IT Class Philosophy

[Rabbit07]

I'm wondering what mechanical attributes of the car (or either version of the car) make it inherently uncompetitive against the Acura, CRX, et al. I'm taking it on faith that there ARE such issues behind any suggestion that the Neon should be moved to B.

(Actually I don't buy that there IS anything keeping it from the winner's circle, other than the fact that nobody's pushed it all the way to its limit. It's kind of a rhetorical question.)

K
[/b]

The major issues with the Neon are directly related to handling. It has a poor suspension geometry with a very long wheel base. It has one of the longest wheel bases in ITA and it's FWD. That coupled with most of it's weight over the front axle lends the car to not wanting to rotate. Can it compete? Yes, it just gets eaten alive in the twisties by the CRX and Acura. Longer, HP like tracks the differential isn't as great.

[JLawton]

I will still continue to build my Neon to hopefully someday soon win some races.

[/b]

I think you kind of prove the point that we can't consider the Neon as tweener........ When you get your car to a 10/10ths build and are still seconds of the pace, then you can consider it non-competitive....... Anyone who knows my car knows that it was a 10/10ths car. My first year I was waaaaaaay off the pace. Yup, right in there with the ITB times!! This year I did a little more tweeking, worked on the driver and have started to run at the point end.....But, I also came to the realization that I need to work on the driver more than anything!! I have closely watched Greg Amy and Andy Bettencourt spend hours and hours on car prep, testing, tweeking, testing, (and on and on and on) and now understand that that commitment and hard work (and tons of money) is what it takes to win and break track records!! If your going to do it half assed (both in car prep and driver prep) don't expect to win.

Unfortunately, Chris Childs has built a decent Neon that can run at the pointy end. I'm sure it wasn't easy, but he showed that it can be done.

We can't use an excuse like "attracting more racers" to reclassify a car or designate it as a tweener.

I go back to my earlier comment. How can we say a car isn't competitive if it hasn't been built to 10/10ths of the rules?? And we certainly can't use cost as a measure. "Yup, we're going to reclassify all the ITS cars to ITA that have engine builds that cost more than $10K!!". Hmmmmm, not exactly in the spirit of IT...........



On another note, aren't the numbers for the formula different for the different classes?? (not sure why I thought that......Maybe in one of my nightmares about these arguments) As in, ITA uses one multiplier and ITB uses another??

[Andy Bettencourt]

On another note, aren't the numbers for the formula different for the different classes?? (not sure why I thought that......Maybe in one of my nightmares about these arguments) As in, ITA uses one multiplier and ITB uses another?? [/b]

Yes. The target power to weight ratios are obviously different. But to be clear, the power estimation % is the same.



So the Neon: High power potential, poor geometry, and FWD.

Sounds like a car that just won the ARRC in ITA.

This debate is for another thread. It's NOT a tweener, nor a candidate for ITB.

[924Guy]

Thanks for weighing in with the RX7 build details, Dick.

As you've clearly shown, it's not easy and takes a lot of determination and persistence, not to mention time and money, to make it happen.

Then again, most of us know and understand, either by direct experience or watching, that it takes all the same qualities to run up front regardless.

So if you want to be up front, plan on making that commitment or plan on coming away disappointed - regardless of what car you choose.

If you're hell-bent on building an RX7, or some other specific car that doesn't seem to be a sure, proven winner - don't expect it to be easy!!! Don't think you can pull the interior out, bolt in a cage, cut your springs, slap on a header, and go win races!!! Sorry, folks, but this is racing. You want that kind of experience, go to the local circle track and run a 4-cyl series.

I still don't think there's any need to "throw a bone" out there to those who want to run X car, but are still sitting on the fence 'cause they don't think it'll be competitive. Those who are dedicated will do it anyway; besides me, I know there's plenty on here. Childs. Amy. Walker, when he built Lawton's car (10/10ths? Seems more like 11/10ths! ). If you're sitting on the fence, you're not exactly dedicated. What next, you want a subsidy? Forget having the perfect car, are your skills even going to be up to the job of getting the car, any car, on the podium?? Seat time, remember?

And if you don't want to have such a long, exhausting, hellish build - buy something that's already competitive! Buy a CRX, or Integra, or whatever is winning in whatever class you feel like joining. Better yet, buy one that's already built!

Fast, easy, and cheap, pick any two. I got fast and cheap - took me 7 years to get the car there (the driver's still lagging!). But I had a lot of fun along the way, and learned even more.

</rant>

[gran racing]

Except the weight IS achevable, and has been done.[/b]

Yes, but at what cost and amount of time? It should not be necessary for someone to spend 1,000 hours trying to get the car down to minimum weight and go through all of the other extremes in the IT. Dick mentions building a minimum cage in order to get to the minimum weight. Is that what the rules in essence should be encouraging?

expect someone to go through what I did to make an illogical weight is just too much to expect.[/b]

Exactly.

Vaughan, of course it shouldn’t be easy to build a front running car. I built my car over the course of the past year knowing full well that it would require several custom parts (time and $$$$), and being a unique model it would be up to me to take on a significant amount of research and development. O.k., cool. I choose that route, the car, and no one is saying cars in similar circumstances should be given a break. But dealing with achieving weight should not fall into this category. Heck, many people I’ve spoken with would actually rather some of these cars that have weights that are only achievable with the type of effort Dick put into his car have the weight higher still in the same class.

[Knestis]

... Dick mentions building a minimum cage in order to get to the minimum weight. Is that what the rules in essence should be encouraging?[/b]

THAT is a good point and might be an indicator of a car that&#39;s out on the end of the curve - one possible diagnostic characteristic of a "tweener?"

K

[lateapex911]

Yes, but at what cost and amount of time? It should not be necessary for someone to spend 1,000 hours trying to get the car down to minimum weight and go through all of the other extremes in the IT. Dick mentions building a minimum cage in order to get to the minimum weight. Is that what the rules in essence should be encouraging?
[/b]

But,,,read what he wrote...his car is actually 60 pounds UNDER weight. So, he could add bars if he chose to.
(Based on the car weighing 2280 with a 180 pound driver, SCCA standard) Obviously, that 60 pound underweight number is less with a heavier driver, and would be more with a lighter driver.)

Now, IF the car wasn&#39;t underweight, can anyone suggest a standard for "cost and amount of time" that the commitee should use to detremine how much is ok, and how much is too much?

[JLawton]

Thanks for weighing in with the RX7 build details, Dick.

As you&#39;ve clearly shown, it&#39;s not easy and takes a lot of determination and persistence, not to mention time and money, to make it happen.

Then again, most of us know and understand, either by direct experience or watching, that it takes all the same qualities to run up front regardless.

So if you want to be up front, plan on making that commitment or plan on coming away disappointed - regardless of what car you choose.

If you&#39;re hell-bent on building an RX7, or some other specific car that doesn&#39;t seem to be a sure, proven winner - don&#39;t expect it to be easy!!! Don&#39;t think you can pull the interior out, bolt in a cage, cut your springs, slap on a header, and go win races!!! Sorry, folks, but this is racing. You want that kind of experience, go to the local circle track and run a 4-cyl series.

I still don&#39;t think there&#39;s any need to "throw a bone" out there to those who want to run X car, but are still sitting on the fence &#39;cause they don&#39;t think it&#39;ll be competitive. Those who are dedicated will do it anyway; besides me, I know there&#39;s plenty on here. Childs. Amy. Walker, when he built Lawton&#39;s car (10/10ths? Seems more like 11/10ths! ). If you&#39;re sitting on the fence, you&#39;re not exactly dedicated. What next, you want a subsidy? Forget having the perfect car, are your skills even going to be up to the job of getting the car, any car, on the podium?? Seat time, remember?

And if you don&#39;t want to have such a long, exhausting, hellish build - buy something that&#39;s already competitive! Buy a CRX, or Integra, or whatever is winning in whatever class you feel like joining. Better yet, buy one that&#39;s already built!

Fast, easy, and cheap, pick any two. I got fast and cheap - took me 7 years to get the car there (the driver&#39;s still lagging!). But I had a lot of fun along the way, and learned even more.

</rant>
[/b]

Amen brother!!

Yes, but at what cost and amount of time? It should not be necessary for someone to spend 1,000 hours trying to get the car down to minimum weight and go through all of the other extremes in the IT. [/b]

Dave, I think this will be the third time I&#39;ve said this. You can&#39;t classify a car based on how much it costs to build!!!

There is always going to be somebody that can shell out the money to do it. Check out the ITS BMW and 944S.

If you want to race a half assed car and win, go cheat in NASA!!

Kidding, KIDDING!!!
(I crack myself up!)

[ggnagy]

The above being said, my ultimate opinions stem from the purpose and intent that is listed in the GCR.

Purpose: "Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition."

Intent: "It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible; however, those determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified. Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C, are not allowed..."

[/b]

Everyone seems to focus on the last line, while ignoring the rest of that quote. Why do we have to throw out "low cost", "limited modifications" and " useful and necessary to construct a safe race car"?
Why aren&#39;t cars being classified in such a way that extensive, expensive, and possibly unsafe methods need not be undertaken on order to try and meet weight and be in the ballpark???

If everyone really believed in the "guaranteed competitiveness" then there should be zero argument against moving a car down that cannot reasonably achieve the weight. The reason there IS an argument is just because a belief in an ad hoc "guarantee" of competitiveness for the current front running cars.

[Hahn63]

I think I exploited every grey area in the rule book.

If you can remove a part then I ground off every attachment bracket.

I spent 20 hours on the wiring harness eliminating every wire that you could argue the GCR says you can.

The rear bumper is a 79 but the front sheet metal and bumper are late as they are lighter.


Jakes point about the formula is good, we suffer from lack of torque[/b]

I would like to play devils advocate here for a moment.

Dick, this isn&#39;t an attack on you. I am very happy to hear someone else still has a love for these cars like I do. I would love to meet with you sometime and see your car and compare notes. Sounds like your like me!


Grey areas in the rule book....well it all depends how you want to look at it. One place it would stand up to a protest another place it wouldn&#39;t. So is there a cure? Not an easy one I&#39;m sure. I hate having to look over my shoulder all the time to see if someone is having heart burn over my intepritation.

Grinding off brackets..... I&#39;m pretty sure this isn&#39;t legal.


Eliminating wires .... not seeing that one in the book either.


79 rear bumper and later front sheet metal and bumper? Now would this be like off of a 82 or later? This could be a major can .


The formula is good ....or is it? If it doesn&#39;t take torque into account along with the various other items, how can that be a good? The car isn&#39;t allowed to port macth like the rest, why? It won&#39;t change the porting on the inside of the motor. Sounds to me like the car has been given a carrot delete! I not saying it should get more than the others just the same.


Now stepping down off the box. I will continue to run the car no matter what happens. I have never cried foul because I wasn&#39;t up front. Someone has to be in the back. Expectations of making weight should be resonable and all cars should be on a level playing field. No parts swapping because it isn&#39;t made any more or because it&#39;s unsafe. That is just life in the racing relam. I truely think that the process has come a very long way and it will continue to improve. However, just because a car has always been in a class doesn&#39;t mean it should stay there for it&#39;s life time. It could also could mean that at a certain point the car should be delisted. Production has a severe case of this exact problem and we can learn from it.

Thank you to all for listening to my rant and understand I want what is best for all not what is just best for me. I want a better club!

Roland

[pballance]

I have followed this thread with great interest and have enjoyed the discussion and think that maybe I can add a little food for thought.

As a newbie I wanted a relatively inexpensive way to get into racing (again) after a 25+ year absence When I was last around racing it was prior to the creation of the IT classes. I chose my car because I wanted to driving a Datsun 240Z. Bottom line, I chose the car because I liked it not because it would be competitive. It turns out that the Z is still competitive.

I could have chosen a Showroom Stock car or a Spec racer and probably have made a better economic choice but I didn&#39;t. I chose the Z car and IT for an entry level racer.

I viewed IT as a "door opener" class that would allow me to re-learn both race craft and race driving while doing so at a cost much less than ANY of the other classes out there. In addition, I lurked on this very forum for a long time trying to learn about IT racing.

With all of that said, the line in the GCR regarding competitiveness still didn&#39;t affect my choice in a car. I didn&#39;t plan on being competitive as that will only come with seat time and car development in whatever car or class I selected. I am not wealthy but I could have swung a Nationally competitive SRF or some other class if I wanted to spend cubic dollars to be at the front of the pack. Instead, I selected a cheaper route that got me on track with a bunch of guys that want to have fun and not worry about rules creep and the other things I see happening in some other "National" classes.

Bottom line, at least for me, racing is FUN and IT racing in particular allowed me to start racing. IF I ever have the desire to truly try to win then I know I will need to either spend $$$$ to develop a new car and $$$$ to develop me into a better driver! I still think that seat time and driving skill can be an equalizer in competition.

I may not be the typical racer and while I would certainly enjoy winning a race, my payoff is just being on track. IT cars are providing that and that is what is important to me.

Thanks for letting me put in $.02 worth

[gran racing]

Read my last post again Jeff. I am not talking about how much it costs to build an engine, suspension, header, blah, blah, blah = overall cost. For an entry level class, getting down to the minimum weight with a 180 lb driver should not be a terribly difficult task.

You can&#39;t classify a car based on how much it costs to build!!![/b]

The overall build, of course not! But looking at some cars, it is possible they could fit into two different classes. One where it would be a struggle (i.e. what Dick went through) and another where they could add weight to the car to meet the minimum spec weight. Dick and I both built our cars this past year and I&#39;ve heard plenty about his build process and saw his tub during it. I was [/b]extremely thankful that I had the opposite problem in trying to add weight.

While we cannot classify a car on the overall build cost, we sure can make the process a bit easier for folks to at least get to this basic part of the build.

can anyone suggest a standard for "cost and amount of time" that the commitee should use to detremine how much is ok, and how much is too much?

A point when one can build a solid cage and doesn&#39;t need to skimp on safety; when it is not necessary to push the envelope to get down to minimum weight; and when a person does not need to put the car on a rotisserie. One should be able to go into a home garage with farily basic tools and be able to accomplish this. Pretty basic stuff like taking the carpeting out, rear seat, passenger seat, take a chisel and remove the sound deadening on the interior surface, take the A/C out, remove the sunroof and plug that.

I also agree with Kirk is saying about prospective racers and what their perceptions will be.

[lateapex911]

The formula is good ....or is it? If it doesn&#39;t take torque into account along with the various other items, how can that be a good?

Roland
[/b]

First, it&#39;s not just a formula, it&#39;s a process. And it started out as an attempt to add objectivity into the classification procedure, and to create a method for fixing classification errors.

As much, it was decided to incorporate major items that affect a racing cars lap times. All along, it&#39;s been accepted that no formula or process can create perfect parity, at least considering the practical limitations of the club we operate in.

So, there are certain cars that are just not treated well by the process, and others that actually do well by it. My car, the fist gen RX-7 falls outside the process goals because of it&#39;s severe lack of tq. Would I like to change that? Sure! But it is what it is. But, and this is important, the root cause must be identified.

I have been reluctant to move cars like it down a class, because if it isn&#39;t competitive in it&#39;s current class at it&#39;s process weight, then it won&#39;t be in any other class at process weight, all things being equal.

(In the RX-7s case, if we were to add a level of fine tuning to the process that accounted for it&#39;s abnormally low torque, we would first have to solve for the current class, then, if it couldn&#39;t fit it would be solved for the next lower class)

I suspect that the original process was seen by many as a starting point, and that depending on the success and failures of the process, tweaks could be implemented along the way. To me, tq is something that i feel should be a standard consideration in the adderss and subtracters part of the process.

[Doc Bro]

I have been reluctant to move cars like it down a class, because if it isn&#39;t competitive in it&#39;s current class at it&#39;s process weight, then it won&#39;t be in any other class at process weight, all things being equal.


I suspect that the original process was seen by many as a starting point, and that depending on the success and failures of the process, tweaks could be implemented along the way. To me, tq is something that i feel should be a standard consideration in the adderss and subtracters part of the process.
[/b]

Great points Jake.

I think many of the concerns that many folks debate on this BB are exactly what you&#39;re implying. The fine tuning that may be a necessity at this point.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

And we have &#39;tuned&#39;. The FWD &#39;adders&#39; were revamped in ITS and ITR over a year ago. How much we fine-tune is up for debate as the results have clearly shown to produce large fields with many different makes and models.

Adjusting for faults is a good idea IMHO but tweaking for perfection is the impossible dream.

(And torque is a consideration in the process)

[JoshS]

I am the guy Andy referred to that made weight with an ITA Rx7. My old car was heavy and tweaked in places and while the Rx is not a winner I have a slew of parts and the knowledge to maintain it and I also wanted to do a ground up. I really was not in a cash flow position to change cars.

I was intending to prove you could not get the car to weight but I failed.
...
I built a rotisserie and removed every single part from the car. I think I exploited every grey area in the rule book.
...
but still the car makes weight with a 240 pound driver.
[/b]

In other words, you spent huge amounts of time and effort, and exploited gray areas, to build a car that is 60 lbs UNDERWEIGHT.

For the more typical 180lb driver ... they don&#39;t have to go to such extremes, right?

EDIT: I just realized there is a page 3 to this thread and others have pointed this out as well. Sorry for the duplicate.

[Hahn63]

Thanks Andy. I was lead to believe that it hadn&#39;t been part of the process( which seemed really odd to me), I stand corrected. I do agree that there is a limit to what can be done and that there will always be exceptions to any process that may be developed. Fine tuning can be a infinate thing so boundries must be established at some point. Where those limits are I guess is the real question to these issues.

Roland

[dickita15]

Dick, this isn&#39;t an attack on you. I am very happy to hear someone else still has a love for these cars like I do. I would love to meet with you sometime and see your car and compare notes. Sounds like your like me!
Grey areas in the rule book....well it all depends how you want to look at it. One place it would stand up to a protest another place it wouldn&#39;t. So is there a cure? Not an easy one I&#39;m sure. I hate having to look over my shoulder all the time to see if someone is having heart burn over my intepritation.

Grinding off brackets..... I&#39;m pretty sure this isn&#39;t legal.
Eliminating wires .... not seeing that one in the book either.
79 rear bumper and later front sheet metal and bumper? Now would this be like off of a 82 or later? This could be a major can .

Roland
[/b]

Roland, no offence taken. For the sake of this experiment I felt I had to exploit every possible way to remove weight. I can site a GCR reference for everything I did but that does not mean I would win every protest. If I had not gone to the extreme someone would have said more can be done to take out weight. If this car was in the classifieds it would become a long thread.
What I had to do was ridiculous. I had to start with the lightest year on the spec line, update any parts that were lighter from the other years and really push the rule interpretations.

The only reason I had to spend this much time and money is because the ITAC made a decision last year to take 100 pounds off the car instead of moving it down a class.
The process is not kind to this car. The lack of torque, the live axel and the left- right weight distribution give this car some serious disadvantages under the process.

At 2550 in ITB the Rx7 would still have these disadvantages under the process, although you could make the weight distribution better. There are a number of “barn cars” that I expect would be run if the car could be run in B.

[Doc Bro]

Roland, no offence taken. For the sake of this experiment I felt I had to exploit every possible way to remove weight. I can site a GCR reference for everything I did but that does not mean I would win every protest. If I had not gone to the extreme someone would have said more can be done to take out weight. If this car was in the classifieds it would become a long thread.
What I had to do was ridiculous. I had to start with the lightest year on the spec line, update any parts that were lighter from the other years and really push the rule interpretations.

The only reason I had to spend this much time and money is because the ITAC made a decision last year to take 100 pounds off the car instead of moving it down a class.
The process is not kind to this car. The lack of torque, the live axel and the left- right weight distribution give this car some serious disadvantages under the process.

At 2550 in ITB the Rx7 would still have these disadvantages under the process, although you could make the weight distribution better. There are a number of “barn cars” that I expect would be run if the car could be run in B.
[/b]

This club needs more guys like you around, Dick. Thanks!!


R

[jamsilvia]

(And torque is a consideration in the process)
[/b]

And is rev limit also a consideration??

I understand that the RX7 in general is low on torque. However, it can run up to some ungodly rev limit.

So instead of making torque, you put a really crazy diff in it (something like a 5.1 for the 2nd gens) and get awful close to the torque being put out at the wheels with a car that can only push a 7000 RPM redline and therefore only a 4.3 or so gearset, but has torque.

Just asking...

Joe Mac