Big Picture of IT - Share Your Opinions

[Andy Bettencourt]

And it is nice to give the membership a couple months on a solicited item. AWD was voted on and a recommendation made to the CRB. Since the member comment was 'for' AWD (NA) overwhelmingly - hey, one FAMILY (right Ray?) can have 30% of the votes, you know...

So AWD is something the ITAC would undertake classing should the CRB lift the ban and ask us to do so.

[tnord]

the overall view.....

1) rules "season." Oct 31-Dec 31, eff Jan 1. No changes can be made outside of that window. you can talk about them all you want, but nothing goes into practice other than Jan 1 of the next year.

2) stability. this has been completely absent in my mind over the last few years. VIN rule, ECU, weight changes, cars moving classes, FWD weight breaks, etc. the underlying philosophy is that you should be able to build a 100% car today, and be able to count on running that car competitively for 5-10yrs without major change.

3) stop trying to balance the class "on the tip of the pin." i know it was a stated objective when the process v1 was run, but i feel like you've lost the plot on that one. using simulators as data, re-running all cars to go through the process and be classed within 5lbs of the output, stepped FWD weight breaks, all seem to be in conflict with this principle. it also violates rule #2.

4) maintain a prep level between Touring and Prod

now for the REALLY overarching stuff....

1) change SCCA World Challenge Touring car rules to match IT. Currently to do so you would use cars that would fall into the ITR performance window. In the future if cars continue to get more powerful, you might need to yet again create another faster class.

2) top TWENTY classes in participation are eligible for the runoffs, including IT. hopefully you would have world challenge guys showing up.

3) if a listed car does not record a FINISH in 3 years, it is removed from the ITCS.

4) for cars listed not using the standard formula, all supporting data is published.

[Knestis]

A couple of your background points aren't entirely accurate (e.g., using simulations as "data") but THANK YOU, Travis.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

The key takeaway Kirk from Travis' post is congruent with the misconceptions the CRB has.

[Z3_GoCar]

The key takeaway Kirk from Travis' post is congruent with the misconceptions the CRB has.

Visa-vis...

now for the REALLY overarching stuff....

1) change SCCA World Challenge Touring car rules to match IT. Currently to do so you would use cars that would fall into the ITR performance window. In the future if cars continue to get more powerful, you might need to yet again create another faster class.

2) top TWENTY classes in participation are eligible for the runoffs, including IT. hopefully you would have world challenge guys showing up.

The pro guys are already racing for a championship, why would they want to add an amature one to their already busy schedule?

At my last race, too many years ago, I was pitted next to a Koni Challenge GS 993 racer and his student/renter. They were running in ITE same as me, but really the prep level on that GS car was very much like IT, more so than a WC car. After I had my shunt and I get back to my pit spot two green laps go by before the student racer puts two wheels off and the porsche goes into the pit wall which then gets hit by a Super Production (former Southwest Tour) car. This ends the chance of that team entering the next Koni Challenge race in a couple of weeks, as the body is tweeked. So everytime a pro team runs their car there's the chance they're going to push it off the cliff, and if they're a halfway decent team they know this. So what serious pro team would show up for the run-offs?

[frnkhous]

Visa-vis...



The pro guys are already racing for a championship, why would they want to add an amature one to their already busy schedule?

At my last race, too many years ago, I was pitted next to a Koni Challenge GS 993 racer and his student/renter. They were running in ITE same as me, but really the prep level on that GS car was very much like IT, more so than a WC car. After I had my shunt and I get back to my pit spot two green laps go by before the student racer puts two wheels off and the porsche goes into the pit wall which then gets hit by a Super Production (former Southwest Tour) car. This ends the chance of that team entering the next Koni Challenge race in a couple of weeks, as the body is tweeked. So everytime a pro team runs their car there's the chance they're going to push it off the cliff, and if they're a halfway decent team they know this. So what serious pro team would show up for the run-offs?

One with a renter willing to write a big check. The same reason they were at the race your refering too. Most koni teams can find a way to put almost any car back together in a couple weeks if the check is big enough. I don't see what the runoffs brings to IT racing?? I also don't understand why you would want to class AWD cars. From what i've seen they are generally gonna be classed like shitty strut fwd cars. Most of them don't handle all that well in the dry so the weight would basically be like a fwd race car, now it rains and they have a pretty good power to weight ratio+AWD. You can't possibly class them to be competitive in the dry and not walk away from everything in the wet. Ask the Koni Challenge guys.

[MMiskoe]

B

ecause (a) it was requested by a member to re-examine it, and (b) it had not been through the current process. The Golf II was one of the "bogey cars" for the Great Realignment since the perception was that it was competitive at its then-current weight. The other ITB cars that were changed (and a LOT WERE NOT) got their weights set by the ITAC at the time.

Kirk - do I understand this correctly that the "bogey" or baseline car is now being looked at and it doesn't fit the process weight? I really hope I'm wrong. If it is the baseline car it damn well better fit! What am I missing here?

The "process" had substantial room for subjectivity at that time, as well: The MATH was pretty much the same as what we do now but the PHILOSOPHY was much different, such that if the process spit out a weight that "just wasn't right," it could be changed based on what committee members felt was best. The official guidelines in place at the time included directions to "Review the resulting classification weight and determine if the results are acceptable."

I am well aware that there is room for subjective differences when gathering information about any car. I understand that it would create a shit storm of questions if you published every detail of every car. Although I think it should be published I've realized its in the "ain't never gonna happen" pile. But the collective "they" could publish what they used when classing a new car.

[jimmyc]

now for the REALLY overarching stuff....

1) change SCCA World Challenge Touring car rules to match IT. Currently to do so you would use cars that would fall into the ITR performance window. In the future if cars continue to get more powerful, you might need to yet again create another faster class.

I don't think this is possible. With the invent of WC-Vision, it seems that SCCA pro racing is JUST a sanctioning body, that enforces rules given to them, and conducts all of the on track stuff. But they don't have, or appear to have much of anything to do with the rules.

And WC-Vision seems VERY set on keep the current rules they have.