99-03 Golf is now in ITB - any thoughts?

[Knestis]

That is indeed another factor, Chris - performance creep. (That's different than rules creep.) This happens in all of our classes as a sort of natural selection as drivers tend to choose cars that are marginally faster. The imaginary "index" of performance rises.

To suggest that the classing process has changed over the years suggests that there used to be one process, and now there's another. In fact, there have been perhaps dozens of ad hoc processes applied (as opposed to Ad Hoc Committee) over the years.

K

[dickita15]

The RX-7 fits the ITA target just as well as anything else in the class. Tough to define the 'new standard' when they all fit the process.

Then I guess there are still some issues with the process. I think it has failed this car.

[lateapex911]

Since you brought it up...
(and I know this is about Golfs, but as we're discussing paradym shifts and class history....an ITA history lesson---

Back in "the day"...say '91 or so, the RX-7 was enjoying much success in ITA. Some saw it as the "dominant" car. It was, if you defined "dominant" as "the car with the most wins". But...a well prepped and well driven Mazda RX-3Sp could always run with an equally well prepped and well driven RX-7. And BMW 2002tii's were right there as well, except few had the skills and patience to deal with the Kleiglefucher (I know, a little joke there, the real name escapes me) mechanical injection system.

Then came the CRX. On paper, it didn't look wrong...but then a certain driver (who weighed over 300 pounds), started beating track record holders. And other CRXen got built and did very well. In time, the PTB (at that time I don't think the ITAC existed) saw the issue. (We've been over this- sorry for those that know the ending) What to do? Can't lower the weight, although it's an obvious mistake...(born from the car being more than it's stock numbers suggested, or a simple misweight, or it being a classic overachiever in the engine dept, you choose) so, the only solution is to add other cars to keep the class from becoming a one horse show. Enter the 240SX, and the Integra, etc. And, the track records fell. Indeed, the class performance bar had been raised. No RX-7 or 2002tii or RX-3 could compete.
(Rough numbers: CRX: 2140 lbs, 127 or so at the wheels with tq in the 115 range..(help me if I'm remembering wrong), good susp. and brakes.
RX-7: 128- 130 or so at the wheels, 102 tq, live rear axle and ok brakes, but...2380 pounds. 240 pounds more, inferior handling and braking, (relative) and about a 15% deficit in tq. See the issue?

Enter the ITAC...it matures and shows it's worth, and in time, develops the "Process" and makes a major adjustment, know as the "Great Realignment"(TM) henceforth known as "GA"....which is Not theGreg Amy.

Among other things, the RX-7 went to 2280, and the CRX got 110 pounds added. So, the GA attempted to right the wrongs of the past, but there were constraints...the RX-7 for example was thought to be at the absolute minimum...or even an unachievable level with it's new weight. Is it enough?
Some say no....but it's better than it was, obviously.

So, to sum up, YES, the performance paradigm shifted higher when the CRX (and subsequent 'fixes') joined ITA, and it was lowered somewhat in the GA, but....not nearly to earlier levels.

As to the RX-7, it is my feeling that it is a car that isn't treated well by the process in ITA, as the process fails to account for it's dismal TQ, and there is no nod to the "antique" suspension, but as the car sits at a weight most can't get to, how could there be? What to do? (We've beaten that to death, so we won't go there..this isn't about the RX-7 per se' anyway)

(Now, this is my opinion...as an ITAC guy I say "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and my attention focuses on other issues. And as I have an RX-7, it's certainly not my place to champion it's causes in the ITAC.)

[Knestis]

...and I know that I'm guilty of cross-pollination of topics but this is a good example. If we blindly ran the basic "formula," the first RX7 would be in even worse shape than it's in - both absolutely and relative to the CRX (on paper).

It's the easy way out to be for a system if it works for us and against it if we perceive it hurts our personal competitive interests. I think we should have forced this kind of conversation before implementing the Realignment but going forward...?

What do we believe?

K

[RSTPerformance]

Since you brought it up...
(and I know this is about Golfs, but as we're discussing paradym shifts and class history....an ITA history lesson---

Back in "the day"...say '91 or so, the RX-7 was enjoying much success in ITA. Some saw it as the "dominant" car. It was, if you defined "dominant" as "the car with the most wins". But...a well prepped and well driven Mazda RX-3Sp could always run with an equally well prepped and well driven RX-7. And BMW 2002tii's were right there as well, except few had the skills and patience to deal with the Kleiglefucher (I know, a little joke there, the real name escapes me) mechanical injection system.

Then came the CRX. On paper, it didn't look wrong...but then a certain driver (who weighed over 300 pounds), started beating track record holders. And other CRXen got built and did very well. In time, the PTB (at that time I don't think the ITAC existed) saw the issue. (We've been over this- sorry for those that know the ending) What to do? Can't lower the weight, although it's an obvious mistake...(born from the car being more than it's stock numbers suggested, or a simple misweight, or it being a classic overachiever in the engine dept, you choose) so, the only solution is to add other cars to keep the class from becoming a one horse show. Enter the 240SX, and the Integra, etc. And, the track records fell. Indeed, the class performance bar had been raised. No RX-7 or 2002tii or RX-3 could compete.
(Rough numbers: CRX: 2140 lbs, 127 or so at the wheels with tq in the 115 range..(help me if I'm remembering wrong), good susp. and brakes.
RX-7: 128- 130 or so at the wheels, 102 tq, live rear axle and ok brakes, but...2380 pounds. 240 pounds more, inferior handling and braking, (relative) and about a 15% deficit in tq. See the issue?

Enter the ITAC...it matures and shows it's worth, and in time, develops the "Process" and makes a major adjustment, know as the "Great Realignment"(TM) henceforth known as "GA"....which is Not theGreg Amy.

Among other things, the RX-7 went to 2280, and the CRX got 110 pounds added. So, the GA attempted to right the wrongs of the past, but there were constraints...the RX-7 for example was thought to be at the absolute minimum...or even an unachievable level with it's new weight. Is it enough?
Some say no....but it's better than it was, obviously.

So, to sum up, YES, the performance paradigm shifted higher when the CRX (and subsequent 'fixes') joined ITA, and it was lowered somewhat in the GA, but....not nearly to earlier levels.

As to the RX-7, it is my feeling that it is a car that isn't treated well by the process in ITA, as the process fails to account for it's dismal TQ, and there is no nod to the "antique" suspension, but as the car sits at a weight most can't get to, how could there be? What to do? (We've beaten that to death, so we won't go there..this isn't about the RX-7 per se' anyway)

(Now, this is my opinion...as an ITAC guy I say "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and my attention focuses on other issues. And as I have an RX-7, it's certainly not my place to champion it's causes in the ITAC.)

Jake-

Very well summed up... Growing up I remember watching every Northeast ITA race from the begining through the mid 90's watching Dad until he moved on and my bro and I went on into ITB... I remember the Capri, Corvaire, and RX-3 battles then the MR2 and 914 came into play as the cars to have before the RX-7 moved in... I can say it sucks that Chuck got those CRX's so fast and that the ITAC ignored the problem and just added faster cars basically destroying the "old" ITA class for years to come. However I do think that the new process is 100 times better than it used to be. I would have liked to see a class added between ITS and ITA rather than ITR added, but that is another story... At least we no longer have "a car to have" for each class. We now have 5+ options of competitive cars per class. They might not be the cars we want or remember, but at least we have options again.

Raymond "I guess Chuck wasn't cheating way back then?" Blethen

[lateapex911]

Jake-

..... I can say it sucks that Chuck got those CRX's so fast and that the ITAC ignored the problem and just added faster cars basically destroying the "old" ITA class for years to come. .........

Raymond "I guess Chuck wasn't cheating way back then?" Blethen

Remember, the ITAC didn't exist then...it came to be in the late 90s ....and don't blame the CRB for ignoring the situation, there was nothing they could do. Thank yourself, Kirk Knestis, Bill Miller, Scot Giles, Andy Bettencourt, myself and a bunch of others, especially Darin Jordan, for finding a way in the GCR that resulted in the ability to move and re-weight cars. Without that, we'd be nowhere.

That period, which I'll call "The members unite", henceforth know as TMU (TM) was pivotal in the history of IT.


Jake, "Don't be so sure of that, LOL" Gulick

[RSTPerformance]

Remember, the ITAC didn't exist then...it came to be in the late 90s ....and don't blame the CRB for ignoring the situation, there was nothing they could do.

Jake, "Don't be so sure of that, LOL" Gulick

Jake-

In those early 90's I was far to young to get involved in the politics of the club... I was just getting over the period in my life when I ran the checkered flags from the pits back to start finish at Bryar... LOL

Thanks for the education, I wasn't aware that the ITAC didn't exist. For those interested can you give us some history on how/why the ITAC started and maybe some of the milestones that the group has had at making this entire class structure one of the best in the country?

thanks;

Raymond "Way off topic, but this is interesting and this does explain a lot of the VW classification changes over the years" Blethen

[dickita15]

In the old days IT was kind of a throw away class and because it had the “no guarantee of competitiveness” clause “regional class only” clause, there was not a lot of thought given to adjustments by the CRB or as it was called then Competition Board. It just was not taken seriously.
At some point as the number grew people had to recognize the IT racing had to be taken seriously.

[Greg Amy]

Wow, has it been THAT long now...?

[Scirocco#28]

Does anybody know if the MkIV Jetta is in the pipeline for classification? They seem to be way easier to source from the wreckers and insurance yards.

[Knestis]

Nobody has requested classification - at least not that's made it from the club racing office to the ITAC agenda.

K

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

I'm not sure why a proactive approach wasn't taken on the Jetta. Same chassis/drivetrain as the Golf, same suspension, etc. Only difference is the body configuration. All of the other generations of Golf/Jetta are classified.

I do see where it might be an issue though, as it shows a curb weight of ~220# greater than the Golf (2892# vs 2671#). I would expect the spec weights to be the same. Given that it's still a big ? if the Golf can actually make weight, it's probably a real stretch for the Jetta to lose that extra 220#.

A little further digging shows the Jetta to have a great curb weight than a New Beetle from the same year, in the same trim level (2892# vs 2817#).

[Knestis]

I made a little noise on the ITAC web forum about doing just that but there's enough business on the committee's plate that I think we need to pay attention to actual members' requests first. Had it been as simple as duplicating the Golf IV, we could have done it but I looked at the curb weights, too and came to the same questions you've listed. Those "can it make weight, what class is it in?" conversations use up a lot of conference call time - particularly to list a car that nobody has requested and might never get built, so I didn't push it.

K

[Bob Burns]

Remember, the ITAC didn't exist then...it came to be in the late 90s ....and don't blame the CRB for ignoring the situation, there was nothing they could do. Thank yourself, Kirk Knestis, Bill Miller, Scot Giles, Andy Bettencourt, myself and a bunch of others, especially Darin Jordan, for finding a way in the GCR that resulted in the ability to move and re-weight cars.

To all, I apologize for resurrecting an old thread, but I saw some things here that I thought bore revision.

Just prior to the 1990 SCCA National Convention, I was asked by Doug Reed, who was then a manager at SCCA Club Racing, to join the Comp Board's IT Ad-Hoc Committee. At that time, the committee consisted of Frank Eubel as Chairman, Brian Holtz, myself, and a few other guys whose names escape me. The IT Ad-Hoc Committee was the only such committee the Comp Board had at that time.

When Frank was appointed to the Comp Board a few years later, Brian became Chairman of the IT committee. Then, when Brian was appointed to the Comp Board in 1994, I was appointed Chairman of the IT committee. A couple of years later, American Sedan was made a National class and I petitioned the Comp Board to form an AS Ad-Hoc Committee and appoint me Chairman. They acted affirmatively on both requests. I've been sitting here trying to remember who was appointed Chairman of the IT committee after I left, but I've killed too many brain cells since then.

I was later appointed to the Comp Board and served from 1997 through 2000.

After I left the Comp Board, it was renamed to the Club Racing Board and the ad-hoc committees were renamed advisory committees. So, while the ITAC, in that name, is a recent invention, there has been a advisory committee for IT issues for a long time.

No, the Comp Board did not ignore IT back then, but, as you say, there wasn't much they could do. The Board of Directors was firmly against any kind of competition adjustments in IT. We did reclassify cars (I was on the IT committee when the 1st gen RX-7s were moved to ITA and I think I was on the Comp Board when the A2 GTIs were moved down to ITB). We also "corrected" weights when we thought they were wrong. The weight of the A1 GTI was always an issue back then because it was based on a bogus weight supplied to the SCCA by VWOA.

Back to the BoD, the Comp Board tried three times during my years either on the committee or on the Comp Board to free up the ECU rules and each time it was shot down by the BoD. A lot has changed in IT over the years. I pushed for some of those changes and I stood in the way of other changes. It is what it is.

Now, this is my opinion...as an ITAC guy I say "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" and my attention focuses on other issues.

You are not the first to apply Spock's line to IT. Frank Eubel, may he rest in peace, took that position many years ago. Heck, Frank once told me that the reason he supported IT cars keeping their stock headliners was that he wanted guys to be able to look up at that headliner while driving down the straightaway at 120MPH and be reminded "this is basically a STOCK car".

Bob...

[Sandro]

saw this in the new gallery feature:




could this be the first ITB MKIV to be built? Bill??

[lateapex911]

I've been sitting here trying to remember who was appointed Chairman of the IT committee after I left, but I've killed too many brain cells since then.

Bob...

Could it be Rick Pokock? (Sp?)

Thanks for the deeper history lesson. I raced briefly in '92, and returned in '97, and started getting more involved a bit after that. I think the ad hocs were much more under the radar back then.