IT V8 Isn't it time?

[Cobrar05]

* ITE. Ive been trying to develope ITO in SARRC for some time now. We narrowed the performance specs allowed to create some competition. Catch all classes like ITE mean there are often few cars in class of wildly different preformance levels. Meaning there are ITE cars that should be in STO.

* Regional only classes are nearly impossible to recruit for. Its not in the book.

* AS: You are kidding, right? I have a perfectly good race car. To be AS legal all that i could use from it is the chassis. The class is dying. pushrod, carburated, race cars with tiny brakes and wheels. they are racing in the past.

* Bottom line is that when NASA can bring 12-15 cars per class and 40-50 cars in basically the same performance catagory to many of its events, scca's inability to have a place for these cars to race is a reason that the scca is struggling for car count. I am just suggesting we work on this.

* Last point. The biggest class in world challenge this season is the new GTS class. Mustangs, Camaros, Caymans, M3's. The cars are readily available and are inexpensive to sprint race. At the NASA level these cars are coming to the track in droves. NASA race weekends can be very disappointing with track time getting squeezed and races getting shorter and shorter.

there's a real opportunity here. i go to a nasa event and ive got 10+ cars to race in class each time. i go to a sarrc event and there's poo. this often includes the arrc.

i am fighting the good fight here, but with budgets getting tight i can only go on so much longer without some support.

oh yea....ive got a perfectly good race car. selling race cars to buy another one in this economy makes no sense at all. and....have you ever been on the track with GTA drivers?

[JeffYoung]

Rob, not trying to be difficult, but didn't you sell one Mustang recently to get another? Would it have been possible to build an SN95 ITR car?

What would you envision this class's rule set to look like? IT rules? Meaning stock brakes, tranny, etc? Or something else?

[TomL]

Jeff - I understand the desire to cut down on class proliferation. I wouldn't mind a serious discussion of how to bring that about. You admit that IT7 has been successful and understand why we have it. But you nonetheless cite IT7, the only non-GCR class that actually draws a lot of entries, as your example of what to get rid of. I don't consider that a serious discussion, so forgive me if I get annoyed.

Ron - I wasn't being entirely serious about combining ITS and ITR, just pointing out that the same arguments could be applied there are is used when the IT7-back-to-ITA issue comes up. After all, BMW 325s used to be in ITS, too, so what's the objection to putting them back in that class? I agree that Rickey's 10/10ths ITA RX7 regularly beat a moderately fast ITA field. Current ITS cars also regularly beat the current moderately fast ITRs (i.e., when the 10/10ths cars of Rickey and KvS don't show up). So, yes, RX7s are (sorta) competitive in ITA. And everything else was (sorta) competitive in ITS when the 325 was in the class. But in truth, lots of people were getting screwed in either case because the cars in question belong in another class under the "process". But your problem has been fixed. Mine hasn't. Y'all seem ok with screwing IT7 drivers, I'm (not-seriously) okay with screwing non-BMW ITS drivers. As I said, it's oh-so-easy to call for the elimination or combining of someone else's class for the greater good.

I'm not sure of the long term viability of 1st gen RX7s, either. I'm prepared for a good while (three good engines), but I know most people aren't. If the IT7 numbers continue to fall, ultimately it may be appropriate to eliminate it as a separate class - combined with reclassifying 1st gens to ITB. However, when IT7 is still drawing three times the median number of entries for all classes, I find it hard to take seriously the argument that IT7 is an example of a class we need to get rid of.

Kirk - You're right. The numbers overall were down that year (actually the numbers look somewhat anomalous, some classes way down, others up). Overall, it was down about 20%, but other IT classes were down only about 15% and the combined ITA class down about a third from the previous and following year's IT7 and ITA. So some of the 150 or so missing entries is probably due to the general decline. But I was there and I know a fair percentage was due to the RX7 drivers feeling they were getting screwed again. First, they had CRXs dropped on them and after they came up with a fix (IT7), that got yanked away, too. Regardless, it's still a very popular class that a lot of people are happy with, as is.

Rob - Sorry for the thread hijack.

[JeffYoung]

Tom, I certainly understand your commitment to IT7 and I agree it's been a good class (primarily for the SEDiv).

Let me say this -- nothing is going to change with IT7. It's not going away from a rule making perspective. If it does go away, it's only going to be because the parts are no longer available.

But let's take a step back in time to see how the lack of a Process caused the problem with the 12A RX7.

The 12A was, as I understand it, originally classified in ITS. It got moved down to ITA when it became clear a 100 hp RX7 would have a difficult time with the Z cars, etc.

And then, in A, back when we were classing with curb weight, etc., the introduction of the CRX to ITA (although the Miata, or a well developed Integra or SE-R would have done the same thing) upset the applecart. The power to weight ratio (not used in classing) for the RX7 (which also had a live rear axle) was out of whack with what a CRX could do.

But there was no way to fix that other to than to move the RX7 down, and I'm sure the guys in B would have opposed that at the time.

The "real" fix in my opinion, and the one that should have been implemented IF we had a "Process" would have been to reclass the car in B as early as possible -- back in the early part of the 2000s before the CRX started to dominate.

From a theoretical standpoint, I think classes like IT7 are "bad" for IT on the whole in that they dilute fields and make classing look confusing to outsiders. If we had -- from the start -- created a place for the 12A to remain competitive, then the entire need for IT7 would have been eliminated.

So again, from a philosophical standpoint, do you think IT7 is more attractive than:

a. ITB if the 7s had been moved to B back in the early part of last decade at a competitive weight?

OR

b. ITB now?

At this point in time, I think Jake is right and the ship has sailed. IT7 is the answer for the 12A. But I wish this had been fixed -- or more accurately the tools had existed to fix it -- back before a special subclass was created.

[mossaidis]

(Full disclosure... I am high on coffee. I will repeat what ya'll saying here cause I feel like it.)

A few things needs to happen in parallel, SCCA needs to condense to fewer class categories: someone mentioned it before... SS->T, AS & Prod -> GT, AS -> ST and continue to fertilize those condensed groups. (So you are left with T, IT/SM, ST, GT, nice ugh? IT goes national? more debate I guess. SM will not forcable merge with IT, get over it.) Maybe this is already in process, in which case

There is nothing wrong with looking ahead and planning our future to help recruit drivers and help cars move along the car classification ladder. Someone mentioned that we wait for ITR to fill in ranks before expanding. I say "whoha". Folks like IT for the variety even though we didn't/don't get it "right" all the time. We're living proof that we need to continue clarifying the rules, the process and decision making process until it's 100% perfect and still fun. Don't stop... work on ITB, work on ITC.

I like the idea of ITR+ classes, i.e. ITQ, ITX, ITO, etc. For cars that are light, more hp coupled with better than "street" brakes, this can be a great idea especially if that someone is is on a limited budget and ST is NOT in the cards yet. I agree though we do have a problem with heaviers, higher hp cars with smaller brakes... so if you make brake allowances in IT, then IT becomes blurred with ST, not uncommon in SCCA and perhaps down again the slippery slope... don't do it. Some cars will fit, others won't, let the owners decide yet cya, make full disclosures... no brake allowances.

rant over.

[mossaidis]

So again, from a philosophical standpoint, do you think IT7 is more attractive than:

a. ITB if the 7s had been moved to B back in the early part of last decade at a competitive weight?

OR

b. ITB now?

At this point in time, I think Jake is right and the ship has sailed. IT7 is the answer for the 12A. But I wish this had been fixed -- or more accurately the tools had existed to fix it -- back before a special subclass was created.

c. ITA with ported RX7's, removing the need for IT7 so that RX7's can again compete in ITA.

[Ron Earp]

Guys, I'm not here to argue that IT7 should be rolled into ITB nor to convince you that it should be. In my opinion the SCCA needs fewer classes and some of these single make/model classes or slightly modified classes should be rolled back into their parent class. Just my opinion and I believe others here will certainly make points along those lines.

[seckerich]

Or we just pirate the NASA rules for the cars, list them in the supps, and let them run our races. Cake!!

[TomL]

Jeff - Sorry I got side-tracked in midcomposition and posted without rechecking what you'e put up in the meantime. I really don't think that moving the cars to ITB is going to have any real effect on 12a participation. All the IT7 guys I'm sure will stay in IT7. Unless you get rid of IT7 - then I'm sure the numbers will go way down. A few might go to ITB, but for the reasons Jake cites, I know it won't come close to the number you'll lose from IT7.

In the grand scheme of things, yes, it would have been better to have put rx7s in ITB back in the day, but Jake is right - that ship has long ago sailed. IT7 is the way to go until the class dies a natural death. Just don't single it out for euthanasia, ahead of dozens of less subscribed classes.

BTW, unless the allowed weight goes up by 420 pounds (to 2700 lbs) in a switch to ITB, current IT7 cages will at least still be legal under the new cage rules. It would have been a problem under the old [idiotic] cage rules for SS cars where the cage weight limit for 0.095 x 1.5 was at 2200 lbs w/o driver (i.e. 2380 lbs all up), instead of the current 2700 all up.

Jake - That's at least the second time you've implied that the IT7 cars down here aren't legal. I can't speak for all of them but I'm pretty confident that all the serious ones down here have legal engines. I 'm sure mine are and I haven't been noticeably outrun on a straight in years. I used to have it happen occasionally but that was at least 6-7 years ago. So unless you want to name names, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop smearing our integrity.

[Cobrar05]

mr young: i sold a cobra r race car and bought an fr500c project. i gave no thought to building an itr mustang. that said, you are effectively creating a new direction of road racing mustangs with itr. what i am talking about is the hundreds of currently racing mustangs and camaros and firebirds that won't be going to the ridiculous AS rules and race entirely in NASA. I also refer to the numerous grand am gs, wc gts, mustang challenge race cars that are and will continue to be available for club racing like mine.

rules: some combination of nasa and world challenge gts rules would do the trick.

[JeffYoung]

I agree with all of that. My "IT7 is not a good idea" thinking is purely "let's go back in time and fix things" thinking. I would still support a move of the car to ITB if the existing drivers were behind it, but I agree with you (and Jake) that that time has probably passed.

I more concerned about this -- a very popular car getting marooned in an uncompetitive position such that the need for a marque specific IT class is generated -- not happening again.

On the "fast IT7 cars in the SEDiv," I think all of the front running cars in IT7 over the last few years (you, Neil, Steve Saney, Chuck Hines, etc.) all seem legal. Hell, I know Neil builds his OWN motors (and you may as well). But I've heard enough too about IT7s back in the day having an acceptable level of porting to believe it may be true. Irrelevant though, as it seems pretty clear to me you guys have a very clean, very legal class right now. Maybe even cleaner than ITS/ITA since you guys all know those cars so well.

Jeff - Sorry I got side-tracked in midcomposition and posted without rechecking what you'e put up in the meantime. I really don't think that moving the cars to ITB is going to have any real effect on 12a participation. All the IT7 guys I'm sure will stay in IT7. Unless you get rid of IT7 - then I'm sure the numbers will go way down. A few might go to ITB, but for the reasons Jake cites, I know it won't come close to the number you'll lose from IT7.

In the grand scheme of things, yes, it would have been better to have put rx7s in ITB back in the day, but Jake is right - that ship has long ago sailed. IT7 is the way to go until the class dies a natural death. Just don't single it out for euthanasia, ahead of dozens of less subscribed classes.

BTW, unless the allowed weight goes up by 420 pounds (to 2700 lbs) in a switch to ITB, current IT7 cages will at least still be legal under the new cage rules. It would have been a problem under the old [idiotic] cage rules for SS cars where the cage weight limit for 0.095 x 1.5 was at 2200 lbs w/o driver (i.e. 2380 lbs all up), instead of the current 2700 all up.

Jake - That's at least the second time you've implied that the IT7 cars down here aren't legal. I can't speak for all of them but I'm pretty confident that all the serious ones down here have legal engines. I 'm sure mine are and I haven't been noticeably outrun on a straight in years. I used to have it happen occasionally but that was at least 6-7 years ago. So unless you want to name names, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop smearing our integrity.

[JeffYoung]

That's fine, but that's not really "IT V8" is it? I'm not knocking the concept, I'm just saying you may be posting in the wrong place.

Out of curiousity, why did you give no thought to running an ITR Mustang? You seem very interested in SCCA, and our weekends/series/rulesets -- it seems like it would have been a good fit?

mr young: i sold a cobra r race car and bought an fr500c project. i gave no thought to building an itr mustang. that said, you are effectively creating a new direction of road racing mustangs with itr. what i am talking about is the hundreds of currently racing mustangs and camaros and firebirds that won't be going to the ridiculous AS rules and race entirely in NASA. I also refer to the numerous grand am gs, wc gts, mustang challenge race cars that are and will continue to be available for club racing like mine.

rules: some combination of nasa and world challenge gts rules would do the trick.

[lateapex911]

Jake - That's at least the second time you've implied that the IT7 cars down here aren't legal. I can't speak for all of them but I'm pretty confident that all the serious ones down here have legal engines. I 'm sure mine are and I haven't been noticeably outrun on a straight in years. I used to have it happen occasionally but that was at least 6-7 years ago. So unless you want to name names, I'd appreciate it if you'd stop smearing our integrity.

Tom, I brought that up in response to MM and his comments regarding being walked on the start. Keeping in mind the mice on a wheel torque level of the engine, it seems odd that the RX-7 can walk anybody, LOL

Now, I have been told in the past that when I came to the ARRCs in the past I was "bringing a knife to a gunfight"....and i was told that by guys from the area who seemed pretty sure of themselves. And while there i've seen things on cars that were clearly obvious non legalities...some were pretty harmless, some were beneficial. Of course, I see stuff on ALL cars all the time.

My bottom line on the subject is that I feel that amongst the legions of cars, some have been less than clean, but I think the incidence of that is mostly behind us. I feel, like you, that the top dogs I've run against, like Jeff Ryan and yourself in Atlanta, and the boys at VIR have been clean. But I know I've run against some cars that were not, (I've been told first hand to "Don't feel too bad about that, Jake, you were keeping up and beating a ported car"). And I've strongly suspected others. My games not so bad that i should get walked 10 car lengths on a straight after having so much exit speed that i got completely alongside. And it's not just in your area.

My comment was the usual "Don't assume that those cars were straight" warnings, followed with the oft mentioned regional issues. Heck, I just read yesterday a thread that commented on how cars from certain close by areas that you'd think would run great at Atlanta, oddly never show.

No slight intended to you, but I'm know IT7 -like any class- has it's dubious runners. And to the point, they shouldn't be used as yardsticks.

[TomL]

Yea, I know I shouldn't take it personally, but it sounded more like a blanket statement. On the ITB vs. IT7 issue, I should have mentioned that I last weekend we ran with ITBs, which normally doesn't happen. It was actually very even, with a couple of fast ITBs (a crx and a civic) running marginally faster times than I did both days. I beat them both by a few seconds on Sunday. On Monday, the CRX passed me a few laps from the end and the Civic was right on my bumper. And both of them were about dead even with me on top speed down Roeblings's long front straight.

And the ITA winner (also overall ahead of some good ITS runners) was a mere 4+ seconds a lap faster, so I think that's a good indication of which class would have been more appropriate for rx7s. I know Hoosiers are better than RA1s, but they're not 4 seconds better.

[lateapex911]

But Tom, how would that race have gone if you added 300 plus pounds and took an inch of rim width away?

[Knestis]

Objection, your honor! Calls for inferences from anecdotal evidence...

K

EDIT - To expand on my smartie-pants post, Tom mentions not running the fastest tires available. Etc., etc., etc.

[Cobrar05]

jeff: when i moved to the new platform, i may not have know that itr had a mustang option. but had i known i still would have moved elsewhere. ford racing was putting great effort into their road racing mustangs for grand am and spreading that wealth into
club racing.

as a mustang magazine writer there was just no interest from the editor and sponsors for a low horsepower, very basic pre 2005 platform mustang race car.

consider how many fr500c, fr500s, boss 302r, boss 302s, american iron 2005 or newer mustangs there are racing and how many itr mustangs there are.

i have an interest in racing ITR, but i am waiting to get my hands on a Honda S2000 for that.

[almskidd]

Don't old world challange cars have a home in ST*? That seems like a good fit for what you are talking about. Open rules on brakes, and engine to chassis combinations. Why not go there? Just a question maybe I am missing something.

[JeffYoung]

STO, but that is big dollars.

[Butch Kummer]

Late to the party, but don't we already have ITV8 (ITO) in SEDiv? It's in for full SARRC points, it's part of ECR, and it includes all the NASA & Pro classes Rob mentions - yet it still languishes in participation numbers. We cannot seem to get those NASA cars to run with SCCA in appreciable numbers.

What I've found over the years (and was reminded of recently by Ron Earp) is that for the most part people want to race where they're "comfortable". We have pretty much been total failures in enticing existing IT/SM racers into GTA regardless of how much financial sense it makes compared to what they're already spending - most of our growth has come from folks already running stock cars in other classes (SPO) or circle-track racers that grew tired of repairing their cars every weekend. We (Atlanta Region) have also had SP2 & SP3 on the books for two years to give the 944 Cup guys a place to race with us and we've yet to see more than 3-4 on a given weekend. Again, they have a group of friends that run PCA and NASA events and they're not that interested in what we have to offer.

Rob - I guess you're angling toward national recognition of an ITO-type class, but you really need to build the participation numbers at a divisional level to warrant that consideration. The folks you need to sell are the CMC, AI, and GTS guys that are looking for a new (hopefully better) place to race. "Better" is in the eye of the beholder, so you need to trumpet the additional track time, less disparity in the run groups, and the lack of "schedule squeezing" when things go south. They would also get to run some tracks (Barber, Roebling, Daytona for instance) that they wouldn't get to run with NASA or at a reduced expense compared to GrandAm. You've gotta give them reasons to step outside their comfort zone and try something new, then once car counts start to grow you have a better chance of attracting converts from other IT classes. Rest assured, however, that I will continue to tout the benefits of GTA to all that will listen (and some who won't)!

And I'm not sure what your point was about being on the track with GTA drivers! If I was a sensitive person I might be offended by that statement...