A Poll Regarding the IT Rules Set

[jjjanos]

<troll>

Sooo, you're suggesting that a class that can run Regional and National events might be more popular overall...?

</troll>



K

Nope. 2+2 = 4, except in SCCA where Goldstein has convinced them that 2+2 = 5.

Jeff:

You didn't look very hard: http://www.scca.com/event.aspx?hub=1&event=13506 and click on the "2009 National Class Participation" link.

No, I did not. I assumed the National numbers would be on the page dealing with Nationals, not the Runoffs.

While I know I'll be in the minority I've always thought that IT7, SRX7, SSM were unnecessary.

I would agree on IT7. SRX7 filled a niche which has since been filled with something else. SSM participation, at least in DC Region, would suggest that SM is unnecessary.


Josh - when I look at the sheet that includes national participation, it seems to correspond to Regionals.

[Bill Miller]

While I know I'll be in the minority I've always thought that IT7, SRX7, SSM were unnecessary.

Ron,

I hear you, believe me. But, I can't fault a Region for trying to generate more revenue if the drivers can put together enough cars to warrant their own class.

Interesting side note about IT7. Oh so many years ago, it was the whole IT7 concept out of the SE that got me going on why there was no consistent formula (process) for classing IT cars. The IT7 cars were built to ITA prep rules, but they were running amongst themselves. What really tweaked it for me, was that the cars were still eligible to run ITA. The IT7 cars got to run in one run group, and the ITA cars ran in another run group. I was pissed that you had one group of cars that had an easy time of double-dipping (this was long before SM was even a glimmer in anyone's eye).

I wanted to know how the IT classification process had so failed a group, that they felt they needed their own class. Luckily for the folks running ITA RX7's, they had a VERY popular car, and had the numbers to get it done. That was the start, for me, of the push for a defined process to classify IT cars, and was what got me thinking of the concept that Kirk later dubbed the 'Miller Ratio'.

Sorry for the history lesson.

[lateapex911]

Here's a point of view on the IT-7 class. In the mid 90's, the RX-7 runs in ITA at 2380 pounds, against CRXs, which weighed around (I can't remember the exact figure) 2100 pounds, and had equal hp and greater tq. The RX-7 has a strut front and a live axle rear, and lowering them caused the rear suspension to bind. Fixes became available, but later. So, guys were slipping down the results charts as fast as new cars were built. We could get into specifics, but somebody decided enough was enough, and the IT-7 class was born. It was a huge success in the SE, and remains one of the larger subscribed classes, IIRC.

The ITAC eventually (10 years laer or so) lowered the weight to 2280, but even at that it's still far from a contender.

A great example of the effectiveness of such sub classes is what happened here in the NE. The IT-7 class was resisted for a long time, out of pride or who knows why. RX-7 counts in ITA were often 6-9 cars in the late 90's , but those numbers dwindled down to 1 or 2, maybe 3 in the 2007 period. Finally, NER decided to try adding the IT-7 class to the list, and numbers have just about doubled, even in this economically tight time.

Simply put, the idea brought the cars out of barns, kept guys racing, and have actually added a guy or two to the mix. NER has taken in thousands of dollars in entries it would never have seen, so it makes sense.

Bill's right in that the RX-7 is a poster child for the troubles in classification in that period, and the spawning classes are an indication. I just ran MARRS 10 at Summit, and there were 7 or so IT-7 cars, and 10 SRX-7 cars. 17 of the things! Wow....that's a lot of 30 yr old cars! (some will say that that in itself is bad, and we shouldn't support old cars, as they feel guys should be in newer cars, but that's another dicussion topic) The IT-7 field was 3 times bigger than ITR.

Hey, I don't like all the classes either, but, the bottom line is that folks are taking advantage of them, are out racing, and having fun, and making events profitable for regions.

[Bill Miller]

C'mon Jake, the IT7 / ITR comparison is not really valid in terms of gauging popularity. On one hand, you've got cars that have been around, as a class, almost 10x as long. I'd also be curious as to just when the last new ITA/IT7 1st gen RX7 was built. I'm not talking about someone that took what was left off of a wadded up car and swapped it over to a new tub, but the last time someone said "Hey, I want to build a race car, I think I'll build an IT7." I'm guessing that it was before ITR existed.

From what I remember at the time, the SRX7 cars were somewhat unique to the DC Region. IIRC, at the MARRS 1 race 8 or 9 years ago, there were 53 SRX7 cars registered, and I think 48 or 49 of them took the green flag.

But as I said before, at that time, the RX7 folks were lucky. They were running VERY popular cars. Decent performance, nice balance, fun to drive, neat looks, lots of stuff available, and not tons of money to build or run. Seems like the ideal situation. Really not unlike SM today. Is it a coincidence that both cars happen to be Mazdas? Who knows. And it doesn't really matter. I think it's great that the Regions are responding to what the drivers want. It's simple marketing really. Folks have these cars, and would like to race them in a group where they feel they've got a fair shot. Providing that opportunity or 'product' will encourage them to spend their $$$ w/ you (Region). I think that's one of the reasons why NASA is doing as well as they are.


Not sure if this is the appropriate thread to go into this or not, but since I'm here, here goes. Reading some of Stephen B's comments got me thinking. Once things went from 'just providing a place to race' to trying to actually balance the cars in a given IT class, the horse was out of the barn. I think it's safe to say that everyone wants 'stable' rules in IT. However, once you start trying to balance cars, 'stable' rules will be a moving target. If it's completely arbitrarry, no one can say they got treated any different than anyone else, and it really does become a case of 'pick your weapon'. The simplest form of this, is that cars are spec'd at mfg's published curb weight for the base model. No 'adders', no worries about how much of a power gain they'll get, no nothing, other than "You want to run a Puddlebee SXR? It's a 2.0 16v, so it runs in ITA, and the curb weight is 2375#, so that's the race weight." That's it.

You could do the same w/ the current process, but tweaks to things need to go away. No more adjusting the power gain percentage, etc. The problem is, once you start putting things like anticipated power gains in there, you'll get people saying that they're not accurate. Doesn't matter if it gets you to exactly the same number as just running at curb weight, it's about the perception of how you got to that number. One is totally arbitrarry, one is not so much.

But once you go down that road of trying to actually balance the cars in a class, it becomes an ongoing, evolving process. You're continually improving the model. The problem is, everyone will have a different idea as to what level of granularity is good enough. And for most, that will come from a me-centric position. Stephen's comment about "leaving them up the creek" is what really got me thinking. It goes back to the simple marketing I mentioned above. The guy that feels that he is left 'up the creek' will very likely take his racing budget to a place that he feels that he gets a fairer shot.

One of the things about IT, which I really like, is that it's more about folks being able to race cars that they have some kind of connection to. Sure, some will just want the 'best' car, but many will pick cars because of other, more 'emotional' factors. For me, I've been a VW guy for a LONG time. I drove Rabbit GTI's on the street, and really liked the cars. That's why I wanted to race one. Jake has been running that RX7 for as long as I've known him, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a similar connection. And I think the same can be said for a lot of the folks in IT. We race the cars we do, because we want to race those cars.

I've seen countless posts about how IT is the best it has ever been, etc. But as Kirk has pointed out on several occasions, you're going to get the IT that you want. Once you go to anything beyond a totally arbitrarry classification process, it needs to be an evolving process. I think that it can work, w/o going all the way to what's happened to Prod, but it will take commitment from the top down. Sure wish I had the answer as to exactly what was needed, that's something that will change as time goes on.

Question to Stephen B. If you froze the ITCS right now (new car classifications notwithstanding), and left those guys 'up the creek', how is that any different than the way things were 10 years ago? To me, the only thing that's different, is that you've got a different group of disenfranchaised folks. It's kind of like a game of musical chairs. Stop the music at one point, and so-and-so doesn't have a seat. Stop it at a different point, and somebody else doesn't have a seat. You don't stop the music, and nobody has to sit down.

[jjjanos]

I just ran MARRS 10 at Summit, and there were 7 or so IT-7 cars, and 10 SRX-7 cars. 17 of the things! Wow....that's a lot of 30 yr old cars!

For the sake of accuracy, MARRS tends to draw about 3-4 IT7 cars and about that many SRX7s for a non-double.

[tnord]

wait....MARRS is running BOTH IT7 and SRX7? wtf!?!?!

[JeffYoung]

Yep, two different prep levels.

I agree, doesn't make sense, but it's the same as SM and SSM to me. Plus, it seems to work for them.

[Ron Earp]

Yep, two different prep levels.

I agree, doesn't make sense, but it's the same as SM and SSM to me. Plus, it seems to work for them.

At some point though the region needs to draw a line for the number of similar classes provided. Else, hell, we can be like NASA and have classes for everyone!

[jrvisual]

At some point though the region needs to draw a line for the number of similar classes provided. Else, hell, we can be like NASA and have classes for everyone!

Make it like tee ball, where everyone gets a plastic trophy.

[IPRESS]

Boys it's about car counts....even in SCCA.

[erlrich]

For the sake of accuracy, MARRS tends to draw about 3-4 IT7 cars and about that many SRX7s for a non-double.

Yes on the IT7s, but the SRX7 guys have been getting between 12 - 18 cars out for each event this year; they must be doing something right.

As for SSM, I absolutely see the attraction; from what I know of the origin of SM, SSM is what that was originally intended to be - entry-level racing with limited modifications. Actually, the same goes for SRX7. IT7 I'm not so sure...there are plenty of other cars in ITA that are no more competitive than the RX7; if these cars cannot be made competitive in ITA maybe we need to re-evaluate the benchmark for the class??? I understand the "no guarantee" thing, but isn't the process intended to get most of the cars relatively close to each other?

[Marcus Miller]

Earl, the difference in IT7 and other makes is that there are/were a metric shit ton of ITA prepped Rx7's. They wanted to run in a fair place so they created it. Anyone can do the same.... Check the VW forum for another idea going around...

[lateapex911]

C'mon Jake, the IT7 / ITR comparison is not really valid in terms of gauging popularity. On one hand, you've got cars that have been around, as a class, almost 10x as long.

True, but it's an interesting contrast, that's all.

One of the things about IT, which I really like, is that it's more about folks being able to race cars that they have some kind of connection to. .... Jake has been running that RX7 for as long as I've known him, and I wouldn't be surprised if there's a similar connection. .

I autocrossed one, so I knew the car, and it was classed in ITA and had a decent shot when I started racing one. Then came the CRX. And other cars that were added in an attempt to 'equalize' things. I sold the car after my 1st year, and did some extra schooling, then picked up where I had left off. Unfinished business, I guess.

Off course, it was obvious not long after that that the rug had been moved when I was gone, and the the car no longer had a reasonable shot in a top drawer ITA field. I tried hard anyway and judged myself by a different yardstick.

And I made the decision to stay with the car not out of some love affair, but because I felt that as a driver/wrench/crew cheif/team boss, I had a lot to learn, and I hadn't developed the car to it's potential, or mine. It was a semi paid for platform, so I soldiered on.

I've learned a lot I think, and I hope I'm a better driver. I think so, but I'm probably being a bit optimistic there. Anyway, the cars been good to me, and it's racked up a lot of records over the past two seasons.

I realize the writing is on the wall though, and it's time to move on.

[JeffYoung]

We are starting to see IT7 fields here in the SEDiv shrink too, and this used to be one of if not the strongest regions for the class. Where there are 10-12 regulars a few years back, there are now maybe 3-4, or 5-6.

Guys are moving up to Second Gen RX7s, or to ITR cars.

Having raced against these guys, in an area where ITA was a little weak, I always wondered why they didn't go ITA. But, in 2007, Ricky Thompson -- probably the fastest IT7 car/driver in the country -- made a full blown effort to see if the 1st Gen could still win in A. He made a valiant run for the SARRC championshp, and proved the car to be more competitive in A than I think people thought, but ultimately concluded that a 100% max effort just was barely on part with the top 1/3 of the Honda/Acura/NX A field.

It is going to be sad to see the 1st Gen fade away, because it was such a great car and such a mainstay of SCCA racing, even when I first started in 04.

Because the 7s were so fast here in the SEDiv, I always thought moving them to B was a mistake, but I've come completely around on that. I wonder if that might not truly give them a completely new lease on life, like all the Z cars that reappeared after the E36 in ITS issue was fixed.

[Ron Earp]

I wonder if that might not truly give them a completely new lease on life, like all the Z cars that reappeared after the E36 in ITS issue was fixed.

B would be a great place for them. Get a bit of weight over their A weight and competitors would have an "easier" build not having to fight for every last pound to get down to an A weight. IT7/SRX7 could be in B, it'd bolster B numbers and I'd think folks would be happy*. Three pretty healthy classes - S, A, B, instead more less-than-healthy classes.

*-Some folks would be happy. I'm sure some folks would be unhappy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

"Don't make me buy new wheels".

IT7 would explode if the RX-7 went to ITB at 2500+ lbs.

[Ron Earp]

"Don't make me buy new wheels".

IT7 would explode if the RX-7 went to ITB at 2500+ lbs.

Would that be explode or assplode?

How about "Don't make the region have to worry about another class/group."

[lateapex911]

Would that be explode or assplode?

How about "Don't make the region have to worry about another class/group."

How about "Make the region worry about loss of income"?

Seriously, IT-7 cars are, in general, driven by guys who like to control the racing budget. (95% of them would be steamed if the car were moved to ITB, because, all the work they HAVE done to get to weight is for naught, and all the years and dollars they've spent collecting hard to find wheels would be wasted. Who's going to buy all their sets of used 13 x 7 wheels in an odd bolt pattern? It's not a huge market. AND they get to go out and buy all new wheels to replace the ones that are sitting in the back of the yard now.

Yes, you could say, "Hey, ITAC, move these guys, and let them keep their wheels, just add 50 pounds". Well, the ITAC isn't about to do that. Why should they? IT-7 is offered in nearly the entire country, and I bet if guys approached the region(s) where it's not offered, they'd have a class.

Ron, there's no real upside to the move, except being able to offer less classes. The cars fit in many groups, so there's never an "extra group" needed. I guarantee you, the entries will vanish. You'd see 10% of the cars currently racing actually show up regularly in ITB. We've got bigger fish to fry.

[shwah]

Pretty sure all those 13x7 wheels could be used in Production class on 1st gen RX7s.

[jjjanos]

Make it like tee ball, where everyone gets a plastic trophy.

That would be the fast formula group, aka the Eunice Shriver classes were everyone is a winner.

Yes on the IT7s, but the SRX7 guys have been getting between 12 - 18 cars out for each event this year; they must be doing something right.

Sorry, that was clear on my part. The SRX7s remain a viable class. IT7 is getting to the point it needs to be moved back into ITA or equalized to meld into SRX7 (at least in WDCR).