January 2014 Fastrack

[Chip42]

crossing cage size/ car weight limits is a problem with straight reclassing too. of the 3 cars we considered last month, 2 cross the 2700# threshold moving up or down. 1 is up for member input (06-09 Civic Si), the other was denied, again (99-00 Civic Si). the TSX is safe by 60#, and depending on what permutation of the ITR process you like, it might have dropped under (I'm guessing, I haven't checked). though being on the cusp is an easier place to just opt for the "heavier" cage than when you are fighting for ounces 300# below it.

I personally have no objection to dual classing, but I respect that some others do. we'll have to discuss it on committee and see where we stand. send letters if you feel strongly about it.

[ShelbyRacer]

I'm not personally fond of dual classing, but I'll read any letters to that effect with great interest.

One of the sticky points on some of these cars is that they also have stock HP numbers outside the typical envelope for the class (Civic Si is certainly one in ITA, but there are others to be looked at).

In the end, there is also another factor in *my* mind- if the car works in both classes numbers-wise, where does it "fit"? In the case of the Civic, my feeling is it's a better fit in ITA, but the numbers are such that it seemed better in ITS. When I joined the ITAC, it was actually one of about 10 cars that I "processed" on my own to see where the numbers all were and to get completely familiar with the process math. When the numbers didn't work, I checked the ITAC letter history. If I didn't find it, I asked why, and learned more about the decisions and how they get made.

Personally, I'd like to put several cars out to the membership that are fence-sitters. tGA- you can make fun of me if you desire, but I'd prefer to get member input in more cases. We are an *appointed* body, overseen by another appointed body, who answers to people elected to run the entire club (side note: when typing "run", I mistyped it as "ruin". Freudian slip?). I don't want to bog down the process, but *at least* in cases where we on the ITAC can't clearly see one way or another, I'd prefer the member input process. But, as I said, that's because I'd prefer *not* to dual classify.

To go to the oft-cited nth degree, why wouldn't we dual classify everything? In fact, why not just adopt the system where we post stock hp, process multiplier, and adders for every car for confirmation purposes, and then allow a competitor to pick their own class? I could conceivably run an 83-86 Camarobird in ITS at 3370 (195hp stock, 1.3 multiplier, +100 torque)... Not sure if I'd get the 10.5" front discs to last 20 laps at Summit (let alone other tracks), but hey, that's my problem... Especially since I'm really not sure I'm going to be able to get down to its classified weight in ITR. Please keep in mind this question is NOT meant to be sarcastic by any means, as I'd actually like to know if people think this would be The Way To Go (TM). I would've used my ITB Charger as an example, but there is NO WAY I could legally get the car down to its sub-2000-pound ITA weight...

Final thought- since our statement of class philosphy specifically mentions that dual-classifications aren't part of the plan, then we'd need to run that up the CRB/BoD flagpole for approval, and I for one would sure as heck want member input for that...

[jjjanos]

To go to the oft-cited nth degree, why wouldn't we dual classify everything?

We kind of do already. First-gen CRX si is in three classes....

I could conceivably run an 83-86 Camarobird in ITS at 3370 (195hp stock, 1.3 multiplier, +100 torque)... Not sure if I'd get the 10.5" front discs to last 20 laps at Summit (let alone other tracks), but hey, that's my problem... Especially since I'm really not sure I'm going to be able to get down to its classified weight in ITR.

IMO, such a car would be the target for dual classification as it is neither fish nor fowl. Too piggy to be an ITR car and too hard to woe to be an ITS car. I wouldn't build one because of that, but it appears at least one person has wood over the car -- let them decide where it races.

And if you are moving a car down a class, leave it in both. I know I'd be really pissed off I owned a mid-pack ITB car that got dropped to ITC. I'd much rather be working hard for 9th place in a 16-car field than being guaranteed a second place finish.

[JeffYoung]

I don't like it (dual classification).

In almost all cases, there generally IS a "right" class for the car that comes from acheivable weight and achievable HP. If someone is asking for a dual classification, in my opinion, at least in some cases they know something the ITAC doesn't and are seeking an advantage.

[Greg Amy]

If someone is asking for a dual classification, in my opinion, at least in some cases they know something the ITAC doesn't and are seeking an advantage.

Whaaa...? Using that logic, any member requests for reclassification should also be viewed in the same cynical light and should be immediately rejected.

In almost all cases, there generally IS a "right" class for the car that comes from acheivable weight and achievable HP.

I don't advocate wholesale dual-classification. But I do advocate making it a viable tool for the ITAC to give consideration to dual-classing where appropriate.

You can always say "no". I'm just requesting to give you the ability to say "yes" once in a while.

- GA

[ShelbyRacer]

We kind of do already. First-gen CRX si is in three classes....

What three IT classes is it in?

[jjjanos]

What three IT classes is it in?

Didn't say IT.

[Chip42]

Didn't say IT.

1st gen CRX is in ITC and B (Si) 2nd gen CRX IS in 3 classes IIRC, C (lowly cars), B (DX/Std), and A (Si). as is the civic of the era (EF chassis).

Other notable "multiple IT class" models (by body and model, separated by trim)
Del Sol is in S A and B
96-00 civic in A and S (could add B for the Y7 if requested)
RSX is in 2 (-s in R, regular in A or S)
DC Integra in 3 (LS/RS A, GS-R S, Type-R R)
2000 era celica is in 2 (GTS in ITR, GT in ITA)
ZZE corollas are in 2 (XRS in S, rest in A)
1st gen RX7 (GSL and under in A/7, GSL-SE in S)
SN95 mustang (V6 S, V8 R)
many BMWs
...

and we do have dual classification on some BMW(s?) and a prelude, both into S and R.

[ShelbyRacer]

Right, but IIRC, the BMW is one of only 2 "true" duals, with both the same body AND powerplant in two classes. Even then, the S car has a SIR... I guess the Prelude needs attention.

Heck, even my lowly Shelby Charger is in 4 classes that I can recall (ITB, EP, FP, GT3). Theoretically, I could get it classified in SPU as well...

[webhound]

1st gen CRX is in ITC and B (Si) 2nd gen CRX IS in 3 classes IIRC, C (lowly cars), B (DX/Std), and A (Si). as is the civic of the era (EF chassis).

Other notable "multiple IT class" models (by body and model, separated by trim)
Del Sol is in S A and B
96-00 civic in A and S (could add B for the Y7 if requested)
RSX is in 2 (-s in R, regular in A or S)
DC Integra in 3 (LS/RS A, GS-R S, Type-R R)
2000 era celica is in 2 (GTS in ITR, GT in ITA)
ZZE corollas are in 2 (XRS in S, rest in A)
1st gen RX7 (GSL and under in A/7, GSL-SE in S)
SN95 mustang (V6 S, V8 R)
many BMWs
...

and we do have dual classification on some BMW(s?) and a prelude, both into S and R.

This isn't the dual classification we are talking here, is it? Just chassis classification? Because the EF is technically in 3 IT classes, but all are totally different trim levels. No double dipping opportunities exist there, there are all sorts of motor and trans swaps needed.

Will