Letter 9387

[evanwebb]

I have submitted this to crbscca:

Letter ID Number: #9387
Title: Allow selective dual classing for ITC and ITB
Class: ITC
Request: In many regions of the country ITC is no longer a viable class. A number of the cars in ITC are substantially the same mechanically as some cars classed in ITB. I request that these cars be identified and allow racers to convert their ITC cars to ITB-equivalent specs by allowing specific substitutions on the vehicle spec line. For instance, the early VW Scirocco 1.5/1.6/1.7 are essentially the same chassis as the later 1.8 VW Scirocco that is classed in ITB. The early cars could run in ITB if they are allowed the 1.8 engine and transmission and the same brakes as used in the later car, and would be specified at the existing ITB weight. The early car would still be at a slight aerodynamic disadvantage compared to the later car and there fore would not be more competitive. There are other cars that could also have a similar dual classing. I realize this is a departure from past IT practice but if done judiciously this will benefit the size of ITB fields by bringing out cars that are currently classed in ITC but are not raced due to lack of other cars in class. I believe this is not a huge leap for IT since some dual classing is allowed for the ITS/ITR BMW 325, and since the VIN rule has been rescinded.

[Knestis]

...but what you are really asking for is an entirely new, additional level of preparation in the category, that breaks the fundamental assumptions behind update-backdate.

It complicates things pretty dramatically because the IMMEDIATE next step is to allow (for example) all MkI and MkII Golfs to run the MkIII ABA 2.0 and bigger brakes. You're proposing changing the entire category.

I also fear you've got your cause-effect backward, Evan. It's not that people aren't entering ITC because the fields are small. The fields are small because people aren't entering ITC.

K

[evanwebb]

I don't think so Kirk since my request is for chassis that are substantially the same which is not the case for the example you cited. The early and late siroccos are both the A1 chassis.

[evanwebb]

Also Kirk you seem to be talking about changes to the spec line of a car while staying in the same class (like an ITB Mk.1 Golf or Mk.II Golf using an engine from an ITB Mk.III Golf). I'm talking about specific changes to a car's spec line to be able to add it to a different class. This isn't really much different than the situation where some Hondas and perhaps others can run either ITC or ITB depending which engine/transmission, etc. is used. The only difference with the case I'm referring to is bodywork difference between the early or late scirocco. Similarly, if you put Mk.I Gti 1.8 engine/trans/brakes in an ITC Rabbit, it would basically be an ITB Mk.I Gti but with different headlights and taillights. Or maybe rescinding the VIN rule already allows what I want?

[EH9racing]

You are talking about a ST*/GT* level of change. That is way way outside of what IT is about.

The VIN rule was done so that people could have a larger selection of chassis with which to pull from for the car they want to run. In Honda land that means you can buy a 94 Civic EX Coupe (1.6VTEC motor, runs in ITA) and change it to a 94 Civic DX (1.5 non vtec, runs in ITB, with smaller brakes, and uprights). In the end the Civic EX car that is changed to a Civic DX in ITB is effectively EXACTLY what the factory delivered as a stock civic DX with modifications already allowed in IT, but it has a Civic EX vin.

[Chip42]

evan - this idea will not get any traction in IT. sorry.

[evanwebb]

aaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh!!!! it's different! run away!

[Chip42]

I'm not against the idea in and of itself, but different from IT is not IT. it might make for a good region-specific class, or maybe a sub STL ST class, but it's really outside of the philosophy of IT, and I am not comfortable with allowing it in the ITCS for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the HUGE change in direction it would mean for IT, and massive rules creep.

I doubt the CRB would bite either.

sorry it's just too outside the box for this place. why not encourage ITC to grow in your area, rather than try to abandon it for B?