IT Cars in Prod

[Andy Bettencourt]

April Fast Track:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>If this is something that you support, drop the CRB a line at "CRB at SCCA.COM"

</span>

[jhooten]

It would be an improvement but still leaves my 85 ITE (SWDiv ITE is an under 3L class) out of the running.

[IPRESS]

Andy,
That sounds good especially in our DIV as there are a lot of one race weekends for IT.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am sorry Jerry, but the proposal can only include GCR-based classes. ITE is very inconsistant throughout the country so there is no way to include cars like that in a lump.

[mbuskuhl]

Andy,
That sounds good especially in our DIV as there are a lot of one race weekends for IT.
[/b]

Second that. The SOWDIV has a weak regional program. As one SCCA racer/worker put it recently a "piss poor Regional program". The only problem is I need 4 more races to get my National License, that&#39;s a challenge in itself finding the regionals to get this done. My fault for not researching this when I got started.

I&#39;m still confused on this 1990 rule, even though I have a 1986 by VIN my 2nd Gen looks like a 89-91 model. It&#39;s no piece of junk either and was built with a complete disregard for any type of budget. So, I&#39;m not sure with a National license this is going to help the cause. Maybe I&#39;m forced to convert to EP if I want to race.

In any case, I support more time for IT on the track. The FasTrack announcement was a good start, Andy&#39;s proposal takes it further. Since I don&#39;t know the politics yet and there seems to be an abundance with SCCA, what&#39;s the best way to email the CRB and support this proposal? Email them and re-write it or simply state that one is in support of the proposal submitted by Andy Bettencourt?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I&#39;m still confused on this 1990 rule, even though I have a 1986 by VIN my 2nd Gen looks like a 89-91 model. It&#39;s no piece of junk either and was built with a complete disregard for any type of budget. So, I&#39;m not sure with a National license this is going to help the cause. Maybe I&#39;m forced to convert to EP if I want to race. [/b]

We confirmed on the ITAC call with CRB members that any car that&#39;s spec line encompasses 1990+ will be eligible. The ITS 86-91 RX-7 example is a perfect one.

In any case, I support more time for IT on the track. The FasTrack announcement was a good start, Andy&#39;s proposal takes it further. Since I don&#39;t know the politics yet and there seems to be an abundance with SCCA, what&#39;s the best way to email the CRB and support this proposal? Email them and re-write it or simply state that one is in support of the proposal submitted by Andy Bettencourt? [/b]

Since this is just support for a proposal, you could e-mail them and reference my "IT cars to Prod" proposal. Maybe include your plans to run Nationals and how it would help you due to low race options in your area like you described above. Conversely, if this idea isn&#39;t to your liking, reference the proposal and indicate your NON support.

[RSTPerformance]

I don&#39;t support the 1990 or newer proposal. What is a realistic reason for this? If it is to keep the junkers out well then I would be even more unimpressed as some of the best looking IT cars are from the 70&#39;s from what I have seen.

Raymond

[mustanghammer]

Andy,

Does your porposal also place a restriction on pre 1990 IT cars like the Prepared proposal does?

I understand why the Prepared proposal restricts pre-1990 IT cars because this is a restriction applied to all cars in Prepared. However I don&#39;t see the need for this with respect to IT cars in Production.

[Andy Bettencourt]

My proposal does NOT have a pre-1990 restriction. Please note that in your letter. I believe it was a put there in fear of &#39;junkers&#39;...so drop your note and make sure they know that you would ike to explore the world of Nationals/Production in your WHATEVER year IT car. I do not support this limitation either.

[R2 Racing]

ITC --> HP</span>[/b]

Isn&#39;t this all pretty much already true in the world of "LP Prod" cars? I know that the ITS Prelude&#39;s, Integra&#39;s, Civic&#39;s, RX-7&#39;s, 240&#39;s, etc are all already classified as LP EP cars. Then the ITA CRX, Integra&#39;s, Miata, and others are LP FP cars. ITB Si Honda&#39;s are LP GP. So on and so forth. However, yes, I know that to even show up and race as a LP Prod car you&#39;d have to do some things to your car like fuel call, light removal, etc. But, you also get to build more engine and shed a lot of weight. So is the purpose of this to eliminate those "legaility" mods (like fuel cell and lights) in exchange for not being able to build more engine and having to run at portly IT weights?

Yea, you&#39;d stand no chance of winning. Ever. But I suppose if I could take my ITA Integra as it sits right now and enter it into a national FP race, I&#39;d think about it. It would give me a benchmark of where the car sits now (as a top ITA example) and could help make or break my decision if I was thinking about going full out LP FP with the car. I sure wouldn&#39;t make a habit of it though.

Kind of makes you feel used in a way. Like dangling a carrot in front of a rabbit and saying "Here, you IT guys want to be national? Come, race here in Prod and boost our low numbers and take away from what you guys have built up quite nicely on your own in order to save our dying classes, because, well, they&#39;re national, and they&#39;re important." If the SCCA needs IT cars to save their national classes/races, there seems like a pretty easy solution to me. (Not that I would necessarilly agree with or support the idea, but that&#39;s a whole nother topic.)

[jhooten]

On a side note, When I asked to have the ITS 85 Supra classed in Prod it was denied. The reason "Engine too big". If this passes would all ITS legal cars be allowed or would there be exceptions?

I do have another Supra to build into an ITS car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Isn&#39;t this all pretty much already true in the world of "LP Prod" cars? I know that the ITS Prelude&#39;s, Integra&#39;s, Civic&#39;s, RX-7&#39;s, 240&#39;s, etc are all already classified as LP EP cars. Then the ITA CRX, Integra&#39;s, Miata, and others are LP FP cars. ITB Si Honda&#39;s are LP GP. So on and so forth. However, yes, I know that to even show up and race as a LP Prod car you&#39;d have to do some things to your car like fuel call, light removal, etc. But, you also get to build more engine and shed a lot of weight. So is the purpose of this to eliminate those "legaility" mods (like fuel cell and lights) in exchange for not being able to build more engine and having to run at portly IT weights?

Yea, you&#39;d stand no chance of winning. Ever. But I suppose if I could take my ITA Integra as it sits right now and enter it into a national FP race, I&#39;d think about it. It would give me a benchmark of where the car sits now (as a top ITA example) and could help make or break my decision if I was thinking about going full out LP FP with the car. I sure wouldn&#39;t make a habit of it though.

Kind of makes you feel used in a way. Like dangling a carrot in front of a rabbit and saying "Here, you IT guys want to be national? Come, race here in Prod and boost our low numbers and take away from what you guys have built up quite nicely on your own in order to save our dying classes, because, well, they&#39;re national, and they&#39;re important." If the SCCA needs IT cars to save their national classes/races, there seems like a pretty easy solution to me. (Not that I would necessarilly agree with or support the idea, but that&#39;s a whole nother topic.) [/b]

All good points Kevin - but I believe they support my proposal from a 10,000 ft view. Most of the cars in the class structure I mention would transfer in Limited Prep form - but not all so it isn&#39;t a class to class opportunity like I suggest. But because most of these cars are so similar, it would give yuo an idea of what pieces and parts you would need to get into Prod. For me, the 1.8 Miata is an EP car, not an FP car.

I don&#39;t see it as being used. We all know IT is Regional only. &#39;Entry Level&#39; to some. We knew it going in. While *I* would like IT to go National, I see the legitimate points against it. I believe our position on THAT issue has to do with the current state of IT you the areas we run.

This is about creating a smooth transitional opportunity for racers from IT to Prod. I think Prod should be doing a similar think with GT if they can as well. This is also not an &#39;us vs. them&#39; thing. It&#39;s about a tweak to the system that creates some &#39;flow&#39; based in ease and logic. (I hope)

On a side note, When I asked to have the ITS 85 Supra classed in Prod it was denied. The reason "Engine too big". If this passes would all ITS legal cars be allowed or would there be exceptions?

I do have another Supra to build into an ITS car. [/b]

All cars IT would be legal. The reason would be that they have to be at IT prep. If you built your 3.0L I6 to full prep Prod rules, then you have something that they don&#39;t perceive to be fair. An ITS Supra, prepped to ITS specs, has no more capability than any other ITS car.

[shwah]

Why bother if the cars will be placed in a class they have no chance in hell of competing in?

The ITB Golf is already an LP GP car. It cannot be a front runner. The one at the runoffs is about as quick as you will see. So why the heck would I run an ITB Golf in GP to only go slower? The ONLY reason for me may be to go to the June Sprints, but I would not even consider running national events in general. Of course I already have the option to run full prep FP if I like, so that probably changes my view a bit compared to others that are shut out of Nationals.

Maybe start with ITA in HP and go from there...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why bother if the cars will be placed in a class they have no chance in hell of competing in?

The ITB Golf is already an LP GP car. It cannot be a front runner. The one at the runoffs is about as quick as you will see. So why the heck would I run an ITB Golf in GP to only go slower? The ONLY reason for me may be to go to the June Sprints, but I would not even consider running national events in general. Of course I already have the option to run full prep FP if I like, so that probably changes my view a bit compared to others that are shut out of Nationals.

Maybe start with ITA in HP and go from there... [/b]

It&#39;s not about competing for the win, it&#39;s about getting a taste for National competition, National events, getting a look at real Prod cars, teams and efforts, and creating a smooth path amongst our classes as a whole.

[R2 Racing]

All good points Kevin - but I believe they support my proposal from a 10,000 ft view.[/b]

Yes, that&#39;s a good way of putting it. In all, I support the idea for the same reasons you gave....

This is about creating a smooth transitional opportunity for racers from IT to Prod. I think Prod should be doing a similar think with GT if they can as well. This is also not an &#39;us vs. them&#39; thing. It&#39;s about a tweak to the system that creates some &#39;flow&#39; based in ease and logic. (I hope) [/b]

I don&#39;t see how that could be a bad thing. If someone is thinking about moving into another class, this would be a good way to try it out, test out the atmosphere of the class, get a good gauge of how they might be able to fair in it, and be able to do it without having to go out and build an entirely new car. No, you won&#39;t win with it, but it should certainly be able to aid in your decision to go after it if you want to.

Yet, if a person isn&#39;t interested in it, no harm, no foul. Just don&#39;t do it.

[Gary L]

The key point to my proposal, outside the framework, is the inclusion of IT cars - AS THEY ARE. Legal for IT, legal for this jump. No changes.</span>[/b]

At the risk of being accused of rules creep advocacy, even before there are rules...

What about rubber? Wouldn&#39;t the allowance of "real" racing rubber be best for everyone concerned and make this an easier sell, based on less disparate cornering speeds, IT vs Prod?

[tnord]

Kind of makes you feel used in a way. Like dangling a carrot in front of a rabbit and saying "Here, you IT guys want to be national? Come, race here in Prod and boost our low numbers and take away from what you guys have built up quite nicely on your own in order to save our dying classes, because, well, they&#39;re national, and they&#39;re important." If the SCCA needs IT cars to save their national classes/races, there seems like a pretty easy solution to me. (Not that I would necessarilly agree with or support the idea, but that&#39;s a whole nother topic.)
[/b]

well done kevin. this is exactly why i&#39;m against it, as it feels like a band-aid fix to the real problem at hand. while i do agree that a smooth transition and low risk opportunity to try national racing is a good thing, i feel that this allowance would do away with the possibility of the real change i would like to see happen.....which is the elimination of the distinction between national and regional classes altogether.

i feel like as a whole, this is a &#39;zero sum proposal.&#39; prod has problems and is somewhat unhealthy, IT is doing well and is healthy. so lets scavenge some entries and cars from IT to fix our prod problem? now you&#39;ve got 2 moderately succesful classes instead of addressing the real issue with a real solution.

real issue? undersubscribed classes.
real solution? elimination of these classes from "national" status if you can&#39;t make #&#39;s for 2 years. if we do away with the distinction of "national" then those that don&#39;t make the numbers are left out of the big show.

[AntonioGG]

Why bother if the cars will be placed in a class they have no chance in hell of competing in?

The ITB Golf is already an LP GP car. It cannot be a front runner. The one at the runoffs is about as quick as you will see. So why the heck would I run an ITB Golf in GP to only go slower? The ONLY reason for me may be to go to the June Sprints, but I would not even consider running national events in general. Of course I already have the option to run full prep FP if I like, so that probably changes my view a bit compared to others that are shut out of Nationals.

Maybe start with ITA in HP and go from there...
[/b]

I think for those IT guys in areas like SOWDIV with a "piss poor regional program" (credit to Chris Taylor for the quote), you could have more IT guys entering R/N weekends. You wouldn&#39;t have to race against the production cars necessarily, but if enough IT guys enter the N groups you could have your own little race within a race. It would solve the problem of trying to schedule R/RR/N weekends with not enough time. It would also solve the problem of low production car counts. The only issue I see is that Stretch driving his 240 would probably do top 5 at the Runoffs in FP and some people might not like that.

[gran racing]

I&#39;m still having a hard time understanding the true reasoning behind this whole thing. In other threads there have been talks that this is being done to bolster Prod numbers because turnout is low and it would be good for the Runoffs. Being an IT guy, sure I may quickly react that way but do not actually believe that is the true reasoning.

you could have more IT guys entering R/N weekends. [/b]

O.k. That I can understand but again, am not convinced that isn&#39;t just a by product and wasn&#39;t the objective of this change.

This is about creating a smooth transitional opportunity for racers from IT to Prod.[/b]

This is probably the best rationale I&#39;ve heard for this. If this is the primary motivation for the proposed change, is there really a desire from IT racers to get into Prod? Or is it because some are still hung up on the distinction between National and Regional events and want people to transition into the National level? I&#39;m just trying to figure out what issue we are trying to resolve before I can make a decision on what I believe is best for the club and our category. (I&#39;m looking for well thought out / real reasons, not reactions that we&#39;ve already been through 100 times.)

[benspeed]

I think the idea is spot on. I would have kept my ITS RX7 as I was planning to try and double dip on race day by running ITS and then EP. I would have had to make too many modifications to my car and bailed out on the idea.

SCCA should take a very hard look at transitioning cars from IT to Prod to GT - the progression is logical and somebody could hang onto a car for a long time while they improved skills and their car.