View Poll Results: dual classification

Voters
37. You may not vote on this poll
  • Yes

    15 40.54%
  • No

    14 37.84%
  • On the tire wall on this one....

    8 21.62%
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 41 to 51 of 51

Thread: dual classification

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    NH, US
    Posts
    3,821

    Default

    Are we saying that it should be a rule that any car can run in any class 'above' it at any time?
    [/b]

    I ,like it

    But also I think when re-classing cars we should keep it eligable per the current rules (uncompetitive but fun), but also run it through the process and re-class it in the lower class... Then let the market decide, and until all cars have switched keep the dual classing!!!

    Raymond "Sorry to mix two concepts, didn't realize to popularity of the topic" Blethen
    RST Performance Racing
    www.rstperformance.com

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Concord, NH 03301
    Posts
    700

    Default



    why can't this be done locally
    It could be, but it would be simpler if it was noted from the top that it can be done. As it stands now, since there is nothing saying you can, then you can't. So you have to get an allowance which would have to be done for every event.

    If you do it for IT, you really should do it for everyone.
    [quote]

    True, but since when do us IT guys start getting really concerned for the rest of the groups? If they want it, let them ask. Not the nicest reply, but I'd take care of the stuff that impacts me before dipping my toe in a pool that I know ZERO about and as little influence on me.

    Then the GT1 guys will bitch as they have no 'up' class.
    And? Yes, these guys have no where to move up to, nor does an FA. Or an ITR car if they want to run against other IT cars. Its not perfect. Never will be.

    Matt

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Sterling, VA
    Posts
    734

    Default

    Are we saying that it should be a rule that any car can run in any class 'above' it at any time?
    [/b]
    I like except we need to add that the stirct enforcement of the 120% rule.
    Spanky | #73 ITA 1990 Honda Civic WDCR SOLD | #73 ITA 1995 Honda Civic WDCR in progress |
    ** Sponsored by J&L Automotive (703) 327-5239 | Engineered Services, Inc. http://www.EngineeredServices.com **

    Isaac Rules | Build Pictures

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Jan 2003
    Location
    Huntsville, AL
    Posts
    316

    Default

    Andy,

    Your position is based on the premise that a car should be classed in the class that will give it the lowest achievable weight. I suppose that's valid, but there's nothing anywhere that says that's the way it should be. Folks have talked a lot about where to find new ITC cars. There really aren't that many new ones out there, and of those, most agree that they don't appeal to racers. Why not look to ITB to find some of those cars?

    As I've said earlier, it's pretty easy to spec a car for two classes. The one where it would be at its lightest achievable weight, and the class below that. Look around at some of the ITB cars. IIRC, the process weight for a Rabbit GTI in ITC was ~75# higher than the old ITB weight (2250# IIRC). That car made 90 hp stock. That's 20hp off of what you've called a 'solid ITB' car that was 'in the middle'. That's a lot in a lower hp class. Look at dropping that car, and similar ones, in ITC. Or give them the ability to run in both, and let the racers decide.
    [/b]
    Despite some very understandable arguments to the contrary, I'm right there with you Bill.

    This would give me an excuse to protest the ITC CRX's that have beat me in races where I was running first and second in ITB! :P

    Here's what messed me up, and I understand the old "no good deed goes unpunished", but when the ITB Rabbit GTI received the last weight reduction, I could no longer make min weight. I now know that I won't make min weight unless I work off 70#'s of flab (eh-no), or rip out a cage that has been fine since '98, and replace it with a lighter one. I actually know of one guy running an ITB Rabbit GTI who ripped his entire cage out this past spring and rebuilt it to make min weight. I admire that kind of dedication (and wallet thickness), but that ain't happenin' on my "raising three kids budget". If the solution had been to bolt in ballast (which I still had on the shelf from the 2180# days) and bump from ITB to ITC, I would have been better off, as bolting in ballast and changing a class letter is cheaper than rebuilding cages. I don't give a rip that I'd be in a "slower class", I just want to be able to see the frontrunners when I turn onto the front straight!

    One last hand grenade for the conversation...What about combining (and weight tweaking) ITB and ITC? I'll buy stock in the steel plate companies and make a fortune as all the B cars ballast up
    Eddie
    ex RX3 and GTI driver
    "Don't RallyCross what you can't afford to Road Race" - swiped from YH and twisted for me
    "I have heard that any landing you can walk away from is a 'good' landing. I bet this applies to flying airplanes as well." - E.J.

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Andy,
    I think one way to define a 'tweener' is a car that has realistic, achievable weights in both classes. With a cap of say 100# over curb weight on the high side (not counting the driver).
    [/b]
    Bill: me Andy or Andy B. Andy? I think you may have been refering to me because I had just prior posted
    So to me, that is the definition of a tweener. If a car's process wieght is x amount under curb wieght, it's a tweener.
    [/b]
    If so... I like it (your definition that is) Seems maybe a tweener rule may not be that tough to craft
    Folks have talked a lot about where to find new ITC cars. There really aren't that many new ones out there, and of those, most agree that they don't appeal to racers. Why not look to ITB to find some of those cars?
    [/b]
    One last hand grenade for the conversation...What about combining (and weight tweaking) ITB and ITC?
    [/b]
    Awhile back I was thinking about this when I heard the problems with C. It also occured to me around the time ITR was being discussed. If no low horsepower cars are really being produced (at least none anybody would want to race) Why not combine B and C? Maybe not wholly and completely but say the bottom two thirds of B into C. In the same way the slower cars in A go to B ect. ect. on up through the class. Why create a faster class as a slower class is busy dying a slow death? Maybe such a solution could be helpful for the tweener problem. Maybe a better cut off point could be choosen which could divide up the ranks more logically. If no low horsepower cars are being produced and lots of higher horsepower cars are, maybe this is just the natural progression of the class. Well, what about the really slow end of C cars, what becomes of them? I don't know without looking at all the specs. Could they be speced light enough to compete and still make weight? Maybe that would be the cut off point, Where the slowest of C are speced as light as they can make min. wieght and as much of B is absorded which doesn't make them to heavy. The biggest problem I see is B guys getting moved to C whining because they don't want to be in the 'slow' class. From a guy who roadraced a motorcycle in the lightweight class, I can tell you there is a skill set to learn and plenty fun to be had, but I could see guys being reluctant. Maybe the solution would be to call it IT1, IT2 ect. That way we don't have to figure out what to call the next one after R. Anyhow that's my rambling on this one.
    Andy Rowe

  6. #46
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    I'm still not getting it but then, I'm old and slow...

    So, under what (some of) you are proposing, I could simply take my Golf, tape over the "B", slap on an "A" and run for SARRC points in the group that includes ITA in addition to the one that includes ITB? Of course then...

    ** I can run A instead of B, rather than adding an entry fee to the region's income?

    ** I can run A and R, if they are in two groups.

    ** I can pay two entry fees and enter both classes if they are in the same group.

    ** I can pay two entry fees and enter ITB twice! Double points!!

    ** I can enter other "faster" classes at a Regional (like EP, for example)? Does it make a difference if anyone else is entered in the class or not?

    ** Since we've chucked the general expectation that cars have to be listed in specific classes to be eligible, I can probably qualify for the RubOffs in SOMETHING next year.

    Before you get all sputtery with indignation about how I've taken this to some asinine extreme, stop and check each of the "solutions" above against the rationale that have been presented. How many of them...

    ** Allow me to get more races in a given weekend, thereby stretching my racing dollar?

    ** Allow the region to increase entries and make more money?

    ** Don't violate Dickita's First and Second Rules?

    Heck - I've even improved EP's national participation numbers!

    Kirk (who seems to remember SOMETHING about a bunch of IT entrants squawking about SMs being allowed to run in IT)

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Palm Beach, FL
    Posts
    132

    Default

    Kirk... BINGO!!!!
    dual classing is dumb (is it ok to say dumb? please no one be offended) Can we not come up with a better way to get more track time or bring up low car counts without bastardizing the rule set? (And I thought the same thing about the SM debacle as I read this thread)
    Duel classing (by another name) to help transistion tweeners = OK, Dual classing for other reasons listed above or otherwise = not so wise IMHO

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Location
    New York, NY, USA
    Posts
    451

    Default

    So then we'll have to go after the race organizers and make sure that no IT class is in the same race group as the next higher class. ITC could run with ITA or higher. ITB could run with ITS but not ITA. ITA could only run with ITR. ITS and ITR are SOL. In some areas of the country this might be just a tad problematic.

    This makes sense?

    Do you really want your race group muddled with uncompetitive cars? Uncompetitive cars that can screw up your race? No thanks. I have anough of a challenge with the fine group of talents (bunch of yahoo&#39;s <_< ) who are out there now.

    Envy not SSM, SM, and ITA Miata&#39;s.

    Since the impetus for this seems to be increasing tracktime, while not being competitve, consider doing this within the existing framework. Run SPU/SPO or have your region add an ITO/ITU run group to suck up your dollars.

    As for DC&#39;s, I say no. There actually is a reason we have classes and an ITAC and all that good stuff that keeps IT vital. If a car is being re-classed, it is for a good reason. The new classification should always become effective the next racing year. If the re-classification comes about after July 1st, I would support a one year transitional DC. That would give a person at least 18 months to make the change.

    DZ
    ITB

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    hampden,ma.usa
    Posts
    3,083

    Default


    I really wish that there were not two discussions going on here.


    As for DC&#39;s, I say no. There actually is a reason we have classes and an ITAC and all that good stuff that keeps IT vital. If a car is being re-classed, it is for a good reason.
    DZ
    ITB
    [/b]
    Except there are time when it is a coin toss as to which class the car belongs in and no matter which way the ITAC decides, half of those racer will think it was the wrong call. That is the definition of a tweener. If in those cases the car is Dual Classed then the market can decide with no harm to the process.

    If a car were to be Dual Classes where it obviously fits better in one class than the other I would bet the market would figure that out as well.
    dick patullo
    ner scca IT7 Rx7

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Belmont, CA
    Posts
    226

    Default

    IT doesn&#39;t make adjustments based on results. Pockets of success happen for a huge variety of reasons.
    [/b]
    Right. That&#39;s why i asked for input from other regions. ie, to see if it is more that just a pocket of success.

    Sorry Andy, guess i don&#39;t understand. IT DOES move cars around in classes and change the spec weight of cars. Based on what? A re-evaluation of the "process"?

    If one particular car is completely dominating a class, and nothing in the "process" says that it should be, then it is just left that way?
    Scot Mac - Mac Motorsports
    88 ITB Fiero #41, SFR, NWR, ICSCC

  11. #51
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    IT.com "First Loser" Greensboro, NC USA
    Posts
    8,607

    Default

    Just to double check, you do know that there are still a lot of cars listed in the ITCS that have not been THROUGH the "process," right Scot?

    Before the Great Realignment a couple years ago, the classifications and weight specs where a horrible hodge-podge, with some placed by people who believed one thing, and some placed by people believing an entirely different thing.

    And by "Process" I don&#39;t mean the procedural stuff, like someone asking that a car be re-examined or reclassed. I mean the actual weight-setting process. I think that&#39;s the typical way that term gets used around here.

    K

    EDIT - and the answer to your last question is, "if the process has been used, yes." Unless there is really strong evidence that the process is flawed (which is where I begin to get very anxious, too.)

Bookmarks

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •