I have a few points, but wanted to start out by addressing a clearly incorrect statement-

Originally posted by 2Many Z's:
I don't know about the V-6 Mustang's potential in ITS (for instance), but a SS Camaro is able to run consistant 1:30's at Summit while the largest portion of the ITS field is running 1:27's-1:29's.
OK, what exact races are you watching? Non-SS Camaros in T2 are running 1:25's at Summit in the National races.

That being said, I have a question-
Going on this theory of grouping cars simply by speed potential, I would place the V6 gen3 Camarobird in ITA. Now, keep in mind, this car has 10.5" front brakes, rear drums, and a 5-speed with piss-poor ratios, along with the incredibly anemic 135-140hp V6 which sounds like a small block under water. Also, it weighs over 3000 lbs in IT trim (BTW- if anyone wants to argue these facts, I'll be happy to post my sources, or show you old data from my 87 'bird).

Imagine I'm cruising along in, say perhaps, a Honda CRX (I heard there's a few of those in ITA) and I'm coming around to lap this poor bastard in the lead sled. I get around him on the straight and duck in front before the corner. This driver, now demonstrating the amount of intelligence it takes to race a V6 F-body, decides that he can brake where I do, since we're both in ITA, right?

Do YOU want that kind of weight disparity on track with you?

On the other end of things, let's say we make a turbo car legal and we magically control the boost to keep it correct. How pissed off are you gonna be when this guy goes BLOWING past you on the straights, but can't corner to save his life? I could build an 87 Shelby Charger that would make 200hp and 200ftlb of torque legally in IT trim, but unless we got brake upgrades and wide tires we wouldn't be much faster than the carbed ITA I bet (I'm pretty sure Greg A. has some input on that...)

My point is simple-
The cars that are in each class right now work well because they are somewhat similar in many factors, not just lap time. Sure I'd support a few more IT classes, but some people on here are talking about cars that simply don't belong on track in that configuration. You're asking SCCA to meet people's every whim, when those people aren't at all interested in being flexible or working with what's already there. Quite honestly, I think the attitude shows a bit of immaturity in principle. Why classify a car for 5 people when it's going to make it more dangerous or unsafe for 105 others?

Just because a few people think a car is fast, that doesn't mean it belongs on a track where it can ruin the day for a bunch of others.

------------------
Matt Green
"Ain't nothin' improved about Improved Touring..."