With a lot of excitement, and some trepidation, I am posting in its entirety (sans spreadsheet of cars) the proposal for the creation of a class (ITR) above ITS in Improved Touring for everyone's comment. This proposal is now with the ITAC for presentation to the CRB shortly (rough outlines of it have already been sent to the CR. Initial feedback from the powers that be (we have a CRB member as part of our working group) have been very positive. No promises, no guarantees in SCCA land (and there shouldn't be) but my personal belief is it is likely we will see ITR running next year, 2008 at the latest.
Please give this a look and fire away with comments.
Of course, the "big" debates will come on proposed vehicle weights. We have a spreadsheet developed with those weights and I truly want to relese it but I am very afraid it will turn into the nasty tit for tat fights about car weights, potential and "bias" that I've seen here in the past.
So how to avoid that? Here's my "grand" idea. We "annoint" one board/forum participant to "represent" their manfucturer in the discussions with the spreadsheet. Maybe say, Tristan Smith or KThomas for Nissan, Marshall or DJ for BMW, Steve E. for Mazda, Scott Giles for Honda, etc. I'll send the sheet to them and they can give constructive comments on issues they see with the weighting/classing of their manufacturer's cars.
Make sense? Thoughts?
Here is the written proposal:
Proposal for Restructuring of Improved Touring’s Faster Classes
Submitted to the Improved Touring Advisory Committee for consideration
I. The Past, the Present and the Future
Improved Touring has thrived as a regional class since its inception, and is the “point of entry” for most new SCCA Club racers. It draws large fields in most Regions, and new cars are being built each year. In many ways, it is the bread and butter of SCCA Club Racing and is critical to the survival of most Regions across the country.
While IT is healthy now, it is aging. A class above ITS is needed to fill the pipeline of new cars and drivers for the future. An increasing number of requests have been denied from members asking for higher horsepower cars to be classified. A quick look at old SSA cars, T2 cars and T3 cars shows a plentiful supply of cars in race trim searching for a home. This problem needs to be addressed to keep ITS healthy and vibrant.
II. “ITR”
Several SCCA members, working with some members of the Improved Touring Advisory Committee, would like to propose a solution to the issue of IT aging. This is the creation of an Improved Touring classification “above” ITS in terms of performance potential, to give those cars from 5 to 20 years old with 190 to 230 stock horsepower (there are many, see attached spreadsheet) a place to race (note that some former SSA, existing SSB, T2 and T3 cars will be eligible). These cars are more available, and in our opinion, more exciting to the generation currently deciding on what racing series to build a car for and participate in. Many of them currently appeal to the “tuner” enthusiast who, at this point, has very few real options in Improved Touring.
The list of cars that we believe fit the class is extensive, and could grow over the years. It will open the door to many new cars going SCCA racing. We think we may see new cars running SCCA that currently run with Honda Challenge, BMW CCA and Porsche Club of America and other sanctioning bodies.
We realize there will be resistance. We anticipate those evaluating the merit of this proposal to have the following (legitimate) questions:
• Will it help or hurt ITS?
We believe ITR will, in the long run, result in ITS flourishing. It is our perception that very few new ITS cars are being built, and some chassis retired, due to the belief that the BMW E36 325i/is is the only car to have, and that the only other two cars with any real chance of success are the RX7 and Datsun 240Z. ITS should not be a “three-chassis” class, and in our view, over the last three years, the perception that it is has hurt ITS. The BMW E36 325i/is fits perfectly in ITR without an SIR and will bring back the ITS drivers who have left based on any past engine restrictions. We believe that opening up ITS to many competitive chassis will result in an influx of new cars, and new drivers/members, to the class.
• How will Regions deal with it?
Member retention and development of new membership is always at the top of the lists for Regional goals. This class kills both birds with one stone. It will bring parity back to ITS while drawing entries from Honda Challenge, NASA, Porsche Club and BMW CCA club racing. Since each Region runs their Club Racing program differently, it would be up to them to slot ITR in where appropriate for car counts in that region. For some regions, running ITR with ITS until numbers dictated a split should be easy. For other regions, ITR may more realistically fit with T1/T2/SPO/SPU. In any event, high car counts should not be an unsolvable problem. Anytime a Region has too many entries, it is a good problem to have.
• Safety concerns with higher speeds
Since this will be proposed for 2007, it should fall in line with the re-organization of the cage rules category-wide. We request Touring car-level cages be required.
• Concerns with making “IT” a more expensive class.
While some of the cars in this class are more expensive, this is not a reason to limit the current class structure by eliminating cars that can be or are affordable to many in the racing industry. Affordable “used” cars are available from the T1, T2, T3, SSA, SSB and SSC ranks. Additionally, many of the cars listed on the attached spreadsheet can be had for between $3-6k – the price of a decent Prelude, E36 or Integra GSR ITS shell these days. Additionally, ITR may reduce the cost of racing in ITS as many cheap, presently non-competitive chassis, will now have a chance in ITS and may actually be built by members now that they are potentially competitive.
III. The Ruleset
We propose no changes to the Improved Touring ruleset to accommodate this class, other than the following:
1. ITR maximum wheel width is 8.5 inches.
2. Cage rules should be in line with SCCA Touring classes.
3. AWD and forced induction cars will not presently be classed in ITR.
IV. The Proposed ITR Class
Attached is a spreadsheet with over 30 cars representing our first pass at the cars that should make up in the initial classification for ITR in the ITCS along with anticipated race weights using the ITAC’s classification process. Manufacturers represented include BMW, Porsche, Honda, Acura, Nissan, Audi and others.
We all stand ready to answer any questions you may have about this proposal. The goal would be an approval from the ITAC / CRB / BoD in time for a 2007 implementation.
V. Conclusion
1. ITR will increase the number of cars available to members for building and racing. Furthermore, it will allow Improved Touring to showcase the automotive technology of the last five to 20 years.
2. ITR will bring peace to E36 325 BMW owners and tuners. They will have a place to run unrestricted, and at a reasonable weight. It is also anticipated that many of the “tuner” crowd will build and race Acuras, Hondas and other imports in ITS, as moving the 325 to ITR dispels the notion that you have to have a 325 to win in ITS. ITR will also be a viable venue for BMWCCA and PCA racers to race cars currently under competitive in their clubs and/or allow them to race at a higher level of preparation.
3. ITR will increase membership and participation in IT racing. Many of the competitive cars in ITS are presently older than members (and potential members) in their 20s. We hope to make available to them some of the popular models of the last five to 20 years in the hopes that they will build and race these cars.
4. We do not believe that ITR will unnecessarily “crowd” regional race weekends. ITR appears perfectly suited to run with either Big Bore closed wheel or ITS as it sits. When the class gains momentum, Regions will make space as needed.
5. ITR will provide a venue for several ex-SSB and T2/3 cars to race, once they are no longer eligible to run in SS or T.
This class will freshen Improved Touring, draw new members and retain ones that are seeking other outlets. It’s a win-win!
Reply With Quote
. What you see represents a true compromise in many respects, among those who were involved in its creation. Nobody had to fall on their sword and nobody got exactly what they wanted, I don't think.
Once the dust settles and everyone had had their say we all can rejoice in the knowledge that was shared and no one will feel left out. Or not.
Bookmarks