The ITR Star Chamber

[JeffYoung]

Bill, I agree with you personnaly. There were two view points on this one. Myself and others beleive that an ITR pony makes sense and fits the class, and there are many, many cheap ones available right now. The competing, and valid, viewpoint was that (a) Ponies don't race that well with IT cars and ( ITR is enough of a mouthful to swallow right now for the CRB, and it would be worse with teh ponies in it.

I disagree with (a) but the viewpoint on the other side has merit. I do think ( is valid. Having them in now might make it hard to get ITR through at all. After this is done. contact me and you, I and others can push hard to get them classed.

Bottom line, I think they need to be there, but doing it now might hurt the whole process.

Jeff

[planet6racing]

Thank you, Jeff. But, I'm still at a loss. If we are creating ITR to class high dollar cars (Porsche, BMW, Audi, etc), I guess I just don't get it.

I know this topic has been beaten to death before. And, IIRC, the other Bill was one to make the point, but I really don't feel the high $$$ cars need to be in IT.

Don't get me wrong, I know the club needs the money. And, I know these guys really don't have any place else to race, but...

Well, I don't really have an alternative. I'm crabby today (can everyone tell?) so I'm probably a little more critical and more vocal than I have been recently. I just don't like IT trying to be everything to everybody (I get enough of that at work).

[Bill Miller]

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..... [/b]

Why am I not surprised at your comment Joe? Dissapointed, but not surprised. If you can't accept my word, as well as the word of several others working on this, there's not a whole lot that I can do. Also, please read Kirk's comments. This is not an officially sanctioned initiative, it's a group of people that got together to do something that they feel is in the best interest of the club. The webmaster of this site was kind enough to give us some space to work in. We could have just as easily done this through email and con-call, and not said anything to anybody. Maybe your just sore that you're not involved?

[Tristan Smith]

"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."

Andy,

Not worried about being the slowest class. My concern is speed differentials. It's my sense that we could have some really fast cars once they are developed in this new ITR class, and I am more concerned about my safety. I have raced in Pro IT races at Road Atlanta in my old ITB Datsun back in the day. I more than once got a "chrome shoehorn" out of the way because of the speed disparity. And as Jeff stated, the ITS/ITA fields have been full in the Southeast. I just hope that some of these things are included in the thought process.

[dj10]

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....
[/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.

I'd like for someone who is working on this ITR thing to at least they have thought about this.
Thanks

[Andy Bettencourt]

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. [/b]

American Iron is a prototypical NASA class. It's designed as a stand alone to be everything to a few. SCCA does not and can not work like that or else it couldn't be a lot to many. Here is the the Intent of AI:

They police by a power to weight of 9:5 to one HP and 9:1 TQ. This could be one heck of an expensive class with virtually no limits...if you want to win. The V8's in IT would be clammoring for larger brakes and tuner rear suspension stuff etc. You can build any car cheap in IT, it's just how far you want to prep it...just like SM, American Iron - anything really.

A 968 is no more expensive than a E46 323. There will be plenty of affordable cars in ITR, and the goal is for them all to have a shot, regardless of cost.</span></div>

[Knestis]

Apropos of nothing (golly, I love that) the consensus among the tuner-types we are working with is that the OBDI system in the new (but older) Golf we&#39;re building up will allow us MORE tuning lattitude, more affordably, than the OBDII we ran in the first car.

Looks like Andy just beat me to it but I&#39;m pretty sure that the NASA AI cars are well beyond the preparation rules of IT.

K

EDIT - ...which didn&#39;t really get to the OBDI/OBDII question. That hasn&#39;t been on the plate because it&#39;s pretty much accepted that some cars are going to come with advantages, while others don&#39;t. Or vice-versa - some will have issues while others don&#39;t. We can&#39;t get into that kind of granularity, trying to handicap individual make/model options, beyond the general considerations for FWD/RWD, etc. It was pointed out that the Celica GT-S - an R candidate at its apparently achievable feather weight - has oiling issues. We accept that that&#39;s not our problem.

[zracre]

We have ITGT here in the SEDIV and the fields are usually 1-2 cars sometimes 3...it is a dying class...why? Nobody is building them. A pony car with IT mods = heavy fast no brakes. The faster ones tend to run around top ITA times then fall off pretty fast when the brake temps reach critical mass (around lap 5) For them to be competitive in a class above ITS they would need a brake allowance and that is not the IT philosophy. Most will just go to AS.

[JeffYoung]

Evan, I understand. That was one of the considerations in excluding them. I still think it can work, but I agree brakes are an issue.

For now, they are out. If there is enough interest, they may be classed in the future and I would support that.

[planet6racing]

I agree completely that AI cars are well beyond the IT car prep. And I agree that we should not police by HP:weight.

What I am saying is that they saw an opportunity to use a relatively inexpensive car with readily available performance parts and found a way to fit it into their racing that was cost-effective, such that even the new guy with the basic modifications could come out and have fun. For the pony cars, we don&#39;t have that. Just AS and GT. Neither of which I would consider cost effective.

Andy, just out of curiosity, what other cars are being proposed for ITR? I&#39;ve heard of the S2000, Z3, 968, E46 3-series, E36 3-series, and the RX-8. Only 2 of those would I consider "low cost"...

(And, I&#39;m not saying that I am so naive as to not believe that racing is cheap. Heck, I race a Saturn. While I know that the initial upfront cost of the car is minor in comparison to the rest of it all, the cost of the aftermarket parts also falls inline with the purchase price of the car. The more expensive the car, the more expensive you can expect the aftermarket to be...)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, just out of curiosity, what other cars are being proposed for ITR? I&#39;ve heard of the S2000, Z3, 968, E46 3-series, E36 3-series, and the RX-8. Only 2 of those would I consider "low cost"...

(And, I&#39;m not saying that I am so naive as to not believe that racing is cheap. Heck, I race a Saturn. While I know that the initial upfront cost of the car is minor in comparison to the rest of it all, the cost of the aftermarket parts also falls inline with the purchase price of the car. The more expensive the car, the more expensive you can expect the aftermarket to be...) [/b]

"Low cost" is realative. The difference between LC in ITC and LC in ITS is a stretch as well. I joke that when someone crashes a VW GTI-like-thingie that it will be ok because they will see 2 or 3 donors on the way home someone wants to give them...

Porsche 944S2
Contour SVT
300ZX
Supra
ect.

By nature these cars have higer HP and initial buy costs will be higher. The question this class is answering is not one of cost, it is one of new, fresh cars, hopefully of which people are interested in racing.

AB

[Knestis]

Andy - you best be telling me if you see any MkIII thingies out there...

I&#39;ll echo what Andy is saying about cost. We are trying to get more cars listed, that are too fast for S, and cost containment is not an issue on the table. I&#39;m captain budget (contrary to what some will think when they see our new paint job) and am CONSTANTLY amazed at what people will spend to go club racing. This class will certainly be more expensive than, say ITC, but that&#39;s not something we&#39;re worried about, I don&#39;t think.

Oddly, I&#39;m thinking that I&#39;m more likely to build an R car in the future than another cheaper B car, simply because it&#39;s more likely to attract spendy renters or marque fans who want at-track support or car preparation.

K

[JeffYoung]

We did, with the spreadsheet, an estimated cost for donor vehicles. High side was probably 15k or so, but plenty of 3 to 5k options. Certianly not like $200 RX7 tubs, but not crazy either -- and would have running motors, etc.

I agree with Kirk and Andy, I think there is enough of a range of cars that you can do a budget ITR car, and have plenty of fun, but just know that it will be about as competitive as a budget ITS car is against BWorld etc.

[tom_sprecher]

Oh yeah, I forgot about ITGT and ITE! Do other divisions have a similar classes and if so is are they well subscribed? If the answers are yes and no why bother with ITR?

Plus, Tristan has a point with the speed differential in the group ITR would run in. Due to safety reasons, car counts, weight & HP, etc. it appears the only group they can run in would be with the GT1, SPO & T1 guys.

Unfortunately, I haven&#39;t run much, but having been grouped with the big boys I know when they blow by in the straight it&#39;s a rush. At least it is for me. I mean damn, the whole car shakes. I don&#39;t think an ITR would have the same effect as an SPO (NASCAR) but due to existing car counts I&#39;d prefer if they were not in ITS/ITA/IT7.

And I don&#39;t care if I&#39;m the slowest car in the slowest class in the group. It just makes me work harder to keep up.

[lateapex911]

Keep in mind that IT, as a category aims to be relativley budget friendly...and it is. Can you race cheap and be competitive in IT? Sure can. Go buy a Blethen Audi, or a good ITC car. Tim Klavana has a fast Honda for sale.

Can you spend money? Sure can! It&#39;s rumoured that Mr Moser Sr spent $35K on the ARRC CRX this year. For ITA...and reports of S cars selling in the $35K range are common. But you don&#39;t have to pay King Motorsports $75 an hour to lick the undercoating off your CRX if you don&#39;t want to.

By nature, faster classes cost more IF they are open to more than one VERY limited rule set for ONE model car. IT is of course, a big pond, with more than one model.

Our goal isn&#39;t focusing on keeping costs down at all costs, pun intended, but making sure that there is no obvious overdog, especialy one that is an expensive build.

In a multi marque series, it is nearly impossible to limit spending. The best we can do is make the dollars spent have diminishing returns at some point.

And...on the V8 thing, my comments aren&#39;t really concerning numbers like tq and hp. I really don&#39;t care IF or IF not the car fits in the class.

I care what the "gut" or instictive reaction will be when the CRB, and if it gets that far, the BoD will have when they see "Ford 5.0 litre Mustang" on the list.

This is a HUGE uphill fight to have this even be considered...and I don&#39;t want anything that needs debating or explaining.

if it&#39;s going to see the light of day, the BoD and the CRB have to see it as something that solves their problems, and doesn&#39;t create more.


(Just for the record, and without having nailed down numbers on the V8s, I think they could be made to fit, but I also wonder if the draw is as strong as we think it might be. Some, (a lot of?) the &#39;Murican owners love to throw parts like cams and stuff at the car rather than driving talent, it seems to me. They might be frustrated by the "limited" rules, and balk at having to take stuff off their car to race)

[gran racing]

With the classes running together comments...
If ITS can run with ITB, why can&#39;t ITR run with ITA?

Just curious, what are the car counts in NASA like for some of the cars you mentioned? Is there really much of a demand for this type of class? Is there a larger potential market for another classification category?

[planet6racing]

Just curious, what are the car counts in NASA like for some of the cars you mentioned? Is there really much of a demand for this type of class? Is there a larger potential market for another classification category?
[/b]

To be honest, I have none of this information. I just read about it in GRM and at another site that I frequent. Car counts seem to be in the 20&#39;s for AI, but I cannot back that up with any data at this time.

I don&#39;t know if there is potential. If it were up to me, I&#39;d probably look at performing a Voice of the Customer survey and find out what the SCCA membership is looking for. Of course, that is Work Bill talking and I&#39;m sure that, once I get home and wash the racecar I&#39;ll have a different perspective...

Jake, I understand the concept of IT and guess that, well, right now no answer is really going to make me happy. I understand what you all are trying to do and am trying to be supportive (though you wouldn&#39;t know it, eh?). So, let me do this:

89?-95 Ford Taurus SHO

That&#39;s a car I&#39;d like to see get classed (yes, purely personal motives. Then my friend could finally shut-up and put up...). I thought it had too much for ITS (though it is a big pig) but could probably fit into ITR...

[JeffYoung]

Bill, it is in there, as is the SVT Contour. I mailed you the spreadsheet a few hours ago -- let me know if you didn&#39;t get it.

[lateapex911]

Bill, I&#39;m troubled by your mood, everything OK?

It&#39;s really hard to make faster classes cheap across the board.

But, if you were king, and you thought the V8s probably fit, but knew the CRB would blow snot out of their nose when they saw it on the list, ...........

what would you do???

I&#39;m told that while the buy in might be cheap on those cars the consumables would beh huge as the brakes turn to jello after 5 laps.

Once you check out the spreadsheet, what cars did we miss that fit the parameters and are true to the IT philosophy?

(OK, I don&#39;t know that the CRB will flip on the V8 thing, but I suspect that it&#39;s not what they are thinking of as "ideal", and they probably also think that theres a perfectly good place for those cars in AS. Again, I&#39;m just projecting here and could be all wrong.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom, ITGT isn&#39;t a Nationally recognized class like C, B, A and S. And it&#39;s for basically Fords and Chevy&#39;s and thats it, although regional variations may exist.

ITE, on the other hand is a catchall class. Turbos allowed. Cars from other series allowed. Basically it&#39;s no holds barred racing. Get out your checkbook. In my opinion, it shouldn&#39;t be called "IT" at all.

ITR needs to be for the next performance envelope up the ladder from ITS.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Regarding the ECU thing, that is rfeally a seperate issue, and does, in my mind bear looking at. But...it has to be the same for R as it is for S and A and B.

[Z3_GoCar]

Great Idea,

Representing GM add gen III and IV camaro & firebird &#39;s with the (Buick)V-6 option. If I remember correctly the latest V-6 put out about 190-200hp. For the blue oval crowd how about the last Mustang model again with the V-6. I don&#39;t have exact hp, torque, or weight but these should be considered.

James