]64576[/snapback]

Well... That's NOT what Improved Touring is, that's why... If you want to start that kind of "creating a model", then there are other classes that have openings for that kind of thing...

Look, the 13B version of the car isn't built for two reasons... 1) They are somewhat rare... and 2) it's classified in ITS at 2530lbs...

I would think the car in ITS with 180lbs weight break would be a much more attractive package than the same car in ITA at 2600lbs... Further, it would actually FIT the process at 2350lbs for ITS... i.e.: it SHOULD be competitive with the 240Z, 2nd Gen, etc...

Isn't THAT the goal???

Sorry guys, but we can't start making rule exceptions and mix/match components as you are suggesting... At least it's not part of the plan. I'm not sure you REALLY want us to go down THAT road, do you?? I doubt we'd get CRB or BoD support for that, because they've seen it all before... It's now called Production...

[Ron]

Please stop it with the car is too heavy for the brakes. It won't have any pickup comming out of slow corners. Pick a car and start developing it. We worked on ours for three years to get where we are. I run a competitive ITB Mustang that will never make the minimum weight of 2640. We are at 2700 right now and I don't see how we will find the last 60 pounds. Have you seen the size of our brakes! It will stop just fine you just have to really work on proper brake ducts and pads for the front. Yes there are some tracks that have some very slow turns right before a long strait that hurt us (Road Atlanta), but there are others that the car just flows through the corners and brakes over heating are not a problem (Roebling Road). We are still playing with different rear end/ gear box/ tire size combos to find a little more pickup out of the corners. And on the capri, the 2 liter has always been in ITB, its the 2.6 and 2.8 V-6's that are in ITA. And I know, we ran all of those before we went to the Mustang three years ago.

Ron Sattele