ITR Class Poll

[bldn10]

I am for it IF it will also include provisions to return ITS closer to the original class philosophy. That probably means moving the 325 up to ITR and squelching talk of open engine management systems, if not going back to basically stock ECUs. I have no interest in racing in a more expensive class so, otherwise, I wouldn't care one way or another. I think support for ITR would be enhanced by throwing such bones to the drivers who want to stay behind in ITS.

ITR as I understand it might end up as fast or faster than AS, T3, FP and possibly T2 and EP - is that something the powers that be in Topeka would go for?

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

I don't think that how fast a class is, compared to other classes, in different categories, would make much of a difference. I'm pretty sure that AS is faster than EP, most places. That, and some of the ITS hotshoes are running at or near the EP record at many tracks.

Back to the discussion of using ITR as a place for ex-T2/3 cars. While most of the T3 cars will probably fit (AWD and FI notwithstanding), I'm not sure how, if the cars are in different T classes (i.e. T2/3), how they would fit in the same IT class. Sounds like a lot of weight for some (or a SIR), which means probably running slower than they did in T2.

Like I said, change the T rule to allow cars to run in Regionals as long as they want (or maybe limit it to 20 years since they were new). The other thing I find interesting, is the talk for finding a place for ex-T2/3 cars, w/ no mention of ex-T1 cars. Clearly, I can't see providing a place in IT for a Z06 Corvette. But I do find it interesting. There used to be a pretty even x-over from SS to IT. SSGT -> ITGT, SSA -> ITS, SSB -> ITA, SSC -> ITB, but that's pretty much gone by the boards. It's also interesting that SSA couldn't make numbers, but it looks like T3 will be fine (and that's pretty much what the ITA performance envelope was). Funny how things kinda come full circle.

[Fastfred92]

I will admit that having been around club racing from the mid 80's on I have never seen a group so willing TO fight change. I know change affects everybody in different ways but as a group it has to be a good thing. I want to have the best car in my class and I dont want Johnny come lately to blow my doors off with the latest and greatest car but that is part of it in any form of racing. As a club we need to get new members and have opportunity for those new members to participate, as I said in a different post most young kids I see dream of owning or own new Subie Sti's, Evos, Civic Si, R32's etc. etc. The club racing side of things is light years behind the solo side with regards to new "cool" cars. We ( club racing ) need a place for entry level racers to come and play without excluding their cars, we need to embrace AWD, turbos, 17 and 18" wheels. Best I can tell this club and this forum have some very bright people ( exclude myself ) that given the task should be able to accept current technology and blend it in with the old school. Lets not continue to dumb down but find ways to advance, otherwise we will become a vintage race organization.

[JeffYoung]

Fred, good post. IT can't be become Production, frozen in time in the late 80s and early 90s. If it does it will, well, become like Production.

High hp, AWD, Turbos, SMGs -- this is what cars are like now, and we (IT) need to deal with it.

[Knestis]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 5 2005, 09:15 AM
The proposal I'm drafting right now will not include AWD and forced induction cars. ...

You are ABSOLUTELY right that you dramatically increase the chance that it will get considered, if you use that approach. That solves SOME of the looming problems. A year ago, I would have agreed that this would be enough but, with the turbo barn door has been opened and I'm afraid that we need to see if we can kill multiple birds with one stone.

It's going to be hard enough, with higher-performance cars, to get them effectively spec'd, without blowers and multiple gearboxes/diffs. (Remember that a few percentage points of "miss" are a bigger performance difference with a faster car.) So, the more pragmatic approach is better.

Look - I'm just reluctant to create new classes unless it has positive externalities to the program in general, rather than just to people who enter it. Is Spec Miata popular? Absolutely. Is it good for the longterm health of club racing? I don't think so but time will tell. I wouldn't have proposed IT2 if I didn't think it was good for both ITS and ITA, for potential growth of IT more generally, AND for people with those orphan cars.

I think that with some more work, we can come up with a bigger solution but - again - this is a problem that needs one.

Kirk (who wonders at what point he quit being a radical revolutary agitator and became one of the old guard)

EDIT for Fred - That's an interesting POV. I continue to be amazed at how, for the first time since the mid-80's, the inertia in IT has been undone and things are actually changing. Maybe it's the strategic thinking that makes it seem positive to me, even if there is still a commitment to the first principles of IT. I guess if the emphasis is on the latter, it can be interpreted as same old, same old.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 5 2005, 05:05 PM
You are ABSOLUTELY right that you dramatically increase the chance that it will get considered, if you use that approach. That solves SOME of the looming problems. A year ago, I would have agreed that this would be enough but, with the turbo barn door has been opened and I'm afraid that we need to see if we can kill multiple birds with one stone.

Kirk (who wonders at what point he quit being a radical revolutary agitator and became one of the old guard)

No joke Kirk, what happened???????? You've left the revolution and become The Man! Just kidding!

I hear what you are saying and three months ago I was on this board supporting AWD in ITS or IT period. But, given the amount of non-support the AWD cars received I can't imagine how much flak a EVO, WRX, Sti, etc. is going to receive.

I mean, I'd be willing to collect data on these cars too and try to include them. I see why we need to do it, in my opinion, but I don't know how. IT Turbo? ITX? Turbos allowed in other IT classes? My head spins.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 5 2005, 10:24 AM
No joke Kirk, what happened???????? You've left the revolution and become The Man! Just kidding!

I hear what you are saying and three months ago I was on this board supporting AWD in ITS or IT period. But, given the amount of non-support the AWD cars received I can't imagine how much flak a EVO, WRX, Sti, etc. is going to receive.

I mean, I'd be willing to collect data on these cars too and try to include them. I see why we need to do it, in my opinion, but I don't know how. IT Turbo? ITX? Turbos allowed in other IT classes? My head spins.

[snapback]67352[/snapback]

You bet your gonna get flak. There are those of us living the reality of racing cars that cost 35k to purchase and then convert to racing for another 35k only to have the AWDT cars have an advantage at almost everytrack we run on. 1st year the STI wins the top 2 spots in T2 looing out the back window. These cars are classed there are few kids that will ever spend that kind of money to race them. Ron I made the offer send the check I will build you a car capapble of a top 10 at the runoffs. The best thing to do for these cars is to class them against themselves. The raw numbers won't be there for the number of other makes you will drive away.

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 5 2005, 05:24 PM
I see why we need to do it, in my opinion, but I don't know how. IT Turbo? ITX? Turbos allowed in other IT classes? My head spins.

[snapback]67352[/snapback]

I, for one, don't want to be outrun by a turbo AWD xyz,,,, nor do I want to build a turbo AWD xyz to prevent being outrun by one...... That being said I have won near 40 races of various types in my 20 plus years but I have lost ( anything but win ) a heck of a lot more than that. It will happen at some point and time so my theory is lets jump on it now, make it work long term, and have some control. This conversation could be about any class but IT has a bigger grassroots effect on most newbies and if we can make ITR or ITX lets lay the groundwork here and now. Excluding a drive type or engine limits that classes future growth, heck I think I will see ( 41 years old ) a time where diesel cars will club race here. Professional race groups have been able to apply formulas, restrictors and rules so that AWD and turbo / supercharged cars are included, we can too !

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 5 2005, 05:31 PM
You bet your gonna get flak. There are those of us living the reality of racing cars that cost 35k to purchase and then convert to racing for another 35k only to have the AWDT cars have an advantage at almost everytrack we run on. 1st year the STI wins the top 2 spots in T2 looing out the back window. These cars are classed there are few kids that will ever spend that kind of money to race them. Ron I made the offer send the check I will build you a car capapble of a top 10 at the runoffs. The best thing to do for these cars is to class them against themselves. The raw numbers won't be there for the number of other makes you will drive away.

[snapback]67355[/snapback]

Joe, we know your opinion, you don't want an ITR class as far as I can tell unless it fits a very narrow definition - which is fine for numerous reasons, some valid. As I mentioned, I'm not for classing the forced induction or AWD cars because fitting them in IT seems to be a nightmare. A few months ago I thought maybe AWD (non-turbos) could fit, but now I think in less optimistic terms - just trying to get a few newer race cars in IT that should be in IT but don't fit in S.

But then someone says "but if we're not going to think ahead and fit turbo/AWD cars in then we might as well not have an ITR". And "If we aren't going to class turbo AWD car then do nothing."

So what to do?

I've never seen so many people be against something they don't have to participate in - they can run where they are now. Anyhow, I'll carry on with the ITR proposal and when done send to the ITAC and CRB.

Thanks for the offer of building me a runoff car, but, I think I'm capable of doing it myself and will work toward that goal.

Ron

[Fastfred92]

I am just saying if we are to build a new IT class ( I am fully supportive of ) lets build it so it can grow into the future ! Not a short term 5-10 year thing that will dwindle like I see SM doing, eventually. Carry on Mr. rlearp ! I think you are doing fine work here !!!!!!!

[RacerBill]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 5 2005, 01:24 PM
No joke Kirk, what happened???????? You've left the revolution and become The Man! Just kidding!

I hear what you are saying and three months ago I was on this board supporting AWD in ITS or IT period. But, given the amount of non-support the AWD cars received I can't imagine how much flak a EVO, WRX, Sti, etc. is going to receive.

I mean, I'd be willing to collect data on these cars too and try to include them. I see why we need to do it, in my opinion, but I don't know how. IT Turbo? ITX? Turbos allowed in other IT classes? My head spins.

[snapback]67352[/snapback]

I agree that we must make provisions for newer cars and technologies, especailly cars that the club has already let in the door. I also feel that any group of trackside lawyers that can come up with with language like "two total opeings" can find a way to make this happen.

One of the big issues that I think I hear this forum talking about is the fact that we have written rules that blanket a group of classes - Production, GT, Showroom Stock, Improved Touring for things like roll cages and fuel cells. I am not real keen on creating more classes (at least until I can open a trophy shop). but here's a suggestion. How about keeping ITS, ITA, ITB and ITC as they are (I don't include ITE since it means different things in different parts of the country), and then creating IT1, IT2... for the present T1, T2 and T3 cars? GCR could be then changed to referece ITA... in place of 'Improved Touring' where it pertains to fuel cells, roll cages, etc. The classes IT1, IT2...could then be added to the sections referencing 'Touring' cars. Other wording might also have to be modified (AWD).

Aside from adding two classes, the only other drawback that I see would be that cars would not be able to be reclassified from lets say ITS to IT2.

One other point concerning AWD and a 'possible advantage'. There are a lot of cars that have advantages over other cars for a number of reasons, i.e type of track (horsepower vs handling). I remember a GT race at Mid-Ohio a number of years ago. It was a rain race and the car the finished third OVERALL was a GT3 Shelby Charger. None if the Corvettes that he beat came back and demanded that front wheel drive be banned because it had an 'advantage'! I never complained about running in Solo 2 against Audi Quatros in my Toyota Van!

These are just my ideas for you consideration. I know that some holes will be shot in them. And that's ok. I'm too old and thick skinned to let it bother me too much. I am in IT because I love racing, and it's what I can afford and still have fun.

ITAC, thanks for all your hard work and putting up with all of us!

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 5 2005, 10:50 AM
Dang Joe, we know your opinion, you don't want an ITR class as far as I can tell. For numerous reasons. Some valid. As I mentioned, I'm not for classing the forced induction or AWD cars because fitting them in IT seems to be a nightmare. A few months ago I thought maybe AWD (non-turbos) could fit, but now I think in less optimistic terms - just trying to get a few newer race cars in IT that should be in IT but don't fit in S.

But then someone says "but if we're not going to think ahead and fit turbo/AWD cars in then we might as well not have an ITR". And "If we aren't going to class turbo AWD car then do nothing."

So what to do?

I've never seen so many people be against something they don't have to participate in - they can run where they are now. Anyhow, I'll carry on with the ITR proposal and when done send to the ITAC and CRB.

Thanks for the offer of building me a runoff car, but, I think I'm capable of doing it myself and will work toward that goal.

Ron

[snapback]67358[/snapback]

See Ron, you are wrong. We all participate anytime a new class or philosphy is added to this club. It takes up resources and dilutes competition any time you add another class. Tell me other than they couldn't catch a break in the old rules why we need Spec Miata? they are basicly ITA cars anyway. But now we have it alot of regions are being forced to give them their own run group which BTW is causing classes with smaller participation number to be combined in unsafe run groups causing the loss of drivers that aren't willing to drive an ITC car in a GT1 grid. Every choice we make has a cost as well as a gain.

Lastly you don't know what I want cause you have no idea. I believe if we want to really discuss using SIR's on some of the cars we are discussing thhey could be fit into ITS as is. Leaving room for other IDEA's. I also believe the time will come when we will either need a class above ITS but it may need a different twist. You have to understand just because you feel it's a good idea doesn't make it automaticly so. I believe the poll you started is going 60% against at this point. are you saying that's all FOG's? I don't think so. Notice before you take a whack at me that I race an old world challenge car with aero and 18" wheels and carbon foiber hoods ect. It looks like a freaking drift car. It runs a kind of catchall that is a region based class. IT's IT on steroids. I am all for new idea's and new cars I am just a realist on what it takes from our program to make it happen.

[MMiskoe]

Cripe. Why is this such a hard question?

IT is the biggest regional class. It is pretty obvious that w/ the rules the way they are, it is a class that draws lots of different cars & people. Why because it can be approached slowly by the newbie, or jumped into w/ a full on program by those who are properly experienced/funded/motivated. As a result, there are big fields and close racing throughout those feilds.

It's also pretty obvious that there is a collection of cars out there that are too fast for ITS but people would consider racing them if there was a place for them.

It goes w/o saying that it needs to be carefully crafted, but do one thing at a time - develope the class based on the current structure. Once that is done & running well, then consider how to include AWD and forced induction. No different than what was done w/ Touring, the AWD & turbo things were never included in the first few years. Besides, the turbo's shouldnt be that hard to control, just expect that the boost will be unlimted and plan accordingly when setting weights, that's all they did in Touring.

Beisdes, if the class gets created and no one runs in it, it dies its own death. Look at SRX7. No hard feelings, it just didn't catch on. T1 & T2 almost didn't make it either.

Anything above ITS should have some additional safety requirements considered due to the speeds & weights of the cars talked about. Its not likely that requireing a welded cage w/ real door bars, a fire system and possibly a fuel cell is going to be considered a problem to anyone interested in building a real ITR car. This is however, contradictory to my first paragraph about IT being a class you can move into slowly, I recognize that.

Matt

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by MMiskoe@Dec 5 2005, 11:14 AM
Cripe. Why is this such a hard question?

IT is the biggest regional class. It is pretty obvious that w/ the rules the way they are, it is a class that draws lots of different cars & people. Why because it can be approached slowly by the newbie, or jumped into w/ a full on program by those who are properly experienced/funded/motivated. As a result, there are big fields and close racing throughout those feilds.

It's also pretty obvious that there is a collection of cars out there that are too fast for ITS but people would consider racing them if there was a place for them.

It goes w/o saying that it needs to be carefully crafted, but do one thing at a time - develope the class based on the current structure. Once that is done & running well, then consider how to include AWD and forced induction. No different than what was done w/ Touring, the AWD & turbo things were never included in the first few years. Besides, the turbo's shouldnt be that hard to control, just expect that the boost will be unlimted and plan accordingly when setting weights, that's all they did in Touring.
Beisdes, if the class gets created and no one runs in it, it dies its own death. Look at SRX7. No hard feelings, it just didn't catch on. T1 & T2 almost didn't make it either.

Anything above ITS should have some additional safety requirements considered due to the speeds & weights of the cars talked about. Its not likely that requireing a welded cage w/ real door bars, a fire system and possibly a fuel cell is going to be considered a problem to anyone interested in building a real ITR car. This is however, contradictory to my first paragraph about IT being a class you can move into slowly, I recognize that.

Matt

[snapback]67365[/snapback]

Matt, Agreed on most all points. Your facts on Touring are incorrect though.

[Bill Miller]

Look at SRX7. No hard feelings, it just didn't catch on.

Matt,

I don't know where you get that impression from. I can't speak for the entire country, but SRX7 was a thriving class in the WDC Region. So much so, that they got their own run group, and would regularly start 40+ cars. I think SM did a lot to pull drivers out of SRX7.

[AntonioGG]

This may be a dumb question...but why do you need to have "planned obsolescence" in touring and showroom stock? Maybe I understand why in showroom stock since after a while a 7 year old car (or is it 5? Or 10? I can't keep up) can't be expected to be showroom stock anymore...but since SS is going to be touring now, and touring has all sorts of adjustments, why not just create classes based on car potential and not the age? Call them all touring or improved touring and they become national or not based on participation numbers and not on what some sacred cow (i.e. manufacturers) say. This is an amateur racing club, not some organization to benefit manufacturers or pro sanctioning bodies after all. Let the old corvettes continue racing in T1 while allowing some aftermarke replacement parts if they can't get them anymore, let the subaru race in T2 (I thought it was one of the closest races with that f-body in 3rd..but what do I know...), put the 325 in T3, do what it takes to equalize all the cars and make a class national or not based on participation.

By the way, something that's kind of funny, ironic, or whatever...the argument to justify Motec ECU's without the "must fit in original box" rule because it's expensive to get it to fit in the stock box is funny. Now you got guys in SM citing IT as an example as to why we should also go open ECU (fast guys are already chipping and doing other stuff to their ECUs). If anything your rule should mandate use of the original motherboard. It SHOULD be hard and it SHOULD be expensive if you want to stuff a MOTEC or Autronic or whatever ECU into the stock box. Sorry, off my soap box now.

[AntonioGG]

Oh yeah, I forgot to add, for those of you that have a problem with SM getting its run group, etc. I think you need to be mad at the planned obsolescence problem. When you have a de facto car to have in a class (SS all of a sudden not be eligible, you have to expect a class like SM or neon challenge or whatever being born. If those cars had still been allowed in SS perhaps SM would not have been born. Look at the 99+ car s in SM, they were added to SM also because they are now loosing SS eligibility.

I think having cars become obsolete without a plan on what to do with those cars once they are inelligible is the problem. You cannot blame the ITAC guys or anyone else for trying to fix the situation, but I think it needs to be fixed at the root source.

Carry on....

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by AntonioGG@Dec 5 2005, 02:37 PM
This may be a dumb question...but why do you need to have "planned obsolescence" in touring and showroom stock? Maybe I understand why in showroom stock since after a while a 7 year old car (or is it 5? Or 10? I can't keep up) can't be expected to be showroom stock anymore...but since SS is going to be touring now, and touring has all sorts of adjustments, why not just create classes based on car potential and not the age? Call them all touring or improved touring and they become national or not based on participation numbers and not on what some sacred cow (i.e. manufacturers) say. This is an amateur racing club, not some organization to benefit manufacturers or pro sanctioning bodies after all. Let the old corvettes continue racing in T1 while allowing some aftermarke replacement parts if they can't get them anymore, let the subaru race in T2 (I thought it was one of the closest races with that f-body in 3rd..but what do I know...), put the 325 in T3, do what it takes to equalize all the cars and make a class national or not based on participation.

By the way, something that's kind of funny, ironic, or whatever...the argument to justify Motec ECU's without the "must fit in original box" rule because it's expensive to get it to fit in the stock box is funny. Now you got guys in SM citing IT as an example as to why we should also go open ECU (fast guys are already chipping and doing other stuff to their ECUs). If anything your rule should mandate use of the original motherboard. It SHOULD be hard and it SHOULD be expensive if you want to stuff a MOTEC or Autronic or whatever ECU into the stock box. Sorry, off my soap box now.

[snapback]67382[/snapback]

Antonio the touring rules do not allow for overbore. SO it is thought that after 10 years new engines will be hard to find.

[AntonioGG]

Joe, what I'm saying is they have to break some eggs to make this omelette. They will have to allow touring to overbore, or maybe just some cars, etc. They have to really rethink a lot of stuff. Piss a few people off today, ensure a healthy SCCA future. I've only been around a couple of years, but didn't Touring cars started somewhat controversially?

Any of you guys software or electrical engineers and familiar with fixing things with a patch on top of a patch? How long can you keep doing that until things just fall apart?

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 5 2005, 06:03 PM
See Ron, you are wrong. We all participate anytime a new class or philosphy is added to this club.

Lastly you don't know what I want cause you have no idea.

You have to understand just because you feel it's a good idea doesn't make it automaticly so. I believe the poll you started is going 60% against at this point. are you saying that's all FOG's? I don't think so. Notice before you take a whack at me that I race an old world

[snapback]67364[/snapback]

Joe, I do not think simply because I think it is a good idea that it is automatically so. Never said that. And, I'm not "taking a whack at you", simply indicating a view point.

I personally think it is a good idea to take some newer cars, non-forced induction cars, non-AWD cars, and class them in a performance class above S. I think a goodly number of people feel this is so as well. Therefore, I will continue along the road of gathering the data and submitting it to the proper places. There are a surprising number of cars that could fit into this proposed class.

What I don't know how to handle is forced induction cars, AWD cars, and the like. I'm starting to feel these fall outside of what can be accommodated in IT and to try and make them fit would require adopting some other items that I personally feel are outside of IT - such as SIRs. My opinion, no need to flame me up or list five reasons why I am wrong - it is an opinion and nothing else.

I trust in the ITAC and think they can manage the current dispairities in the various IT classes using weight and nothing else. I also think that the ITAC working with the board can get a new IT class started, a class above S in performance, that will class a large number of late model cars into IT and get new blood as well as newer cars in the mix.

I'll never have the knowledge that Kirk, you, and others have of IT since I haven't been around in the SCCA nearly as long as you fellows. But, by the same token I am younger and might be the fellow still racing IT once you guys are gone therefore, I'll continue to try and gather support for an IT class that I, and some others, want to race in.

Best
Ron