The ITR Star Chamber

[Bill Miller]

This is for those that have contacted me about participating in the group. After discussions w/ all the members of the group, we feel that we have a workable size group now, and will not be adding any new individuals at this time. We will continue to keep people updated. Thanks to everyone for their interest in helping move this process forward.

[zracre]

Maxed out with the Z32 300 ZX? 222HP is not much more than ITS...I would think the target would be 250HP or some where close to it...

[Knestis]

Current conversations revolve around the dangers of indexing ITR too high, creating another gap (or GAP, says Giles) for tweeners to fall through. The trick is finding the top but not making the cars at that end of the class the de facto must-haves in the class - accepting that R, like the other IT cars actually represents a range of performances rather than just one.

Think about it this way: The top could be defined by the Z-whatever Vette or Viper Competition Coupe, right? That would clearly be troublesome. Any cut-off lower than that is just LESS of a problem until the ceiling of the new class gets low enough that the floor makes sense relative to S.

On the other hand, we have to make sure that there is no on-paper overlap (even though some R cars in the real world will be slower than some S cars, due to prep level, driver skill, etc.), and that there's enough of a difference in mean performance that the class LOOKS faster than S.

It's a pretty difficult balancing act.

Consider a couple of other things, too...

** It will be possible to request that specific makes/models be added to R after it is in place, just like with the rest of the category

** There's no reason that, if R becomes successful, an additional class can't be piled on top, using the same kind of logic and approach we're using here.

** It's more important to get SOMETHING above S at this point, than it is to include EVERYTHING that someone might want to race. A cohesive class is more important for the greater good than is the opportunity for Rex Racer to run his 2001 Whatchamacallit GT.

K

[its66]

This is for those that have contacted me about participating in the group. After discussions w/ all the members of the group, we feel that we have a workable size group now, and will not be adding any new individuals at this time. We will continue to keep people updated. Thanks to everyone for their interest in helping move this process forward.
[/b]

It sure would be nice if there was a way to allow interested racers/forum members the ability to view the posts, comments, and opinions which may affect the future of our class. I can understand not wanting 4000 posts arguing the classification weight of a 2001 Whatchamacallit GT. Or perhaps VERY strict moderation of the forum. 16 threads, and over 400 replies ...Just to decide where to "draw the line"???.. I think we all deserve to know.....

[planet6racing]

I assume (since it kinda touched off the ITR discussion again) that the E36 325 is included in the new class. Is the idea to have the car listed at some weight spec unrestricted in ITR and delist it from ITS or to have the both the ITS restricted spec and the ITR unrestricted spec available to the car?

tom
[/b]

(please note, Tom, this is not aimed at you, just a general comment)

(on edit) Retracted statement about BMWs. It wasn't helpful to the ITR discussion.(/edit)

And what about the Mustangs/Camaros for those of us that don't want to have the expense of AS? There is no way that I want to run with those people, as I've seen more carnage with them than with SM so far... Plus, I don't like the thought of have to rebuild my engine every weekend just to be competitive.

[Andy Bettencourt]

16 threads, and over 400 replies ...Just to decide where to "draw the line"???..[/b]

1st thread with 155 replies is the "ITR Part Deux" moved from the mainline. No further discussion.
Others topics include:

- Quick discussion of the rules (or more specifically that they must stay the same to be successful)
- "What are our obsticals" thread from a 10,000 foot view
- Quick discussion on the appropriate wheel size for this class given what runs there
- Another 10,000 foot "Value Proposition" thread which will be the basis for our proposal to the ITAC/CRB
- Discussion on VTS sheets - when they will be needed and who will head up the collection of the data
- The 'V8' question - should they be allowed in or do they pose a potential class-tilting problem (or political roadblock)
- "Issues with the spreadsheet" is a final scrub-down of cars and weights for initial classification
- And a "Finalization" thread to cross our T's and dot our i's before the formal written document starts to come to life.
- "Updates to Regular Forum" is just a blurb on the intention to keep the main discussion going while we work a plan.

This is the meat of the section.

[Bill Miller]

It sure would be nice if there was a way to allow interested racers/forum members the ability to view the posts, comments, and opinions which may affect the future of our class. I can understand not wanting 4000 posts arguing the classification weight of a 2001 Whatchamacallit GT. Or perhaps VERY strict moderation of the forum. 16 threads, and over 400 replies ...Just to decide where to "draw the line"???.. I think we all deserve to know.....
[/b]

Jim,

The feeling among the group was to not have a lot of 'leakage' into the general forums, and a lot of associated noise. I can assure you, there's nothing super-secret going on. It's just a group of people trying to address a commonly (among the group) perceived need, that will ultimately increase IT participation and hopefully add more good racing.

A cohesive class is more important for the greater good than is the opportunity for Rex Racer to run his 2001 Whatchamacallit GT.
[/b]

He only gets to run it if we get to 'un-pimp his auto'!

[Fastfred92]

Hey Bill,

Any chance we could start ITR from day one without the stupid "ecu in the oem box rule", then hopefully remove it from the IT specs altogether........

[e36its]

(please note, Tom, this is not aimed at you, just a general comment)
How is this going to make things better? Aren't the BMW people still just going to cry about how they can't be competitive against the Porsche and the new RX-8 in ITR?
[/b]

Bill --

(I gather -- and please, correct me if I'm wrong -- that you are saying that the move of the E36 from ITS to ITR won't make a difference because the whining will just move with it. If I didn't interpret that correctly, I apologize.)

Is this really a fair or helpful comment? A guy could get tired of the perception that "BMW people" are whiners who are going to complain until they get an unfair advantage. There are some of us (I hope myself included) who have not approached this SIR debacle with the intent of whining. I've certainly expressed some frustration but mostly tried to understand the situation and advocate for what I thought fair. I'm inclined to believe that doesn't meet the definition of whining, but I throw myself on the mercy of the court.

tom

edit: speeeeeling

[planet6racing]

Tom:

That is the correct interpretation.

And, I appreciate that you have been cooperative. It has been noticed.

Your comment about it not being helpful to the ITR discussion is valid and correct. I shall retract my statement here...

[Tristan Smith]

Another question............? Who is this new group going to run with? I have some concerns as a current ITA driver of suddenly having to run with cars that are going to be grossly faster than my 240sx? It seems like these cars will be American Sedan fast, and in some cases as heavy. Is there any thought as to what run group they will be in? With the every increasing amount of classes at SCCA weekend, I know there are concerns about getting everybody on track for an appropriate amount of track time.

[Joe Harlan]

Jim,

The feeling among the group was to not have a lot of 'leakage' into the general forums, and a lot of associated noise. I can assure you, there's nothing super-secret going on. It's just a group of people trying to address a commonly (among the group) perceived need, that will ultimately increase IT participation and hopefully add more good racing.
He only gets to run it if we get to 'un-pimp his auto'!
[/b]

Sounds funny from the biggest complainer of the secret car club of america.....What happened to the guy that has screamed for openess for as long as I can remember.....

[dj10]

Some quick answers:

1. I have not heard from any E36 drivers who would run with the SIR, so the plan right now is to delist the E36 325 and have it moved to ITR at 2750 unrestricted.

2. Evan, we looked at putting the E36 M3 in ITR but it moves the target rwp too far up. The class is maxed out at the 222 hp Z32, the S2000 (at 240 hp but pretty maxed at that displacement and with little torque) and the 968 (with again little room for improvement). The RX8 and the BMW S52 cars (M Coupe/Roadster/M3) are probably a little too much, if not a lot too much, for the class.

3. The target stock crank hp for the class is in the 190 to 240 range.

Hope that helps.

Jeff [/b]

Jeff, hope you plan to eliminate motec and such from ITR.

[e36its]

Jeff, hope you plan to eliminate motec and such from ITR.[/b]

I thought the intent for the class was the same IT rules of today with a change to ITR wheel width (specified in 17.1.4.D.7.a.6) so there'd be no provision to eliminate motec from ITR alone.

tom

[Knestis]

I THINK it represents the dominant paradigm of the folks drafting this ITR proposal, that a first principle of the idea is to NOT change any of the existing IT rules (e.g., open-ECU-in-a-box silliness).

The priority here is to get the class created to give a home to some cars that are too fast for ITS. It muddies the water and - we think - dramatically increases the opportunity for the CRB to say "no, thanks" if we start addressing other policy issues with this one proposal.

On the transparency question, remember that this exercise is not an official activity of the SCCA or any of its regions, or the ITAC. It's simply a handful of members who wanted to collaborate on a proposal to the CRB, thinking that this approach would result in a superior proposal and the greatest likelihood of success. I think it's very safe to say that if any one of us had tried this, it would have been far weaker than it is emerging to be, the result of working out differences of opinion and perspective.

That said, expect to see something for more general input before it's submitted - Jeff is working on a para-final draft this week, I believe - but please bear in mind that this initiative cannot be all things to all people.

K

[Fastfred92]

I THINK it represents the dominant paradigm of the folks drafting this ITR proposal, that a first principle of the idea is to NOT change any of the existing IT rules (e.g., open-ECU-in-a-box silliness).

The priority here is to get the class created to give a home to some cars that are too fast for ITS. It muddies the water and - we think - dramatically increases the opportunity for the CRB to say "no, thanks" if we start addressing other policy issues with this one proposal.

[/b]

Agreed...
But just to make clear, I am OK with aftermarket ECU, just not the stupid and costly part about putting it in the OEM box..... seems too late to totaly drop the ecu thing now....

[Andy Bettencourt]

Another question............? Who is this new group going to run with? I have some concerns as a current ITA driver of suddenly having to run with cars that are going to be grossly faster than my 240sx? It seems like these cars will be American Sedan fast, and in some cases as heavy. Is there any thought as to what run group they will be in? With the every increasing amount of classes at SCCA weekend, I know there are concerns about getting everybody on track for an appropriate amount of track time. [/b]

Tristan,

Not sure if this is really a concern overall. The groupings are 100% up to each Region and are usually determined by speed, car counts, and/or weights. While I never like to be the slower class in a run-group, someone has to be. Think how ITC feels - EVERY weekend.

[JeffYoung]

Let me try to answer some questions I saw in the chain of posts:

1. Tristan, I see this class running wth T1/T2/SPO/ITE. THese are the cars they are most like. Also, as you know, in the SEDiv, I would say the ITS/ITA/IT7 run group is about as perfect a mix of cars as you can have and is also "full" at most events, while T1/T2/etc. is not. Be interested to hear your thoughts on this.....

2. There was a lengthy debate on teh V8 ponies (the 190-225 hp ones from the late 80s and early 90s) being in the class or not. For a variety of reasons, ranging from raceability of the cars to the problems they may cause with trying to get all of ITR passed and implemented, they are out for now. I think this is a good decision. At the same time, we are very open to pushing the CRB to class these cars at a later date if there is sufficient interest. I am also all for that.

3. Motec would stay in. As would spherical bearings (sorry Greg). Only change to the IT ruleset would be to allow larger wheels.

Any other questions, let me know. You can also e-mail me off line at [email protected] with any comments/questions or concerns.

Thanks guys. It's a healthy debate in the "star chamber" but civil, and all directed at what is best for the class and the club. I don't see any personal agendas and I'm proud of that.

[dj10]

Let me try to answer some questions I saw in the chain of posts:
3. Motec would stay in.
[/b]

I think you over looking OBDI & OBDII differences. Since you are allowing both type of systems to compete together you must at the very least acknowledge the capabilities of each system. If you don't, you just may be eliminating any OBDI from being competive. Just a thought.

[planet6racing]

2. There was a lengthy debate on teh V8 ponies (the 190-225 hp ones from the late 80s and early 90s) being in the class or not. For a variety of reasons, ranging from raceability of the cars to the problems they may cause with trying to get all of ITR passed and implemented, they are out for now. I think this is a good decision. At the same time, we are very open to pushing the CRB to class these cars at a later date if there is sufficient interest. I am also all for that.

[/b]

This makes no sense given the class philosophy. I can pick up a pony car for less than $2K and get relatively inexpensive performance parts to get it ready to IT standards. However, a 968 Porsche is going to be a much bigger chunk of change...

I look at the popularity of American Iron in NASA. That class is exploding much the same way SM is due to (in my opinion, anyway) the relatively low cost of building a car.