M'kay - so think out of the box...

[gran racing]

I like the general spec IT idea. I think it would be a good idea to have the same cars that run in IT also classed in spec IT. The primary reason being for this is to give a person another step after spec IT. A person could build the car for spec IT (cheaply!), then after a while they may want to do more with it. At this point they can use the same car, just build it up more. By having the cars in both categories, it would most likely keep people from creatively spending money in Oh, don’t leave shocks open. There is a ton of money to be spent in this area and would quickly defeat the purpose of this class. Showroom stock doesn’t allow different suspension systems and they do just fine.

I didn’t replace my very old suspension on my Prelude until after the licensing school – by that point it has over 190K miles on the car with the original suspension. I only mention this to eliminate the whole “but showroom stock cars are much newer and their suspension doesn’t have a ton of miles on them” excuse. Sway bars open, maybe.

No claim rule. I can just picture it now - all of those silly VW, Mazda and Audi guys would quickly be claiming the Hondas. And who could blame them? My real reason for this is that I know my Prelude well, and have a bunch of spare parts for it. When I pop open the hood on my VW (don’t worry, its only a winter beater J ), it looks very, very different.

I am not in favor of let anyone out and race on the track. My first time racing was very intimidating. And that was after doing several HPDEs, feeling very comfortable on the track, and being one of the faster guys out there. When I got out on the track, ummm, wow – this is different! If that were one of my first experiences on the track, I would have quickly said that this just isn’t for me.

Hopefully SCCA will really promote the whole high performance driving program. I like how NASA integrates their HPDE & races. Yes, maybe the participation numbers allow this better right now for NASA. So, maybe we just allow the advanced group to have a session during the race weekend. In the NER (and I’m sure many other regions too), we have a few national classes run with our regional races. Make the national guys run the national races, which would allow room for some HPDE run groups.

[ggnagy]

various blue sky thoughts.

spec IT :
Being a MARRS flunkey, I like the SRX7/SSM type of spec rules (except for the safety stuff) but jeez, why cant someone put their heads together and figure out a SPEC specification that will make other popular car models run close to the same lap times. We've got freaking spec this, and spec that and spec the other popping up all over. Think SS cars with stripped interiors and trunk kits and find a way to integrate them.

"junker" class:
anyone remember the gaggles of slow Renalt Le Cars racing in SSC? How about a class for the 3cyl metros and that small car Ford had (ka?) with cage, belts, seats and gutting. Cheap as dirt and I'm willing to bet that they have very little in go faster parts that people would "unknowingly" have in their cars.

IT Formula cars:
We did that one once allready. It was called FJr. One engine ended up being dominant (Ford). Then some guys decided their uncompetitive FJ engine/chassis needed a spec series. we call that FV today. How about, instead, a LOCOST (lotus 7 clone) series. Spec the suspension/drivetrain parts, and set weights for various IT prep motors.

attracting soloII crossover:
Write safety equipment rule addendums to Street Mod

[JMohn]

It seems like there are really two issues here:

1) How to better serve those already involved, and perhaps keep them from leaving.
2) How to attract new people to the sport.

Obviously the former has gotten lots of attention in the past and most certainly will in the future from people on this message board and on garage benches and bar stools across the continent. But I think the latter is the one that most people here will have difficulty with because you're already involved. Try to think outside the box or paradigm-shift or whatever euphamism is popular right now.

The point is it is difficult for human beings to see from the point of view of someone who is fundamentally different from ourselves. But that's exactly what you have to do to attract people who aren't already doing this. (Of course, that assumes that you want people that are fundamentally different to show up )

Therefore, I think it would be wise to consider a class that most people here would probably not want to compete in. It doesn't necessarily need to be competitive, or challenging, or (quite frankly) fair. It just needs to be easy. Take a look at every single step it takes to get a novice with no car onto the track and ask yourself: is this necessary? how can this be easier? how can the costs be kept down? Every barrier to entry keeps potential rookies from showing up, so smooth over as many as possible as much as possible.

If someone wants to be more competitive or make adjustments to their vehicle then that's what all the other classes are for. And when they are ready they will most likely move up to fill out the ranks.

Put together rules that keep the cars safe, cheap and easy for the techs to inspect. Not everyone with a driver's license is a racecar driver, but I would be pretty surprised to find out that they couldn't even make it around a track without crashing. How much instruction is really required to get a person out there? Less cost should also equate to less benefits such as track time, but that's okay. Think of this as trial-size racing.

Everybody hates claim rules. Claim rules are an easily-implemented and extremely effective way of keeping costs down and limiting competitive advantages. That's why everybody hates claim rules. It's also why they'd be essential to making this work IMHO.

Overall I think there could be potential benefits to all the classes from this. For one, all the total rookies would be in one place where they would be safe from scratching the cars of all the "real" racers. Also more people involved would help amortize certain costs over a larger group, thereby making things cheaper for everyone. More people could also mean more exposure for sponsors and potentially a better return on sponsorship dollars which would inevitably lead to more sponsorship dollars. And as mentioned before, the more people that attempt to go racing, the more people you will find enjoying it and filling out the ranks of other classes as they wish to advance themselves.

It is quite possible that IT already is as cheap and simple to get into as is practical, and that my views are somewhere between baseless and naive. But I certainly hope not.

[sstecker]

I appreciate the blue sky concept, but...

Any rule that limits wheels to a certain weight for a class, like 13lb for ITA misses the point...now all guys in ITA have worthless used light wheels AND they have to buy 12 NEW heavy wheels.

Question on the Solo tire rule: While new tires appeared that were faster, met the treadwear requirements, and were more expensive, how long do they last? I don't care if a tire is 50% more expensive, if its as fast as anything, and lasts twice as long!
[/b]

keep with a 50lb weight penalty for <13 ?

[dickita15]

various blue sky thoughts...

attracting soloII crossover:
Write safety equipment rule addendums to Street Mod
[/b]

after reading this i was thinking you were talking about street touring which is the one that runs on hard tires but this what I found. not a cheap class but one that would allow the tuner crown to do some cool stuff.

from SCCA website
Street Modified – The top of the “street” categories, SM allows anything from Stock, Street Touring, and Street Prepared allowances and also almost any drivetrain configuration as long as the engine manufacturer matches the body manufacturer (see Solo Rules for details). Four-seaters (BMW, Corolla, Civic, Integra, Neon, Supra, Talon, VW, etc.) run in SM and two-seat sports cars (Corvette, CRX, M Roadster, Miata, RX-7, MR2, etc.) compete in SM2. Subframe connectors, carbon-fiber hoods, cams, and turbo / supercharger kits are welcome, too.

[ggnagy]

after reading this i was thinking you were talking about street touring which is the one that runs on hard tires but this what I found. not a cheap class but one that would allow the tuner crown to do some cool stuff.

from SCCA website
Street Modified – The top of the “street” categories, SM allows anything from Stock, Street Touring, and Street Prepared allowances and also almost any drivetrain configuration as long as the engine manufacturer matches the body manufacturer (see Solo Rules for details). Four-seaters (BMW, Corolla, Civic, Integra, Neon, Supra, Talon, VW, etc.) run in SM and two-seat sports cars (Corvette, CRX, M Roadster, Miata, RX-7, MR2, etc.) compete in SM2. Subframe connectors, carbon-fiber hoods, cams, and turbo / supercharger kits are welcome, too.
[/b]

Yes... and no... I meant to list both categories. Gives engine swap fans one less thing to whine about.

[ERIC THOMPSON]

i was hoping for a class that would allow rally cars to compete in a specific roadracing class...ITRally :P
but i&#39;ve exhausted this topic elsewhere on this board, with no positive outcome(EVEN THOUGH FASTRACK ACKNOWLEDGED MY REQUEST IN JUNE). but it seems that if a solo type class(sm1,sm2) would be considered for clubracing then most of these cars would qualify. and performance could be governed by minimum weight and intake restrictors(just like club/prorally). or maybe a class for 4cyl, turbo, awd cars only. expensive?..... probably(what racing isnt).... fun to watch and/or participate in?....absolutely!! and makes buying a used rally car(eclipse/talon,celica alltrac,wrx&#39;s,evo&#39;s,323 gtx,galant vr4,A41.8t, ETC) more usable and enticing

17x9 wheels(max size)
2800lbs(minimum)
34mm restrictor(@300hp)
coilovers(ok)
rubber/nylon/poly bushings(ok)-no spherical joints
etc.....

just wishfull thinking i&#39;m sure

[jamsilvia]

I love the concept! I don&#39;t know how easy it would be to keep things on the cheap, but the idea is there.

Keeping a spec car (like all of those 3 cyl Metros only) AND having a claimer rule (or something similar - a trade rule??) would at least mean all your spares and stuff would still work on whoever else&#39;s car comes your way. Heh! Maybe the trader rule would be whoever finishes first trades with whoever finished last, 2nd with next to last, ect.... LOL!

I had always thought a cheap spec class would be cool. At the time I was driving a rusty, beat up 1989 Nissan Sentra. About the only thing I did was dump the interior (it was crappy anyway) and force -1.5 deg of camber in the front tires. It was a ... er ... "interesting" street car. But it was that car that made me think of a track full of them leaning WAY over one after the other! With the movement of the SS classes to T3, T4....I thought SSB cuold be revived as Spec $hit Box.

joe

[Jake]

FWIW, NASA&#39;s "new" PT class really isn&#39;t new. It was designed to match their Time Trial classes. In a way, give people a pathway. This is really where SCCA seems lost.

When the shelf-life of a Touring/SS car is up, the car has nowhere to race without being totally modified.

If I race autocross in popular SM or SM2 and decide to race the car w2w, I got nowhere to race.

I think the key is to sync the classes, so you can race a similiar car in auto-x, SS/Touring, and then some kind of IT class without making any mods other than gutting and safety.

[lateapex911]

FWIW, NASA&#39;s "new" PT class really isn&#39;t new. It was designed to match their Time Trial classes. In a way, give people a pathway. This is really where SCCA seems lost.

When the shelf-life of a Touring/SS car is up, the car has nowhere to race without being totally modified.

If I race autocross in popular SM or SM2 and decide to race the car w2w, I got nowhere to race.

I think the key is to sync the classes, so you can race a similiar car in auto-x, SS/Touring, and then some kind of IT class without making any mods other than gutting and safety.
[/b]

In an ideal world, total "cross pollenation" like that would be great.

I certainly like the concept of track cars becoming race cars.....except...

And having autocross cars slot right into race classes with the addition of safety gear sounds great too.... except...

.....except that when you structure your classes like NASA has done for time trialing, and then morph it into racing classes, you have created a cheaters paradise, and the stakes are now much higher...the racing series is going national, so the odds are that more people will actually care and compete. But how will a guy know about the other guys configuration? Is his speed coming form a part that costs him X points? or is it coming from a part that should cost Y points? With a system like that, determining legality is verrry dificult. So, it&#39;s a great method to ease the transition from lapping to racing, but....it&#39;s got issues.

.....except when the classes are changed to allow an easy transition from autocross to racing...and nobody takes advantage. On the surface, it looks like a no brainer....but it&#39;s one of those, "If you build it, will they come" questions? Historically, autocross has not been a transitional sport. Many...probably the vast majority of autocrossers get involved and never leave. So we have to be careful that we don&#39;t change existing classes, and disenfranchise existing participants, in the hope to gain new ones...that won&#39;t show.

That said, I would support a system, that allowed the top 24 subscribed classes to run at the Runoffs, and created more (yes more) classes, with those concepts in mind. But i wouldn&#39;t, for example, change existing categories that are succesful, in an effort to attract new participants. Adding IT classes is one thing, but changing the IT ruleset is another.