As I see it, I think the new process and the new specs are completely justified. Why do you think there are so many spec classes out there? People want to run the cars they like and still have a chance, with hard work, to run near the front. There is nothing wrong with that desire. Car people are strange; who knows why one person LOVES one marque but hates another? Using myself as an example, Im very partial to old school and sporting Toyotas but I really am not into Hondas. I like old muscle Oldsmobiles and Buicks, but not Chevys. So, again using me as the example, I personally like the RWD Corollas and the 86-92 Celicas. The Celicas were totally outgunned in the classes they were in, which is one of the reasons I went with the Corolla. I figured the Corolla was till pretty heavy for ITB considering its stock horsepower of 75, but I have heard great things about the 3TC engines in these cars and you can buy/build them for little $$$. It will be a long-shot to be competitive at 2310lbs, but I figured it would be fun regardless. However, there are a lot of people who would be very discouraged if they found that the car they love can be raced wheel to wheel, but has no hope of being near the front. Its just the competitive nature of the human condition. It is MUCH better for IT to have a more uniform process of classification that at least levels the playing field a little bit. Even with the new process, there is still the no guarantee clause because it is waaayyy to difficult to get each car to be “equal.” Parity outside of a “spec” class will never be perfect because there are too many variables to maintain. Thus, the ITAC and CRB figured (correctly, I think) that IT should try to broaden its appeal to lovers of all makes of car by getting as close to equal as possible in a fashion that would not significantly increase the cost of racing in the class. I think the reclassing and weight corrections are the best way to do it, as it does not cost much more (if any) for MOST people to meet the new rules. The benefit? More cars in IT, more fun for us, and a healthy future for the class.
I talked to Andy B. today about my car in particular, and he was most helpful. Everyone believe me when I say that I came out of the conversation very confident in the capabilities of the ITAC to do good for us. There is a process in place and that is where we need to be. We cannot have this hap-hazard way of classing cars because that makes no sense what-so-ever. Why would you class a RWD 189hp BMW in the same class as a 135hp FWD Celica when the Bimmer only has to weigh about 400# more? The Celica has no other advantages than weight, and even then the Toy is still at a significant power-to-weight disadvantage. Does that just mean that the Celica lovers get screwed because not even a minimal amount of effort was made to class their car with other ones in the same performance envelope? What good is that for the SCCA? Now that the ITAC has created a process to keep these kinds of things in check, we SHOULD go back and look at the cars already classed, as Andy has graciously offered, and see if we can fix the ones that are out of the class envelope. Its not about making competition adjustments, its about having four IT classes comprised of cars that are grouped together in a way that MAKES SENSE. Now, we can have the person who finds an old 280ZX on the side of the road take the thing home and get to work, instead of thinking “that would be kind of cool, but it would get it’s a$$ kicked,” and scrap the whole idea.
Incidentally, my Corolla was not looked at because I’m the only person out there who is (or will be, I mean) running one. The ITAC spent their energies on the cars that would impact IT on a larger scale. Now that the bulk of that work is done, they are willing to look at the less popular cars. Its not that I am less important to the IT community, but it WAS more important to IT as a whole for them to address the tons of 1st gen RX7 racers out there. Makes logical sense to me.
Sheesh, now imagine how long this took to type with one broken hand. Heh.
[/b]
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks