Poll: Should IT go National?

[IPRESS]

So you guys that are voting no are saying that the Club should continue to forbid IT cars to run Nationals? That a guy who wants to run Nationals has to buy or build a different car to do so?

Stan, several around here could just change how there car is prepped and run in a different class that has Runoffs participation.
What we hear a great deal when someone questions an IT rule is, "If you want to do that there a re plenty of other classes that you can race in."
That comeback really fits this subject to a capital T.

As far as this overall discussion:
I really think the IT PTB wants it to be more then what it presently is. I think the IT rank and file like it pretty well as is.

In a few posts up above there have been some comments that could be taken as arrogant and carry a little sentiment of "my group of racers are better then your group". That may be true, but what allows all of us to race is the ENTIRE IT group paying entry fees. You know in the IT community (even at ARRC) when things are face to face I never see any of that. At the races just about everybody will bend over backwards and help the fastest or the slowest. Yet on a BB they will make statements that come across totally out of their character. Very rarely does any of this pop up except for discussion on subjects like this, so the idea of changing IT to national is already causing problems.

[Speed Raycer]

Nope. ITA

[toddgreene]

The move could make sense for the longevity of club racing.

As Prod cars become more modern (and expensive) IT classes could become the predominant place to race. Cars in IT are just a few seconds slower that their Prod counterparts. Run Groups are similar sized.

Recent Stats from Road Atrlanta:

EP 240Z 1:35
ITS 240Z 1:42

EP Miata 1:40
ITA Miata 1:44

I must think that the IT versions cost less than half of the Prod versions, are cheaper to maintain, are more dependable and just as competitve with their groups.

Take a look at the world of professional road racing: World Challenge TC; Grand Am Koni GS and ST; MX-5 Cup. It seems to be moving toward an Improved Touring type sport. (stock bodies, stock engines, with improvements)

[pballance]

No, ITS

We should remember that this is a club and WE are the club. After hearing a proposal to include IT as a national class coupled with a lot of other changes I might change my opinion.

[Gregg]

So you guys that are voting no are saying that the Club should continue to forbid IT cars to run Nationals? That a guy who wants to run Nationals has to buy or build a different car to do so?

First I laughed at the above, then I voted "No." I race ITA.

[erlrich]

I've moved most of the "discussion" posts to the other thread; I've tried to preserve the continuity of the discussion, so hopefully everyone can just pick up where they left off over there.

[JohnRW]

So you guys that are voting no are saying that the Club should continue to forbid IT cars to run Nationals? That a guy who wants to run Nationals has to buy or build a different car to do so?

All National classes are represented in Regional weekends, unless it's an enduro majorly restricted Regional. You don't need more than one car to run both National and Regional weekends...as long as it's a National car.

No to national IT.

[CCDangie71]

No, Nein, Non ITC

If you want to run National, there are PLENTY of classes to choose from.

[raffaelli]

Right now I am happy to just be on the track. I am sure at some time I will want to start moving up on the finishing order. After reading all of this it sounds like I will be more out of pocket to do that should things move to a National level. Short term, my level of expense will not change regardless of Regional/National level until my skill catches up to my equipment. But, on the other hand, it I am one of the guys in front, I will want the entire country to know it. For me, at this point it does not matter.

While in other forms of competition/racing I have been bitten by the ‘I will compete on a national level’, right now, in ITA, I have not.

But then again, maybe (probably) I am just too green to understand. No national.

[cfullgraf]

No to going National.

I race ITC in SEDIV

[RSTPerformance]

I voted No...

Prod cars shouldn't be GT3 or GTL cars... I think Prod needs to become more in line with IT cars. IT legal cars should be somewhat (midpack) competitive in Prod on the National level.

[JoshS]

You guys all know that ITS cars and ITR cars, for the most part, aren't listed in Prod, right? It drives me nuts to hear "just enter in Prod!"

[RSTPerformance]

You guys all know that ITS cars and ITR cars, for the most part, aren't listed in Prod, right? It drives me nuts to hear "just enter in Prod!"

My ITB car isn't listed either... "they" say request the classification. Thats all good and dandy but I think that the cars need to be partialy competitive when classed... Also they somewhat fixed the problem by allowing any IT car to run in DP, oh wait but they have to be 1990 or newer (my car is technicaly out)... Where the heck does the age limit come from? Worried about old cars showing up newer models? I also think Prod needs to figure out what its doing and where the class is giong in the future. I have to give the ITAC great credit for giving us a direction and future.

Raymond

[jjjanos]

You guys all know that ITS cars and ITR cars, for the most part, aren't listed in Prod, right? It drives me nuts to hear "just enter in Prod!"

Enter in BP/DP.

[itb76]

So you guys that are voting no are saying that the Club should continue to forbid IT cars to run Nationals? That a guy who wants to run Nationals has to buy or build a different car to do so?

I'm voting no, and yes that's what I'm saying. I've run ITB for 7 years with SCCA and 3 years with Midwestern Council. Let the guys with big budgets run National classes and leave IT to those who can't spend the big bucks and won't travel cross country.

Having said that, the IT fields have really waned in the last couple years, ever since CENDiv and GLDiv split. The number of regional races has gone way down as well.

[Z3_GoCar]

Enter in BP/DP.

With the ITR cross over you don't even need the SIR, so it's concieveable that you'll make more power with an IT built motor than the class ceiling of 250hp.

Now it's also classed in E-Prod too. Makes you wonder how E-Prod can have both the four and six cylinder Z3's in the same class.

As for my view, I'm still in the middle, well maybe slightly for it, but realize that I'd probably never run the run-offs anyway. With fuel costs going through the roof, maybe they should only hold them every four years or so, kind of the Paris-Brest-Paris race. Maybe split the classes into four groups with one getting it's championship that year. Down side being that a group will get caught out when the plan goes to pot and things get realighned again.

James

[JoshS]

Now it's also classed in E-Prod too. Makes you wonder how E-Prod can have both the four and six cylinder Z3's in the same class.

I didn't realize that! I just looked it up. March Fastrack:

Classify the BMW Z3 as a Level 2 car in EP.
Add new spec line to PCS-B, p. 418-419, BMW Z3 2.5L (97-00), Prep. Level: 2, Weight(lbs): 2650 *2716 **2783, Engine Type: 6
Cyl DOHC, Bore x Stroke(mm): 84.0 x 84.0, Displ.(cc): 2793, Block Mat’l: Iron, Head Mat’l: Alum, Valves IN & EX(mm): (I)33.0
(E)30.5, Carb. No. & Type: Fuel Injection, Wheelbase(in): 96.3, Track(F&R)(in): 59.8 / 60.5, Wheels(max): 16 x 7, Brakes Std.(mm):
(F)300 Vented Disc (R)294 Vented Disc, Notes: Comp. Ratio limited to 12.0:1, Valve Lift limited to .500”.


There is so much wrong with that spec line? Is it the 2.5L or the 2.8L that's classed? It was 2.5 at the beginning, but lists the bore & stroke and displacement of the 2.8. But it says block material iron, but there was never an iron-block 6-cyl Z3.

Very confusing.

Let's assume for a moment that they intended to class the 2.8L aluminum-block car, i.e., yours or mine. Looks competitive to me. Smaller wheels than ITR, but 150 lbs less, bigger brakes and obviously, more power ... looks competitive to me.

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey Josh,

I'm still running on the 16" rims for two reasons: 1- I already have a set that's pretty light (the style 32's from my 1.9er that are ~16lbs and you have to spend serious coin to get 17's that are that light) and 2- It's a size that came on the car and should be legal to run.

I'm pretty sure they ment to class the 2.8, as that's what the fastrack announcement was for along with the S-2k. The down side is there is no source for road racing slicks to fit 16x7 rims, so the car's default limited to R-comp tires. Maybe an argument can be made to allow the 17's because they were a stock size to get slicks avalible.

One thing I was wondering about is the fact that there is a source for either the M-52 or M-52TU with an iron block. I remember talking to Brett Stom, who told me the M-52TU-B28 in his USTCC car had an iron block. I think he sourced it from a fiver. I thought only the Z3 has the aluminum block, but it appears to share it with the three-series. I was told to e-mail the CRB about the aluminum block but haven't just yet.

James

[JoshS]

We're pretty far off topic now, but to continue the thread of conversation: It's not the 16" that's a bummer, it's the 7" width. Versus 8.5" in ITR, that's a big loss of width. FYI, the $160 Kosei K-1 in 17x8.5 is only 16.8 lbs. That's hardly serious coin as lightweight 17" wheels go. They fit perfectly with no spacers necessary.

Only the Z3 had the aluminum block M52. The 3-series and 5-series both had the iron block M52. The M52tu was aluminum in every application. That USTCC car was not a "tu" I'm pretty sure.

But to be competitive in EP, you'd have to do things that would be very hard to undo to still race in ITR. You'd have to do lightweight panels and/or lexan to get down to that weight. And you would need the additional power that the Prod rules allow for.

[Z3_GoCar]

We're pretty far off topic now, but to continue the thread of conversation: It's not the 16" that's a bummer, it's the 7" width. Versus 8.5" in ITR, that's a big loss of width. FYI, the $160 Kosei K-1 in 17x8.5 is only 16.8 lbs. That's hardly serious coin as lightweight 17" wheels go. They fit perfectly with no spacers necessary.

Only the Z3 had the aluminum block M52. The 3-series and 5-series both had the iron block M52. The M52tu was aluminum in every application. That USTCC car was not a "tu" I'm pretty sure.

But to be competitive in EP, you'd have to do things that would be very hard to undo to still race in ITR. You'd have to do lightweight panels and/or lexan to get down to that weight. And you would need the additional power that the Prod rules allow for.

You're right about the Kosi's being cheap, but I've found their on-off avalibility and coupled with my lack of budget, I already had the rims and found a second set on e-bay for a couple hundred. I'll probably try a set of NT-01's in the 245/50-16's they're a little bigger profile, but I may need the gear reduction after I rebuild the motor.

You know how easy it'd be to swap the hood and you'd loose 70lbs right there off the nose. You'd probably want to go in for the weekend set up for E-prod with a motor built and tuned for the task.

James