M'kay - so think out of the box...

[Knestis]

There's been suggestions that ITR is the "wrong direction" for the category so I thought it would be interesting to think about what other directions IT - or something spiritually its equivalent - might look like. This isn't such an odd quesiton for a reformed NERD to ask, since I've resigned myself to the fact that we can't stop "progress," and in a decade IT grids will look like current LP fields...

I will however get off my chest right up front that I don't believe that there's any way to legislate decreased costs, short of a claimer class (or engines or other major components). That said, there might be ways to passively encourage affordability:

** Proactively list some new ITB and ITC cars - we actually tried to start a movement to get some new blood into the classes that are most affordable. Dave G. (I think) suggested that it is tough for newbies, whom we should be courting like crazy, to understand or undertake the listing process. I couldn't agree more. The Hondas are a great addition to ITB and I'd love to see more options.

** My favorite new idea is "Pro ITA" or "Tiny Touring Cars" - take the EXACT SAME IT RULES, and apply them to cars that fit the ITA envelope but are NOT old enough to be eligible for club IT. Create semi-pro divisional series (pl.), running with WCT/GT and other events, and let the allure of big-time, pro racing siphon off some of the cream that otherwise might define the top of the spending continuum. Those cars would then become ineligible for the pro series, and available for club racing, when they hit the established age threshold.

** What else?

K

[tnord]

i haven't heard the grumblings about the new class being too expensive (of course it is now, but what about 7yrs out?), maybe i need to poke around the site some more.

i suppose you could start to alter the way the rules are written for IT with the new class. start to reign in things like not allowing an aftermarket header, no .40 over pistons, or some of the other power adders that just make the cars faster and more expensive to run. you could move it more towards touring rules but keep the allowances for weight reduction (if not add more) to reduce stress on consumables. something like touring rules + gut the car + intake + springs/swaybars and leave it at that. kinda along the lines of the SM ruleset where there's more allowed than SS/Touring, but not as much as is currently in IT.

i personally like IT the way it is, but it's just an idea.

[dickita15]

I support ITR but the concept of cheaper racing is always a worthy discussion.

Maybe the biggest single thing that could be done to save money is a tire rule. I there was a way to put a class of cars on a hard tire it would save $$.

I know some Solo classes have a treadwear limit.

[Eagle7]

Maybe the biggest single thing that could be done to save money is a tire rule. I there was a way to put a class of cars on a hard tire it would save $$.
[/b]

[zracre]

The biggest problem with trying to make it cheaper is that it gets more expensive in the long run! Look at SM...If you make it so only the people that have this xxx 8K rebuild or this 5K ECU, it will take the newbies out and separate the field even more. SM was great when it was regional but when it turned Nat, it got rediculous! Id say leave ITR the way it is and lets see how many come to play! You are not going to keep costs down in ITR...that is the point. Maybe make the only alteration in ITR rules with the year eligibility and if the car is an obvious overdog it will get an SIR...If you start out the class like this maybe it wont snowball into something that is more of a headache.

[tnord]

like i said, i prefer the IT ruleset stay the way it is. but kirk said to come up with some new ideas.....


the 7k SM motor build is EASILY avoidable if they would just allow B&B like in IT. there are some rules in SM that do actually contain costs to a certain degree. OEM header rule limits build, tuning, and development costs, and same with the lack of a .40 over piston rule.

and then there's that whole spherical bushing/bearing issue.....

[JeffW]

NASA may be onto something with Performance Touring. But policing the a la carte point system to classify your car looks like a nightmare for the Tech guys. But having several classes available where one can be reasonably competitive with others is attractive. Once a particular car was developed and proven to be the dominant car in its class, I'm sure that some cars were retired. Look at the starting grids. Only a select few models and makes show up while many more 'has beens' sit in garages waiting for the current IT car to be reclassed more competitively, or while they collect their pennies to convert to Production or something else.

I don't know how the NASA car counts have been since the introduction of PT, but it sure looks like a place for currently misclassed IT cars.

The disclaimer in the ITCS about giving someone a place to run his car was the shortcut away from fixing a problem. One of the biggest clues to this problem was the formation of IT7, which might be considered IT'A' Light.

Wasn't Saturn all the rage awhile back? Where are they now? Will Neons be the new Honda killer?

Take the current lineup of ITS, ITA, ITB and ITC cars, sprinkle in some KIA's, Mitsubishi's and Hyundai's, fill in some of the gaps (Toyota Tercel's, BMW Z3 w/2.5 or 2.8, Mazda 626, etc.) and divide them into more classes with closer competition. But keep the IT rules and do not allow the a la carte classification system.

The intriguing thing about the NASA PT points system is that you get to chose your modifications, and hence, your class. As you add modifications (and points) and approach the next class you may be stuck with questions of "header vs. R&P?". Knowing that if you do both you could be at the bottom of the next competition bracket, which could lead to another $3K in mods to be competitive. It will be interesting to see the preferred combinations of mods that people settle on in each PT class.

Spec tire is worth considering.

Jeff

[tnord]

without getting into it....

NO! spec tire is NOT worth considering.

[JLawton]

Wasn't Saturn all the rage awhile back? Where are they now? [/b]

I'm right here!!





I would be willing to look at a spec tire. The tire budget to be competitive is a good chunk of the yearly spend.

I also think we should make a full out effort to get some newer ITC & ITB cars classified. Come up with a list (similar to the ITR list), run them through the process and submit it. There may not be an immediate impact, but I'm sure over a 5 year period more and more of the younger generation will be looking at it.....

[planet6racing]

Wasn't Saturn all the rage awhile back? Where are they now?
[/b]

Me too! (BTW: Saturns were never the hot ticket in SCCA. If they were, I'd expect more than 5 of them would be racing across the country...)

Spec tire is right out.

How about something like IT Formula Car? You're required to build your own car (with approval from a PE on the design) and are limited any of the Geo motors (from when they were known as Geo, not after Chevy started putting their names on them).

[ddewhurst]

HARD tires are THE way to lessen the cost of IT racing.................................

As an example folks in the past shaved Toyo tires to 4/32, now the sharp end are shaving to 2/32.............

Kart racing in some areas uses HARD tires & one set of hard Kart tires can be used for a full 18 race date season...............


Question: Do we have THE REAL issues as to why the car count in what ever class is becoming less or are we blue skying ?????????????????

Question: Do WE have the REAL issues why youth is not buying into IT racing ??????????? I see plenty of young bucks with 10 to $20,000 Spec Miatas.

David Dewhurst

[dickita15]

I wonder if a tire can be found that is fun to race on and cheap and durable. I would love someone smarter than me to come up with something other than just specing a toyo. There must be an outside the box solution that no one has come up with.

One idea that has come up amongst some of my friends after many beers is to limit everyone to five tires for the season.

[gran racing]

A combined Touring / ITish class might be good. Run stock engines, and keep suspensions, exhaust, and a few other items open still.

For me, tires is a huge portion of my racing budget.

Is there a way to simplify the classification process? When I worked on getting my Prelude classed, I took it with me to a few Honda dealerships. One of the guys used to have the same gen Prelude, so he was pretty familiar with it. Once they learned that it was related to racing, they got into it and really tried helping me out. At that point, I didn't own one of the $100 Honda Shop manuals for the car, but why would I? They sat me down at a desk and allowed me to make some copies. Because I'm far from a mechanic, I was very confused about several of the item on the VTS document. But never fear, I had Honda mechanics at my disposal, right? They said, what in the world are they looking for there? So, there were some items I just couldn't figure out. I then called Honda directly, but the information was "proprietary" and they couldn't release that info. After a while, I called SCCA tech. and they said that information really isn't necessary. So why in the world include it?

Hey, since the comp. guys are here, could you review the current VTS see what could be removed? What do you use when classing a car, and what is non-essential?

[planet6racing]

If we go to a spec tire, aren't we just shifting the money elsewhere? What's to stop someone from having 18 different sets of shocks for the different tracks to tune since you can't use different tires for spring rates?

Spec tires really aren't the answer, imho.

[bldn10]

"Question: Do WE have the REAL issues why youth is not buying into IT racing ???????????"

To start: whatever tires & wheels you can stuff in your fender well; wings, rocker, and nose kits; slammed. DTM lite.

On the other hand, I think alot of these young guys have so much $ invested in their cars that they cannot chance tearing them up. They drag because there is little risk. But simply giving them a place to run relatively cheap cars is not enough - they have to be COOL!

[Knestis]

... could you review the current VTS see what could be removed? What do you use when classing a car, and what is non-essential?
[/b]

An excellent question, here. There are some things that i think the ITAC's process needs that are NOT on the VTS, and a ton of stuff on the form that is absolutely NOT important to getting an IT car listed. Windshield layback angle?? Riiight.

How about an IT-specific "Classification Listing Sheet" or something similar?

K

EDIT - having raced spec-tire series, it's been my experience that they are not money-savers either. We used to buy TAKE-OFF specs from the guys willing to spend the dough to get the most speed out of their rubber.

[orlando_wrx]

Since ecu's inside the box are open, one way of decreasing costs "outside the box" would be to open up engine wiring harness and just get rid of the stock ecu box rule. Many older cars rescued from the scrap heap to be built into IT cars have been weathered and feature corroded wiring harnesses. New stock harnesses are expensive for what you really get and are becomming harder to come by in older cars. If engine management is open it just adds to expenses to pin it into the factory harness inside the factory box. The rule itself also tends to favor certain cars: Hondas have hondata and many others have larger factory ecu boxes that enable a wide selection of Management computers to be installed, while others have ecu boxes that are just tiny and near impossible to cram a computer into. The simple fact is that programmable ecu's are the way of the future and resistance is futile. A good set of air/fuel and timing maps get more power on most cars than all other "bolt-ons" combined and costs a bit less if you add the expense of all your "power-adders" together. Lets just open up the box/harness and get it over with. Yeah, yeah; I know, then the arguement would be everyone would need a programmable ecu to be competitive, but the fact of the matter is the guy with more $$ will always have the stronger motor reguardless of whats open and what isn't, lets just open the ECU and make it easier/cheaper for those who choose to go that route.

[mustanghammer]

HARD tires are THE way to lessen the cost of IT racing.................................

As an example folks in the past shaved Toyo tires to 4/32, now the sharp end are shaving to 2/32.............

Kart racing in some areas uses HARD tires & one set of hard Kart tires can be used for a full 18 race date season...............

David Dewhurst
[/b]

I think that what is happening with the Toyo tire in SM is an example of why a spec tire isn't always the answer. At 2/32's the RA1 is faster but it's life is shorter so you have to buy new ones more often. Where is the cost savings?

On the Solo II side they created a series of national level classes called Street Touring. One of the hallmarks of the class is that DOT racing tires are not allowed and a wear rating of 140 was spec'd. At first VERY low cost Falken and Kumho tires were competitive. Eventually, however the fast guys found more expense tires(that can cost more than a comparable DOT racing tire) that gave DOT racing tire like performance. So much for the cheap tire idea. Check out the Tire Rack adds in Sports Car and Grass Roots for examples. It didn't take anyone very long to find that business opportunity.

What is needed is a tire that has a long track life that doesn't have an appreciable performance spike at the begining or end of it's life cycle. You find a tire like that and a spec tire can be a good deal.

[Eagle7]

Someone reported a while ago that DOT is changing the regulations with regard to treadwear, and that it might jeopardize our R compound tires. If that does happen, it seems like it could improve tire life and lower tire costs without a spec tire rule. Anyone know more about this?

[orlando_wrx]

I dont think it's going to extend tire life. What I imagine will happen if the DOT changes make any impact on the R compound tires is that the tire manufacturers will end up using a multi-layer process to form the tires so that unshaven the tires will meet the new requirements, but upon shaving will expose a soft inner layer no different than we currently have. Kind of an opposite direction of Z rated all seasons where the outer layer is softer to provide grip but upon wearing it exposes a harder inner layer to maintain the grooves necessary for water evacuation. This will most likely translate into even higher R compound tire prices, rather than extending life and lowering costs.