STUPID RULES

Mark and Chris, FWIW: The ITAC is trying to figure out ways to bolster ITB and ITC numbers. Heck - even Kirk asked in a couple forums for some new car classifications - poof - no responses.

Have any suggestions? Bueller? Bueller?
[/b]

How about moving the heavy and uncompetitive four cylinder BMW's down to ITB along with the first Gen Rx-7's and MR-2's. Seems like there's a lot of chassis that are floundering in ITA as tweeners because they came stock with wheels that are too wide, don't make the hp gains that they should, and can't get down to their process weight. At least it's a suggestion, and I'm not Bueller.

James
 
Since I like putting specific numbers to discussions when they come up...

The TOTAL difference in insurance and sanction fee costs between a 'non-spectator Regional or National' and a 'spectator Regional or National' is $250. The costs are listed on the SCCA insurance rate sheets/sanction forms, both of which are on-line. No difference in sanction fees, just the liability insurance.

That $250 is a 'total' number. Not dependant on the number of spectators. Not dependant on the number of cars. Not dependant on the phase of the moon. "All in, all done". $250. Sold.

Clarity is a rare commodity. Just providing a small gift for the holiday season. You all owe me a beer.
[/b]

As John said, it's not much in the overall scheme of things.

Our race group buys the spectator insurance for every event not so much because of the thousands of spectators crowding the gates from 7 a.m. on (OK, so it's probably more like 6....people....trickling in all day) but because the spectator insurance gives us a little bit more CYA leverage with regard to the minor waivers and all of the issues that can come up with them. On top of that, our particular facility happens to have a dragstrip that is separate from the racetrack so the spectator insurance does the CYA for us in case some drag racers wander over towards the "good" side of the racetrack. :P

Jarrod
 
To my mind, all this does is reinforce something that i already believe about the member request process for listing new cars.

** Prospective members don't know that the system exists, and just wonder why the car they are interested in isn't in the book.
[/b]
You brought up a lot of tough issues, but this one is an easy one. Put a little note at the bottom of each of the spec line pages saying, "If your car isn't listed, see section XXXX" or something. At least then it's where they are looking, instead of buried in the text.
 
this might be this low only because the turnout of spectators and claims in recent years have been so low that they do not really worry about from an insurance perspective. If spectator events were actively promoted, it might change.
cheers,
bruce

Since I like putting specific numbers to discussions when they come up...

The TOTAL difference in insurance and sanction fee costs between a 'non-spectator Regional or National' and a 'spectator Regional or National' is $250. The costs are listed on the SCCA insurance rate sheets/sanction forms, both of which are on-line. No difference in sanction fees, just the liability insurance.

That $250 is a 'total' number. Not dependant on the number of spectators. Not dependant on the number of cars. Not dependant on the phase of the moon. "All in, all done". $250. Sold.

Clarity is a rare commodity. Just providing a small gift for the holiday season. You all owe me a beer.
[/b]
 
Besides the frustration of doing the research on the introduction of new cars into ITB/ITC only to have it shot down by various committees, it's hard to come up with cars that wouldn't be too competive for the classes. Of course, it's only human nature to not want to invite new, potentially faster cars to race in your group after you've spent a ton of time and money developing something you think might win once in a while.

Our problems come from the same thing that's happened to the older/slower production cars. They just don't build cars for us any more and the parts are hard to find. You'll never convince me that it costs no more to build an Integra than I've spent on my Civic, but I have no problem believing it's a lot easier. The time and development of the carberator alone has taken me years.

Most people that have put as much work as I have, and as many have, to get to the top of their heap, don't want to see something a class up moved down so as to increase their numbers. It's a natural fear. And no one in a higher class, that finds themselves non competitive, wants to get moved down to a lower class at a greater weight and find themselves in the same boat.

It takes too long to do anything to adjust performance/class structure in order to save some cars. When I drove my Civic Si in ITA, the rumor was that we were going to get moved down to ITB to be competitive. It took years to happen, and by that time, a ton of cars had disappeared. That's only an example, and I realize the rules have changed, but it's not much faster. The only thing that seems consistant, is that anytime something starts winning, it gets stuck with a ton of weight, and if you complain long and hard enough, you might get your weight lowered to a number that's impossible to attain...but your class doesn't change.

Maybe it's a good thing to run ITC. We're considered to be dying, so we don't get screwed with as much. Lord only knows I wouldn't want to have the same thing happen to ITC that's happened to G and H Production.

We now return you to your regular forum...Stupid Rules.

One I've never fully understood, even though the theory is that the members don't want it. Leaving the battery in the stock location, no matter where that is in the car, rather than moving it into the passenger compartment where it could be shielded. I know I'll catch hell by the people that are afraid of a battery exploding next to them, but many of those are the same people who are afraid to run a fuel cell with all that gas located right behind them.
 
Chris, you are wrong on the timing. When things 'didn't' happen, it's becasue there was no process in place. Right now, if the process shows its a B car, its going to be a B car. Example - NA Mini Cooper. There is a Civic variant that should be getting moved as well.

It shouldn't take more than 1 or 2 con-calls to get something done that isn't a tweener. In B, anything between 100-115 stock hp should shuffle right in.
 
The only thing that seems consistant, is that anytime something starts winning, it gets stuck with a ton of weight, and if you complain long and hard enough, you might get your weight lowered to a number that's impossible to attain...but your class doesn't change.

. [/b]

???

Chris, thats a pretty broad statement, and I'm not in agreement. Could you please cite as amny examples and the timing of them? Thanks.
 
I think this falls into the stupid rules arena (better than my previous anecdote), but not as a funny stupid rule.
From another thread here:

The rumor is that a proposal was made to reduce the allowable Fz load value (upper neck tension) from 3,000N to 2,500N. This would "decertify" the Leatt brace, which was "certified" in late October. [/b]

A 60 day certification? THAT'S STUPID.

Or politics as usual. Oh, I forgot, Gary said no politics involved. :D :bash_1_: :blink:
 
The only thing that seems consistant, is that anytime something starts winning, it gets stuck with a ton of weight, and if you complain long and hard enough, you might get your weight lowered to a number that's impossible to attain...but your class doesn't change.
[/b]

Come on Chris... We have lowered weights on cars that had not been through the process - as we have raised some - all AS THEY HAVE BEEN put through the process. Some people say they can make weight, some say they can't. The process is applied the same to all cars. Winning cars get no weight based on on-track results. This ain't Prod.

Edit - Jake beat me to the punch.
 
...it's only human nature to not want to invite new, potentially faster cars to race in your group after you've spent a ton of time and money developing something you think might win once in a while. ...

Most people that have put as much work as I have, and as many have, to get to the top of their heap, don't want to see something a class up moved down so as to increase their numbers. It's a natural fear. ...

Maybe it's a good thing to run ITC. We're considered to be dying, so we don't get screwed with as much. Lord only knows I wouldn't want to have the same thing happen to ITC that's happened to G and H Production. ...
[/b]
I don't think that I've messed with your context too much by cutting out some stuff, but holler at me if you think I did, Chris...

...but with respect, part of the reason classes get small and die is protectionism. If I fight like hell to keep new cars out of my class (this is a bunch tougher in IT than it's historically been for other categories), then I'll eventually be racing myself and fighting to save the class. (Sure, there's a little hyperbole there but NOT MUCH when you look at participation numbers in the years before any given class got killed or absorbed.)

No, I don't want something to get overdog'd into B but I recognize that without new blood, I won't have a class to race in down the road. I have enough faith in the current system to know that we are pretty safe - far safer than ever before - from getting a ringer plopped into our midst.

Further, it's just good for the entire category and the Club Racing program to preserve some slower classes. It might cost essentially the same to outfit an ITA Integra and an ITC Civic, but it costs significantly more over the duration of a season to run the faster one.

K
 
OK,
A clarification, among other things. I applauded Chris's post because of several posts on the last thread about IT going National, implying that ITC/ITB were "dying classes". Please don't ask me to go back and research/quote anyone. It's not that big of a deal. I didn't aim my post at anyone, or name names, so I'm surprised at all the responses.
I don't own an IT car anymore, but I drive in them several times a year, and my heart will always be with IT because I started there, and had/have a blast when I get the opportunity to race them. It is..bar none.. the greatest entry level (no slam on the full bore IT efforts) racing class ever created.
People are naturally going to be territorial, especially when they've spent years developing their cars, and an overdog gets re-classified (again, no specifics here) into their class, but I'm with Kirk when he says he wants the competition on the track with him. Honestly, I'm not familiar with the process for getting a new car classified for any class, but I am familiar with the frustration of trying to get some spec lines changed. Again, this was only in reference to the car I was driving at the time, so my interest was just that..my interest. That being said...This topic was Stupid Rules...I didn't mean for my post of smileys to drag us off an excellent topic!
Please carry on!

Mark
 
Upon further thought on the classification process....
Please excuse me if these are dumb, or beat to death questions..
1) Has every car in all the IT spec lines been put through the IT formula equation? (for my own personal racecar, the Nissan 210 has the same min. weight in ITC and G Prod, full prep. 1900 lbs.)
2) If so, can there be any weight % added to a class above (IE: ITA to ITB adding X number of pounds) to encourage more overall participation in all the classes, or would this be more trouble tha it's worth?
3) Since I'll be the first to say I don't know what the formula criteria for each class is, there are a few (not many) newer cars that may fit into the ITC range..Does the ITAC wait until each specific car is requested, or do they research cars that may fit on their own, and use the formula to classify them?

I'm sure these questions have been asked many times before, but this board is attracting a bunch of new members all the time, many unaware of the processes involved. Bear with me as I attempt to learn and help the process.
Thanks,
Mark
 
Upon further thought on the classification process....
Please excuse me if these are dumb, or beat to death questions..[/b]

Excellent questions.

1) Has every car in all the IT spec lines been put through the IT formula equation? (for my own personal racecar, the Nissan 210 has the same min. weight in ITC and G Prod, full prep. 1900 lbs.)[/b]
Every car has been looked at. There are still 'hanging chads' however. Some cars we just don't know enough about to work over. Example: ITA Chevy Monza V6. 110 stock HP is ITB territory. But this vintage (79-80) had a smogged-up, POS stock system. Could this car see huge gains? I think so but there is no way we should be creating a potential overdog for a car nobody really races because we don't have the info. If someone sent in some detailed info educating the ITAC and the CRB, then a 'process' workout would be considered after verification.

Where enough info seemed possible, we didn't touch cars that were outside 100lbs of their process weight. If we did a HUGE amount of cars would have had to be corrected. This was a 'walk, don't run' effort so as not to put the whole category on its ear. Cars over 100lbs outside their process weight were 'corrected' up or down. It was not a coincidence that the cars that gained weight were considered overdogs and the cars that lost weight were considered underdogs.
2) If so, can there be any weight % added to a class above (IE: ITA to ITB adding X number of pounds) to encourage more overall participation in all the classes, or would this be more trouble tha it's worth?[/b]

The process can work for any car - for any class. Example: The ITA SE-R. (Close estimates) 1820lbs in ITR, 2105lbs in ITS, 2490lbs in ITA, 2975 in ITB...etc. Most cars 'fit' well in the class you think they do. Some tweeners certainly exist. More trouble to run an ITA car at ITB weight? Your call.
3) Since I'll be the first to say I don't know what the formula criteria for each class is, there are a few (not many) newer cars that may fit into the ITC range..Does the ITAC wait until each specific car is requested, or do they research cars that may fit on their own, and use the formula to classify them?[/b]

As has been pointed out by Kirk, a flaw in the system is that the ITAC/CRB typically wait until a classification request comes in to make a move. The problem for ITB and ITC is that not much of todays technology fits the performance envelope of those classes. The NA Mini at 115 stock hp is a good ITB fit (IMHO) but then check out the instant resistance from some on that car (see other thread). ITC is even tougher still. Kirl has asked for some suggestions of new cars for ITB and ITC with limited to no response. Are there no cars or is there no demand?

I think there are just not many cars. Club racing and IT need ITB and ITC. Costs are perceived to be much lower than ITR and ITS and now the resurgent and expanding ITA. You can spend big bucks on any car but a top ITC and ITB car can be bought for south of $7500, easy. There needs to be a place newbie perceive to be 'entry level' in terms of $$$ I think.
I'm sure these questions have been asked many times before, but this board is attracting a bunch of new members all the time, many unaware of the processes involved. Bear with me as I attempt to learn and help the process.
Thanks,
Mark
[/b]

And we thank you for your help!!! We appreciate it.
 
I think there are just not many cars. Club racing and IT need ITB and ITC. Costs are perceived to be much lower than ITR and ITS and now the resurgent and expanding ITA. You can spend big bucks on any car but a top ITC and ITB car can be bought for south of $7500, easy. There needs to be a place newbie perceive to be 'entry level' in terms of $$$ I think.
[/b]

This is the problem, as of today there are very few newer cars that fit into B and C. But that is today, if gas hits north of $3 a gallon we may see new small sporty cars again with some small engines. I am not holding my breath, but it would be nice.
 
Okay, I'm going to go for a wimpy defense of my statements. I got a little carried away last night when I posted as I was way too busy to be on the internet. The same continues for today, so the defense is going to be weak.

I apologize for the weight gain and loss statement. I don't have the ready info to back that up, only what I've heard from other drivers in other classes. Sorry to sound a little like Mattberg on that one.

I agree that not wanting other cars in my class is not a smart thing when the class is getting weaker. But the Mini Cooper example is an excellent one. Perhaps the thinking in B and C is we just want to be left alone. I can't answer that, it's only a conjecture. Perhaps, like our cars, we are old and slow. I've heard that excuse used and implied before.

In regard to the example of the A Civic getting put into B...I stand by what I said. True, the process has changed, and I have no idea how many requests are sent by the general racing public to get a car's class changed. The only thing, other than personal history, I have to go by is what I read in Fastrack. Those requests are all too often responded by, "Thanks for your input, but the car is competitive where it is classed". There may not be room for a complete explanation, but that one seems pretty cold.
When I tried to get my car into B from A where it would have a chance, I was told that there was a process through the ITAC board...by the board members. I was not alone in my request as there were at least seven other drivers of similar cars that were simultaneously going through the process in some manner. I personally contacted each of the members of the ITAC by phone and in person with my plea, race statistics, and performance numbers. I wrote letters to the various boards and to other competitors that I thought would be concerned. At one time, Fastrack informed us that the car would be moved to B the following year. It didn't happen, and I received a letter to inform me, "Thanks for your input, but the car is competitive where it is classed."
It, like so many in ITC are old and gone now. There are a bunch of good cars listed to play in ITC, but they've been absorbed into the junk yards of lore. Detroit, Japan, Europe, and anywhere else that makes cars doesn't make anything so crude and slow as is required to be in ITC. Asking the membership what they would like to see put in the class is a cross between admitting defeat and self serving.

Past time to go, I've got way to much to do.
 
cars like the mx3 1600 could go to C the beetle is there so should the same other cars with the same drivetrain...nissan sentra (it may already be there but it will still be too slow((sohc)) an assortment of 3 cylinder geo/daiatsu (sp?) type econoboxes etc.

as for stupid rules i'm sure it has been listed...if your car came standard with a radio it can be removed...but not the speakers!
 
Okay, so back to the original post. The funniest thing that Jude and I have ever seen was years ago in Topeka Jude totally destroyed his ring and pinion on the ITC Fiat 124. It detonated close to the pits so with what momentum he had he rolled through the pits and up the hill to the paddock. Gravity took hold and the car stopped rolling about halfway up the hill. Since he needed to wait for a tow and he could not put the car in gear he took the steering wheel off and used it as a wheel chock to hold the car.

Well, after the race was done, about 25 minutes later, Jude got back in the car and waited for a tow. He could not get the steering wheel out from under the tire until the car was pulled forward a bit.

Keep in mind that the car is sitting on a hill. The tow vehicle pulled up and the gentleman driving asked where his steering wheel was. Jude said that it was holding the car on the hill. The guy asked why he just didn't put the car in gear. Jude explained that the rear end was now non-existent and therefore the transmission would not hold the car. The guy then said that he could not by the safety rules tow a car without a steering wheel.

Jude said that he could not get the steering wheel until he was pulled forward a bit to get the weight of the car off of the steering wheel. The guy again said that he was not allowed to hook up to a car that did not have a steering wheel so please get your steering wheel and then I will tow you. This inane conversation went on for too long until I showed up with our tow vehicle and hooked up to the Fiat and pulled it back to the paddock.

We got in trouble for that too.....
 
I apologize for the weight gain and loss statement. I don't have the ready info to back that up, only what I've heard from other drivers in other classes. Sorry to sound a little like Mattberg on that one.

[/b]
Cool, the adds and subtractions have been very systematic, and have NOT been the result of "My car is too heavy" or "He is too fast, give him weight". Without getting too deep in history, the clasification process was, at one time, done without the aid of a process, and it was done by what is currently called the CRB...and they had WAY too much to do...so things were a bit out of sync. Initially, the ITAC tested the waters by actually moving cars down a class where it felt it was appropriate, by utilizing a not really recognized option in the rulebook. Next, the PCA process went before the membership, was supported, and approved, and then began the realignment process. Of course cars were given weight breaks they (it turns out, in hindsight) just couldn't quite make, and others gained weight that brought protests from those who felt that their superior car crafting and racecraft were being punished. But it's been very systematic, and I'd wager most who have some institutional memory feel it's a better world today than it was as little as 2 -3 years ago.

I agree that not wanting other cars in my class is not a smart thing when the class is getting weaker. But the Mini Cooper example is an excellent one. Perhaps the thinking in B and C is we just want to be left alone. I can't answer that, it's only a conjecture. Perhaps, like our cars, we are old and slow. I've heard that excuse used and implied before.
[/b]

Things haven't been NOT been put in B or C because of objections from the drivers....but rather because the cars that have been brought before the ITAC to be classified haven't FIT the C or B classes often.

In regard to the example of the A Civic getting put into B...I stand by what I said. True, the process has changed, and I have no idea how many requests are sent by the general racing public to get a car's class changed. The only thing, other than personal history, I have to go by is what I read in Fastrack. Those requests are all too often responded by, "Thanks for your input, but the car is competitive where it is classed". There may not be room for a complete explanation, but that one seems pretty cold.
[/b]

yes, I can see that it does, and I agree. But it's often thebest answer, as another explanation would run way too long, and wind up in the same place. There are times that we table something for more research, and I think you've seen at least 4 ITAC guys on here soliciting opinions and reading the minds of the IT community.

When I tried to get my car into B from A where it would have a chance, I was told that there was a process through the ITAC board...by the board members. I was not alone in my request as there were at least seven other drivers of similar cars that were simultaneously going through the process in some manner. I personally contacted each of the members of the ITAC by phone and in person with my plea, race statistics, and performance numbers. I wrote letters to the various boards and to other competitors that I thought would be concerned. At one time, Fastrack informed us that the car would be moved to B the following year. It didn't happen, and I received a letter to inform me, "Thanks for your input, but the car is competitive where it is classed."
[/b]

Keep in mind that the structure needs to break things into 4 boxes, from a wide range of capabilities, and make them race well together. Some cars are just "tweeners". My car is one that many consider such. Some say it's a fine B car on thinner wheels and a bit of weight, others think thats "Crazy"! But the A to B move is problematic.....the ITAC needs to see a CLEAR need to as it can create a situation where racers across the country need to junk 3 sets of wheels and buy 3 more sets. Or worse, certain cars can wind up needing a complete recage.

It, like so many in ITC are old and gone now. There are a bunch of good cars listed to play in ITC, but they've been absorbed into the junk yards of lore. Detroit, Japan, Europe, and anywhere else that makes cars doesn't make anything so crude and slow as is required to be in ITC. Asking the membership what they would like to see put in the class is a cross between admitting defeat and self serving.

Past time to go, I've got way to much to do. [/b]

Your last comment confuses me. Many say that the ITAC should be proactive and class cars without requests being made. But when the topic was brought up...by a non ITAC member, by the way,.... you call it "self serving" and an "Admission of failure"?

Hardly! The simple fact of the matter is that the majority of new or wanna be racers are, guess what...younger.....and they just don't remember the 80s when the GTI was the fasted and coolest car and 1200 Civics where everywhere. No, they remember an Eclipse as being OK, but slow in the non turbo form. I just don't think there's that much desire from many to race in ITC. Sure we can argue rationally that it's ONLY 2 or 3 seconds a lap slower than B, and that it's a lot of great racing for very little money, but lets face it...we're racers...and racing isn't rational!


cars like the mx3 1600 could go to C the beetle is there so should the same other cars with the same drivetrain...nissan sentra (it may already be there but it will still be too slow((sohc)) an assortment of 3 cylinder geo/daiatsu (sp?) type econoboxes etc.

as for stupid rules i'm sure it has been listed...if your car came standard with a radio it can be removed...but not the speakers! [/b]

If we ditched the 5 year rule, the Honda Fit would be a great fit..

And on the speakers thing, that should hit Fastrack soon, it's been cleared up.
 
Sorry, Jake, I thought Kirk was a member of the ITAC. My bad. I try to watch who I insult and usually take pride in how I do it. :D
 
Back
Top