ITR Class Poll

[Knestis]

I've been following along but trying to avoid getting cast on either of sides of the trenchline on this - mostly because it has expanded to four fronts, two insurrections, one well-organized resistance, and a smoldering guerilla war - but also because I am really of the opinion that something DOES need to be done here.

However, for completely academic purposes...

** At what point is a rule set changed enough that it's no longer "Improved Touring?"

** Is it necessary that a new class to address the policy issues Ron opened with be called "Improved Touring?" What if it creates additional problems - organizational, philosophical, or cultural - by doing so? Is it worth the cost?

** To what degree are the benefits of a new class balanced against the inevitable down-sides? What ARE some of the potential unanticipated outcomes of the addition of Class X?

How about setting free some of the preconceived notions for the sake of brainstorming what this class SHOULD be, if it could be anything it wanted? Don't hem anyone in at this point by having to address the IT wheel rules or anything else.

What would it look like?

I understand the logic - and it's good logic - of not trying to create a whole new category, instead "simply" creating a new class within IT. However, there might be sufficient smaller issues that need to be resolved, that trying to put it under the IT tent might be counterproductive - giving people too many things to worry about.

K

[JeffYoung]

Darin, sorry, no break. Not trying to be rude, but in ITS we have front running cars that are 30+ years old (240z), 20 years old (RX7) and 10 years old (325). We need new blood. Zs are getting parked here in the SEDiv. People are not racing them because of the 325, and because they are high maintenance. You need to keep new brake parts on them. You have to adjust drums before every race. Valve springs may last a season.

IT is, I agree, healthy now. But if you don't start putting cars in the class that 20 and 30 year olds actually recognize, it's not going to stay that way. A 30 year old guy who's been successful and done well and wants to go race a car he was fond of when he was 15 can't race a Supra or a 300zx in IT. That's silly in my view.

Why is this so hard to understand? We need to class newer cars. Newer cars are faster than those presently in S. We need a new class above S.

Is it that hard to see? I really do not understand the resistance to this.

[JeffYoung]

As far as my comments on the TR8 When you start finishing races and getting the other 5 secs out of the car the program will be way different.

Joe, you don't know TR8s, and you don't apparently know Z cars either. The brakes are the brakes. That's not where the time is.

As far as my racing in IT goes...Um I think building 8 IT cars and at least 20+ engines and maintaining 14 to 15 cars locally allows me the room to talk IT. So that dog don't hunt either bud. I understand things get faster but I also understand we have the ability to race a 6.0 liter Caddy/GTO against a 3.5 liter 350z today and do it well. Your right this aint the 70's were have greater technology to control the things we couldn't before.

Ok, you build cars for people. Do you race them?

Yes, you can choke of the Caddy and lighten up the 350z in PRO competition. But in club racing is that what you want?

Again, we see ITR differently. You make your proposal, if you have the desire to do so. We'll make ours -- and it will be made because we WANT to race in an ITR class.

[JeffYoung]

Joe, car counts in the SEDiv and the NEDiv are much higher than where you are located, plus we have NASA, EMRA, PCA and BMWCCA. The main thing keeping 911s and 968s and 944s out of SCCA in the SEDiv right now is not money, is not fender banging, it is COMPETITIVENESS. NASA runs a 944 Cup that includes 944 Turbos and 968s and they had a 30 car field at Roebling in September. 30 cars. I talked to some of those guys and they would love to run SCCA if they thought hey had a chance.

The BMW guys are starting to think that way too with the weight correction that is coming. You overstate the "social" side of PCA/BMWCAA. Those guys do race, and would race SCCA. They don't, but not for the reasons you suggest.

Your 300zx example is interesting. Let's put it this way - in 10 years or so, it is going to be hard to class ANY car at less than 3000 lbs given higher stock curb weights that won't allow the car to reach lower weight. Again, it really seems to me that you want to freeze ITS as it stands now and restrict incoming cars with an SIR. I see no reason to do that as it is an artificial attempt to ignore the performance capabilities of the average street car of 2005.



********


Again Ron, not everybody has your money, How many people do you really think are gonna show up to race IT in a 968? How many 911's do you really think will go out and bang fenders in an IT class? Not enough to make a class that how many. The reality is most PCA folks race for social purposes and a little spirited fun they do not want to take the chance of actually messing up those cars the cross over will be minimal at best. Hell NASA will run any car any where are they getting the PCA cross over? I doubt it.

I have driven many a 300ZX curb weight is 3086 and that's about as light as your gonna get now add a 200lb driver to it. Did youforget that 1.75 inch cage that has to go in there? The car has 75lbs of brakes on it. They are just heavy period.
Darin, I am nnot looking at the E36 when making these comparisons. One thing to consider is that alot of these new Vtec type engines ect. are not gonna see the gains that the early stuff will.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Dec 9 2005, 07:21 PM
As far as my comments on the TR8 When you start finishing races and getting the other 5 secs out of the car the program will be way different.

Joe, you don't know TR8s, and you don't apparently know Z cars either. The brakes are the brakes. That's not where the time is.

As far as my racing in IT goes...Um I think building 8 IT cars and at least 20+ engines and maintaining 14 to 15 cars locally allows me the room to talk IT. So that dog don't hunt either bud. I understand things get faster but I also understand we have the ability to race a 6.0 liter Caddy/GTO against a 3.5 liter 350z today and do it well. Your right this aint the 70's were have greater technology to control the things we couldn't before.

Ok, you build cars for people. Do you race them?

Yes, you can choke of the Caddy and lighten up the 350z in PRO competition. But in club racing is that what you want?

Again, we see ITR differently. You make your proposal, if you have the desire to do so. We'll make ours -- and it will be made because we WANT to race in an ITR class.

[snapback]67794[/snapback]

Jeff, Have I raced them? Yes in about every configuration you can think of. I build competitive engines for them custom exhausts and custom brake cooling systems for them, I spend at least 6 to 10 test days in them and I can at will get right down or very close to the track record with any of my customer cars. You have a lot of sack sasying I know knothing of Z brakes. Yes you have to maintain them every session and you have to have good stuff on the all the time. that is the cost of racing and it is the cost of racing any car at the top. I actually tried to offer a little help with your 260 when you guys first started running but it seems you all have way more experience than I could ever come up with. Not a big deal but you really should know I have been a sucessful race shop for 10 years now.

As far as the Caddy/350 deal goes its club racing and we have been racing them against each other for several years now. (see statement about olooking outside your own world) the 350z class weight is 3268 with driver and we can't get the even with a light driver given IT prep we could get another 75lbs out. Newer cars are being built very stout to meet crash standards so minimums weights are going up based on that fact.

[JeffYoung]

These are good questions. Here's my personal opinion, probably not unexpected. Would like to hear others. I agree these questions should shape the debate.

** At what point is a rule set changed enough that it's no longer "Improved Touring?"

JMY -- a while back, we talked about what constitued ITness. I think we boiled it down to 4-5 or core categories. Very limited engine prep (stock cams, pistons, induction), free suspension within the confines of the stock mounting points, and no alteration to bodywork. ITR should fit those categories.

** Is it necessary that a new class to address the policy issues Ron opened with be called "Improved Touring?" What if it creates additional problems - organizational, philosophical, or cultural - by doing so? Is it worth the cost?

JMY - I say absolutely a new class is needed. Very soon, IT will not "reflect" the car world as it existed five years previous, and it needs to. Those are the types of cars that IT should be attracting, and that new members should be building. Not TR8s, not Jensen-Healeys, not 240zs, not Volvo 142s, not BMW 2002s.

Kirk, what additional problems do you see? Putting aside AWD and forced induction.

** To what degree are the benefits of a new class balanced against the inevitable down-sides? What ARE some of the potential unanticipated outcomes of the addition of Class X?

JMY-- I don't see the downside other than cost. ITR will cost. It may draw some cars off of S as well, but A survives as a "tweener" class between S and B and in fact is perhaps the healthiest of the IT classes right now.


What would it look like?

JMY -- I think ITR should "look" like the car world from 5-20 years previous. By 2007 or 2008 when and if this comes on line, this means 250 hp is standard on a street car, as are 16, 17 and 18 inch wheels, four wheel disc brakes, 6-speed transmissions and sophisticated suspensions.

Wasn't that always the point of IT anyway, putting aside $$$$? To take readily available 5 year and older cars and make them race cars? Readily available cars in 2008 will have 250 hp V6s and six speed transmission etc.

To me, it is that simple, although I'm interested in hearing how others respond. I just don't see why some think you can't have ITR and at the same time keep ITS, A, B and even C with little or no impact on them.

[JeffYoung]

Joe, I have "sack" when someone starts talking about a car that I've spent a lot of time building, improving and finishing races with. I remember your help on the 260 and it was, and still is appreciated, but the personal stuff started with you. Remember that.

Enough of this publicly, I'll send you a PM.

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 5 2005, 04:24 AM
It's a little early to play the "take my ball and go home" card, don't you think?

[snapback]67315[/snapback]

..... Nine pages later, and still no compromise. Makes me feel like we are lobbying for a House Bill. Huh Jeff. I guess "taking our ball and going home" would have saved a lot of wasted time with these pessimists.

....Fact is ..... The purpose of this thread is to gather numbers as to whether or not people would support a class ( ITR ) Not gather propaganda. Guess that goes in line with the X in Christmas thing.

.... I'm glad it doesn't snow here. Visibility is much better.

.... I'll admit I'm not the sharpest pencil in the box, but, I know when to quit wasting my time.

.... Don't let these guys get to you Jeff, you're better than that.

[instigator]

Well I have not said much. I do support the creation of this class. I did read on other post of dead classes ITD. maybe the cure is ower current ITC cars are actually ITD cars, our ITB cars are ITC cars, our ITA cars are ITB, our ITS cars are ITA cars, and we currently don't have modern ITS cars. Alot of valid points have been stated, and alot of knowledge,experience, and respected members have spoken. I think the answer may be in a new class or correcting current standards of performance and reviving a lost class for modern standards. I do think we need to create a place in current IT for modern exhuast feumes( current up coming car models).

Kurt Jackson
IT7 #59 and #00

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by instigator@Dec 9 2005, 08:42 PM
Well I have not said much. I do support the creation of this class. I did read on other post of dead classes ITD. maybe the cure is ower current ITC cars are actually ITD cars, our ITB cars are ITC cars, our ITA cars are ITB, our ITS cars are ITA cars, and we currently don't have modern ITS cars. Alot of valid points have been stated, and alot of knowledge,experience, and respected members have spoken. I think the answer may be in a new class or correcting current standards of performance and reviving a lost class for modern standards. I do think we need to create a place in current IT for modern exhuast feumes( current up coming car models).

Kurt Jackson
IT7 #59 and #00

[snapback]67803[/snapback]

Kurt, I am gonna ask a question. Why do you race IT7? This is a very serious question and no disrespect is meant by it.

[instigator]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 10 2005, 03:49 AM
Kurt, I am gonna ask a question. Why do you race IT7? This is a very serious question and no disrespect is meant by it.

[snapback]67804[/snapback]

It was the first afordable car I could buy at current finaces. I will continue to race in it . the cars are very reliable and parts are still readly avalible. compitition is usally very close.


Kurt Jackson
IT7 #59&00

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 9 2005, 03:52 PM
Maybe this would be a start??

Acura RSX Type-S 2002
Acura Integra 97-99 190
Alfa Romeo Milano 3.0L (87-89) 183
BMW 325i/is (2 & 4door) (92-95) 189
BMW M Coupe 98-99
BMW M3 95-99
BMW 328ci/i 1999
BMW Z3 2.8L 97-98
Ford Mustang V6 1999+ 190
Honda Prelude SH & non-SH (97-98) 195
Honda Prelude V-Tech 190
Honda S2000 2000
Mercedes-Benz 190E 2.3L 16V 185
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 86-88
Nissan Maxima 89-94 175
Nissan Maxima 95-99 (A32
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 225
Porsche Boxter S 2000
Porsche 968 1995
Toyota Supra 1998
Toyota Supra 95-97
Toyota Supra (86 1/2-87) 200
Some are already in ITS, but at pretty heavy weights... Others may be able to fit into ITS with an SIR at a lighter weight, but I'm not sure how widespread I'd suggest the use of these be until there is some water under the bridge and they've been proven to work as expected...

[snapback]67769[/snapback]

Hey Darin,

Let me help with some of those numbers from R&T comparisons

James

Make: Model: Year: Hp: Tq:
Acura RSX Type-R 2002
Acura Integra 97-99 190
Alfa-Romeo Milano 3.0L 87-89 183
BMW 325i/is(2/4door) 92-95 189
BMW M Coupe/Roadster 98-00 240 236
BMW M3(e-36) 95-99 240 236
BMW 328ci/i(e-36) 95-99 190 207
BMW Z3 2.8L 97-98 189 203
BMW Z3 2.5L (2.3) 99-00 170 181
Ford Mustang V6 1999+ 190
Honda Prelude(SH & non) 97-98 195
Honda Prelude(V-Tech) 190
Honda S2000 2000 240 153
Mercedes-Benz 190E, 2.3L 16V 185
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 86-88
Nissan Maxima 89-94 175
Nissan Maxima(A32 95-99
Nissan 300Z (Z32) 89-96 225
Porsche Boxter S 2000 201 181
Porsche 968 1995
Toyota Supra 1998
Toyota Supra 95-97
Toyota Supra 86 1/2-87 200

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by instigator@Dec 9 2005, 09:03 PM
It was the first afordable car I could buy at current finaces. I will continue to race in it . the cars are very reliable and parts are still readly avalible. compitition is usally very close.
Kurt Jackson
IT7 #59&00

[snapback]67805[/snapback]

So again respectfully, Why not ITA?

[instigator]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 10 2005, 04:23 AM
So again respectfully, Why not ITA?

[snapback]67807[/snapback]

Well due to the tire rule for this year in IT7 here in the south east I will race one of the cars in ITA and see if I can give ricky some company in ITA. BTW l don't think the ITA,IT7 dirt needs to be brought up in this pole. No disrespect implied.
I belive this pole is about cars to be introdced in our selection or varites of cars to have place to compete.(help create new interest, members,and more competitors)

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by instigator@Dec 9 2005, 09:43 PM
Well due to the tire rule for this year in IT7 here in the south east I will race one of the cars in ITA and see if I can give ricky some company in ITA. BTW l don't think the ITA,IT7 dirt needs to be brought up in this pole. No disrespect implied.
I belive this pole is about cars to be introdced in our selection or varites of cars to have place to compete.(help create new interest, members,and more competitors)

[snapback]67808[/snapback]

Well I guess I must not be aware of the dirt you refer? I do consider it relevant. I am trying to understand why when there is a class that a car fits it would be raced somewhere else. Not rying to stir anything up.

I have always felt that had the Miata been classed properly in the begining it we would not have seen the outgrowth of another class. Anyway thanks for answering what you did.

[JeffYoung]

Joe, what brought IT7 about in my view was the belief after the 2nd Gen CRX Si was classed that the 7 could not longer be competitive in A. There are some very well developed and well driven 7s in the SEDiv that belie that contention, but I agree with Jake and Andy that the raw numbers would indicate the 7 can't run with the CRX, or now (even more so) the Integras and the 240sx.

So, the 7 drivers got together and started their own class because they felt there were enough of them to have fun, and competitive racing, between only RX7s.

I'm interested why you think the Miata was misclassed? Although it took a while, SM run close to the ITA track records here in teh SEDiv. With full IT prep, I think the car can be a near over-dog in ITA although it has some straight line issues that Andy B. is correct in pointing out.

In fact, an ITA Miata has won the SEDiv ITA championship at least once in teh last few years.

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Dec 9 2005, 10:15 PM
Joe, what brought IT7 about in my view was the belief after the 2nd Gen CRX Si was classed that the 7 could not longer be competitive in A. There are some very well developed and well driven 7s in the SEDiv that belie that contention, but I agree with Jake and Andy that the raw numbers would indicate the 7 can't run with the CRX, or now (even more so) the Integras and the 240sx.

So, the 7 drivers got together and started their own class because they felt there were enough of them to have fun, and competitive racing, between only RX7s.

I'm interested why you think the Miata was misclassed? Although it took a while, SM run close to the ITA track records here in teh SEDiv. With full IT prep, I think the car can be a near over-dog in ITA although it has some straight line issues that Andy B. is correct in pointing out.

In fact, an ITA Miata has won the SEDiv ITA championship at least once in teh last few years.

[snapback]67811[/snapback]

Well I think I may not have said that correct. I think there was afeeling it was misclassed and the cars did not catch on until the prices bottomed out. I agree on the IT7 deal and that is why I have always felt the RX7 and the MR2 should have been the cars to balance the class to. I say should have because I think the cat is way to far out of the bag for that although I do feel a really serious well driven effort could get very close to the front. I think the Miata is well classed now with both cars in ITA and I think the neons are a great fit also. The question is really for my own information. Out here we have like 100 classes and nobody actually races anybody other than maybe SRF or SM.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 10 2005, 02:14 AM
Again Ron, not everybody has your money, How many people do you really think are gonna show up to race IT in a 968? How many 911's do you really think will go out and bang fenders in an IT class? Not enough to make a class that how many. The reality is most PCA folks race for social purposes and a little spirited fun they do not want to take the chance of actually messing up those cars the cross over will be minimal at best. Hell NASA will run any car any where are they getting the PCA cross over? I doubt it.

[snapback]67790[/snapback]

Joe, "my money", from what I can tell, appears to be about mid-pack as far as SCCA racers go - 20ft enclosed trailer, 2wd pickup truck, no fancy rig or paddock kit. My cars - the 260z cost $5000, the Jensen Healey cost $1700 and build out about another $12k or so. FYI, you can get Porsche 968s from around $7k-13k today if you like, some 911s (one right now on Autotrader for $9.9k) for less - this without hunting. BMW 325i donors are not a lot different than this in price. And, given I've shopped for 968s/911/928s before, I know I can find one in the $5-$7k range that would be suitable for a race car, and, that I can afford. I would submit your own customers have far more race money than I do since they pay you for your services. We do our own work except in extreme situations, we don't have money to pay folks to build or maintain our cars.

There are SCCA IT racers with far more money than I, at least here in the SE, and that is fine. ITU/ITR does not have to be accesssable to every IT racer, just as S is not accessable to every IT racer. Even so, I think it'll be reasonable accessable, particularily if we quit talking about Porsche cars and consider some of the import/domestic ITU/ITR cars. Like FWD and on a budget? A Taurus SHO (3380 curb, full up, it'll make a good race weight, $1,500 right now on Ebay) and is extremely affordable.

We've got a couple of 911s now that just came to the 13 hour to "bang fenders". NASA 944 Cup, as someone pointed out, in the SE has huge car fields and they will come race SCCA, as I mentioned earlier. You're right, a few folks won't ever do it, but we, the SCCA, could pick up some NASA, PCA, and BMWCCA members with a ITR/ITU class to fit their cars. And we have enough members with interest, at least in the SE and NE, that will race in a ITU/ITR class.

I wish to see the SCCA IT racing grow, grow with the progression of technology/cars, and I think the way to do it is to include some modern sports cars into our fields.

Ron

PS - Kirk, what part do I get to be in? The insurrection, the resistance, or the guerilla war?

[Knestis]

Thanks, Jeff. More...

JMY -- a while back, we talked about what constitued ITness. I think we boiled it down to 4-5 or core categories. Very limited engine prep (stock cams, pistons, induction), free suspension within the confines of the stock mounting points, and no alteration to bodywork. ITR should fit those categories.

KK - good point of reference. That list was a good one but my take was what "should" be the core elements of IT. That was in the context of removing side glass, marker lights, and washer bottles, as I recall. How do those five bedrock standards translate into detail, though, in Class X? Where will the details be forced to differ from the current IT category detail assumptions (e.g., wheel diameters?

JMY - I say absolutely a new class is needed. Very soon, IT will not "reflect" the car world as it existed five years previous, and it needs to. Those are the types of cars that IT should be attracting, and that new members should be building. Not TR8s, not Jensen-Healeys, not 240zs, not Volvo 142s, not BMW 2002s. Kirk, what additional problems do you see? Putting aside AWD and forced induction.

KK - more and more, I'm understanding that the real question eventually might become not, "Do we need another class above ITS?" (answer I think is "yes"), but instead, "What changes to the IT CATEGORY are politically viable, that might be necessary to make a new class above S possible?" The biggest challenge is going to be potential "negative externalities" to the existing classes, resulting either directly or as an unanticipated outcome of Class X. It's pretty clear that some of the concerns voiced here come out of (appropriate) expectation that, if Class X cars get something different than current IT allowances, that people in other classes will quickly come to expect the same thing.

For example (and I pick this because it won't likely happen), if the "ITR" cars are allowed rear wings, as part of the vision to make them appeal to the M3 demographic that I see at Tarheel club days (who already have wings), then "wings" become a de facto part of the detail definition of "Improved Touring-ness." It will be essentially impossible at that point to prevent rules creep in the four, old-school IT classes, once that new technology gains a toehold.

JMY-- I don't see the downside other than cost. ITR will cost. It may draw some cars off of S as well, but A survives as a "tweener" class between S and B and in fact is perhaps the healthiest of the IT classes right now.

KK - it's not a small thing that new classes siphon cars out of old ones. As classes proliferate, scheduling gets harder, newcomers get increasingly confused, and (I think) the program suffers overall due to more classes with fewer participants in each. (That's a statement of philosophy, which evidence suggests is out of the mainstream, wherein it SEEMS like many participants would rather be more competitive against fewer cars.) The primary downside is the impact on the stability of the existing IT classes. Stability is a positive spin on "nothing changes," which is obviously the problem you are arguing, but the trick is balancing progress with not alienating a lot of people.

JMY -- I think ITR should "look" like the car world from 5-20 years previous. By 2007 or 2008 when and if this comes on line, this means 250 hp is standard on a street car, as are 16, 17 and 18 inch wheels, four wheel disc brakes, 6-speed transmissions and sophisticated suspensions.

KK - this is where we get to the nugget of the deal. This proposal is about potentially redefining the IT category for a time that is very different than the one in which it was originally created, even if it is being done to accomplish essentially the same goals. This makes the conversation MUCH more complex than just adding another class above S.

K

PS - Ron is the classic centrist reactionary, sort of an early Peronist.

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 10 2005, 01:36 PM
[b]
JMY - I say absolutely a new class is needed. Very soon, IT will not "reflect" the car world as it existed five years previous, and it needs to. Those are the types of cars that IT should be attracting, and that new members should be building. Not TR8s, not Jensen-Healeys, not 240zs, not Volvo 142s, not BMW 2002s. Kirk, what additional problems do you see? Putting aside AWD and forced induction.

KK - more and more, I'm understanding that the real question eventually might become not, "Do we need another class above ITS?" (answer I think is "yes"), but instead, "What changes to the IT CATEGORY are politically viable, that might be necessary to make a new class above S possible?" The biggest challenge is going to be potential "negative externalities" to the existing classes, resulting either directly or as an unanticipated outcome of Class X. It's pretty clear that some of the concerns voiced here come out of (appropriate) expectation that, if Class X cars get something different than current IT allowances, that people in other classes will quickly come to expect the same thing.

PS - Ron is the classic centrist reactionary, sort of an early Peronist.

[snapback]67818[/snapback]

Whew. Had to look that one up and consult. Early Peronist I'd have to disagree with; I feel I'm definitely more accommodating and open than that. Maybe my sense of urgency and responsiveness to the issue has a tendency to cast me as a lighthearted fascist?

I don't feel that IT "Class X" should get any other allowances beyond what is in the IT rules charter. There will be impacts on the existing classes for sure though. I'd certainly think that people will move up a class to race more modern machinery. But, isn't that the natural progression of things? As they move up the slower IT classes will probably become less populated and may need to be consolidated. I know this only addresses what IT needs right now, but that turbo/AWD etc. road is going to be a tough one to hoe in IT, and as mentioned, maybe that needs to be outside of IT.

Things cannot remain in static and locked in time forever. Heck, it is going to be hard in coming years to even find cars slow enough to class in C, maybe B, and a lot of it might have to do with weight. There might be some cars slow enough, at 115hp and 3000 lbs, but folks probably won't wish to have a 3000lb car driving around with their 1800lb XYZ.

Ron