Beetle in ITC

[ITSRX7]

Actually, the goal of the ITAC is to ADD a fresh face to that already balanced mix.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com

 

[gran racing]

If the Accord got second place, why wasn't the car model that got first place bumped to ITA? Not saying it should, but just doesn't make sense. Guess that's why it is being moved back to B. (Yeah I know, that hasn't been said yet)

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

 

[Bill Miller]

Kirk,

I believe the steel wheels on the NB are 16x6.5. I think I mentioned this back on page 1 or 2.

Andy,

Like I said, the Golf/Jetta correction was done this year. So, I can only assume that's the way you guys operate, and will continue to operate.

Darin,

Induldge me and send me the list of the cars in that group. IIRC, the 2.0 16v A2 Golf/Jetta in ITS weren't corrected to have their weights match, nor were the 1.8 16v A2 Golf/Jetta in ITA.

And, you keep saying the weights were incorrect. Based on what? That's what I've been asking all along. Same goes for the Corrado. If I understand what you're saying, the weight on the BMW is correct, if it responded 'normally' to IT prep. It's only because it responded 'better than anticipated' that the weight is incorrect. Assuming we know nothing about the performance of the car on the track (yeah, I know you can't put the jennie back in the bottle), what would the weight be, if the car were classed today? I contend, that if it's not what the current spec weight is, that the current weight is incorrect, and can be corrected under E&O. And, I never said any of those other weight corrections were CA's, those are your words.

And, just so you don't think I've forgotten about the Rabbit GTI. Looking at Jake's spreadsheet, I see that the 'power ratio' on the Rabbit GTI is 24.20, yet the 510 in ITC is 22.60. But the GTI's going to be too fast for ITC. And I'd still like to see all that VW engine data you have.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[badal]

Chris C wrote:
I'll address this one. The reason is that cars that were originally classed by our IT forefathers are getting to be pretty old. If we're ever going to class new cars, and still have a relatively even distribution over four classes, then cars are naturally going to have to be moved down as the faster classes are populated with cars of newer design.

Who really cares if we have an even distribution? If we have 40 IT cars in a race, we need 10 in S, 10 in A, 10 in B and 10 in C? Why?

I'm afraid that you can't continue to count on the fact that your (quite old) Datsun 510 (how long has it been since they were called 'Datsuns', anyhow?) is going to remain the car to beat in ITC - we're going to have to move some of the A and B cars down to maintain an equitable distribution.

I’m not sure why you think it is the car to beat. I think it is a good car, but so are the Fords that have lap records at VIR and the Glen, The Hondas, and the VW’s. Fiat and Isuzu have contenders too.

For example, when the rules were written, the ancients allowed 7" wheels in ITA and ITS, and 6" wheels in ITB and ITC, a rule which still stands. But at that time, not one car that was classified came with wheels nearly that wide - the ancients were doing you a favor by allowing you to have much wider wheels than stock. Now, 30 years or so later, cars routinely come with 7" and 8" wheels, and folks are having to trade in their stock wheels for NARROWER ones, something which the ancients did not anticipate.

I’m not sure I follow what this is supposed to be an example of. And the Supra did have 7 inch wide wheels. And it is 20 years later, not 30.

Likewise with ABS brakes, traction control, ECU modification, the list goes on and on.

We seem to have some close races without all that.

In order for us to keep up with the changing technology provided for us by the car manufacturers, we are going to have to redistribute the classes to allow some new cars to join - and cars are, in general, getting faster, not slower.

If that is the true goal, move all ITC to ITD, ITB to ITC and create a 5th IT class. Wasn’t that your idea Kirk K?

Cheers,
Chris Camadella

------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

[This message has been edited by badal (edited July 29, 2004).]

 

[Quickshoe]

Originally posted by Knestis:
I really believe that the class has huge potential in SCCA so want to know why you think they are staying home and/or jumping ship to other organizations.

I am not certain what the original draw to the other organization was. I can tell you I have a car that is eligible to race in either SCCA or VARA. I chose VARA because I am more interested in racing against 20 cars in class than 1 or 2. So to me, it's not an SCCA/VARA thing. If the situation was reversed (in my area) I'd be where you find the competition regardless of what sticker is on my car.

Racers willing to spend the dough to run competitive programs don't want to drive what they see as "low class" cars

I'd agree that your generalization is accurate. However, oddball me, I don't care what class I race in as long as I can afford to be competitive. I am talking about a modest budget that will give me a few choices. I will spend the money where I can be the fastest (vs. the competition), not where I can be fast (vs. the clock).

 

[Catch22]

Originally posted by Quickshoe:
I'd agree that your generalization is accurate. However, oddball me, I don't care what class I race in as long as I can afford to be competitive

This is something that many young folks (unless they were raised in an SCCA family) just do not realize. They want to race the cool cars, and who can blame them. I was once in my mid 20s and the car I chose to build was 1. Expensive, 2. Not competitively classed, and 3. Expensive. But it was a cool car and we're drawn to cool cars, especially when we're younger.

Some of the younger folks (under 30) I hang out with at various track events and such have taken to calling ITB and ITC "ITJ." That stands for "Improved Touring Jalopy." Well... Know what? They are kind of right. With the average age of the classified ITC cars being 22 years old, its hard to argue with the ITJ mindset.

Why does this matter? Well, because the Al Bells and the Scott Giles and the GRJs of the world are not the future of SCCA. The "ITJ" guys are. And you need to give them something they are interested in so they'll build it. I love old 510s, I think they are great. But I'm a rare person under 40 that gives a crap about this car. These guys (say what you will, but they ARE the future of the club) care about Civics and Beetles and Neons and Proteges. They DONT give a rats ass about cars built before they were born.

We MUST accept this (and it looks like the AC has, thank god) and move forward. And nobody has yet proven that the 45 year old guy in the 510 won't be able to compete with the 25 year old guy in the Beetle. Actually, my money is on the 510, but at least there's a 25 year old guy in a Beetle there.

NASA is killing us in the youth department guys. Mindsets have to change, or NASA WILL NOT be #2 in U.S. amatuer club racing 10 years from now. Bank on it.

Scott, looking forward to Racing BadAl and GRJ and some punk in a Beetle sometime soon.

 

[badal]

The other AB wrote:
Al,

We are just coming down on opposite sides of the fence. You have obviously not read ANY of my posts if you believe what you type or are just so stuck in your ways that you refuse to believe us. I have stated NUMEROUS times that if it proves to be a mistake, we will/can/should fix it.

Andy, what is so bad about us having different opinions? I have read your posts-have you read mine? Don't take this as a personal attack. I'm asking legitimate questions. If you want to be on the ITAC, you need to expect that.

You have said in general terms:
The NB should be in ITC to add to car counts.
You wil move it if it is an overdog.
(feel free to correct me if I am wrong)

I said we don't need the car counts.
It will be hard to move the NB

As far as your forecast for not many cars being built, I say that it ain't much of a perceived overdog if people ain't building them.

Once again, we don't know.
I suspect not every Tom(Fowler), Dick (Shine) or Stewie (Brummer) will build a car, but I can see how it might be good for business to at least support one. And if that happens and one car gets an ARRC win, do you move it? Or do you say "That Tom Fowler, what a driver"?


------------------
"Bad" Al Bell
ITC #3 Datsun 510
DC Region MARRS Series

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
....

And Jake I'm sorry I accused you of being on the ITAC.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 26, 2004).]

I know this goes back a few days, but it slipped under may radar for a bit, and I can't allow it to go with out a comment.

There's been a LOT of stuff said about the guys on the ITAC in this thread by Mr. Jones, none of it complimentary. I could go back and quote, but...it's a waste of time...we all can read.

But this one started to annoy me....

"Accuse" me of being on the ITAC???? You make it sound as if they are a bunch of back stabbing good for nothing guys with little intelligence and no integrity! Hardly!

I for one, would be more than happy, honored actually, to serve on the ITAC in whatever capacity they deemed appropriate.

Every member of the ITAC that I have met in person, or communicated with via the phone or correspondence, has been straightforward, honest, reasonable, has shown integrity in their actions, and more than anything, have demonstrated that they care about IT as a whole, and are willing to work hard (And take a lot of BS along the way) for the overall betterment of IT and the SCCA in general.


It is fine to disagree with their actions, and it is healthy to debate them with well researched facts and documented figures, as well as with reasonable opinions, but frankly you have been a bit light in that area, and heavy in the accusatory and insulting department. Some of the things you hve stated have been downright mean spirited and inappropriate.

There is NO need for that.

I think you, Mr. Jones owe these folks an apology, and a public one at that.

See guys?? you can use italics and bold at the same time!

Back to your regularly scheduled debating....



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by Catch22:


We MUST accept this (and it looks like the AC has, thank god) and move forward. And nobody has yet proven that the 45 year old guy in the 510 won't be able to compete with the 25 year old guy in the Beetle. Actually, my money is on the 510, but at least there's a 25 year old guy in a Beetle there.

NASA is killing us in the youth department guys. Mindsets have to change, or NASA WILL NOT be #2 in U.S. amatuer club racing 10 years from now. Bank on it.

Scott, looking forward to Racing BadAl and GRJ and some punk in a Beetle sometime soon.

Scott, you make an excellent case here. If you asked the ITAC guys what they are trying to do, I bet most of them would agree that:

It is important to get new cars in the class...little sense having a class (ITC) for the car counts it currently averages across the country. (I know it's big in areas, but nationally it is weak, and underutilized)

And that it is vital to appeal to a wide range of ages and demographics.

I also think that they will attempt to class the newer cars in such a way as to not destroy the balance in any particular class.
)The SCCA has shown over the years, as it's strength, a determination to protect the
"old guard". It has also demonstrated that it's strength is a weakness. And I think it has at least realized this contradiction, and is making changes in it's course. )

Trickle down should become a more regular occurance, and if done right, the losers should be few. Notably there are cars at the bottom of ITC that currently duke it out for last place. They will continue to duke it out for last place, albeit in hopefully larger classes.

And finally, proper distribution IS important to IT. In the NE, for example, we have typical car counts like: ITC 3-6 cars, ITB 18-25 cars, ITA 28-34 cars, and ITS 20 -30 cars. A better distribution makes for better racing, easier race group organization, and fairer trophy counts.

Lastly, people want to race and have a chance . Not much fun showing up to a race and finding out that your will be fighting for 18th place, when you could be more fairly classed and have a shot, just a shot, at a trophy.

I submit that one of the things "other" organizations do that attracts drivers, is better classing.


------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

 

[Catch22]

Originally posted by lateapex911:

I submit that one of the things "other" organizations do that attracts drivers, is better classing.

Actually, and I speak as a former NASA insider, its the ONLY thing that NASA does better than SCCA. BUT, that one thing is obviously enough to steal a great deal of drivers away from SCCA.

Far and away the number 1 complaint about SCCA that you will hear amongst NASA race participants is "SCCA doesn't have my car classed competitively, NASA does."

It looks like thats changing, thank god.

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
But this one started to annoy me....

"Accuse" me of being on the ITAC???? You make it sound as if they are a bunch of back stabbing good for nothing guys with little intelligence and no integrity! Hardly!
I I think you, Mr. Jones owe these folks an apology, and a public one at that.

OK Jake, You spent a great number of bits and bites putting words in my mouth. If you can read that much into "accused," you are the one whose thoughts run in that direction. But to tell you the truth, I think you are twisting the dialogue to make a play for your own inclusion.

And as far as insults, you among others have insulted me numerous times and I invite you to review the post to see who insulted whom first. You've made fun of my car, you claim I make no technically supported claims when neither you nor the ITAC members have anymore idea of what HP an NB can make in IT trim than I do, and yet you have seen fit to class the car below its obvious potential; your little suck-up in Atlanta even drags up a bad lap time at VIR to discredit me. You have insulted not only me, but the people I race with, and even the racetrack I frequent. When you make a crack, it's just a joke, when I answer your supposed jokes with a joke, it's an insult, and I supposedly owe you an apology. If how you people treat people here is an example of fair play and reasonableness and representative of those people running the SCCA at the regional level no wonder members are running to other venues.

I've raced in SCCA since 1971 and I've seen a myriad of mistakes made, and people too damned caught up in their own egos and self-aggrandizement to admit their mistakes and find a way to correct them. And guess what from what I see here, it hasn't changed.

A public apology??! You owe me a public apology. You too Jake can GET BENT!
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 29, 2004).]

 

[Geo]

Originally posted by Catch22:
Actually, and I speak as a former NASA insider, its the ONLY thing that NASA does better than SCCA. BUT, that one thing is obviously enough to steal a great deal of drivers away from SCCA.

Far and away the number 1 complaint about SCCA that you will hear amongst NASA race participants is "SCCA doesn't have my car classed competitively, NASA does."

It looks like thats changing, thank god.

Hold on. I take some exception to this. But I will allow for the fact I could be misinformed. But....

What classes?

Spec 944?
944 Cup?
SE-R Cup?
Spec Miata?
Spec RX-7?
Formula Mazda?
Honduh Challenge?

What classes are we talking about. NASA has no nationally organized classes that aren't spec classes that I've seen. Sure we can talk about he PS classes, but who races in them? Shoot, we went to a NASA race here in TX and ran against two other cars. A highly tweeked 911, a highly tweeked Corvette, and two other cars (only one of the two ran in either race) and neither of them lasted the whole race. If you call that a race.

I know NASA has some following elsewhere, but the only classes I hear about are spec or one-make classes. The only exception to that is the German car series in the north. Still not open to a wide variety of cars.

If I've missed something, please tell me. I'm not trying to be a jerk. Let me know if I've missed something. But when I hear NASA I think a variety of spec series and other locally organized specialty classes.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
OK Jake, ... putting words in my mouth. If you can read that much into "accused," you are the one whose thoughts run in that direction. But to tell you the truth, I think you are twisting the dialogue to make a play for your own inclusion.

1: If you were joking with the "accused" statement, you should have included a smiley. Due to the context of your other slams aimed directly at ITAC members, I thought it fit your MO.

2: There is no current opening on the ITAC. My inclusion is therefore impossible, and thusly illogical. No play here.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> And as far as insults, you among others have insulted me numerous times and I invite you to review the post to see who insulted whom first.  You've made fun of my car, </font>

Never...not me....

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">  you claim I make no technically supported claims when neither you nor the ITAC members have anymore idea of what HP an NB can make in IT trim than I do, </font>

actually the engine is a pretty well known item in the tuner world, and the ITAC DOES have an idea of its potential...the numbers you project are a bit beyond reasonable

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> ...and yet you .... </font>

( I have??Me?? I had nothing to do with the classing...you have the wrong guy again )

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> ...have seen fit to class the car below its obvious potential; your little suck-up in Atlanta even drags up a bad lap time at VIR to discredit me. You have insulted not only me, but the people I race with, and even the racetrack I frequent. </font>

Again, wrong guy..not sure what you are referring to here, but I mentioned nothing of the sort in my posts.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> ..... and I supposedly owe you an apology.  </font>

No...you misunderstand...you owe me nothing...it's the members of the ITAC that you owe an apology to. Please reread some of your statements to them. I believe you have treated them in an unjust manner. I don't like injustice.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> If how you people treat people here is an example of fair play and reasonableness and representative of those people running the SCCA at the regional level no wonder members are running to other venues. </font>

Must be the red mist...Again, I am not an official or a committee member within the SCCA organization... you have the wrong guy.
(My volunteering is in the gopher area, race chairing, flagging, tech assisting, info booth organization and manning, and so on. I don't serve in the levels you seem to think I do.)

A public apology??! You owe me a public apology. You too Jake can GET BENT!
GRJ

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 29, 2004).]

Well, it appears that we will agree to disagree.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

 

[Geo]

What do you call a smart blonde?


A Golden Retreiver.

Hey Greg, pass the Reynolds Wrap.

------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

 

[grjones1]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Well, it appears that we will agree to disagree.

Your problem, Jake, is that you can dish it out but you don't want to eat it.

You are guilty by association with Scott and your agreement with the board's decision.

I'll tell you what, I'm fair enough to offer this: If we find, or you can document, that the 115 stock Hp 2.0 NB can't achieve the 144 Hp (at the crank) that I said it can with all IT legal mods, I'll make that public apology from the tower at Summit Point, if you promise to do the same if it can.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 30, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 30, 2004).]

 

[Quickshoe]

Hey, I tried this yesterday and it didn't work...what gives?

The SCCA/NASA thing is very regional.

The Spec classes, out here, are bigger at SCCA than NASA (Spec Miata+Spec Racer Ford+Spec Rx7 > Spec every NASA class combined).

The Honda Challenge classes are huge here...that is a different market. Lots of hybrid (engine swap variety), motor mods beyond what is IT legal. When you can't do this or that to the motor, or put this kind of motor in that kind of chassis you are not allowing a ton of Honda enthusiasts to join the party.

I am not saying that is a good/bad thing...just different. Can't have something for everybody. Right now, what the SCCA offers suits a lot of people, but those that is doesn't go elsewhere.

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by grjones1:
Your problem, Jake, is that you can dish it out but you don't want to eat it.

OK, this is it..last time down the vortex for me..I hope... so hard to avoid getting sucked in!

You are guilty by association with Scott and your agreement with the board's decision.

"Guilty by association?" You can do better than that...look if I said something, fine. If he says something, you can't hang ME for it! (Shrugs shoulders)

I'll tell you what, I'm fair enough to offer this: If we find, or you can document, that the 115 stock Hp 2.0 NB can't achieve the 144 Hp (at the crank) that I said it can with all IT legal mods, I'll make that public apology from the tower at Summit Point, if you promise to do the same if it can.
GRJ


[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 30, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by grjones1 (edited July 30, 2004).]

Sigh...another point missed. First, I was referring not to the general topic, but the name calling and credential slamming you've partaken in regarding the ITAC guys who volunteer their time and bravely post here. No reason to apologise for your opinion that the car can produce whatever HP, or even your larger view of dominance.

I just feel your comments and attitude are not appropriate, especially considering the recent revitalization of the ITAC, which appears to be making real progress....

Your "bet" or "offering" or whatever misses the point as well. It's not just about HP, it's about the Beetle becoming the dominant beat all comers car in ITC that you say it will become. Most here disagree, and I will wait and see, I guess.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

 

[Catch22]

The appeal of NASA seems to lie mostly within things like the Spec classes like the SeR thing and the Honda Challenge (which is by far NASA's most popular classes). Ironically enough these classes offered places for cars that were not at all classed (Hybrid Hondas, Integra Type R) or badly classed/weight Specd (SeR, Civic DX, Integra GSR, etc.) by the SCCA. Again, with emphasis added... NASAs most popular race classes are taking advantages of SCCAs mistakes and omissions.

Seems pretty easy to fix to me. Repair the mistakes (as has already been done with the SeR for example) and class as many of the omissions as possible (for example, if the E36 BMW is an ITS car, why isn't the Integra Type R??? Look at the numbers and scratch your head.). Do these things and suddenly, just that easy, you are doing EVERYTHING better than NASA and they stay firmly rooted a distant 2nd in US amatuer racing.
Keep playing status quo and protecting the competitiveness of 30 year old cars... Thats not going to work out all that great in the end.

And Jake, remember that you are trying to reason with a man who has asserted publicly that the ITAC is a puppet of VW, has apologized for insulting you by calling you a member of that group, has insinuated that anyone that disagrees with his position is gutless, keeps referring back to the state of ITC in one series at one track as representative of his position that all is healthy, and hates me because I had the nerve to...
1. Disagree with him (How DARE I!!!) and
2. Call him out on all of his silly crap.
If you want to try to reason with him, fine. I have decided to just stand outside his cage and poke him with a stick for my personal entertainment purposes. Any hope of reason flew away towards the VW headquarters on black helicopters 5 pages ago.

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by grjones1:

I'll tell you what, I'm fair enough to offer this: If we find, or you can document, that the 115 stock Hp 2.0 NB can't achieve the 144 Hp (at the crank) that I said it can with all IT legal mods, I'll make that public apology from the tower at Summit Point, if you promise to do the same if it can.
GRJ

First off, if it CAN'T achieve 144hp at the crank, then we'd better remove some weight for it in ITC, because it's going to be too heavy for the class if that's the case...

Second, I'll do you one better....

You provide the ITAC with documentation that the NB's 2.0L I-4 is capable of making MORE than 144hp at the crank in IT trim, and I'll personally, as a member and chairman of this ITAC, see to it that this classification gets corrected. A 30% increase would be in the neighborhood of 150hp or so, and if you can show us that this is indeed achievable with IT prep, I'll see to it that corrections get made.

The problem here is that you are accusing US of not knowing what kind of HP this thing might be capable of, but the truth is that YOU don't know either... We've made some assumptions, based on past experience and what technical details are available, and we went from there...

We KNOW what a Honda, a VW, and a 510 are capable of, and have used those cars to come up with a reasonable process for classifying cars in ITC. Care to tell us some real hp values for the Fiesta? (if you have already, I'm sorry but I missed it, so please tell again) I would love to have more data points to use in refining the process. Problem is is that very few are willing to reveal the real numbers.

OK, while this has all been entertaining, I'm going RACING! The track beckons and I'm obliged to answer it's call!

Double Regional w/ Vintage and a Historics show at Bremerton Raceway this weekend. Come on out if you're in the area!

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

 

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by grjones1:
I'll tell you what, I'm fair enough to offer this: If we find, or you can document, that the 115 stock Hp 2.0 NB can't achieve the 144 Hp (at the crank) that I said it can with all IT legal mods, I'll make that public apology from the tower at Summit Point, if you promise to do the same if it can.
GRJ

Darin may have eluded to it above but 144hp at the crank is EXACTLY WHAT WE SAID IT COULD MAKE (115 + 25%). If we are both right, the car has the target pw/weight ratio we wanted in ITC. Add to that: real front heavy, struts and an I-beam, narrow wheels for the weight, 2760lbs......and I think you will find we are logically in the ballpark.

I know YOU don't, but others seem to.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
ITS RX-7 & Spec Miata 1.6
New England Region R188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com