National Rule Set For IT7?

[tom_sprecher]

If we could all somehow agree on closing the differences and settle on a national rule set to combine SRX7 w/382, IT7 w/362 and PRO7 w/148 regional entries in 2007 it would make us the 10th largest class in regional racing.


It would also provide justification for the inclusion of IT7 in the IT Triple Crown.

[Gregg]

You can find the MARRS SRX7 ruleset here:
http://wdcr-scca.org/LinkClick.aspx?...bid=73&mid=535

All I can say is: "Good luck w/ that."

[tnord]

why?

[JeffYoung]

An IT7 car is very different from an SRX7 car and both "camps" are pretty committed to their rulesets.

[tom_sprecher]

why?

It would also provide justification for the inclusion of IT7 in the IT Triple Crown.

and justification for vendors supporting the 1st gen,
and sponsors providing more contigecies to larger 1st gen fields,
and help reinforce subscription numbers,
and make the class more appealing to new drivers,
and....?

My question is why not?

[dickita15]

I voted yes but that is of course based on everyone else making their rules the same as mine.

[Ron Earp]

I've vote for putting them in ITA or ITB? What is the chance of that?

[dickita15]

I've vote for putting them in ITA or ITB? What is the chance of that?

Ron, the very existence of the class(s) is a direct result of not being able to classify a wildly popular club racing car in a close to competitive situation in the current class structure.
I held out on doing IT7 a long time before a finally gave in and acknowledged that the ITAC and CRB could not accomplish that.
I know of no other that is this popular that is classed so uncompetitive.

[roadracer]

I've vote for putting them in ITA or ITB? What is the chance of that?

Because of:
Hondas.
Current ITA Rules.

I do believe the whole reason IT7 exists is because of the uncompetitive nature of a historically popular car. It has thinned the herd of what was a very large chunck of cars. This idea could help corral things.

I do not enjoy a spec tire in IT7. It would be better served to be open tire. Particularly given the R888 & RA1 shift. Throwing your eggs in a basket with a basically untested tire is not a good risk. Spec Miata is addressing this issue here.

Their spec tire rule has ended up costing front runners more than open tire rules. There are a huge number of downsides to a spec tire. Namely fueled by no competition and monopolies. I used to be a Spec tire proponent until I went down that path. It is not a good idea, nor stablizes costs, nor stabilizes competitiveness. It is mostly idealistic theory and hope by it's proponents.

Don

[tnord]

I've vote for putting them in ITA or ITB? What is the chance of that?

[JeffYoung]

Dick, you think the car could be put in ITB at a competitive weight?

Ron, the very existence of the class(s) is a direct result of not being able to classify a wildly popular club racing car in a close to competitive situation in the current class structure.
I held out on doing IT7 a long time before a finally gave in and acknowledged that the ITAC and CRB could not accomplish that.
I know of no other that is this popular that is classed so uncompetitive.

[pgipson]

Dick, you think the car could be put in ITB at a competitive weight?

Haven't we already had this discussion? The result (?) then was the RX7 lost 100lbs in ITA.

SRX7 is nothing like IT7. There are spec springs, shocks and tires. More weight and fewer mods. There is a common ruleset for IT7 already. It's called ITA (except for the spec tire of course).

SRX7 is aimed at an entirely different kind of racer. Low cost (you can build a competitive car for less than 5K) and minimal maintenance (check oil and add gas). We have 15-20 cars per event and everybody has fun. Let's fix something broken, like a common ruleset for SRX7.

AZ SRX7 # 11

[dickita15]

Dick, you think the car could be put in ITB at a competitive weight?

Well yes I think the car should have been classed in ITB but there are a couple of complications.
One is that the weight would have made half of the current cages obsolete. I surveyed 50 current cars and 24 would not be legal at the higher weight. This would mean that the only way you could put the car in ITB is with Dual Classification and that is not politically possible at this time.
However the second problem is the process seams to fail this car. The narrow power band and total lack of torque is not taken into account in the process so the weight that the process comes up with would not make it competitive there either.
When I realized the second problem there I abandon my effort to solve the first one.

[Knestis]

That race weight, cage tube size issue is wacky to me in a very pragmatic way. My Golf is right near the cut off. I used smaller tubing. HOWEVER, I could race overweight enough to make the actual weight of the car higher than the cut-off. We have minimum weights, remember - there's no law against being too heavy.

I would agree that the first choice would be to find a way to integrate them back into B, and it seems like with sufficient political will, it's got to be possible somehow. I have to confess that recent experiences with the RX8 have left me with a new appreciation for both the challenge and the importance of finding a fair way to include the rotaries.

One comment though - part of the problem is the perception among non-rotary drivers that the cars are magic-fast. THAT is a result of a long history of easy porting cheats having artificially inflated both actual and perceives on-track performance. I hear of gentleman's agreements in IT7 about how much is OK, "since we're only racing against us." I see VIR lap records for IT7 and ITA that are essentially identical.

I see lots of easy pickin's for people who want to scuttle the idea of integrating the cars into B.

K

[Ron Earp]

Both of you guys have valid points. I've heard some of the comments Kirk has mentioned about engine prep.

Dick, didn't you get your RX7 down to a low weight about a year ago?

As far as cages being obsolete, well, times change and competitors should expect they may need to invest a bit of money to keep their car current.

We've got 2nd generation RX7s at a correct weight in ITS. I'm assuming we'll get RX8s in at a correct weight for ITR. I'm sure the ITAC can get first generation RX7s in ITB at a proper weight.

However, I'm against the whole plan if SRFs are going to take the place of IT7s in my run group! Just kidding. I think.

[shwah]

I voted no. There is no logical reason to have additional classes that are within the performance spectrum of the current IT rule set (IT7 and variants are faster than ITC and slower than ITR). They are already integrated into the rule set, but maybe not competitively (and likely due to the reasons Kirk cites - easy cheats make the cars seem faster than they are in legal trim).

Not saying it is easy to do, but the right thing is to re-visit the ITA/ITB issue and class them fairly. I think it would be cool to have more variety in ITB - come on down guys

[Speed Raycer]

weren't there some weight #'s being tossed around a while back about the RX7's potential weight in B??? Could have sworn the new cage rules made it a non issue (1.5x.095 was limited to 2100 iirc and is now somewhere around 2400)

Wow... 1.5x.095 is now good to 2699 min weight.... I can't imagine that the RX7's weight would approach that for ITB (but I could be wrong)

[JeffYoung]

When I thought the car shuold stay in A (presumptive of me since I don't race one), I used Rick's lap record at VIR as evidence as well. Until he explained the lap to me. Total outlier of two drafts, cool weather, new track, etc. etc. etc.

Rick proved last year that a top prepped RX7 can run up front, but can't consistently beat a good Teg or Miata in A. Is that "good enough" to leave it in A? I don't know....I certainly don't see any ITA RX7s down south other than Charley Taylor's.

I've come 180 degress on this and think -- if the two problems Dick raises can be fixed, with the cage problem being the biggest one to me since it would affect already built cars -- the RX7 would be great for ITB. Car counts in the SEDiv for ITB would immediately go up by 6-8 cars PER race, and make it as popular as S and A.

Like Ron pionted out, we managed to get the ITS RX7 classed at the right weight -- as a direct competitor of that car I have absolutely no complaints about the weight it is at and the power it makes -- so we should be able to do the same with the 12a in B and I think that would be GREAT for the S/A/B structure. While I have a lot of friends that race in 7, I think that sort of subclass is bad for IT in general.

That race weight, cage tube size issue is wacky to me in a very pragmatic way. My Golf is right near the cut off. I used smaller tubing. HOWEVER, I could race overweight enough to make the actual weight of the car higher than the cut-off. We have minimum weights, remember - there's no law against being too heavy.

I would agree that the first choice would be to find a way to integrate them back into B, and it seems like with sufficient political will, it's got to be possible somehow. I have to confess that recent experiences with the RX8 have left me with a new appreciation for both the challenge and the importance of finding a fair way to include the rotaries.

One comment though - part of the problem is the perception among non-rotary drivers that the cars are magic-fast. THAT is a result of a long history of easy porting cheats having artificially inflated both actual and perceives on-track performance. I hear of gentleman's agreements in IT7 about how much is OK, "since we're only racing against us." I see VIR lap records for IT7 and ITA that are essentially identical.

I see lots of easy pickin's for people who want to scuttle the idea of integrating the cars into B.

K

[NutDriverRighty]

As an IT7 competitor, I can tell you that my car won't even come close to the minimum weight, even with my 75# lighter brother driving it. I understand the arguement for more recognition, cash, etc. for a national rule set. I also understand that it would be reasonable to have the car classed in ITB if all of the variables can be accounted for. I have two questions, however. The first is why do we need to do this when it is a regional class and different parts of the country are perfectly happy with their IT7 or SRX7 or Pro7 rules? Seems like a solution to a problem that doesn't exist (for me, at least). Secondly, with 12A parts getting more and more difficult to find and, therefore, more expensive, what are ideas on handling the dearth of needed parts? The last (two) times Captain Who and I had the 12A rebuilt, it was $3K. If you haven't noticed, you can buy IT7 and SRX7 cars for about this price. Just my $0.02 worth.

Scott Franklin

[tom_sprecher]

To be honest it was purely to get opinions on the subject. There are some advantages that can be had but some apparent obstacles would have to be overcome. As the IT Triple Crown Administrator I have received a few requests to have IT7 included. That can not happen without a nationally accepted set of rules. The Atlanta Region ProIT series no longer recognizes IT7 as a separate class due to lack of participation. Some divisions still do not support IT7 and people have asked me how they can change that around.

What was once an extremely popular car, and to an extent still is, has fragmented into several classes. I see that as a disadvantage for the platform. I just received some participation numbers for the class and although I have not gone through them I feel they will indicate a downward trend. Points standing lists don’t seem to have as many cars listed in IT7 as they did 3 years ago when I was deciding what class to race in. Cars for sale do not fetch much and sit around for a longer time now. Some vendors that at one time were strong supporters of the 1st gen no longer do so. Parts are hitting the unfavorable part of the supply vs. demand curve but $3k wouldn’t buy a refresh on a Continental engine (at least $4k) that’s required once a year.

At this point in time the classification of car is not clear cut. Unity would eliminate the need to find a proper place. I did not intend to start that debate up again but merely wanted to gauge interest and gather other opinions on the idea.

Thank you for your participation,