ITR, When???

[Geo]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 15 2005, 11:07 AM
Rather than guess why not try to convince one of the Sports car writers to do an article on the need for new classes with a survey link to the Sports car website or the SCCA.com website? This will reach the most people and get the most direct answer.

[snapback]65438[/snapback]

That would be good if the powers that be are sufficiently convinced it's warranted. I think convincing the ITAC wouldn't be so hard. I would say what you and Bill are thinking is more along the first step. Right now we're trying to crawl if you will.

It's very hard to get movement without letters. They are the first step. One or two are not enough to start anything moving. If you remember the push for allowing up to 15" wheels, it was a slow process that took a lot of prodding for folks to write letters to even get it off the dime. The BoD and CRB are not interested in fixing things that aren't broken or creating classes where there is no apparent interest. This club is member driven and as Kirk has mentioned many times, action is geared around letters. A lack of letters is received as a lack of interest.

If letters come in, the issue will get some discussion and as a result of the discussion, some of the things you and Bill have mentioned will certainly come up. But it requires at least some action on the part of the members to get it rolling.

[Banzai240]

Here was an initial list that we put together just off the top of our heads... Keep in mind that some of these might actually be in ITS already, but they are pretty heavy in that class, and "could" be made to fit in a higher class at a lesser, more reasonable weight... (diclaimer... THIS WAS JUST BRAINSTORMING.... it is in no way complete or otherwise to be considered anything other than just brainstorming... )


Make Model Version Stock HP Displ (cc)

Acura RSX Type-S 2002 1988
Acura Integra 97-99 190 1797
Alfa Romeo Milano 3.0L (87-89) 183 2959
BMW 325i/is (2 & 4door) (92-95) 189 2494
BMW M Coupe 98-99 3152
BMW M3 95-99 3001
BMW 328ci/i 1999 2793
BMW Z3 2.8L 97-98 2793
Ford Contour V-6 (non-SVT) -1995 170 2544
Ford Mustang V6 1999+ 190
Honda Prelude SH & non-SH (97-98) 195 2157
Honda Prelude V-Tech 190
Honda S2000 2000 1997
Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L 16V 185 2299
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 86-88
Nissan Maxima 89-94 175 2960
Nissan Maxima 95-99 (A32 2960
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 225 2960
Porsche Boxter S 2000 3179
Porsche 968 1995 2990
Porsche 944S (4V) (87-88) 188 2479
Toyota Supra 1998 2997
Toyota Supra 95-97 2997
Toyota Supra (86 1/2-87) 200 2954

[evanwebb]

The possibility of a V8 Mustang IT car? You guys will lure me back from Production racing ;-)

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by evanwebb@Nov 15 2005, 07:21 PM
The possibility of a V8 Mustang IT car? You guys will lure me back from Production racing ;-)

[snapback]65453[/snapback]

Yeah, but everytime I put one out there on a list it gets taken off! :angry:

There is no reason at all the 82-83 Mustang 5.0L cars should not be in ITS right now with its 157 hp stock rating, POS Autolite 2bbl carb, and cam that has tiny little bumps on it that some call lobes. The brakes are complete crap and you won't get as much power out of that lump as you will from a built ITS 325. You'll get a lot of torque, no doubt, but you won't run away with the field.

The 94-95 5.0L motor at a correct weight would fit well in ITR, as would the 4.6L SOHC motor. Neither are have any more potential than the 300z/Supra naturally aspirated engines, would would also fit well in ITR.

R

[JeffYoung]

Is the CRB's address on teh SCCA website?

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Nov 15 2005, 05:53 PM
Is the CRB's address on teh SCCA website?

[snapback]65462[/snapback]

Jeff,

I believe it is [email protected]

Darin,

Given that list, the 2.7 and 3.0 Porsche 911s should be on that list as well. IIRC, an '81 911 SC 3.0 made 190 or 195 hp stock.

How cool would that be?? IT 911s racing agains IT V8 Mustangs and Camaros??

Is it remotely possible that would could make this new class look like TransAm of 20-25 years ago???

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 15 2005, 11:37 PM


Given that list, the 2.7 and 3.0 Porsche 911s should be on that list as well. IIRC, an '81 911 SC 3.0 made 190 or 195 hp stock.

How cool would that be?? IT 911s racing agains IT V8 Mustangs and Camaros??

Is it remotely possible that would could make this new class look like TransAm of 20-25 years ago???

[snapback]65470[/snapback]

Absolutely!!!! That would be fantastic and I think highly plausible. ITR would be a really neat class with "real" sports cars competing in race trim on the courses. I for one would be all over it. I'll definitely do my part to write a letter.

Ron

[JLawton]

Originally posted by rlearp@Nov 15 2005, 01:56 PM
I'll build one of the above for the class, promise.

[snapback]65447[/snapback]

Ron, Ron, Ron..........You need to do something about your ADD. :119:

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by JLawton@Nov 16 2005, 01:08 AM
Ron, Ron, Ron..........You need to do something about your ADD. :119:

[snapback]65474[/snapback]

My ADD is a well known characteristic! But, you can't limit yourself to just one race car - how would you fill in all the free evenings with work on cars? One car just doesn't consume enough time, you need enough cars so that ALL your free evenings are spent underneath one! At least, that is what I've been taught.

[dickita15]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 15 2005, 07:37 PM
How cool would that be?? IT 911s racing agains IT V8 Mustangs and Camaros??

[snapback]65470[/snapback]

so right. I brought a guy interested in IT to a couple of races. he has done some drag racing and a little stock car. no interest in jap crap but when he talked to AS drivers he found the rule very costly. really wanted to build a pony car to a rule set more like IT

[Knestis]

I'm having trouble making all of the Mustang (et al.) math work out on my cocktail napkin. What happens when someone builds one of those 157-hp cars to the IT rules and discovers that, in terms of lap times, it is a stinker?

The current AS rules have their roots in regional "ITGT" classes, that were created as a place for retired SSGT cars to go. Entrants wanted more performance than IT-level preparation would give them and created their own set of too-expensive rules.

I still think that there is room for a class above the current ITS envelope. Ron and a few others will no doubt disagree but I just don't think that the future of "ITR" is in the hands of 20-year-old Fox-bodies. 5-year-old ones, sure. 10-year-olds maybe...

It's also going to be inevitable that, if this class becomes a reality, the questions of AWD and turbos must addressed in a proactive way. Look at the list of cars in T3 and T2. It wo0ld be wise to figure out in advance how blowers and four-wheel-drive will - or will not - be integrated into this concept, since it's going to take about 3 minutes before someone makes perfermance/cost/market position comparisons between cars that are "in," and those that are excluded based on a 20-year-old rule, left over from the day when these technologies were really exclusive.

It is too easy to think in a micro way about how cool it would be to have (whatever) race in an IT class. Yes, I think an IT M3 would be freakin' awesome, and there's no doubt that someone would build one if it were possible within the rules, but reasonable arguments that the simple addition of more classes is a negative thing demand consideration of cost and benefit well in advance of simply making new rules.

K

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Knestis@Nov 16 2005, 02:25 PM
I'm having trouble making all of the Mustang (et al.) math work out on my cocktail napkin. What happens when someone builds one of those 157-hp cars to the IT rules and discovers that, in terms of lap times, it is a stinker?

I still think that there is room for a class above the current ITS envelope. Ron and a few others will no doubt disagree but I just don't think that the future of "ITR" is in the hands of 20-year-old Fox-bodies. 5-year-old ones, sure. 10-year-olds maybe...

[snapback]65511[/snapback]

K, I completely agree there is room for a class above ITS and I don't think ITR is for 20 year old fox bodies. I think the 20 year old 157hp Stang should be in S but there is a stigma, an unfounded one, over classing that thing in S.

R should be for late SN95 Stangs as mentioned above such as the 94-95 5.0L, the 96-98 4.6L, the 99 V6, etc. plus all the other wonderful cars you and other have brought up. As well as AWD. I think forced induction is generally frowned upon by the SCCA since it is hard to police, but AWD, I think R is the place for it to be.

R

[Bill Miller]

Kirk raises a good point about the AWD and Forced Induction issues. As of now ('06 season) we've got almost an entire cateogory of production cars, that will really have no place to race when they're too old to run in their current class. You've got T1-T3, where pretty much every car there is outside the performance envelope for ITS. There may be a few of the lower-end T3 cars that _might_ fit, depending on how much lead has to get thrown at them.

I also agree that the class above ITS shouldn't be driven by 20 y/o cars. BUT, it sure would be nice if those cars fit in the new class as well. The comment about TransAm racing in the 80's was due to a flashback to a TransAm race in '81 or '82, IIRC, at Watkins Glen. Was just a flat out cool race. Damn, now I want to go pull out all of those old race programs from the 80s. IMSA GTU/GTO, TransAM, Firehawk, etc. Damn that was some cool racing!!!

Kirk,

Given the current classification process, I would like to believe that an old 157hp 5.0 Mustang could be spec'd correctly to fit in ITS, w/o being a class killer or a stinker.

Dick,

I've seen people talk about this before, how expensive AS is. Point of fact is, AS is probably about the same, or cheaper than ITS, certainly at the pointy end of the field. You can pretty much get just about any AS car for under $25k, and have some reasonable choices for under $15k. That's pretty much at, or below where ITS cars are selling at. There's an ITS E36 in the Nov. SportsCar for $19k, and I thought I saw one listed on this site for $24k. We've seen a few others that were well North of $30k.

That being said, I think it might, and I say might, be cheaper to build a 5-liter V8 pony car to IT rules, and run at the front.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 16 2005, 03:38 PM

That being said, I think it might, and I say might, be cheaper to build a 5-liter V8 pony car to IT rules, and run at the front.

[snapback]65521[/snapback]

The problem is, front of what, four of your closest buddies? AS doesn't seem to draw any big fields where I am. Few here and there, but nothing like IT.

R

[Hotshoe]

Hey,

... I hope that the SCCA can come up with a place in Improved Touring for the older Touring cars (T1,T2,T3) to go. I'm building a 98 BMW Z3 2.8 with hopes that it will have a good class to compete in when it is to old for T2.
... If not I guess I will race it in NASA or the BMW club.

... Rick Thompson

[Joe Harlan]

Rick, I have to tell ya that after the 10 years of T2 racing there won't be much left of the chassis. Watch the T2 runoffs race. It look like a ITS race 10 years ago.

[RSTPerformance]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 14 2005, 10:32 PM
Guys,
Also, having the cars classed in SS and T should be more than enough interest and support. I'm a firm believer, that when a car gets classed in SS, that the preliminary IT specs should be crafted as well. All the VTS info is there, should be pretty easy to plug it into the process.

I just don’t get why this is so complicated??

Darin, enlighten myself and Bill on how this is so hard?

Why can’t we just take a car and classify it in SS (Or Touring whatever we decide to do!) and also classify it in IT, Prod, and GT. How is this difficult when you have all the stats in front of you!

We should be proactive on giving members a future and the cars a future. Being Reactive to member input is a poor solution and not a leadership skill our club should consider. SCCA is better than that! We should be Proactive and support our current members, there cars and future members that we try to get!

We will never increase membership if we don’t start planning for our future. Half the Touring/SS cars will have no place to race in 5 yrs. What is our club planning to do for those members so we don’t loose them?


Stephen Blethen

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 16 2005, 12:39 PM
Rick, I have to tell ya that after the 10 years of T2 racing there won't be much left of the chassis. Watch the T2 runoffs race. It look like a ITS race 10 years ago.

[snapback]65531[/snapback]

Joe,

I think he said he is just building the car, so he's got 2 or 3 years (at the most) to race the car in T2.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 16 2005, 04:49 PM
Joe,

I think he said he is just building the car, so he's got 2 or 3 years (at the most) to race the car in T2.

[snapback]65613[/snapback]

Watch this years race.....2 to 3 years may not be enough time......lol I am not against a class above there are a few of my favorites that fit there. Having done the race against Turbo car deal this year I would still suggest that IT-Turbo is the way to go. Once you apply the IT rules to an STI or and EVO the numbers will be out of sight. Or we are gonna have to learn to use single inlet restrictors in a proper fashion.

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 16 2005, 09:24 AM
Hey,

... I hope that the SCCA can come up with a place in Improved Touring for the older Touring cars (T1,T2,T3) to go. I'm building a 98 BMW Z3 2.8 with hopes that it will have a good class to compete in when it is to old for T2.
... If not I guess I will race it in NASA or the BMW club.

... Rick Thompson

[snapback]65529[/snapback]

Exactly why I started this thread. Sure as a non-member, I could take a wait and see approach; however, I'd rather take a more proactive approach. For now I'd do DE's and BMW JP class events, but I'd like to matriculate to IT in the year after or two. Having looked at the rules for T2 for the Z3, I'd have to run Ebach springs, no coil overs, and I'd have to put the whole interior back in to SS standards after my car's already built for World Challenge.

James