ITR Class Poll

[bldn10]

I raised this point many pages ago but got no response so let me state it a different way. I personally do not intend to go ITR - I'm spending all I want to now - so my interest is in what effect ITR would have on ITS. What do you think? Would it be good for ITS?

[zracre]

Originally posted by bldn10@Dec 10 2005, 12:00 PM
I raised this point many pages ago but got no response so let me state it a different way. I personally do not intend to go ITR - I'm spending all I want to now - so my interest is in what effect ITR would have on ITS. What do you think? Would it be good for ITS?

[snapback]67824[/snapback]

I think that all depends on the status of the 325 E36 changes...My belief is if they allow that car unrestricted in ITR some people would migrate slowly until more ITR cars are built...If allowances are made to lighten up existing ITS cars it would just hurt the class and IT in general. Many people are in ITS as it is the fastest class (big fish little pond) and if you make a bigger faster class, the spenders will go there to be top dog. I would like to see a class for these to run with similar mods but it should be outside the IT scope. The lap times of ITS cars vs. Speed Touring cars are not all that far off...but fast enough to need more safety equipment. There are currently plenty of classes that allow the stuff we are talking about now (ITE SPO SPU etc) and those classes are not that full and sometimes contain cars that hurt us in the IT ranks (straightaway fast corner '78 Impala). I think we should leave it the way it is now and let people build them in enough numbers to warrant a new class....my .02 cents

[Bill Miller]

redefining the IT category for a time that is very different than the one in which it was originally created,

Kirk,

You were around when IT started. IT today has little if any resemeblence to the IT of 20 years ago. It has followed the classic SCCA rules creep model. But more importantly, the state of automotive technology is so much more advanced than it was 20 or 25 years ago. When was the last time that an IT-compatible car was produced w/ a carb??

Trying to flesh out ITR would be a lot easier if the IT classification process was public knowledge. Pick a performance ratio, and just start running cars through the process. I think a pretty viable list would fall out, in pretty short order. As would cars that probably wouldn't fit. Making special allowances, is something that should not even be considered, with the possible exception of limiting what can be done (i.e. limited-prep IT).

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by bldn10@Dec 10 2005, 04:00 PM
I raised this point many pages ago but got no response so let me state it a different way. I personally do not intend to go ITR - I'm spending all I want to now - so my interest is in what effect ITR would have on ITS. What do you think? Would it be good for ITS?

[snapback]67824[/snapback]

I don't think anyone can give you a clear answer on that question. And, I think "good" is a relative term.

I would imagine you'll have some people leave S for R. Some must race in the highest category of a series. Some would want to race some of the cars that would become available. But, there would also be some upgrade effect as well. When S drivers in a region moved their car might be up for sale, bringing a new person into S or bringing someone up from A,B, or C.

Certainly, it seems to me it'd have an effect on the community as a whole. Although I think the effect would be more limited to S and A classes. And as for for "good or bad", well, naturally as a proponent of ITU/ITR I think it is good. The interested racers would be able to race a car they wish to race, and, that is good.

If we make some new classes to accommodate progress and new technology there will certainly be changes in how IT classes are populated right now. But, I think that is good - it means IT is adapting and changing and not remaining stagnant or stuck in the 70s/80s and hopefully, won't end up resemblng a production field.

[Knestis]

This is evidence that I am either (a) willing to look at both sides of this issue, or ( mad, but I can see a "real" ITR being good for the longterm health of ITS - if one result were to lower the mean perfomance of S.

There are a lot of those tweener cars that, if added, would potentially upset the ITA applecart. (That's the NEW ITA, not the pre-IT2 ITA.) The last couple Si Civics come to mind. If the top of S went to R, it could be pulled down to make more room for those cars, at reasonable weights.

K

PS - Bill probably knows what I think about the net result of IT rules creep.

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 11 2005, 09:47 AM


PS - Bill probably knows what I think about the net result of IT rules creep.

[snapback]67860[/snapback]

I'll take a wild guess


BLEH!

[zracre]

Alot of talk of rules creep (a known issue) but no talk of performance creep...IOW, many people are willing to spend money on cars that are considered average to class then people start pulling the potential out if them. Greg, you put together a car that could hang with the top guys at the ARRC in a car many would say needs too much development awesome job!!! but can you imagine if the aftermarket support was there for the stock SR20DE like there is for the B series or even D series honda? When lots of time and development (and good driving) goes into any effort you are going to have a higher performance envelope...SM cars are in the 2:39's at Sebring...a good a time there is 2:36...I like racing a Honda as the aftermarket support is there and they are stone reliable....call me lazy but im more into the driving than working on them...dont get me wrong i love to build my cars but I dont want to have to hunt around alot to be top dog...I have been known to build and race some funky cars, but if you are there to win, go with the most current potential.

[JeffYoung]

Stayed away from the Board for a few days, things were getting a bit out of hand (on my side). Sorry guys.

Kirk, good points. My additional thoughts below.

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 10 2005, 01:36 PM

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?


JMY2: Other than a few (in fact, possibly one and that is wheel diameter) change to reflect the reality of 2000+ cars, I would envision ITR's rules to be exactly the same as IT. I do think that, at some point though, we will need to deal with forced induction and AWD.

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.

JMY2: Good point -- obviously any changes made to the IT rules to accomodate ITR cars need to be carefully thought out. However, I still don't see any reason to change anything about the ITCS other than wheel diameter in order to set up ITR.

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.

JMY2: I agree. However, I also think the following:

a. A has survived between S and B and is probably the healthiest of the IT classes. In thinking it through this weekend, I actually think S may be healthier if you remove the guys who run it because it is the fastest of the IT classes. If you allow the class to focus on Z cars, Integra GSRs, RX7s and 944s, and let the guys who love those cars run them without worrying about the $50k Bimmer, etc. you might see more Integras, the parked Z cars might come back, the 944s might come over from NASA 944 Cup etc.

b. On class dilution, I think we have lost ITD. I frankly think (and I am not advocating the delisting of any car or the "death" of any class) that ITC will not be with us for long (simply because no one is building ITC cars). B is healthy for now, but in 10 years, it will be hard to classify a car in B I think. So, as the performance parameters of street cars shift upwards, so too does the IT classing system but without any real dilution as the same body of cars will fit into essentially the same three classes.

I guess what I am trying to say is that the ITS-ITA-ITB of today will probably be ITR-ITS-ITA in 10 years. B will exist but will have low car counts (like C now). C will exist but only when someone (rarely) brings an old C car out.

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.

JMY2: Yes, I agree this is the core of it. I guess where I differ is I believe that, other than the AWD/forced induction problem, the only real change needed to the ITCS to allow for ITR is larger wheel diameters. Kirk, am I missing somehting? Are there other things that will need to change?

K

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

[snapback]67818[/snapback]

[Hotshoe]

... For those of you that are interested, please take a few minutes and write to the Club Racing Board.

Here is a possible format for you to use:

1. "I have a XXX and would like to build it for IT. Currently, I realize it is outside the parameters of ITS but should a class above materialize, I would be in."

2. "I think a class above ITS is needed for the growth and overall health of IT as a category (individual explanation as to why would be great)"

Or a combination of the two...I think the CRB needs to know there will be cars and drivers ready to build/buy when/if it hits. It will also be important to know where these people are coming from - But if it robs Peter to pay Paul...not soooo great But for a person like those of you outside of the GCR now , it would be a success IMHO.

Any letters with just a request - and no idea/reasoning/benefit are of little use.

AB

Thanks Andy,

... And these letters can be sent to: [email protected]

... You do not have to be a member of the SCCA to write.