ITB - what a bunch of crap

[924Guy]

Southern California, heart of the mortgage meltdown. I'm even concerned, and haven't been racing while I spend to rebuild.

LOL... welcome to the recession... we've been waiting for you! (Michigan's way ahead of you, been there for YEARS... Ohio too...)

As for the rest on ITB... talk is cheap, lap times aren't...

[gran racing]

What Andy, is the 1.6 getting move to ITB?

[RSTPerformance]

OK, just wanted to get your attention.

I had resisted the assertion that ITB was the 'new ITA' - but heck, this class is really redifining itself into something special. Accords, Civic's, CRX's, Volvo's, Golfs, 924's, BMW's, Audi's, Preludes, a freakin' gorgeous Alfa...

Awesome guys. Awesome. Add in Scott, The Canadians, the Blethens, Beren, Boo-hee - and oh-snap is that a showdown.

ITS seems to be the class that is static now...only 12 starters at the ARRC? Diverse yes (top 6 were all different models), but is it quality over quantity? Thoughts?

I have been saying this is the class for years, I am glad you are finally coming to a realization!!! add in the MR2's and you have a list of cars that cover every possible way to build a car, (old FWD and RWD tanks to a mid engine sportscars.

Dont forget other oddballs like the Saab (Yeah, Nat Wentworth is faster in the Volvo but he ran in the front with the Saab), the Opal GT (Track record holder at NHIS?), Alfa Spider (still track holder after 12+ years at Lime Rock Park), or the Omni that used to run top 3 at RA a few years ago.

It is unfortunate that the class is getting so old and parts are hard to find. If you can find them then it is generally a very affordable class. The key for the future will be to make correct classifications and add in some new blood that doesn't dominate quite as easily as the Golf III does. If you add in another car that is just barely faster than the Golf III then the class will be done. All of us old cars are pedling as fast as possible and can barely keep up to challenge.

As for a showdown.... what a dream race!!! I wish that we could afford the time off and the tow. Unfortunatly the fall season always seems to get busy with work (its after "summer vacation season") and as I get older I seem to have less money even though I make considerably more, have less bills and still have not made enough to invest "extra" and loose it all in the stock market.

Raymond "914 should be right up there, Mini... hummmm I would also love to..." Blethen

[RSTPerformance]

PS: Its a bunch of crap that Andy and Greg havn't given it a try...

Raymond

[Andy Bettencourt]

PS: Its a bunch of crap that Andy and Greg havn't given it a try...

Raymond

Given what a try? The ARRC? Guilty on my part...Greg? You know better...

Or ITB? Be careful what you wish for!!!

[RSTPerformance]

Given what a try? The ARRC? Guilty on my part...Greg? You know better...

Or ITB? Be careful what you wish for!!!

About 10 of us are wishing, and we are not even close to afraid.... the two of you would take each other out while you think about how they make those dam Volvo's go so fast!!!

Raymond "on behalf of all ITB'ers... bring it" Blethen

[shwah]

Or ITB? Be careful what you wish for!!!

You know that you typed that out loud right?

[924Guy]

OK, just wanted to get your attention.

I had resisted the assertion that ITB was the 'new ITA' - but heck, this class is really redifining itself into something special. Accords, Civic's, CRX's, Volvo's, Golfs, 924's, BMW's, Audi's, Preludes, a freakin' gorgeous Alfa...

Awesome guys. Awesome. Add in Scott, The Canadians, the Blethens, Beren, Boo-hee - and oh-snap is that a showdown.

ITS seems to be the class that is static now...only 12 starters at the ARRC? Diverse yes (top 6 were all different models), but is it quality over quantity? Thoughts?

Ironic that this post started another heated argument on IT.com about rules... just had to remind you all where we started this discussion...

[Dave Zaslow]

Kinda going back to the original post here.

Certainly ITB is strong along the east coast, with a great divsersity of cars and good competitve fields. Looking at the results from races further west I am puzzled by the much smaller fields. If there are less than eight ITB cars starting a race here, it is shocking. Take a walk through the results at http://www.sccabb.com/forum_topics.asp?FID=82 and tell me your impression of why IT in general, and ITB in particular, has so much less support west of Ohio.

DZ

OK, just wanted to get your attention.

I had resisted the assertion that ITB was the 'new ITA' - but heck, this class is really redifining itself into something special. Accords, Civic's, CRX's, Volvo's, Golfs, 924's, BMW's, Audi's, Preludes, a freakin' gorgeous Alfa...

Awesome guys. Awesome. Add in Scott, The Canadians, the Blethens, Beren, Boo-hee - and oh-snap is that a showdown.

ITS seems to be the class that is static now...only 12 starters at the ARRC? Diverse yes (top 6 were all different models), but is it quality over quantity? Thoughts?

[gran racing]

There are some that just want to do that as requests come in to review. There are some that want to leave it as is.

Dear ITAC, I request that all ITB cars be run through the process. Would that work? I do recognize the amount of work that would be involved but truly do think that if we're going to use "the process", we need to use it. I'll also preface this by saying the ITAC has done an amazing job with IT and sincerely appreciate the efforts and work they've put into this!! --On Edit: Ya beat me to pusing the post button Ed--

Personally, I'm beginning to think maybe a 50# threshold for adjustment might be more appropriate, given the potential spread of performance (200# vs. 100# weight difference, as noted previously).

How would the ITAC determine if a car were within the 50# threshold? Would they have to run it through the process or it is matter of “we don’t think the process would put it more than 25 – 75 lbs off so we won’t actually put it through the process.” Please tell me cars aren’t put through the process and simply not changed because it’s within the threshold whatever that may be.

Someone previously asked if I thought 50 lbs or would really matter in a race. Yeah, it matters. How often do we out qualify or get out qualified by someone going just a few hundreths of a second faster? Suprisingly to me, it happens quite often. Would a 50 lb difference in cars have impacted that differently? I know we're talking about a "little" advantage but over the course of a race, I sure as heck wouldn't mind having the advantage on my side. For those who truly think that 50 - 100 lbs doesn't matter, you better also say that you don't concern yourself with getting your car near minimum weight cause that's the same exact thing. We talk about how much time, effort and money we spend working on gaining a few extra HP, ensuring that there's as little rolling resistance as possible, and so on yet we should ignore this?

Maybe I simply don't understand when weight begins to make an impact. (I do understand the rationale of using 100 lbs initially, but it now needs to continue. Yes, I'll write in a letter to the ITAC.) Why does 105 lbs matter but 95 doesn't? There's only a 10 lb difference and if 95 lbs doesn't matter enough, why would an addtional 10 lbs matter? I hope we'd all agree that 75 lbs impacts a 90 HP ITC car more than an 180 HP ITS car. Since that's teh case, as a bare minimum shouldn't the amount we choose to ignore be different among the higher HP classes compared to the lower HP classes?

Andy, you asked me for some numbers about the Golf III. A while back I put together a document that listed several ITB cars comparing it to the Golf but decided this whole thing was just a lost cause and added it to recycle bin. Just comparing it to the older Accord / Prelude since that what I know off hand. When the Golf III is compared to many other ITB cars, it simply does not make sense.

Golf III
115 HP, 122 lbs torque, brake 226 mm, min weight 2350 lbs, p/w 20.43.

Accord (older gen) / Prelude
110 HP, 114 lbs torque, brake 207, min weight 2450 lbs, p/w 22.27.

I understand that the golf gets a subtractor for the rear beam, but it also benefits from higher HP and torque out of the box. I fail to see how it still weighs 100 lbs less.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Dave,

Does your car have A-Arms in the front?

Again, you can't just compare random cars in the ITCS as some have been through and some not. I am a proponent of running them all through and setting them at the nearest 5lbs. Write your letters...please!

[JeffYoung]

Doing this blindly (just running every car through the process) is going to screw up S and A. I agree it needs to be done, but if you do it without a better accounting for torque you are asking for trouble.

In A, the E30 325e is going to LOSE weight despite making extraordinary torque numbers, and it's already a front runner.

In S, my car presently makes 160 whp and 198 wtq. I am expecting that to go up with a full tilt fuel injection IT build with fuel computer (Haltech), perhaps significantly. If it is run through the process at 133 stock horsepower with even a 100 lb adder for torque, it is going to lose significant weight.

Before we run all cars through the process, we need to sort the torque issue first. This (torque) is a bigger problem in A and S because there are more cars with significant spreads between hp and torque.

And I do not believe a power number is the fix since it does not account for useable power band (see above). But some of the smart folks here I hope can come up to something that is a reasonable compromise.

[Greg Amy]

Doing this blindly (just running every car through the process) is going to screw up S and A.

With this statement, Jeff, you are effectively admitting to us that the process is already broken and doesn't work. So that means we're back to Ouija boards, "smoke-filled closed-door sessions" of guessing with a lot of people setting weights where they "think" they should be.

Which means, we're back to where we were 5 years ago. Just different names on the office door.

"Meet the new boss..."

[Z3_GoCar]

Doing this blindly (just running every car through the process) is going to screw up S and A. I agree it needs to be done, but if you do it without a better accounting for torque you are asking for trouble.

In A, the E30 325e is going to LOSE weight despite making extraordinary torque numbers, and it's already a front runner.

In S, my car presently makes 160 whp and 198 wtq. I am expecting that to go up with a full tilt fuel injection IT build with fuel computer (Haltech), perhaps significantly. If it is run through the process at 133 stock horsepower with even a 100 lb adder for torque, it is going to lose significant weight.

Before we run all cars through the process, we need to sort the torque issue first. This (torque) is a bigger problem in A and S because there are more cars with significant spreads between hp and torque.

And I do not believe a power number is the fix since it does not account for useable power band (see above). But some of the smart folks here I hope can come up to something that is a reasonable compromise.

I would argue that torque at the flywheel is irrelevent, what matters is torque at the wheels. But because final drive gearing is open, we have little control of it. That's why hp and not torque is the important number, it take into accout both torque and rpms. Now if we really wanted to do this right so that power is evenly matched to weight, we'd run a program to predict the ultimate power from an IT build for each motor classed in IT. Then there'd no longer be any guessing that motor A makes 25% more while motor B only makes 15%. The problem is most of the information needed ( cam profiles any one? ) is harder to come by than the torque curve.

[tom91ita]

Dave,

Does your car have A-Arms in the front?

Again, you can't just compare random cars in the ITCS as some have been through and some not. I am a proponent of running them all through and setting them at the nearest 5lbs. Write your letters...please!

Andy,

which ITB cars have been through the process?

do we effectively address our letters to the ITAC?

tia, tom

[nsuracer]

Being that I started this last subthread, I will offer to make a contribution. Give me the process and I will run the entire ITB class through it. I will then send the results to the ITAC for their perusal. They can then do with it as they please. (I will keep a copy). This process should not be a "I could tell ya but then I'd have to kill ya" kind of a deal.

Admittedly, a lot of the cars that I found problems with are not mainstream competitors in the class. What came first, the chicken or the egg? Are the weights wrong because nobody is racing them, or is no one racing them because the weights are wrong?

I will confess that my experience in IT is less than long. I built a Saab 99EMS from scratch in 92 but every time I brought it out it broke, so that experience is invalid. I currently have a A2 Golf and get to watch Chris Albin disappear into the distance at every race. Do I think that the A3 Golf is superior? Yes, with him driving it. I don't think that there is a big problem with the mainstream cars, but it sure discourages anyone wanting to bring out something weird.

Now, who wants to slip me the process?

[Catch22]

I don't think that there is a big problem with the mainstream cars

You aren't looking close enough.

I'll also volunteer to run every ITB car through the "process," and I already know how to do it (sometimes I wish I didn't).

I don't want an advantage. Far from it. What I want is to get as close as possible to nobody having an advantage. And fellas, we ain't even close to that.

Maybe its time for the ITAC to put together sub committees like we had for the initial creation of ITR. One for each class.

1. Tools - The process, its adders, and its p/w target range for that class.
2. Goal - Get every car in the ITAC within 5lbs of its goal for its class p/w.
3. Establish Timeline (1/1/09 is still reasonable right now)
4. PROFIT

Results not binding, but for use by the ITAC going forward.

Just a thought.

If the wheels are rolling within the ITAC right now I say leave it alone and let it roll. If its stuck in the mud, lets try something different.

[Ron Earp]

Maybe its time for the ITAC to put together sub committees like we had for the initial creation of ITR. One for each class.

Only if we agree that if a car fits the process, the numbers pan out, then it WILL be classed. No prejudices, hearsay, voodoo, or non-factual information to be used.

I'll be happy to work on R and S.

[EBSNASCAR]

OK, just wanted to get your attention.

I had resisted the assertion that ITB was the 'new ITA' - but heck, this class is really redifining itself into something special. Accords, Civic's, CRX's, Volvo's, Golfs, 924's, BMW's, Audi's, Preludes, a freakin' gorgeous Alfa...

Awesome guys. Awesome. Add in Scott, The Canadians, the Blethens, Beren, Boo-hee - and oh-snap is that a showdown.

ITS seems to be the class that is static now...only 12 starters at the ARRC? Diverse yes (top 6 were all different models), but is it quality over quantity? Thoughts?

Ok so to answer the first question. I think that ITB is great, just great. I am so glad I picked this class over any other class. This was my first year driving. First year driving a manual trans car and a rear wheel drive car for that matter.
I bought a 1979 Fox body Mustang, I raced...ok followed Vaughan this year at Waterford Hills. It is a reasonably affordable class and highly competitive.
At Waterford we had two 924s (one being Vaughan), 5-6 Mustangs, a very fast Capri, two wabbits, a GTI, a MG, a Fiero and a Volvo.
Diversity and still had a blast. Sure Vaughan smoked us but his car is highly tuned and extremely well prepared over the many years of hard work and labor.

To answer the second question and I think why this thread became 25 pages…
In any racing there are the haves and the have-nots. People who can spend money and have the car built by professionals or install the best of the best parts. And then you have people who just work with what they have. If you think by asking a club to give you a 50 weight break is going to make the difference, great. But then this club becomes NASCAR, change rules constantly. I would like a car classified once and move on. That way I can continue to fine-tune the racecar to the absolute limit of the given rules and regs. End of story. If you consistently run behind someone at the same racetrack, over and over again and you both know one car has an advantage over another then find a way to play fair. Maybe he will volunteer to add weight, run old tires, start behind you, or start at the back of the pack. That seems more reasonable then petitioning a national sanctioning body.

If you want to send letter that is fine but the ultimate results are started and finished on the race track not behind a letter or a computer desk.

[lateapex911]

Ok so to answer the first question. I think that ITB is great, just great. I am so glad I picked this class over any other class. ......... we had two 924s (one being Vaughan), 5-6 Mustangs, a very fast Capri, two wabbits, a GTI, a MG, a Fiero and a Volvo.
Diversity and still had a blast. Sure Vaughan smoked us but his car is highly tuned and extremely well prepared over the many years of hard work and labor.

You had me at "I think ITB is great, just great"...
Welcome to the madness.
You make good points, and we should remember them, while we bitch and moan the winter away fine tuning the rules and regs.