Longevity of ITC???

[toddgreene]

My concern is that the CRXs, Sciroccos and Rabbits are getting long in the tooth.
The chaisis is now 20+ years old.

In the past two years, the CRB has added some Sentras, Protege, Geos, etc. which will add new cars to the class. There aren't a lot of readily available go-fast parts for these cars. I think the development cost of these cars will be too expensive to build for C. I definitely think the KIA would be two expensive to develop. It seems easier to buy a $4000 CRX or Rabbit with a log-book than to develop a Protege.

If new cars are dropped "down" into C, the CRXs and Sciroccos may be riding in the back of the pack with the British Cars. (LBC fans please don't throw rocks, I am a British Car Nut, too)

Todd

[Andy Bettencourt]

I keep hearing what is wrong, but I have seen no solutions.

If the cars, price point and speeds are popular, then the class will be popular. If not, it will die. This isn't unique to ITC. I bet that there are more ITR cars at the end of 2008 than ITC cars. What does that tell us? Just asking, not saying anything.

Let's design some solutions.

[seckerich]

Gotta love Darwin on this one. The vin rule just might be the kicker to move us back to 4 classes. Less classes and more racing is always good.

[jjjanos]

I keep hearing what is wrong, but I have seen no solutions.

Correct me where I go wrong -

Wasn't the New Beetle classified fat in ITC to keep it from being an overdog? I.e. The car could have been built at less than 2760 but the committee decided that a whole bunch of weight needed to be kept on the car to keep it from dominating?

If we want to keep the current crop of 20+ year old ITC cars competitive (a questionable goal) and maintain the class, couldn't some of the pokier ITB cars go through a similar weight increase program?

I.e Currently the 1989 Nash Rambler is classified in ITB at 1800, but the car is always DFL because it's underpowered as a B car and there is no way it can get to the 1500 it needs to be competitive. The handy-dandy classification model, however, says that at 2000, it will be at the front end of ITC.

Is this the sort of solution for which you were seeking?

The more systemic problem is that the cars that would fit comfortably in ITC are either so old as to be impossible to find or are worth too much as street cars to justify the huge expense of building a custom racecar whose competiveness is in question.

A quick search shows the least expensive new Beetle of the correct age is going for $3900.
Same search gives a Nissan 240SX going for about the same.


How much to add to the build-out cost? If the costs are close, you'll go with the faster car. Then again, if you go with the Beetle, it's newer and you'll be able to pick up spares easier than you will for a car that is 10 years older. Or you could punt and buy one that's for sale 11,000 obo (+ or - based on spares, etc) over in the marketplace.

It's a chicken/egg problem. Nobody is going to build the newly classified cars in ITC until somebody builds one of the newly classified cars in ITC. Then it'll be katy bar the door time.

[JeffYoung]

Have to agree with Steve. What is happening is natural mostly and can't be "fixed." The bottom end of the IT performance envelope is moving upward. No real way to fix that as I see it.

[ScotMac]

I agree w/ the comments that whether we move cars down or add a new class, it is basically the same. And, YES, Andy, the moving down approach does mean obsoleting *cars* in C, but Greg's point is that it doesn't obsolete the *class*.

I disagree Greg. I think the better approach is to add the class at the top. By doing so, you have more stability. Instead of *every* class having change all the time, you simply have the change in the *new* class (and eventually in the low class when it dies). The classes i the middle stay constant. More stability is likely to keep the competition tighter. My $.02.

[lateapex911]

Edit, four of you guys added posts while I was typing mine, making some similar points..sorry!

Greg's concept....relative adjustment...took a second to sink in. I think what he's saying is that you move B cars into C, and adjust the weights of everybody in the "Revamped ITC" class so that their relative performance is equal.

And you do the same for ITS cars that go to A, etc.

Each time, you analyze all the cars in the class, keeping in mind the parmeters that exist...achievable weights being the biggest factor, and adjust the class.

[Cheech Marin voice over] Whoaaa.........that's heavy man...[/Cheech voice over]

Years ago, we had a chat about this and other things here on IT.com, and one thing that I remember vividly after taking the pulse of the IT community was that one of the top reasons people chose IT was stability. They didn't like the rather haphazard classings at that point, but accepted them in a trade for stability.

I think I understand what Greg is saying, but.....the complexity of such a system that has hundreds of cars in the mix would be substantial, to say the least. And I doubt that many drivers will accept bolting in lead this year, or unbolting it and moving a class next, at what appears to be the whim of the class managers. And you'll get howls of protest from ITB drivers who were having fun in a huge class, but now find themselves in ITC...racing nobody, and adding weight to go slower. Thankyou very little.Then there's the wheel issue. Each ITA to ITB move triggers the sale and purchase of a new wheel quiver. Popular.

Further, you now end up with a moving target vis a vis the classes, and, track records will be either easy targets or untouchable, depending upon how much the relative envelope needs to shift to squeeze in the new combination of cars.

Finally, accepting the trend that newer cars are in general faster than older cars (dollars adjusted and equal), the whole "moving down and rejiggering" concept ends up with cars getting added at ridiculous weights..weight that nobody will want to race (See: BMW E36 ITS issue)

Pragmatically, I think that ITC drivers certainly see the writing on the wall. Times change, and we can't live in 1986 forever. Some will use the VIN rule to rebirth their cars in ITB, other will at some point decide that ITC is too: boring (no competition), slow, (new challenge time), difficult to continue in (can't find parts for their car) and move on, perhaps to B, where the expense can actually be pretty close to ITC.

Times have changed, and the relative performance of cars has risen significantly, compared to the cost. Allowing the market to decide affect the least number of people in the most subtle manner.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Correct me where I go wrong -

Wasn't the New Beetle classified fat in ITC to keep it from being an overdog? I.e. The car could have been built at less than 2760 but the committee decided that a whole bunch of weight needed to be kept on the car to keep it from dominating?

Nope. It's porky because its got ITB power in ITC.

If we want to keep the current crop of 20+ year old ITC cars competitive (a questionable goal) and maintain the class, couldn't some of the pokier ITB cars go through a similar weight increase program?

You could certainly add weight to any ITB car and make it an ITC car...but who would want to race a car like that? I think the Beetle has proven that nobody does...new car or not.

One thing to remember, take a look at some of the 20 year old cars in the rulebook. E39 BMW's, 13B RX-7's, ITA CRX's...it may not be just about the age...

I believe 100% that it costs the dang close to the same to build a ITA/ITB or ITC CRX given the same suspension design and assuming the same prep-level goal. It's about 'cool' factor, speed and competition. I would have an ITC 510 if there was 20+ car fields like their are in ITA and ITS around here...just because I love those things.

I.e Currently the 1989 Nash Rambler is classified in ITB at 1800, but the car is always DFL because it's underpowered as a B car and there is no way it can get to the 1500 it needs to be competitive. The handy-dandy classification model, however, says that at 2000, it will be at the front end of ITC.

You are describing a car that is mis-classed, not a car that can just slide down one class. Cars like that can (and should) get moved anyway.

[jjjanos]

Have to agree with Steve. What is happening is natural mostly and can't be "fixed." The bottom end of the IT performance envelope is moving upward. No real way to fix that as I see it.

Same thing happened with showroom stock even absent trunk kits, et al.

At one time, the SSC car to have was the Renault Le Transportation with 55hp (Source: Wiki).

The new Mini is in SSC and it's rated at 115hp, stock. (source: somewhere on innerweb.)

Anyone think a stock Mini and a stock Le Car would be equal? :eek:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Same thing happened with showroom stock even absent trunk kits, et al.

At one time, the SSC car to have was the Renault Le Transportation with 55hp (Source: Wiki).

The new Mini is in SSC and it's rated at 115hp, stock. (source: somewhere on innerweb.)

Anyone think a stock Mini and a stock Le Car would be equal? :eek:

100% spot on. Look at Solo. "New replaces old" is the mantra.

[jjjanos]

Nope. It's porky because its got ITB power in ITC.

I'm sorry, but that didn't answer the question. Is the Beetle heavier than SOP so that it won't be too fast for ITC? I.e. It could be a somewhere back of the middle of ITB or way to the front of ITC if the SOP strip what you can rule was used?

You could certainly add weight to any ITB car and make it an ITC car...but who would want to race a car like that? I think the Beetle has proven that nobody does...new car or not.

I disagree. There is a difference between building an expensive, unproven car and running one that already built and for which the weight is known to leave it competitive.

One thing to remember, take a look at some of the 20 year old cars in the rulebook. E39 BMW's, 13B RX-7's, ITA CRX's...it may not be just about the age...

I agree. I think most people would rather race an uncompetitive "cool" car than one that makes the rest of the class wonder whether there will be foot tapping in the stalls. Then again, the Dodge Neon is not the most macho car out there and people had no problem racing those...

You are describing a car that is mis-classed, not a car that can just slide down one class. Cars like that can (and should) get moved anyway.

OK, fine. A car that is correctly classified but has always and will always run 1:34s in ITB at Summit Point or 0.5 seconds fast then the best ITC cars, i.e. smack dab in the middle of the ITB field, even a little bit at the pointy end but which, if moved lock stock and barrel to ITC would beat even the long-time dominant ITC cars there who last year where struggling to get to the mid 1:34s.

If the goal is to preserve ITC's "philosophy" and the current crop of antiques running in ITC, then why not add some weight and drop it down to ITC? And please remember that the two goals, so saying the car is correctly classified or not being consistent with the overall ITC philosophy would be inappropriate.

If you cannnot, then the answer is clear - we've got two mutually exclusive constraints - A) correctly classifying cars and the GCR-given philosophy and preserving the current structure of classes and the cars which run in those classes. Deciding which to satisfy is a political issue and frankly, I have no problem with older cars doing a MacCarthur.

Hell, the club should adopt a birth year rule - no driver may be older than the car in which he is racing.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree w/ the comments that whether we move cars down or add a new class, it is basically the same. And, YES, Andy, the moving down approach does mean obsoleting *cars* in C, but Greg's point is that it doesn't obsolete the *class*.

Here is where I don't get it (bold mine). If you obsolete all the CARS in ITC because you moved ITB cars in, then all you have done is changed the stickers on the sides of the ITB cars to ITC and killed all of the ITC cars.

Most ITC racers would say the goal hear should be to PRESERVE the cars in ITC, while designing a way to make it more attractive to people. If it's not, then they (the cars) can just die a natural death or you can kill them (the cars) by making them obsolete.

The point is that moving cars down doesn't solve anything IMHO.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm sorry, but that didn't answer the question. Is the Beetle heavier than SOP so that it won't be too fast for ITC?

Sorry I wasn't clear. No.

OK, fine. A car that is correctly classified but has always and will always run 1:34s in ITB at Summit Point or 0.5 seconds fast then the best ITC cars, i.e. smack dab in the middle of the ITB field, even a little bit at the pointy end but which, if moved lock stock and barrel to ITC would beat even the long-time dominant ITC cars there who last year where struggling to get to the mid 1:34s.

We don't use lap times as primary judgement for classification. If it's 'correctly' classified, it stays. No way to quantify prep, driver talent, etc, etc, etc. And even if there were, there is no mechanism in IT (Comp adjustments) to do so. Nor is it the desire of anyone I have ever talked with.

If the goal is to preserve ITC's "philosophy" and the current crop of antiques running in ITC, then why not add some weight and drop it down to ITC? And please remember that the two goals, so saying the car is correctly classified or not being consistent with the overall ITC philosophy would be inappropriate.

Not quite sure what you are saying but I don't believe anyone would run an artificially heavy car (when they can make weight in the 'higher' class) to go slower and eat up more consumables.

At some point, if there were no more ITC cars running anywhere, bump all the B cars to C and so on, making room at the top for another class if the demand was there. More classes is not always (rarely) a good thing IMHO.

[lateapex911]

Here is where I don't get it (bold mine). If you obsolete all the CARS in ITC because you moved ITB cars in, then all you have done is changes the stickers on the sides of the ITB cars to ITC and killed all of the ITC cars.

Most ITC racers would say the goal hear should be to PRESERVE the cars in ITC, while designing a way to make it more attractive to people. If it's not, then they (the cars) can just die a natural death or you can kill them (the cars) by making them obsolete.

The point is that moving cars down doesn't solve anything IMHO.

In theory Andy, you won't obselete the C cars IF you adjust the incoming B cars to perform to the existing C level.

Your point about moving cars down not solving anything is not entirely true. You WILL piss off a bunch of B guys who don't want to add weight and go slower against 3 guys when they used to go faster and race 20 guys...

(Now, if the premise is to move B cars into C at their current weight, then why not move all the C cars up to B? Same difference)

[Andy Bettencourt]

In theory Andy, you won't obselete the C cars IF you adjust the incoming B cars to perform to the existing C level.

I think that is obvious Jake. The point is that nobody wants to run a car that is artifically heavy. It makes no sense for a racecar.

[ScotMac]

Here is where I don't get it (bold mine). If you obsolete all the CARS in ITC because you moved ITB cars in, then all you have done is changed the stickers on the sides of the ITB cars to ITC and killed all of the ITC cars.

Most ITC racers would say the goal hear should be to PRESERVE the cars in ITC, while designing a way to make it more attractive to people. If it's not, then they (the cars) can just die a natural death or you can kill them (the cars) by making them obsolete.

The point is that moving cars down doesn't solve anything IMHO.

I think your key word there is "all". You don't move all the ITB cars to ITC, and don't kill *all* the ITC. You move the slow ITB cars to C and you obsolete the slowest C cars (ones not raced anyway).

Anyway, as i said, it is not a great idea, from a stability point of view...

[Andy Bettencourt]

How do you quantify 'slow' ITB cars? If they just get moved and not 're-processed', then ALL of the ITC cars die because they don't think they have a chance to win.

If they do get 're-processed', then I submit nobody runs THOSE cars because they are unneccesarily heavy.

It's a lose-lose.

[Ron Earp]

I dunno fellows, I see C petering out, and eventually down the road B, etc.

There is only a limited pool of guys who are going to be interested in driving the C class cars. This pool of people will dwindle over the years as will the C cars. You can kid yourself all you want about entry level and all that good stuff, that is true to an extent. But you’ve got to admit – to race a car, to work on it the way we must to go racing – you’ve got to like the car. Those of us that like ITC Rabbits and so forth won’t be increasing in numbers. The cars, and the people that like them enough to race them, will be decreasing over time. They just aren’t making cars that perform at ITC levels any more.

I attribute ITA being popular because it has a large number of Japanese front drivers that many of the 20 and 30 somethings find interesting. I’d imagine that many folks who don’t race A don’t find hot hatch front wheel drive imports interesting.

Putting weight on cars and moving them down classes is crazy. All that does is preserve the “ITC” class, but the original cars in the class would be gone from attrition, lack of interest, etc.

[JeffYoung]

Think about it, the bottom of the stock hp ladder in A (CRXs and 1st Gen RX7s) at 100ish hp are far, far less stock hp than nearly anything you drive off a lot today.

Those cars that exist in the 80-100 hp range, I just don't see a whole lot of folks wanting to race.

I'm not in favor of purposefully "killing" any car or class, but as Steve E said, at least in these parts, it appears that Darwin is taking its toll on C and there is no way to fix the real problem, which is there are no new cars that fit the performance envelope AND there are really no cars in C that people really want to race.

You can buy a mid pack S or A car for $5 to $10k if you look around, slower ones for even less.

All of that said, I hope B and C see a resurgence. It certainly looks like B is pretty hotly contested right now, which is a good thing.

[jjjanos]

Sorry I wasn't clear. No.

So we won't see any of these running with ballast because the minimum weight was set so high.

We don't use lap times as primary judgement for classification. If it's 'correctly' classified, it stays. No way to quantify prep, driver talent, etc, etc, etc. And even if there were, there is no mechanism in IT (Comp adjustments) to do so. Nor is it the desire of anyone I have ever talked with.

Then one wonders how this is applied...
At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated.

Seems to me that the only way to do that would be via lap times.

Not quite sure what you are saying but I don't believe anyone would run an artificially heavy car (when they can make weight in the 'higher' class) to go slower and eat up more consumables.

I wasn't suggesting leaving the door open for making weight in the higher class. You asked for ways to increase car counts in ITC without obsoleting the current cars. Putting B cars in at heavier weight without the option of running in B is one way to do it. I also didn't say it would be a popular decision or a particularly smart one. None-the-less, it's probably the only way to increase ITC car counts without making the current crop obsolete.