ITR Class Poll

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 5 2005, 05:06 PM
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

[snapback]67399[/snapback]

Yeah no problem Ron, Enough said from me. Your own poll would indicate that 60% aren't with it at this point. I not sure how old you think I am but I promise my age has nothing to do with the current facts of racing today.

Antonio, T2 is the second fastest growing nationalclass today. It will not likely ever see big regional number because of the cost of the donor cars that are classed there. It's not about cracking a few eggs it's about limited resources and how we best use them to get things done.

Anyway enough said from me on all of this you all have fun.

[AntonioGG]

Joe, they're expensive because they are required to be new. What if you could race a 93 Supra Turbo in T2 competitively? Now it wouldn't be as expensive.

Where SCCA has screwed the pooch IMHO is in leaving some classes with old cars and not encouraging newer cars (production and IT) while having other classes with only new cars and no room anywhere for the cars that are no longer eligible (T and SS).

OK last you hear from me too, at least for a little while. I'm hungry...

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by AntonioGG@Dec 5 2005, 05:40 PM
Joe, they're expensive because they are required to be new. What if you could race a 93 Supra Turbo in T2 competitively? Now it wouldn't be as expensive.

Where SCCA has screwed the pooch IMHO is in leaving some classes with old cars and not encouraging newer cars (production and IT) while having other classes with only new cars and no room anywhere for the cars that are no longer eligible (T and SS).

OK last you hear from me too, at least for a little while. I'm hungry...

[snapback]67404[/snapback]

Antonio, Race on sunday sell on monday. That's what touring is about. The is the IT site so I am really done talking touring here. Lastly you have to have enough resources to control your classes and it is way to hard to do once you start allowing engines to be modifed.....Kinda like adding a motec to an E-36 nobody want s to share real numbers for real classification.

[AntonioGG]

I only brought up touring b/c you guys did since you're trying to find a place for old T cars and/or unclassed cars faster than ITS. And like I mentioned before, this is an amateur club, not a place to sell cars.

Regarding tech and resources...well, they don't do it now at every race anyway...you don't think they need to check SS and T cars anyway? What about IT cars?

OK I'm out. You guys have a good evening, sorry for stomping on your discussion I just wanted to bring out a couple of points.

[Knestis]

Man - double ouch. Now I have to be reminded that Ron is younger than I am, too.

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?

Excellent analogy. This is either the worst thing or the best thing about the SCCA rules-making process, depending how you look at it.

The downside is that the rulebook ends up being a patchwork of ad hoc (sorry, guys) bits of legislation, without any real strategy applied to making them. The current ITCS is nothing frankly but a bunch of changes, to changes, to changes of things that were changed, right after they were first written. Rules get changed literally word by word, or line by line if we're lucky and someone is feeling particularly enthusiastic.

Ironically, the UPSIDE of this situation is that it's hard for really big changes to get implemented so true obsolescence is tougher to stumble into. Set aside the weird dynamics of National classes for this conversation, with SS/Touring classifications, anything that's influenced by manufacturer involvement (coughmazdacough) and true competition adjustments (blech). NASA made wholesale changes to Honda Challenge once it got going, in an effort to take it nationwide, and alienated a bunch of people - including the guys who created it so it's actually, arguably GOOD for club racing to have a certain amount of resistance to change, in the name of continuity.

Now, it's equally aguable that there has to be some looking forward as well. I'm STILL waiting - along with a bunch of other people - for some evidence of the club racing "strategic plan" that has theoretically been in the works for months (years?) now.

This is why I'm so high on the ITAC's comprehensive re-examination of classificatiosn and specs. I just don't know if the culture of the club, predicated on years of tiny, selfish, member-driven rules revisions is capable of living with it.

K

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 6 2005, 01:37 AM
Man - double ouch. Now I have to be reminded that Ron is younger than I am, too.

This is why I'm so high on the ITAC's comprehensive re-examination of classificatiosn and specs. I just don't know if the culture of the club, predicated on years of tiny, selfish, member-driven rules revisions is capable of living with it.

K

[snapback]67413[/snapback]

Sorry Kirk, but I'm a scientist and using the available data that I had, posts from you and Joe recalling "back in the day" and referencing it to about the youngest possible age that one could have started SCCA club racing as a driver, this was the conclusion that I drew. Clearly there are other possible explanations, but the simplest explanation is generally the correct one: you guys are a couple of old farts! Now I do hope that you realize this is an attempt at humor and I'm just kidding!

I don't know "how it was back in the day" but I can tell you this - just from reading the IT forum and people commenting on how things were I can definitely say I really appreciate what the ITAC is doing and how they are going about their systematic process. And I hope the members as a whole can embrace it for the good of the community.

Ron

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by AntonioGG@Dec 5 2005, 08:40 PM
Joe, they're expensive because they are required to be new. What if you could race a 93 Supra Turbo in T2 competitively? Now it wouldn't be as expensive.

Actually, in some cases, the need to be "stock" might be very difficult..and expensive, in terms of either money or time. Getting weird little parts needed to meet the letter of the law, might be dependent on unobtainum materials....

Where SCCA has screwed the pooch IMHO is in leaving some classes with old cars and not encouraging newer cars (production and IT) while having other classes with only new cars and no room anywhere for the cars that are no longer eligible (T and SS).

[snapback]67404[/snapback]

Agreed, to some degree....

Bills point about the lack of a large scale strategic plan is most upsetting. I know that we on the ITAC discuss the "big picture" as it relates to IT and the classes around IT, when appropriate, but I haven't been privy to any "trickle down" plan that I am aware of, except for comments about this idea or that idea.

That said, I think the ability to "migrate" certain cars though the category structure is one concept that should be examined. True, ALL Touring cars won't need a place to go when their time is up, but it would be nice to have a home for them...it would be one less hurdle if a potential Touring buyer to knew that, when the time comes to sell, there could be a market for the car.

(I was talking to a SS guy at the ARRCs..a pretty dedicated SS guy, who is selling his SS car a year early before "It's worthless" as he put's it. Thats disenfranchised)

And having as many IT cars as possible be eligible to move into Prod would allow guys to migrate into National racing when they decided it was time is the other door that needs opening.

For what it's worth, I can see a class like ITR as having a place in ITs future. Does anyone remembr ITD??? My sketchy memory does. I don't think it was natioanlly recognized, but it existed. Long ago and far away...they just don't make cars that slow any more! There is no doubt that the automotive world is faster, and the generation driving the faster cars is too. Eliminating the cars eliminates the drivers. At some point, the club needs to bend to the potential "Customer", not the other way around.

True, we need to remember and learn from the mistakes of the past, but at the same time we can't let the fear freeze us.

IF there is sufficient demand, then the class should be configured.

Lets continue to hash this out...lots of good points here...I think the "sides" are closer than they think....

[seckerich]

Money will always be spent on cars and racing--it is up to SCCA to give the customer what they want. There are so many great cars already built that are dead in their series (WC, GRAND AM, Touring) that would fit perfect in a faster IT class. It is expensive but the cost to run is no worse than my bill for slicks in production. It is not a huge jump in price from a 16 to 17 inch tire. Same people that make cheap wheels in 15's have good 17's as well. Same club that thinks a formula V must live forever (forgive me if you have one) wont let a new class with great car choices have a chance.

Turbo and AWD need a place to play but current regional tech is not equiped to handle them. Nothing short of mandated data recorders will work for turbo cars. AWD can be much easier to work in given a year to settle on a proper weight. Safety equipment is a white elephant as most have run touring with a cage requirement that in the past has been a joke. With 1.75 cages in most cars to build on, they will be as safe as anything running. Cars today get laughed at with less than 250 ponies from the factory so we need to move forward and give them a place to play. Forget trying to stuff 20 year old cars in a new formula--we have that now. If money is the big issue stay with the current class you are in, nobody is telling you to leave. If you want somewhere to run faster, more modern cars without spending $5000.00 per race like Grand Am or touring--jump in. Say the word and I will have my car on the rotary table tomorrow!! Count this as a big yes vote.

As for the dilution of the current classes--we have needed a thinning of the herd for some time now. When you need to beg 10 friends to run so you keep class numbers up they need to die. When I have to run in a group with 90+ cars and watch a group with 6-10 race by themselves it is a little crazy. Flame away.

[MMiskoe]

Sorry for speaking w/o full backround on the touring forced induction part, but I was under the impression that they did look at where those cars would be w/ un-regulated boost & incorporated at least some of that in the classing.

SRX7 - It never made it in the northeast. I have yet to see one at a NER race. Certainly pales in comparison to SM, SRF etc. Didn't take off like those have. I was just trying to use it as an example. Perhaps there were other classes that didn't make it?

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by seckerich@Dec 6 2005, 03:36 AM

Turbo and AWD need a place to play

Count this as a big yes vote.

[snapback]67428[/snapback]

I am with Steve on this one

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 10:15 AM
This is a poll to determine how many IT Forum members would be interested in an "ITR" class. For purposes of this poll the ITR class would:

*Class cars above the performance envelope of ITS

*Class "newer" cars and make attempts to accommodate T2 and T3 cars

*Generally be a step above ITS costs in terms of basic car costs and running costs

[snapback]67270[/snapback]

I vote YES. I've got my new (to me) Z3 race car comming and want an IT class for the '97 2.8l. But I have to wonder how it'll be classed aginst cars that can potnetially make 300hp with IT mods. Given that the current motor(which I know is not IT legal) makes 270hp with M3 cams, an M50 intake kit, and tech II engine management. I'd say it'd probably be in the range of 250-260 hp max. BTW, everyone is talking about how expensive it'll be to campaign this car. But I'll wind up paying LESS than what it would have cost for a top 10 Spec Miata ~20K. You might ask how this came to be, and I'd say there's always a deal on a race car you just have to be patient and wait for the right one to come along.

James

[cherokee]

I think that there should be a class for faster cars then ITS. Someone said something to the effect Remember ITD, nobody makes cars that slow anymore. You could say the same thing about about ITC, ITB, heck for all the classes if you try. From what I have seen SCCA is very slow to make big changes. Look at the GTL deal.

There are a point that I would like to comment on.

"unsafe run groups causing the loss of drivers that aren't willing to drive an ITC car in a GT1 grid"

We have this now, do you know what the difference between an ITE Viper and and ITC 510. Pretty darn scarry. I have been in an ITA car on the track at the same time as an ITE Panoz. I have even seen a 355 get together with a Festiva. IT is an unsafe race group depending on what ITE cars show up. ITE should be made a "real" class the next above ITS, and maybe one above that for very Big power cars, I like the comments that IT should look like Touring all the way down to the slowest SS class. Kind of like

T1 would feed to ITE
ITE would feed to a EP
EP would feed to GT1
and so on, or something to that effect.


The only place your car would get too old to run is in the Touring or SS classes.
Maybe I am making things too simple.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by cherokee@Dec 7 2005, 07:15 AM
I think that there should be a class for faster cars then ITS. Someone said something to the effect Remember ITD, nobody makes cars that slow anymore. You could say the same thing about about ITC, ITB, heck for all the classes if you try. From what I have seen SCCA is very slow to make big changes. Look at the GTL deal.

There are a point that I would like to comment on.

"unsafe run groups causing the loss of drivers that aren't willing to drive an ITC car in a GT1 grid"

We have this now, do you know what the difference between an ITE Viper and and ITC 510. Pretty darn scarry. I have been in an ITA car on the track at the same time as an ITE Panoz. I have even seen a 355 get together with a Festiva. IT is an unsafe race group depending on what ITE cars show up. ITE should be made a "real" class the next above ITS, and maybe one above that for very Big power cars, I like the comments that IT should look like Touring all the way down to the slowest SS class. Kind of like

T1 would feed to ITE
ITE would feed to a EP
EP would feed to GT1
and so on, or something to that effect.
The only place your car would get too old to run is in the Touring or SS classes.
Maybe I am making things too simple.

[snapback]67501[/snapback]

Originally posted by harlan
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.

Nice try Cherokee, Try use the sentence in context. Having sold the ITC510 because of this exact issue I can tell you I understand the difference. The point is when you add more classes you create more of these poor groupings.


Also understand, You will never bring a set of rules to ITE (having tried) ITE is now an established radial tired SP class that has decent particiption and will never be brought back to true IT spec.

[cherokee]

I thaught that the point you where trying to make is that no one that is driving a car as fast as an ITC car will want to run with cars as fast as some of the cars suggested for a class above ITS. Sorry I miss understood. All I was pointing out that we have this now. Shooting down a class above ITS because it would make the run group unsafe is false I think. ITE will always be faster when you have a twin turbo 911 in there (as I did at my school). The cars in the suggested class above ITS I doubt would have cars of that type in it. I was using ITE as an example don't get hung up on the letter after IT.

I think all will admit that there is a problem or at least on coming over the hill. Short of making some pretty big changes to the IT classes, I do not see a fix for this.

Whatever change happens people are going to be unhappy, be it something like GT4-GT5 be it Z3 in SS, adding Touring classes, Limited prep, Spec Miata whatever people are going to think it is bad. But we have to do something. Or IT will turn vintage and even I don't think thats a good idea.

I realy think thats why we see the new touring classes they are too fast to fit in SS classes, I think we are seeing the same thing in IT, new hot trendy cars do not fit anywhere, even cars that are IT possible.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by cherokee@Dec 7 2005, 09:50 AM
I thaught that the point you where trying to make is that no one that is driving a car as fast as an ITC car will want to run with cars as fast as some of the cars suggested for a class above ITS. Sorry I miss understood. All I was pointing out that we have this now. Shooting down a class above ITS because it would make the run group unsafe is false I think. ITE will always be faster when you have a twin turbo 911 in there (as I did at my school). The cars in the suggested class above ITS I doubt would have cars of that type in it. I was using ITE as an example don't get hung up on the letter after IT.

I think all will admit that there is a problem or at least on coming over the hill. Short of making some pretty big changes to the IT classes, I do not see a fix for this.

Whatever change happens people are going to be unhappy, be it something like GT4-GT5 be it Z3 in SS, adding Touring classes, Limited prep, Spec Miata whatever people are going to think it is bad. But we have to do something. Or IT will turn vintage and even I don't think thats a good idea.

I realy think thats why we see the new touring classes they are too fast to fit in SS classes, I think we are seeing the same thing in IT, new hot trendy cars do not fit anywhere, even cars that are IT possible.

[snapback]67516[/snapback]

Cherokee,
Lets start here first...ITE IS NOT AN IT CLASS, ITE WAS GIVEN THAN NAME AND NEVER SHOULD HAVE BEEN.....There is nothing IT about ITE other than the name.

Lets also say I am not against a new class above ITS. I am agaist making a mistake on what that class is. I am against adding a class when we still have room to fill our current classes with the current offerings of many of the car manufactures today and into the next 5 years. I am against folks saying there will be a natural bleed off from the touring classes and classes like grand am ect. Many of these classes are now prepared way beyond IT, Touring is a high dollar deal that will take at least 5 to 10 years to see the bleed of to a regional level, Next don't forget T1-T3 are national classes but they are also regional classes so for at least the next 10 years there is a place for these cars to fall into. I will be leading the charge to make declassed national touring car eligable for regional touring (with no adjustments) for at least 5 years beyond that. Back to work and enjoy the day.

[Bill Miller]

I agree w/ Joe, the only thing 'IT' about ITE, is the name (and I guess the fact that they have to run on DOT tires). And I think it should stay that way. I've got no problem w/ catch-all classes like that, except when you get too many of them. An IT class above ITS is a good thing, and is probably an inevitability. There are just too many popular cars out there, that are outside the ITS envelope.

I will be leading the charge to make declassed national touring car eligable for regional touring (with no adjustments) for at least 5 years beyond that.

Gee Joe, where have I heard that before? :P

[cherokee]

I am just sitting here watching two servers format. I have a love/hate feeling about Citrix.

I thaught that ITE was kind of like SP. Cars that have an IT level of prep get put into ITE cars that have a prod level of prep go to SP.....if they don't fit anywhere else.
Am I missing the boat here?

So ITE while not a "real" IT class is an IT class, just like SP is. I could take my car that is ITB in every way put two side draft carbs, or FI on it and run ITE right. Put slicks and other prod stuff and run a blower and run in SP. Thats how I understand things.

I just don't think that there are that many cars out there that will fit in the A&S classes let alone B&C. Look what they had to do to the new beetle to get it to fit into C. It weighs more then a school bus, almost. Anybody seen one? I think it would be a cool IT car but I think it was a test bunny, see if we can toss weight at a car put it in a slow class and see if it sinks or swims.

What else are you going to do on a slow snowy day watching servers install 2003.

BTW Joe, what kind of car do you run.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by cherokee@Dec 7 2005, 11:05 AM
I am just sitting here watching two servers format. I have a love/hate feeling about Citrix.

I thaught that ITE was kind of like SP. Cars that have an IT level of prep get put into ITE cars that have a prod level of prep go to SP.....if they don't fit anywhere else.
Am I missing the boat here?

So ITE while not a "real" IT class is an IT class, just like SP is. I could take my car that is ITB in every way put two side draft carbs, or FI on it and run ITE right. Put slicks and other prod stuff and run a blower and run in SP. Thats how I understand things.

I just don't think that there are that many cars out there that will fit in the A&S classes let alone B&C. Look what they had to do to the new beetle to get it to fit into C. It weighs more then a school bus, almost. Anybody seen one? I think it would be a cool IT car but I think it was a test bunny, see if we can toss weight at a car put it in a slow class and see if it sinks or swims.

What else are you going to do on a slow snowy day watching servers install 2003.

BTW Joe, what kind of car do you run.

[snapback]67527[/snapback]

What is the factory weight on a beetle. Maybe it can't get down to 2000 lbs. This is another reason that newer cars are gonna struggle with IT specs. Weight they are all getting heavier. A 2003 350z prepped to T2 specs can barely break 3300lbs with a 185lb driver. My guess is that the bug with big factory crash bumpers was heavy out of the box.

I stated a couple of pages ago what I drive. It's another class and another type of prep. what difference does that make?

[JamesB]

I think the NB did get a little weight though. With a curb weight of 2712, and knowing that the back seats of the car alone weigh ~100lb, removing all the sound deadening, I figure you will likely have to add weight to it once you put it in IT trim.

[Knestis]

Dangerous to let conversations about ITE muddy the water here. The rules vary dramatically around the country. I don't know for sure, for example, but I saw evidence at the ARRC that Atlanta has split it into two classes - presumably by displacement?

Joe's perspective is based on the fact that ITE is a huge stomping ground for PCA folks in the Northwest. At the last regional I went to up there - at Bremerton, and it has been 6-7 years ago - the Porsche classes were the biggest of the weekend. And some of those cars were outrageously powerful.

In other places, ITE cars really are "IT Everything," where things look more like the way ITR is being described here.

K