ITR Class Poll

[Bill Miller]

Like Kirk said, what gets to run in ITE depends on where you run. For the MARRS series, and the WDCR races at Summit Point, ANY non-T/non-SS forced induction car runs in ITE. So do any of the ex-WC/GAC cars. They also have SPU/O, as well as ASR. I've seen Frank Sanchez run his 'few more goodies than TransAm' Camaro in ASR, but I really don't know what the rules are. Seems like yet another catch-all class.

So, the assumption that ITE cars will have an 'IT-like' level of prep, is not valid, unless that's the way the ITE rules in your particular area are written.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 7 2005, 07:50 PM
In other places, ITE cars really are "IT Everything," where things look more like the way ITR is being described here.
K

[snapback]67536[/snapback]

Kirk, I hope that I, and others didn't describe ITR in a way that you think ITR will be an "IT Everything", or catch all for cars that don't fit into A,B,C,S. That is not the intent at all. ITR is for cars with performance above S but that can still fit the intent and letter of IT. So twin turbo 911s do not fit into ITR, but 300zs and S2000s would.

I'm hoping that your statement pasted above means that some ITE classes in the country are very "IT like" in that they correspond to all IT rules, aka, "IT Everything" as you write.

R

[EAPCPA]

I am a new member and as soon as I can figure out all of the acronyms I will be able to give an intelligent opinion. I do know that for the good of the organization there needs to be a progression to entice new cars and new (younger) members to start racing. Now seems to be the time to work on this issue as I have a son and daughter who are almost driving age so by the time they are out of college the cars we race will be over 40 years old and the newer cars won't have a class to run in. With 300HP becoming common these days how else would you attract newbies in the future because they will want to run the cars they identify with. Of course on the flip side that could mean bolt on wings, fart can mufflers, neon lights, and body kits. ugh!!!

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by EAPCPA@Dec 7 2005, 11:07 PM
I am a new member and as soon as I can figure out all of the acronyms I will be able to give an intelligent opinion. With 300HP becoming common these days how else would you attract newbies in the future because they will want to run the cars they identify with.

[snapback]67549[/snapback]

See Kirk.

... Maybe we should clean it up a little bit. The attitudes being used here can be confusing. So you say I'm pouting. What are you doing? Looks detrimental to me....... Oh, but you have done good things in the past.

...Sorry I forgot.

R

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 7 2005, 09:18 PM
See Kirk. ...

[snapback]67554[/snapback]

Dang, man - I wish I knew what it was I did to become your personal whipping boy on this issue. All I did was share an opinion about ONE possible solution framework being discussed that, while I think is fine as far as it goes, doesn't take the bigger picture sufficiently into account to the degree that I'm willing to cast my lot on its side.

I didn't tell anyone it was just tought tiddlywinks, and they'd have to go home. Let me be as clear about this as possible:

YES, I THINK WE NEED A CLASS TO ACCOMMODATE CARS THAT, IF PREPARED TO IT RULES WOULD BE TOO FAST FOR THE CURRENT STATE OF ITS.

Including 2.8l BMW Z3s.

That suits your needs just fine, limiting ITR to NA, 2wd cars but it seems to me that, if we are going to pay the price of creating another class - and make no mistake, there will be impacts on the program as a whole - we should try to meet the needs of a bunch of other people who are going to be in the same boat you are in a couple of years. Why is that wrong? If the performance envelope is "faster than ITS," can't that include turbos, AWD cars, and a variety of other stuff?

Problem is, that can't be done within the framework of IT, so this new class should be created thinking beyond that frame, considering the needs of a greater number of people, and attempting to solve more problems for more people in the club than the proposal currently on the table.

It will NOT be easy but I think it's worth trying to do, if something is going to be done.

Of course, I also wish I understood what you were trying to say in that last post. You do know that you weren't quoting me, right?

I'm hoping that your statement pasted above means that some ITE classes in the country are very "IT like" in that they correspond to all IT rules, aka, "IT Everything" as you write.

You are right on, Ron - that's precisely what I meant. Some ITE rulesets put cars on the track that you'd very much recognize as "IT-like." Others - NWR included - goes hog-nuts, with fiberglass bodywork, tubular subframes, monstro brakes, etc., etc. I'm pretty sure that I know what you have in mind and, like I said, it makes complete sense in a less-than-macro way.

K

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by EAPCPA@Dec 7 2005, 07:07 PM
I am a new member and as soon as I can figure out all of the acronyms I will be able to give an intelligent opinion. .....

[snapback]67549[/snapback]

A first post always deserves a "Welcome"!

Your posts point is well taken.

Can we agree on one thing here guys?

IF it's called "IT_", it should respect the IT category rulebook, and merely be another set of spec lines.

From there, it's a matter of deciding:

-Does it fit the overall philosophy of IT?
-Is there a call for a class above ITS?
-Where will the cars to populate it come from?
-Will there be adequate cars to warrant the creation of a new class?
-Will it steal cars from other classes?

Depending on the answers to the above, some follow ups could be:
-If the desire is to give ex Touring cars a place to "upgrade" to after their run is up, will they fit the performance envelope?
-If the car count is potentially inadequate, do the parameters get opened to allow other configurations currently disallowed, such as: all wheel drive, turbocharged or supercharged, and other engine configurations-V8, etc.?


I will comment on philosophy-
20 years ago the automotive landscape was much different, and I think we need to look at the original philosophy in the light of today, not 20 years ago. "Inexpensive" means something much different now. I think the arguement that such a class is in conflict of the original "cheap to run" philosophy is a red herring. First...EVERY car that is classed won't be expensive OR cheap to prep and run. The class will, presumably, have cars that are expensive, and some that aren't. Besides, there are the lower classes that can maintain the "cheaper" and of things.

As has been pointed out, 20 years ago, a Corvette barely had 300Hp. Now sedans by the dozen boast that kind of power. Economy cars are over what ITS cars had! If the category is to flourish, there needs to be long term strategic thinking that recognizes this, as well as other factors in the changing landscape.

-So, my answer is YES, it fits the philosophy, in todays terms.
-And YES, there is certainly a call. We are turning down classification requests more frequently because they exceed the performance envelopes of the available classes.
-I think we could see a few fresh cars that have never been raced, a smattering of cars from the more enthusiastic racers in BMWCCA, PCA, et al., and if we set it up right, some Touring crossovers.
-YES, in some ares, there will be good support, but...in others it will remain thin, as it is today.
-YES, it will "steal" cars from other classes, but in small numbers. It will also help retain certain members who aspire to faster cars, or certain models that aren't currently classed, who would have gone elsewhere.

In the end, the net net, I think, is that it is worth the time to flesh it out.

Send those cards and letters!

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Dec 7 2005, 08:22 PM
A first post always deserves a "Welcome"!

Your posts point is well taken.

Can we agree on one thing here guys?

IF it's called "IT_", it should respect the IT category rulebook, and merely be another set of spec lines.

From there, it's a matter of deciding:

-Does it fit the overall philosophy of IT?
-Is there a call for a class above ITS?
-Where will the cars to populate it come from?
-Will there be adequate cars to warrant the creation of a new class?
-Will it steal cars from other classes?

Depending on the answers to the above, some follow ups could be:
-If the desire is to give ex Touring cars a place to "upgrade" to after their run is up, will they fit the performance envelope?
-If the car count is potentially inadequate, do the parameters get opened to allow other configurations currently disallowed, such as: all wheel drive, turbocharged or supercharged, and other engine configurations-V8, etc.?
I will comment on philosophy-
20 years ago the automotive landscape was much different, and I think we need to look at the original philosophy in the light of today, not 20 years ago. "Inexpensive" means something much different now. I think the arguement that such a class is in conflict of the original "cheap to run" philosophy is a red herring. First...EVERY car that is classed won't be expensive OR cheap to prep and run. The class will, presumably, have cars that are expensive, and some that aren't. Besides, there are the lower classes that can maintain the "cheaper" and of things.

As has been pointed out, 20 years ago, a Corvette barely had 300Hp. Now sedans by the dozen boast that kind of power. Economy cars are over what ITS cars had! If the category is to flourish, there needs to be long term strategic thinking that recognizes this, as well as other factors in the changing landscape.

-So, my answer is YES, it fits the philosophy, in todays terms.
-And YES, there is certainly a call. We are turning down classification requests more frequently because they exceed the performance envelopes of the available classes.
-I think we could see a few fresh cars that have never been raced, a smattering of cars from the more enthusiastic racers in BMWCCA, PCA, et al., and if we set it up right, some Touring crossovers.
-YES, in some ares, there will be good support, but...in others it will remain thin, as it is today.
-YES, it will "steal" cars from other classes, but in small numbers. It will also help retain certain members who aspire to faster cars, or certain models that aren't currently classed, who would have gone elsewhere.

In the end, the net net, I think, is that it is worth the time to flesh it out.

Send those cards and letters!

[snapback]67556[/snapback]

Can you publish that list of cars that have recently been requested and turned down. I think it would make for some interesting debate all by itself.

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Dec 8 2005, 03:22 AM

In the end, the net net, I think, is that it is worth the time to flesh it out.

Send those cards and letters!

[snapback]67556[/snapback]

Excellent Post Jake,

... Another thing that we in the SEDIV like to race in is the ECR series. This Series covers mostly IT cars. We also have the Pro IT. So , as you can see, a lot of us in the South East would like the class to be in the Improved Touring class.

... Reading some of the posts I get the feeling that IT philosophy might be the biggest stumbling block, Is that so hard to amend? Or can it be that you have a different stage of rules as the performance level increases? Like 8" wheels and a Fuel cell?

.... Rick

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 5 2005, 06:03 PM
I believe the poll you started is going 60% against at this point. are you saying that's all FOG's? I don't think so. Notice before you take a whack at me that I race an old world challenge car with aero and 18" wheels and carbon foiber hoods ect. It looks like a freaking drift car. It runs a kind of catchall that is a region based class. IT's IT on steroids. I am all for new idea's and new cars I am just a realist on what it takes from our program to make it happen.

[snapback]67364[/snapback]

Hmmm, seems like some of the readership is interested, at least at this day and hour. Poll now shows over 50% in favor at this point in time and I imagine some of the open minded FOGs made that happen.

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 8 2005, 03:13 AM
Problem is, that can't be done within the framework of IT, so this new class should be created thinking beyond that frame, considering the needs of a greater number of people, and attempting to solve more problems for more people in the club than the proposal currently on the table.

It will NOT be easy but I think it's worth trying to do, if something is going to be done.

[snapback]67555[/snapback]

I can see where this has merit. I'm just a little "down" on the SCCA accepting change, and AWD/Turbo cars is a big change for SCCA think. I don't think IT should go that route at the moment, IMHO, but as you say, a new class might be needed to accommodate them.

The AWD part I really don't see a problem with. Weight and possibly tire size could be used to balance that.

On the forced induction side, I'd think you'd need to assume that boost is unlimited. And, all stock compressors, turbochargers and superchargers, must be used with no porting of blowers, and no clipping or altering of turbocharger turbine or compressor wheels, housings, etc. No overdriven blowers, all stock intercoolers and piping, etc.

Then, the big question will be, does one try and use a SIR? Seems like they could solve some problems with a class like this.

But still, IT needs an infusion of newer cars. If we created this new class, call it "Class X" that supports turbo/awd cars, then are you suggesting that we throw anything that is outside of ITS into "Class X"? 300z, S2000, 2.8L Z3? If we put all these cars, and others, into "Class X", then IT gets no new cars. Then, IT starts to look pretty sad as a racing class and stuck in the past.

This new class is not IT, as you said it does not fit into the framework of IT rules. Do you suggest changing the framework of IT rules to accommodate a new class? Whew, that sounds like a huge undertaking! Allowing forced induction cars and AWD could have ramifications for almost all classes, A,S for sure, not sure that there is a turbo/supercharged car slow enough for C/B (Geo Metro turbo maybe?).

I think I'm still for simply adding an proper IT class, an ITR, and classing some cars that need to be racing in IT but can't because they are outside of what S can handle. And there are a lot of those that don't require AWD of forced induction accomidations.

Ron

[Andy Bettencourt]

Let's step back a little...

I don't think IT needs help right now. The classification are as strong as they have ever been and car counts are seemingly very high (on the East coast, VERY high). Any IT drivers lost to SM may soon gain them back with National prepped cars running Regional races.

So...why would the CRB/BoD consider an ITR class? I think it would be two-fold. First, there are cars that are in T2/T3 now that are all caged and ready to go...go where? Right now, Grand Am Cup. We lose. Second, there are cars in PCA and BMWCCA that could fit. That at least gives these enthusiasts an option. Tired of lapping days? Try an SCCA school and Regional.

To answer Joe's question, the Integra Type R, the S2000, the AWD Audi A4, and the N/A 300ZX are the only cars requested IIRC, for classification in ITS that have been denied recently.

I also don't think the 'class philosophy' issue gets trampled that much. You can still choose ITC or ITB and work your way up the money tree. Just because a top of the line E36 M3 in ITR might cost $40K, doesn;t mean it has to be your first IT car...but if you have one - and have the money - maybe SCCA should have a place for you now that the Touring cars are out-classed.

We may not need the class TODAY, but we will need something in the near future. I hear some clammoring for an IT Vision statement, yet people are afraid of this idea. Seems like some people want more of an 'operational' statement than something that may plan for the future.

AB

[RacerBill]

Originally posted by seckerich@Dec 5 2005, 11:36 PM

As for the dilution of the current classes--we have needed a thinning of the herd for some time now. When you need to beg 10 friends to run so you keep class numbers up they need to die. When I have to run in a group with 90+ cars and watch a group with 6-10 race by themselves it is a little crazy. Flame away.

[snapback]67428[/snapback]

Well said, Steve!

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 8 2005, 03:13 AM
YES, I THINK WE NEED A CLASS TO ACCOMMODATE CARS THAT, IF PREPARED TO IT RULES WOULD BE TOO FAST FOR THE CURRENT STATE OF ITS.

Including 2.8l BMW Z3s.

[snapback]67555[/snapback]

However... Doesn't the Z3 make about 225hp stock?? If that's the case, then with the appropriate SIR, it could EASILY, and I might add PERFECTLY, fit right into the framework of ITS today...

Think about it... It would be the cheapest of all the BMWs to build, because you wouldn't have to prep the motor at all... The SIR would restrict it to the stock HP levels, it's weight would be appropriate for the class, and all you'd have to do is add the safety/race gear...

Same could be true for the 300Z, etc...

Not all cars would work under this program, but MANY would...

Also, if it won't work under the "existing IT framework", (referring to AWD, Turbos, etc.), then this is NOT an IT matter...

There are rules in place for creating a new class... Start one in your region and garner support... That's what the SM guys did... If it's truely going to fly, then support will build, demand will be there, and you'll have the class...

I see a lot of fantasy talk here about running many of the cars mentioned, but, as has been mentioned, most have been tried before, or they are already racing in other classes...

As for some of these ideas, the CRB is supposedly already working on a class that many of these cars would fit into, and in fact, is basically designed for these types of cars... If they ever get it off the ground, then it would be redundant for some of these cars to end up in IT as well...

Until we utilize the existing IT class space now, this paper ITR eutopia is really just that... a fantasy. Like ITS, the higher you go, the more it costs, and the fewer people will come and play... You may disagree, but look across the class structures now... the higher the costs, the fewer there are participating... ESPECIALLY at a REGIONAL level...

I'm not saying another IT class isn't needed, or wouldn't work, but you are going to have to reign in the scope a bit if it is REALLY going to be viable... When you start mixing AWD, Turbos, etc... all in the same class, parity of any sort is a pipe-dream, and the $$$$$ required just to prepare a car are going to be prohibitive for many... And, who really wants to spend $35,000 on a car just to cut it up and bang the heck out of it in a REGIONAL ONLY class??? Especially after having spent another $10,000 or whatever it would cost to race prep the thing...


I still think we need to use the space we have to it's fullest extent, before we start trying to absorb Touring, etc...

Just my opinion...

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 8 2005, 06:17 AM
Let's step back a little...

I don't think IT needs help right now. The classification are as strong as they have ever been and car counts are seemingly very high (on the East coast, VERY high). Any IT drivers lost to SM may soon gain them back with National prepped cars running Regional races.

So...why would the CRB/BoD consider an ITR class? I think it would be two-fold. First, there are cars that are in T2/T3 now that are all caged and ready to go...go where? Right now, Grand Am Cup. We lose. Second, there are cars in PCA and BMWCCA that could fit. That at least gives these enthusiasts an option. Tired of lapping days? Try an SCCA school and Regional.

To answer Joe's question, the Integra Type R, the S2000, the AWD Audi A4, and the N/A 300ZX are the only cars requested IIRC, for classification in ITS that have been denied recently.

I also don't think the 'class philosophy' issue gets trampled that much. You can still choose ITC or ITB and work your way up the money tree. Just because a top of the line E36 M3 in ITR might cost $40K, doesn;t mean it has to be your first IT car...but if you have one - and have the money - maybe SCCA should have a place for you now that the Touring cars are out-classed.

We may not need the class TODAY, but we will need something in the near future. I hear some clammoring for an IT Vision statement, yet people are afraid of this idea. Seems like some people want more of an 'operational' statement than something that may plan for the future.

AB

[snapback]67566[/snapback]

Thanks Andy, That's about what i figured. I believe since I have raced against many of them that the Type R could be restricted right in to ITS as I know the NA 300z could be. The S-2000 maybe but my guess is the demand is not high there at this point. The AWD deal is just an issue that is a hard one to deal with but at the right handicap could be given a place to race. I think controling the balance on a NA awd will be much easier than adding turbo/SC stuff.

The issue on the 300zx that I don't think anyone has considered when the classification has been asked for is that it can't get down to 2950 as far as I know. I discussed this car with Nissan yesterday and the feeling is that its a 3000lb car stripped. These cars were very heavy to start with. I actually think the 350z comes in lighter stock than the 300 but I will check that. I know the 350 even with IT allowance wont get under 3000lbs.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 01:32 PM
I'm not saying another IT class isn't needed, or wouldn't work, but you are going to have to reign in the scope a bit if it is REALLY going to be viable... When you start mixing AWD, Turbos, etc... all in the same class, parity of any sort is a pipe-dream, and the $$$$$ required just to prepare a car are going to be prohibitive for many... And, who really wants to spend $35,000 on a car just to cut it up and bang the heck out of it in a REGIONAL ONLY class??? Especially after having spent another $10,000 or whatever it would cost to race prep the thing...
I still think we need to use the space we have to it's fullest extent, before we start trying to absorb Touring, etc...

Just my opinion...

[snapback]67570[/snapback]

Darin, I'm not really for mixing AWD/turbos in IT, just cars already mentioned that don't fit in S, but I'm sure you know that regarding my opinion. I'm hoping the ITR discussion doesn't get dragged that way or people reading the thread think that is what the goal is.

Question - If say a class like ITR is approved, do all regions have to adopt or offer it? Just wondering - if approved could regions like the SE what seem to want/need it have it, while regions like the NW that have smaller IT counts and don't want/need it don't have to have it.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 8 2005, 07:52 AM
Question - If say a class like ITR is approved, do all regions have to adopt or offer it? Just wondering - if approved could regions like the SE what seem to want/need it have it, while regions like the NW that have smaller IT counts and don't want/need it don't have to have it.

[snapback]67572[/snapback]

I would say that is it is the rulebook as an official class, they have to offer it. However, any Region could develop an ITR class of their own and run it any time - aka ITRX-7, ITE, ITT, ITD, SPO, SPU, etc.

AB

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 8 2005, 01:59 PM
However, any Region could develop an ITR class of their own and run it any time - aka ITRX-7, ITE, ITT, ITD, SPO, SPU, etc.

AB

[snapback]67573[/snapback]

And, in fact, that's how these "new" classes are suppose to come about... make the rules, show the interest, then submit them for National recognition...

[cherokee]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 01:32 PM


As for some of these ideas, the CRB is supposedly already working on a class that many of these cars would fit into, and in fact, is basically designed for these types of cars... If they ever get it off the ground, then it would be redundant for some of these cars to end up in IT as well...

[snapback]67570[/snapback]

I find this intresting. Another new class for Touring cars to go when they get too old. Perhaps I am reading it wrong but that sounds like what IT was to be for SS cars when they got too old. I would bet in 10-15 years IT will be sliding down hill and this new class that that is talked about will be it. I would be intrested in seeing what level of prep this new class has....I would bet it would be between prod and SS, kinda like IT is now. And I would bet money it will happen. Touring is too big for it not to happen.

If they are talking about making a new class outside of IT then the debate about thinning out the possible drivers is false. A new class comes then it will have drivers. And by looking at the Touring fields the class will be popular. Would you rather have a new class outside of IT or these cars put into IT somehow. If you say you want them outside of IT then I think you are going to limit what new cars are going into IT most new stuff will go into this "new" class for Touring cars when they get too old to run Touring anymore. I can see the FastTrack now. "does not fit into the intent of IT"

I realy think that for IT to remain fresh it needs these new cars IT rules where written 20something years ago, Chevy was still using Cross Fire Injection for goodness sake. Things have come a long long way. And IF IT is not going to change itself to reflect the stuff that is out on the market it will die. Slowly, kicking and screaming, like GT4 GT5.

Then again I am told I am a glass half empty kind of guy.

[Joe Harlan]

If you want to gauge a new class your poll should ask the question.

Would you really build a car for a class above ITS.

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 01:32 PM
And, who really wants to spend $35,000 on a car just to cut it up and bang the heck out of it in a REGIONAL ONLY class??? Especially after having spent another $10,000 or whatever it would cost to race prep the thing...

[snapback]67570[/snapback]

...Where in the world do these prices come from?....

... I bought my BMW Z3 in California a year ago, with only 72k miles on it, for 10K

... I thought the purpose for this thread was to get a feeling for the acceptance of another Improved Touring Class. Please don't "Snow" us with inflated numbers

... Lets be real about this, Okay? Ten year old cars do not sell for retail in this region of the US

...Just my opinion,

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 8 2005, 08:48 AM
...Where in the world do these prices come from?....

... I bought my BMW Z3 in California a year ago, with only 72k miles on it, for 10K

... I thought the purpose for this thread was to get a feeling for the acceptance of another Improved Touring Class. Please don't "Snow" us with inflated numbers

... Lets be real about this, Okay? Ten year old cars do not sell for retail in this region of the US

...Just my opinion,

[snapback]67589[/snapback]

OK so lets use the 10k number for a donor. Add another 15k minimum to make it a reasonable mid packer. How many younger folks are gonna pop for the 10k donor? Spec Miata was hot when tubs were 2400 bucks and you could get to mid pack for 10k. NOw mid pack is 18k and the numbers are starting to drop. I can afford to build about any car I want for these classes but the average numbers say that it is not the case for most.

Again. If I understood the how to poll on this page I would ask the question.

Would you actually build a race car for a class above ITS?