Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Bob Roth]

1) I think the way that car weights are calculated leaves the Honda VTEC contingent and other cars with high stock Hp/liter cars out to lunch. If a car has 100hp/liter stock, 10.5/1 compresson, free breathing intake, decent exhaust etc, there isn't the legal development potential compared to cars like the non-vtec prelude that has 0.6 hp/liter. Say what you want, the most raceable honda's built are absent from signficant IT results and numbers.

2) As a racer, its hard to get the data needed to discuss competitive issues from SCCA. It would greatly enhance the discussion if there was a listing for each track of the top 3 for each class, the car, and best lap time so a discussion about what is competitive and what is not.

3) I think Improved Touring needs to have a "re-think" of trying to make an equivalancy formula for almost every sedan ever built..... People invest in race cars at the club racing level to have a good experience, at reasonable costs, and for at least half the racers having a modicum chance of being competitive. As it sits now, The hot car in a given class might be something plentiful and cheap to build like an integra, or it could be obscure such as a volvo or fiero..... Its crazy, does SCCA want cars that nobody and find, support, and frankly, nobody knows if are legal.

I don't doubt the original idea of a competitive class for every car was well intended but I believe a rethink is needed, The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class. My suggestion is that the IT classes be considered based on what cars SCCA believes would make good fields, focus on them as the competitive target for IT classes, and let less qualified cars also compete knowing that they probably won't win. Also I think at NASA has it right with Spec Honda, Porsche 944, BMW etc.

From my perspective, its time to recharge IT and make it real attractive for people to build late model cars. From my perspective, I am racing against pretty much the same cars I raced agaunst 10 to 15 years ago. Otherwise I think the trend is not promising, face it, without Spec Miata (which has probably peaked) IT and regionals would be in a bad situation.

[lateapex911]

Like some of my ITB friends I feel that our older cars such as BMW’s, early VW’s, Volvo 142's are being left behind. My perception is that as a result of the new ECU rules, the ITA cars that the process moved to ITB, and a classification system that seems to favor newer cars, ITB is changing. And, the ITAC is so caught up in their numbers game that they wont even look to see if that’s happening. I personally don’t trust the “Process 2.0" to not perpetrate the instability I see in IT.
Charlie

3) I think Improved Touring needs to have a "re-think" of trying to make an equivalancy formula for almost every sedan ever built..... People invest in race cars at the club racing level to have a good experience, at reasonable costs, and for at least half the racers having a modicum chance of being competitive. As it sits now, The hot car in a given class might be something plentiful and cheap to build like an integra, or it could be obscure such as a volvo or fiero..... Its crazy, does SCCA want cars that nobody and find, support, and frankly, nobody knows if are legal.

I don't doubt the original idea of a competitive class for every car was well intended but I believe a rethink is needed, The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class.

From my perspective, its time to recharge IT and make it real attractive for people to build late model cars. From my perspective, I am racing against pretty much the same cars I raced agaunst 10 to 15 years ago.

Wow....hard to believe the two guys race in the same club. But, maybe that's because their views are self centric. What happens to their pond, and their cars is considered most important.

Bob, your points are most interesting. I think you're saying that new cars should be classed in such a manner as to make them the top dogs, and older cars should be handicapped, to encourage people to get new cars.

Yet, you also state that the racing should be "of reasonable cost" with "at least half the racers having a modicum chance of being competitive."

I'm struggling how to resolve those two very different goals. Causing a large contingent of cars to be "B listed" would, in effect, you say, push people into new cars. Well, that's actually a forced move. You want to run near the front? Forget that car you've got and have developed and go get a NEW car. How is that "reasonable"????

I assume you don't think that new cars should be classed at weights below the current class performance envelope do you? Track records be damned? So that leaves only the option of adding weight to all the 'old' cars.

This guys, illustrates the conflicting picture that is IT. We got, just last month, tow requests to classify old Alfas and Fiats. REALLY old. And we get requests to classify cars young and old, all the time. Should we be just refusing if they aren't new and cool? And by whose standards?

(Bob, don't forget, the S2000 got classed with THE lowest power multiplier in ALL of IT. We got hate mail on that too.)

[Knestis]

2) As a racer, its hard to get the data needed to discuss competitive issues from SCCA. It would greatly enhance the discussion if there was a listing for each track of the top 3 for each class, the car, and best lap time so a discussion about what is competitive and what is not.

How would that information be used - contribute to resolving "competitive issues?"

...The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class. ...

I know I asked for input and am trying to let people share their ideas but this demonstrates a misconception re: how new cars get classified. There is no - zero - disincentive applied to new listings. Now, if you are talking about the 5-year rule, that's a different thing but otherwise, you want it listed? It gets listed using the same process that has been getting applied in response to "please revisit" requests.

On the other hand of course, if current cars are specified such that they are lighter than the CURRENT PROCESS says they should be, they WOULD indeed start the process at a disadvantage.

K

[tom91ita]

i wrote a note November 23, 2008 stating that i felt the weight calculation needed to be revisited and should not be the nearest 100#'s but should be within the accuracy of the scales, etc.

also, in the interest of disclosure, i used my crx si in ITB as an example of what i think is an incorrect weight. the intro of my letter is below;

Dear CRB,

I believe that the basic formula as applied to Improved Touring needs to be revisited. It is my understanding that if a car was within 100 pounds of its target weight, no adjustments were made. I believe this is in error. These process weights should not be to the nearest 100#'s, they should be to the nearest 5 or 10#'s or something that is limited by the accuracy of the scales (e.g., + / - 0.5%).

I must also share that I think my car (1986 Honda CRX Si at 2130 #'s in ITB was negatively impacted. I am unable to use any reasonable factor of the formula to arrive at my car¢s existing weight.

i went on to state that it looks like the car has a 44% power multiplier to get to the 2130 #'s using all the adders, etc. as i know them from the web, etc.

if any response to this was in fastrack, i missed it. is the '86 crx si one of the 20 cars mentioned in previous posts? as i recall the weight of this car, it was 1800 #'s for the car when in ITA. it was later 1980 #'s with driver. and when it went to itb, it received an adder of 150 #'s. given the nice round number, i am assuming it did not go through "the" process.

i have no issue with sending a note to the BOD, CRB, etc. again, but it seems like they did not hear me the last time.....all i ever remember is the note from John Bauer that my note was being forwarded.

sorry to sound frustrated but i just drove 400 + miles and had 5 diet cokes and it looks like nothing will happen for 2010 as well.

i am pleased with the overall direction that the ITAC is taking and even agree with the "intellectually honest" recommendation of the 10# revision. if you think it is wrong, it is wrong, plain and simple. i do think there might be some "larger" wrongs out there and i am guessing that is part of the CRB's thinking.

and with regards to the "triggers" for over-dogs, etc., i think having a dyno at the major events (IT SPECtacular, ARRC, etc.) that would be used prior to teardowns might tell a lot. i don't even care if the results are public or not but it might give some of the real world data of a power multiplier and what is achievable for given cars.

and if the dyno is too expensive or intrusive, put a DL-1 in from Fast-Tech in the car that is the "trigger" and get acceleration data that way..........

[tom91ita]

i wrote a note November 23, 2008 stating that i felt the weight calculation needed to be revisited and should not be the nearest 100#'s but should be within the accuracy of the scales, etc.

also, in the interest of disclosure, i used my crx si in ITB as an example of what i think is an incorrect weight. the intro of my letter is below;

Dear CRB,

I believe that the basic formula as applied to Improved Touring needs to be revisited. It is my understanding that if a car was within 100 pounds of its target weight, no adjustments were made. I believe this is in error. These process weights should not be to the nearest 100#¢s, they should be to the nearest 5 or 10#¢s or something that is limited by the accuracy of the scales (e.g., + / - 0.5%).

I must also share that I think my car (1986 Honda CRX Si at 2130 #¢s in IT was negatively impacted. I am unable to use any reasonable factor of the formula to arrive at my car¢s existing weight.

i went on to state that it looks like the car has a 44% power multiplier to get to the 2130 #'s using all the adders, etc. as i know them from the web, etc.

if any response to this was in fastrack, i missed it. is the '86 crx si one of the 20 cars mentioned in previous posts? as i recall the weight of this car, it was 1800 #'s for the car when in ITA. it was later 1980 #'s with driver. and when it went to itb, it received an adder of 150 #'s. given the nice round number, i am assuming it did not go through "the" process.

i have no issue with sending a note to the BOD, CRB, etc. again, but it seems like they did not hear me the last time.....all i ever remember is the note from John Bauer that my note was being forwarded.

sorry to sound frustrated but i just drove 400 + miles and had 5 diet cokes and it looks like nothing will happen for 2010 as well.

i am pleased with the overall direction that the ITAC is taking and even agree with the "intellectually honest" recommendation of the 10# revision. if you think it is wrong, it is wrong, plain and simple. i do think there might be some "larger" wrongs out there and i am guessing that is part of the CRB's thinking.

and with regards to the "triggers" for over-dogs, etc., i think having a dyno at the major events (IT SPECtacular, ARRC, etc.) that would be used prior to teardowns might tell a lot. i don't even care if the results are public or not but it might give some of the real world data of a power multiplier and what is achievable for given cars.

and if the dyno is too expensive or intrusive, put a DL-1 in from Fast-Tech in the car that is the "trigger" and get acceleration data that way..........

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

It certainly makes someone question the process, however I think that if the ITAC feels that they have a good process then all the cars should be run through the process the SAME, and it should not look at current or past success. I can give plenty of examples of cars that have dominated without any weight adjustments going back a couple years to when Volvo's dominated ITB to more recent years when Miata's dominated ITA in certain areas/tracks. As discussed many times before maybe Car A is a great car at tracks like Road Atlanta or Pocono but not so great at tracks like NHMS. You cannot class a car based on the success at certain tracks. You have to trust the process that you are trying to sell.

This car you question at the ARRC... Was it successful before or after the GR (Great Realignment) where several cars were added or re-classed and now dominate the class?

Raymond "With such success I bet the request (even though it may appear) was not made for his/her interest but more with a feeling that all should be treated the same, if such a process existed" Blethen

[Andy Bettencourt]

Ray - I am just asking a hypothetical. I will always fall on the side of 'trust the process, it hasn't let us down yet - and WHEN it does, we have the ability to fix it'.

[Andy Bettencourt]

As it sits now, The hot car in a given class might be something plentiful and cheap to build like an integra, or it could be obscure such as a volvo or fiero..... Its crazy, does SCCA want cars that nobody and find, support, and frankly, nobody knows if are legal.

I don't doubt the original idea of a competitive class for every car was well intended but I believe a rethink is needed, The average age of our fields are shocking, and there is no incentive to run newer cars as its pretty certain that they will not be classified to be the front of the class.

Well, I guess I feel the total opposite. To me, its the WHOLE point of IT and the Process. No matter what year, what make, what model - you have a chance - ON PAPER. Slightly better, slightly worse, so be it...it will NEVER be perfect or exact...but everyone gets to play. I am not sure why the age of a car has anything to do with the sucess of a category - so long as those who like new and those who like old, feel that they are being treated fairly.

The SCCA shouldn't care about CARS, they should care about MEMBERS.