IT Class Philosophy

[Andy Bettencourt]

I normally don't jump into this type of conversation but as a driver of a 1st gen RX7 (ITA) I have a dog in this hunt. My car is definitely a 'tweener'. It wasn't that way a few years ago but has now become one. With the Acura being moved from ITS and the Hondas getting faster the car has been moved down the field in ITA. Despite trying to get my car to go faster (spending $$$$), losing part of the extra 100 lbs that it has been given (thanks but we can't make the weight legally) and learning to drive even better; it is still losing ground. I'm not surprised this has happened as the car is now 25 years old and running against new technology. I have great races with the ITB cars (upper mid pack) in sprint races and the only way I can win in ITA is by running 12 hour enduro's waiting for the others to break. Make no mistake the car is very well developed and we continue to improve it every week. Now as no surprise either Mazda has discontinued the 12a engine parts. Unlike piston engines we can not legally under IT rules repair our housings unlike piston engines can with a reboring of the cylinders. I bring this fact up as future options for this car will be for me to run a 13b engine and change to ITS. At this point the 1st gen ITS car is out classed just like the ITA car in the field. I'm now at the point of: Do I continue to try and develop this car and change classes down the road just to be in the same position I'm in now? Not very good incentive, so I would like to have some options of classes available to me, adding weight is indeed easier and cheaper in the long run. This also allows us older and over weight drivers to continue to eat and drink beer. I don't expect to be up front but I would like to have a choice to drink real beer rather than light beer ....that would definitely change my perspective on continuing to wrench on my elderly car. My vote for the future would be to let us make the choice on weight. I see nothing wrong with the formula; cars just naturally become slower to the field with time. I would also suggest that from time to time (if this isn't already being done) for the ITAC to look at the potential 'tweeners' and see if it's time for them to move.

Roland [/b]

OK, I would like to use this post as a point of discussion. There has been some good debate on the topic from the last thread and I want to keep the dialogue open. The ITCS doesn't guarantee competitivness but I sure as hell want everyone to think they have a chance - at least on paper. That is about as good a job as the process can give right now.

So Roland says he can't make weight. Maybe his car can't, but I know of a prominant poster here on IT.com who just busted his balls all winter to prove the exact same thing. Guess what? He can make the minimum. BUT - he has done so at considerable time and expense - all legal mind you - but not easy or cheap. So now I have two opposing data points. One guy who can't, a bunch of people who say it can't be done but one guy who did it.

Then there is the engine issue - parts availability. That would seem to make the class change issue moot but it's still there. The ITAC/CRB has refused many requests for special allowances due to part availability over the past 4-5 years.

So, the item(s) for discussion:

When is a car REALLY a tweener?

Should it be the responsibility of the CRB to find a place for these tweeners when they 'fit' the process currently within reason (ie: make them more competitive)?

Do we just let cars die a natural death when parts become obsolete and unobtainable?

Do we 'throw these cars a bone' as some have suggested - with the understanding that it would get pulled if it was 'too much'?

What is too much?

Is that fair to cars that have run through the 'regular' process?

Does that mean we have two processes? One for regular cars and one for underachievers?

Do we just rely on the process and allow the chips to fall where they may?

Is this reliance on the process just a cop-out to those that own cars that can't compete on track when the 'paper' model shows they could/should?

IT has made significant changes over the past 5 years. Most would say for the net good. How static do we want the rules/classifications going forward? When do we tell people no and when do we make a change?

Discuss.

[gran racing]

know of a prominant poster here on IT.com who just busted his balls all winter to prove the exact same thing. Guess what? He can make the minimum. BUT - he has done so at considerable time and expense - all legal mind you - but not easy or cheap. [/b]

When a car reaches this phase, I absolutely think the weight / classification needs to be looked at. In the IT category, it should not be necessary to go through this much money and work to reach the minimum weight.

One part that should be considered is how some of these changes could impact the popularity of the category and participation numbers for events as a whole. I do think that's a bit tougher to determine the true impact.

[BlueStreak]

First off, nice work. The current process is great.

I have one little issue, I'm larger than average, not the car, but ME! So, how about giving me the option of taking a 5% weight penalty and going to the next slower class?

As for obsolete parts, we're racers, and although it's a slippery slope, we should allow alternative parts where practical:

Examples:
let the RX-3 run RX-7 braking components, transmissions, engines (there is no real performance advantage in any of these parts between the RX-3 and the first generation RX-7)

let square headlight rabbits run round headlight front ends

let rabbits born as 1.7l carb cars become 1.8l CIS cars (the VIN rule)

Also, preserving the future value of the vehicle is critical to improving the size of the fields. If we let cars become uncompetitive, they'll stop coming, and the fields will stop growing.

[Knestis]

Sorry but, no. No, And no. Maybe, and heck yeah.

No alternate parts. The downside of going there is a inevitable avalanche of requests. What standard gets applied to decide if RX7 rotors are scarce enough but something else isn't? It's going to be a horrid mess, even if well-intentioned. Their mere availability is a (relative) competitive advantage.

No to different processes applied for different makes/models. To the extent that the process IS repeatable, it must remain in place. It's unfortunate but if it means that some cars become less popular because they can't be competitive - or the PERCEPTION is that they can't be competitive - then so be it. If the process says that an MR2 can be in A at XXXX pounds or B at YYYY pounds, let it be in either. I was initially against dual classing but I think it might be the only viable solution to the tweener problem. Note that this does NOT mean I endorse the idea of "giving tweeners a break" for whatever reason - if they fit, let them fit. If a model is readjusted because it is expensive to get to the minimum, the door is open for someone to actually SPEND THE MONEY necessary to do so, thereby gaining an advantage. On the other hand, if that simply means that the same car runs in a slower class at an easier-to-achieve weight, it isn't a big issue I don't think.

No classification based on anything short of 100% builds - even if they remain hypothetical. I tend to be of the opinion that there are a LOT of IT cars out there whose owners think they are going as fast as they can - but are wrong. There are times when I get sucked into that way of thinking but luckily the enduros give me a chance to be reminded of the car's potential by the Greg Amys and Bowie Grays of the world. I also know what I have NOT spent on the final tweaks of tuning and track testing.

Maybe it's time to look at the driver's contribution to the minimum weights. If the mean driver weighs more than 180 pounds, it wouldn't upset the applecart much (if any) to simply increase the minimum race weights by 30 pounds or something similar.

...and since it's been brought up, a big YES on ditching the stupid VIN requirement. I'm not talking about alternate parts here, just the idea that allowances for the use of identical parts extend to body pieces. However, let's don't conflate a bunch of issues here. That always gets dangerous.

K

[RSTPerformance]

For me I think that I would not like much changed with exception to allowing cars that are "tweeners" to be classed in both classes and let people run in one or both if they desire. I do think that if dual classing starts the ITAC certainly maintains the abbility to "undo" what is done as they (the ITAC) watches the effects of a weight & wheel size as a balancer effect in the different classes.

The Vin issue to me is questionable... If you can find the parts for the car you want to build then why can't you go to the junk yard and find the correct Vin and slap in on? if you think that is illigal well then we will not get into that discussion and we will just walk away as I would at the track....

Raymond

[Doc Bro]

Andy,

Good job starting this out this way, it should lead to meaningful discussion. I'm in favor of dual classification for several reasons;

1. It's less "big government-ish". It allows the competitor to be more in control of their racing state of affairs. If for no fancier reason than they like the guys in B more than A.....it gives options.

2. If it's a simple as bolting in weight or an SIR, then it may encourage some double-dipping which is good for the vitality of any region.

I also agree with Kirk, swapping of parts=too slippery. And, bye-bye vin rule.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let me facilitate more on the dual-class idea.

What cars get consideration? What cars don't? Example: We just got a request to bump the ITA Neon (SOHC) to ITB. It CAN run in ITB but would havce to in excess of 2800lbs. If the car is determined to be a 'core' car for its class (meaning it's a perfect fit), do we get to say no? Is everyone going to be ok with getting that 'no' when they think they have a tweener?

Care to define tweener for us all?

[Greg Amy]

Sorry but, no. No, And no. Maybe, and heck yeah.[/b]

+1

What cars get consideration?[/b]

Those that can be moved (or dual-classified) within xx% change in the "optimal" process weight from the "optimal" (or existing) class, but no more than yyy pounds.

What's "xx" and "yyy"? Tawk amongst yooselfs...

[Ron]

Why are so many people afraid of a Neon at 2800 pounds? Or any dual car that seems "Heavy". My first ITB Mustang was about that heavy. We built a new one in '06 and spending the money and time needed, we were able to get it down to 2600 lbs. I will be the first to say I thought there was no way, but looking at every little part we lost the weight. I do chuckle when weight comes up, cars can be heavy, they will do just fine.

And kill the VIN, no part swapping, slippery slope

[Doc Bro]

Well it's rather interesting...if we add weight we "theoretically" slow a car. The question is where do we slow the car the most. Corner entry, exit, onto the straight, the end of the straight or just universally? So the addition of weight may have a more (or less) detrimental effect depending on how and where the car responds to it. At a track like LRP vs Road Atlanta that 2800# Neon has the potential to be two totally different animals. As Amy elluded to on another thread, run DP with the big bores and you'll get very clearly what my point is.

I think there has the potential to be undiscovered variables left in this equation. Unfortunately for some the only way to truly know will be to try. At some point we'll have to test the waters and get some data (emperical or evidence based) and begin to develop another "formula" if necessary, to not upset the balance of other classes. If we can acheive sucess this may allow for some really great racing with larger run groups and better participation.

R

[Rabbit07]

Parts substitution within in reason, I think the current rules already allow for most of what I would consider substitution; ie Aftermarket Alternators, rotors, belts, hoses, "Connecting Rods :P "

Axe the damn Vin Rule!

Dual Classification seems fine to me, but you wouldn't find me running my Neon in ITB.

[spnkzss]

Let me facilitate more on the dual-class idea.

What cars get consideration? What cars don't? Example: We just got a request to bump the ITA Neon (SOHC) to ITB. It CAN run in ITB but would havce to in excess of 2800lbs. If the car is determined to be a 'core' car for its class (meaning it's a perfect fit), do we get to say no? Is everyone going to be ok with getting that 'no' when they think they have a tweener?

Care to define tweener for us all?
[/b]

What about using the same formula now. Use the formula to class it in ITA. Use that same formula to classify it ITB. When you look at the weights you need to determine another percentage of weight difference the lightest possible car and the heaviest possible car in Class. You don't want to get slammed by a 2800 lb Neon in you 1900 lb VW.

BTW, + a million on the axing of the VIN.

[JLawton]

I normally don't get involved in these discussions...........


The 1st gen RX7 is kind of sad for me to watch however. They used to be the main stay of ITA and even a 10/10ths car has been relagated to mid pack. I don't think it fits the specs for ITA any more. Move it or make it dual classed. Think about how much it would beef up the ranks of ITB to have the RX7 competitive again??

I would think there are only a few cars that can be considered for dual classification..... The Neon is NOT one of them ..... If it fits nicely into a class, forget about it........

I also don't think we should class cars based on expense. Tough sh*t if it costs a lot of money to make weight......That's racing!! It's all about the cubic dollar.... I'm sorry if your 944 costs $25K for an engine. I'm sorry if you can no longer find parts. If we start making exceptions, where will it end?

[lateapex911]

I normally don't get involved in these discussions...........


The 1st gen RX7 is kind of sad for me to watch glued to my bumper however. [/b]

Fixed that for ya....

[lateapex911]

When is a car REALLY a tweener?
[/b]

If it's not competitive, and is being discussed as a tweener, something is amiss. Either the top dogs in the class are "breakouts" and are doing something better than the process estimated, or the car under consideration is not capable of acheiving process estimates. Or both.

If it's the first option, then the class needs to be looked at for adjustment, because the issue will relegate more than 1 car to the back.

If it's the second, research needs to occur to determine if:
- The process estimate was in error
- If the potential of the car has been met in the real world
- And if the potential can be met..and will match the process estimate.

Not easy questions.
Example. The much discussed MR2- Honestly, there aren't a lot of examples out there. Of those examples, some say it can't make weight, yet others say if you go all out, you can either make it or come really close. We don't have anyone like Milledge or Fordahl independently confirming what top builds will yeild for power, but we have one guy who states he's gone most of the way, spent a lot of money, and doubts the last bits to do will make the difference. Honestly, we all believe in our gut that the car
A: MIGHT be able to hit weight, but
B: is likely to be under process estimates for power.

But, if the car is moved, the ITAC will be faced with critics who ask, "What documentation can you show?". Furthermore, IF we know the car can't hit power estimates, the next question is "Why?" Other motors of the same genre are matching process estimates very nicely. Yet this one misses. Rumour has it that the mid engine packaging has constricted the intake track, and the car just can't ht the numbers.

So......the question then becomes, Do we reclass based on model specific issues? And if so, what is the threshold of evidence needed? If it is YOUR class the car comes into, and the public decides that NOW it's worth REALLY going all out on the car, and oooops, the ITAC was wrong, the thing CAN make power, will you be happy? because then we're faced with a one off example thats really fast...but..is he legal???

I can see both sides.

In my eyes, for cars of this ilk, dual classification is a reasonable answer. If we find that the preponderance of evidence suggests the can can make power afterall, a weight increase would be warranted. Again though, it's tricky with cars like this, esp when such a small body of expertise exists.

Do we just let cars die a natural death when parts become obsolete and unobtainable?
[/b]

yes, the alternative is way too slippery. Witness American Sedan.

[Knestis]

Why are so many people afraid of a Neon at 2800 pounds? Or any dual car that seems "Heavy". ...
[/b]

I don't think that there's an inherent fear for all (many?) of us. Some get wrapped around their axle about weight differences but that's a little silly in my view.

The real issue is that there probably ARE "costs" (to the category and program, not individual racers) associated with dual classification - some of which we might not yet even anticipate or understand. Dual-listing of cars should be considered as a solution to particular problems (or problem singular, the tweeners?) rather than blanket policy.

If a car is in the fat part of the curve - can comfortably make process weight - then it shouldn't be a candidate. If it's an outlier, it might make sense. The issue currently seems to be that there's no consensus among those outlier car owners as to whether they want to run heavy in A or struggle to meet a low race weight in A. (Or maybe the PTB aren't interested in change in this respect or don't want to PO anyone who are fine with the current situation?) Each individual's answer is going to depend on their particular tastes, goals, and priorities and the dual-listing option makes some sense as a possible resolution.

BUT I still contend that there is value in having particular makes/models identified with particular classes - particularly for spectators, casual participants, and newbies looking at IT as an option. The more "sloppy" or complex the classification process is (or appears), the more daunting it is to get started and the less cohesive the resulting groups. Look at NASA's PT experiment - it's the anti-IT, in the sense that you can show up with anything and find a class for it. I could run the Golf in PTG, PTD, or anything in between without real changes in fundamental set-up or philosophy but the resulting classes/groups are a mess, with greater within-class differences in performance potential and areas of relative strength.

K

[924Guy]

+1 on the VIN rule

Likewise on obsolete parts - isn't that what Prod is for???

[Knestis]

Another thought, generated by Jake's post while I was typing: The point at which we make "potential" assumptions about a specific car/engine package rather than about the engine TYPE, is the point at which we are way past the line between PCAs and competition adjustments (bleah). Case in point would be the MR2/Corolla GTS/FX16 family:

** If assumptions behind the IT-prep gains influencing the HP part of the equation gets determined based on the fact that they are twincam 16v 4-cylinder engines, we're happily within the process and PCA realm.

** If those assumptions are based on "real world" gains of TOYOTA engines of that family, we're dangerously close to Productionland.

** ...but the point at which each gets its own math because one is transverse FWD, one is mid-engine'd, and one is longitudinal RWD (aka "the way race cars should be"), we are well and truly in the suck. (1)

K

(1) See previous posts about how, if this is what the IT world REALLY wants, it can sure have it. I haven't fundamentally changed my position on that but am still willing to share the odd cautionary post on occasion, in moments of optimism.

EDIT - i was also a little surprised to learn at the Longest Day that the FX16 is already in B! It's at 2445#, for those like me who didn't notice.

[lateapex911]

One more thing...

(sorry)

IF we determine the car ...lets say the MR 2 or the RX-7...isn't capable of hitting the process estimates in it's current class, then merely movig it down a class and rejigging the numbers based on the same estimates will be a complete waste of time and money.

Because, if, say the RX-7 is getting creamed in ITA because it has 101 ft lbs of tq, and 128 at the wheels and the process has it at 130 at the wheels but has no "subtractoer" for it's huge lack of torque, (cars of equal weight have roughly 25% more tq) then it will remain uncompetitive in any class it goes to, as the weights will be adjusted in excess of it's real capabilities.

I use the RX-7 as it has a much better base of knowledge..there are a multitude of pro builders that have made the dyno runs needed to really know what the car can do, and there are an equal number of pro builders and suspension engineers, (professionals) who have built cars themselves.

In the case of the RX-7, moving it down and using the same process is just a sideways move.

(I hate to bring on track results into the equation...yeccchhh...sorrry...but, just as an illustration point, when that car is driven by the top guys, who are the top preparers, like Jim Susko ...the car is 3 or 4 seconds off the mark at all the tracks it runs against versus the real ITA cars. Mid Ohio, Road Atlanta, etc. And those times are near the ITB times. So adding 200 (or whatever) pounds of weight, and taking an inch of rim away will slow the car down, which makes it less than competitive in B. A lot of trouble to go to to be uncompetitive in either class. And the same, to some degree holds for the MR2.)

If we chose to move cars, we need to look carefully at the real reason for the failrue in the current class, or it will be repeated.

(In both cases, it appears the reason is power related, and further weight breaks would be pointless, as the cars are near or at the limit of how low thay can go)

[Knestis]

Tag - I'm it.

...and the RX family is a special case because (1) the basic form of the powerplant is different than everything else out there, and (2) there's some historical (hysterical?) precedent still in the organization that rotaries just make mythical power, going back to their introduction in the '70s.

K