October 2012 Prelim Minutes and TB

[pfrichardson]

...are posted:

http://www.scca.com/clubracing/content.cfm?cid=44472

[Bill Miller]

Looks like they fleshed out the justification of the 30% multi-valve factor for B/C, and talked about using non-standard factors. Still doesn't mean much if the CRB can just chuck it aside.

[Chip42]

the idea was to change the language that had been understood to mean that some cars just got stuck at a certain value, while remaining sensitive to the potential of newer tech cars (unfortunately identified as "multivalve") in ITB and C.

The end result frees the ITAC/CRB relationship from any predetermined multipliers. yes, the CRB can still change recomendations as they see fit. the ops manual is NOT a set of rules everyone has to follow, but it is generally suported by the CRB and that's a huge plus.

[Kai Noeske]

What's the "U" in "ITU" for that Travis suggested? Under 2000 cc ? IT Unlimited (any power/weight naturally aspirated car w/ IT mods) ? IT Unsightly for people who hate fixing bodywork? IT Unobtanium for very rare cars with IT mods?

[JeffYoung]

A faster class above R. With R car counts where they are (low but increasing) I don't think we are in the position to do that yet.

[Chip42]

What's the "U" in "ITU" for that Travis suggested? Under 2000 cc ? IT Unlimited (any power/weight naturally aspirated car w/ IT mods) ? IT Unsightly for people who hate fixing bodywork? IT Unobtanium for very rare cars with IT mods?

Like Jeff said. Travis actually put a lot of work into the proposal. in order to keep modern "sports" cars in IT, we'll eventually need a faster class. if we're happy with rios and civics, and the miata/MX5, then the current format works quite well. it's not getting done right now, though. last thing anyone wants is another class right now.

[Kai Noeske]

Like Jeff said. Travis actually put a lot of work into the proposal. in order to keep modern "sports" cars in IT, we'll eventually need a faster class. if we're happy with rios and civics, and the miata/MX5, then the current format works quite well. it's not getting done right now, though. last thing anyone wants is another class right now.

Ah, thanks guys! Seems to make a lot of sense to have IT move along with the performance evolution of cars.

[JeffYoung]

It will happen at some point, and honestly should have happened by now. Actually, what should have happned is that ITR should have come along 10 years before it did, and we should be working on ITU now.

Travis did a great job with the proposal. It's just the wrong time for it.

[JLawton]

Maybe time to see if you can work the current ITC cars into ITB and get rid of "C". I know some (most?) cars won't be able to get rid of that much weight but...............

[Chip42]

I think that would wind up being a case where we'd kill ITC and just deal with the fallout. we're not talking about it, but there's just about no way most C cars could ever be competitive in B.

we have to move IT forward somehow or it will loose relevance.

[Z3_GoCar]

I think that would wind up being a case where we'd kill ITC and just deal with the fallout. we're not talking about it, but there's just about no way most C cars could ever be competitive in B.

we have to move IT forward somehow or it will loose relevance.

Resurect the old ITD class, and put the -C- cars there.

If you get pushback for adding a class, just remind them that IT is regional only and they won't have to worry about it darkening the door of the Runoffs. One of the benefits of not being a national eligable class.

[erlrich]

Resurect the old ITD class, and put the -C- cars there.

If you get pushback for adding a class, just remind them that IT is regional only and they won't have to worry about it darkening the door of the Runoffs. One of the benefits of not being a national eligible class.

I was just going to say, with IT's regional-only status, why would we need to kill off the class? Just let it die naturally, and until then the ITC guys still have a place to play.

[Chip42]

I don't have participation numbers for ITC handy, but it's not a lot. I undertsnad there are some good clusters in certain areas. I think THOSE areas can keep ITC going region by region, but at a "national" rules level I see no viability to that class in the future. right now, though, I am not trying to kill it, nor is anyone else.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with Earl 100%. I would not support delisting cars, or eliminating a class.

The progression of IT to "faster" cars and "faster" classes is and will continue to happen naturally, in my opinion.

While C is dead in a lot of places, it's not in others and those guys should continue to have a place to race. The BEST race at the ITFest -- by far -- was ITC. Big field, and competitive.

[seckerich]

Maybe time to see if you can work the current ITC cars into ITB and get rid of "C". I know some (most?) cars won't be able to get rid of that much weight but...............

You need to update your signature Jeff, it is now an STU Mini Cooper S.

[Kai Noeske]

I agree with Earl 100%. I would not support delisting cars, or eliminating a class.

Supported; the ITC racers I have met are usually in older cars that they have loved for a long time, and with the usually experienced love-of-racing drivers and well developed cars, they run similar times as slower ITB cars. Keeping ITC alive does not require extra race groups at Regionals if they keep running with ITB, and does not slow the race groups down either.

Remembering how Fred White drove circles around my 160 hp SSC Civic in his ITC Honda at my NHMS school... and how Tony Christian beat me in his ITC Rabbit when I first started racing at Summit .

[dickita15]

I think there will be support for a faster class as soon as we can say “We created ITR because cars are getting faster and is has become a very popular class so it is time to create ITU”
ITR is popular but not yet “very popular” IMHO.
Related question, is there a big enough performance gap between ITS and ITR now/ they seem kind of close.

[jjjanos]

Supported; the ITC racers I have met are usually in older cars that they have loved for a long time, and with the usually experienced love-of-racing drivers and well developed cars, they run similar times as slower ITB cars. Keeping ITC alive does not require extra race groups at Regionals if they keep running with ITB, and does not slow the race groups down either.

Paul Harvey hear... why does SCCA have 137 classes with 2 cars in each class?

Well....

G Prod racers I have met are usually in older cars that they have loved for a long time, and with the usually experienced love-of-racing drivers and well developed cars, they run similar times as slower F Prod cars. Keeping G Prod alive does not require extra race groups at Regionals if they keep running with F Prod, and does not slow the race groups down either.

and now you have..... the rest of the story.....

[JeffYoung]

I think there will be support for a faster class as soon as we can say “We created ITR because cars are getting faster and is has become a very popular class so it is time to create ITU”
ITR is popular but not yet “very popular” IMHO.
Related question, is there a big enough performance gap between ITS and ITR now/ they seem kind of close.

Dick and I talked about this off line a few weeks back and I too would be interested in hearing other folks' opinion on it.

My perception is we got it "just right. There is still (in my opinion) a ton more development in the top ITS cars than ITR save a very few. One of those being Kip VS's 944 S2 which is about 2-3 seconds faster than "the best" ITS cars, which is as it should be to me.

Similarly, the ITR track record at VIR is Mike Skeen in an ITR E36 325 at 2:12, with ITS in.....an ITS E36 at 2:14 by Chet Whittel. Not apples to apples EXACTLY but pretty close, no? And 2 seconds gap is similar to the split in other classes.

[StephenB]

I would guess here in the North East we have some VERY well prepped ITR cars that are 10 10ths. I also think we have 10 10ths ITS cars between flatouts old RX7 and the remaining Autotecnic BMW which actually is probably one of the fastest in the country if I had to guess.

DO I think the ITR times will still drop, yes. But the cars are certainly well developed IMHO. We are running just as quick as the grand am ST cars which is what I think we should be running in ITR.

Stephen