Street tires in IT? My Review

[pfcs]

It's a legitimate point that engines are simply better than they were when the IT eligibility window opened (1968). It's also fair to propose that internal tweaks simply aren't going to return the competitive value as a typical "real" IT build on a less optimized-as-stock engine. But the stock-engines model, as attractive as it might seem, is a different category - Touring.
K

Consider that the overbore rule is 63 production rules-rules that governed cars that in 63 included MG TDs and Healy 100/4s, etc. Wasn't really that relevant to most 68 blocks, but in the 80s manufacturers turned a page. When was the last time you had a ring job?

[RSTPerformance]

Wow... This thread goes from a review and "announcement" of a local series to a fight over tire rules that don't exist (did anyone actually write the CRB after all that?), to engine rules...

Raymond "forget all this other stuff Santa, i just want new FIA belts so I can put those perfectly good out dated ones that are in my racecar now back on a shelf - time sure goes by fast..." Blethen

[Knestis]

IT became expensive for ONE REASON - competitiveness. And it hasn't been a bolt-in-a-cage-and-race deal since the late '80s.

Reluctance to let the category "go National" left room for Prep 2 Production and ST, both of which are pretty IT-like, and effectively doomed Improved Touring.

K

[Ron Earp]

I agree with you Kirk and your prognosis is what concerns me about IT, not relatively minor issue engine rules or dead classes (ITC, less than 50 entries for 2013 in the entire SE Division, <3% of total, and most of those entries are from three competitors).

There are too many competing classes drawing on IT and the most threatening come from within the SCCA. Cannibals are we. The organization has too many classes and still maintains the National/Regional distinction, much to the detriment for the average ametuer racer that pays the bills and keeps the lights on.

[lawtonglenn]

...Cannibals are we. The organization has too many classes and still maintains the National/Regional distinction...

+1

which is the main source of my heartburn about sub-classes and sub-sub-classes


.

[gran racing]

Put it out for member input, along with wheel size option to 7in for B and C. Pretty sure that the results will surprise.

I have a difficult time believing that existing racers want to go out and replace all of their wheels. New people to the sport? That I'd buy much more so.

Your screwing everyone in the class that already did the build.

Well, not really. The new cars would use an adjusted classification calculation. I can agree on the point where it's time for me to build a new engine this winter and not having to worry about the block would be nice. If I fell into one of those who still needed to, I can see how I'd fall into one of those who got screwed. Tough call.

[quadzjr]

I have a difficult time believing that existing racers want to go out and replace all of their wheels. New people to the sport? That I'd buy much more so.

I agree with Dave, people that want if for a performance gain (like myself)I would like it, if I was building something. However I have already spent a metric crap ton on 14x6 and 15x6 wheels to supply the car with a qualifying set, racing set, spare set, and rain set. Going to a 7" wheel when the current rule currently satisfyies everything.. just would put a thorn in my side. What it would do is create a bigger gap between top level teams and the mid pack.

Most of ITB/ITC runs on a 205 wheel anyways. This fits (both R comp and street tire) just nicely. There are a few of us (myself included) that run 225 R comps on 6" wheels.. not sure if a 225 street tire will fit on a 6" wheel. somebody would have to try it out.

Well, not really. The new cars would use an adjusted classification calculation. I can agree on the point where it's time for me to build a new engine this winter and not having to worry about the block would be nice. If I fell into one of those who still needed to, I can see how I'd fall into one of those who got screwed. Tough call.

I am in the boat of having to source a new block as of yesterday.. built it to the tilt the first time around.. lasted a few years. Unitl something changes the new motor will be built in a similiar fashion.. but not as extreme or as $$$. Cubic dollars for tenths of hp.. pointless.

[jjjanos]

Well, not really. The new cars would use an adjusted classification calculation. I can agree on the point where it's time for me to build a new engine this winter and not having to worry about the block would be nice. If I fell into one of those who still needed to, I can see how I'd fall into one of those who got screwed. Tough call.

Yes, really.

(numbers for example purposes only):

I can race an ITA car in ITB that will cost me $2500 or I can race an actual ITB car that will cost me $3000 to build the engine. What do you think will happen to the price of that ITB car?

Now, you can class that ITB car without the IT-engine prep down into ITC (so that when the race motor craps out, he can slap a junkyard motor into the car and be competitive), but what are you going to do about the ITC guys (not that there are many left...)? And, doesn't that defeat the purpose of having larger fields in each class?