dual classification

[spnkzss]

I can see why some people wouldn't want to allow cars of a lower class to run in the higher class. There is a huge speed differential. My ITC car would get killed by ITA cars, but at someplace like VIR, I was held up tremendously by an ITA car. I would get by and then he would drive by my on the back straight like I was standing still.

I think it is a good idea to allow lower classes to run the higher classes IF:
1.) you STRICTLY enforce the 120% of the leaders speed
2.) you run YOUR class letters in the rear window so it's easy for that ITA car to see you as they come flying up
3.) NOBODY bitches when the next higher class is already racing with you so you can't double dip )ie ITC and ITB running together).

 

[ScotMac]

Some good discussion here. Where I stand at the moment:

DC's for tweeners - I still like the idea. Let the market decide. Biggest issue is to codify a 'tweener' and spell it out in the ITCS that those types of 'border cars' will be the only ones considered. Hard to do and a hard message to tell someone their ca is NOT a tweener.

DC's for cars that move up or down a class - 1 year DC. Specific mention on the spec line with expiration date.

DC's for everyone - do it locally.
[/b]

I think Andy's conclusions are good here, though he didn't bother to support the last two.

Specifically, i think the last point needs expounding upon. I see this as a "track time" issue. In general, there are (many) regions where track time is precious commodity, and others where they are struggling to get people to fill the grid. Allowing the DC at the former could cause some people to not be able to race while others gorge on the track time afforded the DC. Whereas, it could be a great boon for the latter struggling tracks, allowing them to get the revenue associated w/ filling out their grids.

 

[mom'sZ]

I can see why some people wouldn't want to allow cars of a lower class to run in the higher class. There is a huge speed differential. My ITC car would get killed by ITA cars, but at someplace like VIR, I was held up tremendously by an ITA car. I would get by and then he would drive by my on the back straight like I was standing still.

I think it is a good idea to allow lower classes to run the higher classes IF:
1.) you STRICTLY enforce the 120% of the leaders speed
2.) you run YOUR class letters in the rear window so it's easy for that ITA car to see you as they come flying up
3.) NOBODY bitches when the next higher class is already racing with you so you can't double dip )ie ITC and ITB running together).
[/b]

This is starting to make my head spin. Just to be clear, if a car is dual classed, say a B car is dual classed into A or B, and I run it as an A car, in the A race, I'm an A car running for A points right? It might only be able to go in one direction. In otherwords you could allow B car to run in C but not A. Because in C. you should be at the front not holding anybody up to bad, but in A you are just tacked onto the slow end of the pack. Spanky: you think they should be made to put there original class in the back window? Why? So normal cars have fair warning that this car may not be able to keep up? or be faster? Dual classification is not the greatest idea IMHO.

I see this as a "track time" issue. In general, there are (many) regions where track time is precious commodity, and others where they are struggling to get people to fill the grid. Allowing the DC at the former could cause some people to not be able to race while others gorge on the track time afforded the DC.
[/b]

yeah Scot agreed, some people, the ones who have the dual classed cars. A wholly unfair situation for those that don't. Unless everybody is allowed to DC.
You know, why not let everybody run in any damn class they feel like paying an entrance fee for? Regardless of what they wieght? Hell, why even have classes? Just let us all run in one big giant race? Now I'm just being silly, no silly isn't.... er... no, I won't go there. (but calling myself that would be OK wouldn't it?)

 

[JoshS]

This concept of letting slower-classed cars run in a faster class is NOT dual-classification, because the car in question would not have a classification in the faster class.

Case in point: if you have an ITB Volvo: dual-classification would say that there is a classification listing for it in ITA, presumably with different specs (weight, at least) than the same car's ITB listing. The car could run in either class, using the specifications for that class.

But this allowance for ITB cars to run in ITA assumes that there is no ITA listing for the car ... it's just a rule that allows one to run in ITA using the ITB classification. No dual-classification, as there is only one classification in the book.

This whole issue of speed differentials is a red-herring. Out here in San Francisco Region, nearly every race group has huge speed differentials. In my group, at our last race at Laguna Seca, the fastest lap times ranged from 1:37 to 1:59 (I do 1:47s). I did one National race last year in T2 where GT1 and GTL were in the same group. Fastest lap times ranged from 1:35 to 2:15 (I did 1:54s). You can figure out who is slow and who is fast without a label on the window.

But again, I feel strongly that it is inappropriate to codify a rule that does this "upclassing" allowance. A region could choose to do that in its supplemental regs.

 

[gran racing]

In otherwords you could allow B car to run in C but not A. Because in C. you should be at the front not holding anybody up to bad, but in A you are just tacked onto the slow end of the pack.[/b]

Using the process assuming the car can achieve the min. weight, it would do equally as well in both classes. This would help people who are unable to (due to whatever reason) achieve min. weight.

 

[mom'sZ]

Using the process assuming the car can achieve the min. weight, it would do equally as well in both classes. This would help people who are unable to (due to whatever reason) achieve min. weight.
[/b]

Dave, you are right, it only would go one way. The only reason to do it is because min. wieght is unachievable (or just really hard). So to me, that is the definition of a tweener. If a car's process wieght is x amount under curb wieght, it's a tweener. (just trying to throw out some verbage to stimulate conversation on a real rule) It gets to run in both classes and after two three years which ever class got the most entries, that is where it lands... for good. No DC needed. No muddling the rule set. No camel breath to put up with. Seems to me it would be OK to try on a few cars that do truely seem to fall between two classes.
Under subscribed regions can do whatever they can think of to try to bring up their numbers.

 

[Knestis]

Oh, for Pete's sake! We don't even know what it is we are talking about when we say "dual classification." I rest my case.

K

 

[JohnRW]

Amen. "Dual classification" to me smells like "Revel in my own mediocrity".

 

[mom'sZ]

Amen. "Dual classification" to me smells like "Revel in my own mediocrity".
[/b]

that's funny... I don't care who you are, that's funny

 

[spnkzss]

Oh, for Pete's sake! We don't even know what it is we are talking about when we say "dual classification." I rest my case.

K
[/b]

Actually there are 2 different conversations going on here. 1 about dual classification and another about allowing a lower classed IT car run in a higher IT class at lower class rules.

Didn't you know noboday can stay on one subject only for too long

 

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

I think one way to define a 'tweener' is a car that has realistic, achievable weights in both classes. With a cap of say 100# over curb weight on the high side (not counting the driver).

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

I think one way to define a 'tweener' is a car that has realistic, achievable weights in both classes. With a cap of say 100# over curb weight on the high side (not counting the driver). [/b]

If the cars lower weight (higher class) was achievable, then there would be no need to consider the car for DC, it would just be in that class without issue.

The MR2 is a tweener IMHO. Data currently shows it can't quite get to it's ITA weight - and most certainly not without a tremendous effort at that. So while it may look and smell like an ITA car, the weight it says it is supposed to run in not attainable (throwing out any 100lbs of static arguement), then it goes 'down' a class.

I think there are probably less than 10 tweeners in the ITCS that we would have to address.

 

[Bill Miller]

If the cars lower weight (higher class) was achievable, then there would be no need to consider the car for DC, it would just be in that class without issue.

The MR2 is a tweener IMHO. Data currently shows it can't quite get to it's ITA weight - and most certainly not without a tremendous effort at that. So while it may look and smell like an ITA car, the weight it says it is supposed to run in not attainable (throwing out any 100lbs of static arguement), then it goes 'down' a class.

I think there are probably less than 10 tweeners in the ITCS that we would have to address.
[/b]

Andy,

Your position is based on the premise that a car should be classed in the class that will give it the lowest achievable weight. I suppose that's valid, but there's nothing anywhere that says that's the way it should be. Folks have talked a lot about where to find new ITC cars. There really aren't that many new ones out there, and of those, most agree that they don't appeal to racers. Why not look to ITB to find some of those cars?

As I've said earlier, it's pretty easy to spec a car for two classes. The one where it would be at its lightest achievable weight, and the class below that. Look around at some of the ITB cars. IIRC, the process weight for a Rabbit GTI in ITC was ~75# higher than the old ITB weight (2250# IIRC). That car made 90 hp stock. That's 20hp off of what you've called a 'solid ITB' car that was 'in the middle'. That's a lot in a lower hp class. Look at dropping that car, and similar ones, in ITC. Or give them the ability to run in both, and let the racers decide.

 

[JoshS]

Actually there are 2 different conversations going on here. 1 about dual classification and another about allowing a lower classed IT car run in a higher IT class at lower class rules.

Didn't you know noboday can stay on one subject only for too long
[/b]

The problem started the moment the thread started, because the poll mixes the two concepts as though they are equivalent.

 

[ScotMac]

Andy,

Your position is based on the premise that a car should be classed in the class that will give it the lowest achievable weight. I suppose that's valid, but there's nothing anywhere that says that's the way it should be. Folks have talked a lot about where to find new ITC cars. There really aren't that many new ones out there, and of those, most agree that they don't appeal to racers. Why not look to ITB to find some of those cars?

As I've said earlier, it's pretty easy to spec a car for two classes. The one where it would be at its lightest achievable weight, and the class below that. Look around at some of the ITB cars. IIRC, the process weight for a Rabbit GTI in ITC was ~75# higher than the old ITB weight (2250# IIRC). That car made 90 hp stock. That's 20hp off of what you've called a 'solid ITB' car that was 'in the middle'. That's a lot in a lower hp class. Look at dropping that car, and similar ones, in ITC. Or give them the ability to run in both, and let the racers decide.
[/b]

I don't think we should be systematically pulling cars from ITB to run ITC, since both are struggling, but in most regions ITB is doing better than ITC. ie, we don't want to bring ITB down for the sake of ITC, and end up w/ two classes that are really bad off.

However, what i really think you meant to say (hope so) was that if there are ITB cars that are not being run, because of low HP, then we should look at moving them down, in order to pump up ITC a bit. Well, i would contend that those cars are simply miss-classed, and if so, yes, they may need looking at.

Also, Andy, is that HP figure and quote accurate? ie, did you say that 110hp (stock) is middle of the road ITB car? Hmmm...my Fiero is looking worse all the time. It was 90hp in 84-87, and 95 in 88.

Lastly, Josh's point about groups differentials in SF-Region, brings up another interesting point about ITB and ITC cars in SF Region.

1. Are others around the country seeing 2002's dominating ITB? I don't have big enough sample yet, but i have seen a couple of races where they were 4-6 secs faster than the next closest ITB car.

2. What about the Datsun 510's in ITC? Are they dominating in other regions? Multiple of the 510's in the SFRegion are *equaling* those winning BMW 2002 *ITB* times and setting track records for ITC.

Have others seen this? If so, we might to "adjust" those 510's. If not, maybe the other ITC drivers should start looking at the SFR 510's a little more closely!!

(Note, sorry to get off topic, just was wondering about the other regions)

 

[Knestis]

...

1. ...i have seen a couple of races where they were 4-6 secs faster than the next closest ITB car.

2. ...Multiple of the 510's in the SFRegion are *equaling* those winning BMW 2002 *ITB* times and setting track records for ITC. ...[/b]

1 + 2 = 5

When something LOOKS wrong, it usually is.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Also, Andy, is that HP figure and quote accurate? ie, did you say that 110hp (stock) is middle of the road ITB car? Hmmm...my Fiero is looking worse all the time. It was 90hp in 84-87, and 95 in 88.[/b]

There is a wide range of stock hp levels in all classes. What 'fits' has to do with 'attainable power to weight numbers'. The way the process works, a 116hp Miata can run against a 140hp 240SX - all in ITA.

Lastly, Josh's point about groups differentials in SF-Region, brings up another interesting point about ITB and ITC cars in SF Region.

1. Are others around the country seeing 2002's dominating ITB? I don't have big enough sample yet, but i have seen a couple of races where they were 4-6 secs faster than the next closest ITB car.

2. What about the Datsun 510's in ITC? Are they dominating in other regions? Multiple of the 510's in the SFRegion are *equaling* those winning BMW 2002 *ITB* times and setting track records for ITC.

Have others seen this? If so, we might to "adjust" those 510's. If not, maybe the other ITC drivers should start looking at the SFR 510's a little more closely!! [/b]

IT doesn't make adjustments based on results. Pockets of success happen for a huge variety of reasons.

 

[MMiskoe]

Cripes, does this have to be so complicated? The SM guys take a lot of crap from IT guys some days, but take a look at what they did on the East coast (at least) w/ SM vrs SSM. Lots of cars that drive in two races per event. Why? Because they can.

Why is it such a hard concept to ask if a car can run one class higher than it is currently classed w/ no changes except a digit on the class lettering? The XXXXX that is currently classed in ITA at XXXX pounds wants to go run in ITS. Let him go do it, no changes made, no requests made. If he shows up the ITS guys, oh well, they ought to be faster. If he's slower than snail dung, again. So what? So is the guy who's limping around out there on 3 out of 4 spark plugs because he needs to simply 'finish' a race. We ain't nascar w/ so many entrants that we turn people away.

This helps car counts, costs the CRB nothing, allows more people to do more racing. It helps the guys in the Shelby who don't want to race w/ B guys. If the ITR guys want to do this, so they move on to either ITE or SPO. How do you lose?

In the northeast we see a lot of 1.8 SM cars that go run in either ITA or ITS. I met a guy who entered the same car in SM, SPO and ITS in the same double race weekend. He got in 5 races in two days (didn't stick around for the last run group on Sunday). In other words, with the right car, it is already possible so why fight over it.

Might was well bicker over something more interesting and useful like what's the best color to paint your car.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Cripes, does this have to be so complicated? The SM guys take a lot of crap from IT guys some days, but take a look at what they did on the East coast (at least) w/ SM vrs SSM. Lots of cars that drive in two races per event. Why? Because they can.

Why is it such a hard concept to ask if a car can run one class higher than it is currently classed w/ no changes except a digit on the class lettering? The XXXXX that is currently classed in ITA at XXXX pounds wants to go run in ITS. Let him go do it, no changes made, no requests made. If he shows up the ITS guys, oh well, they ought to be faster. If he's slower than snail dung, again. So what? So is the guy who's limping around out there on 3 out of 4 spark plugs because he needs to simply 'finish' a race. We ain't nascar w/ so many entrants that we turn people away.

This helps car counts, costs the CRB nothing, allows more people to do more racing. It helps the guys in the Shelby who don't want to race w/ B guys. If the ITR guys want to do this, so they move on to either ITE or SPO. How do you lose?

In the northeast we see a lot of 1.8 SM cars that go run in either ITA or ITS. I met a guy who entered the same car in SM, SPO and ITS in the same double race weekend. He got in 5 races in two days (didn't stick around for the last run group on Sunday). In other words, with the right car, it is already possible so why fight over it.

Might was well bicker over something more interesting and useful like what's the best color to paint your car.

[/b]

Matt, while I agree with you fundamentally, why can't this be done locally? Like a NARRC, NERRC, MARRS, SARRC, etc rule? If you do it for IT, you really should do it for everyone. Then the GT1 guys will bitch as they have no 'up' class.

Are we saying that it should be a rule that any car can run in any class 'above' it at any time?

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Cripes, does this have to be so complicated? The SM guys take a lot of crap from IT guys some days, but take a look at what they did on the East coast (at least) w/ SM vrs SSM. Lots of cars that drive in two races per event. Why? Because they can.

Why is it such a hard concept to ask if a car can run one class higher than it is currently classed w/ no changes except a digit on the class lettering? The XXXXX that is currently classed in ITA at XXXX pounds wants to go run in ITS. Let him go do it, no changes made, no requests made. If he shows up the ITS guys, oh well, they ought to be faster. If he's slower than snail dung, again. So what? So is the guy who's limping around out there on 3 out of 4 spark plugs because he needs to simply 'finish' a race. We ain't nascar w/ so many entrants that we turn people away.

This helps car counts, costs the CRB nothing, allows more people to do more racing. It helps the guys in the Shelby who don't want to race w/ B guys. If the ITR guys want to do this, so they move on to either ITE or SPO. How do you lose?

In the northeast we see a lot of 1.8 SM cars that go run in either ITA or ITS. I met a guy who entered the same car in SM, SPO and ITS in the same double race weekend. He got in 5 races in two days (didn't stick around for the last run group on Sunday). In other words, with the right car, it is already possible so why fight over it.

Might was well bicker over something more interesting and useful like what's the best color to paint your car.
[/b]

Hold the phone, I kept wondering why would anyone want to take an ITy car and run in ITx. The reason I wondered about this is that out here, IT runs in the same run group, along with Touring, HP, and sometimes SRX-7. I wish I could have run in that run group, ITE runs with GT, RS, SP, AS, and F/EP, so anyone in IT can DD, except for ITE. So Rodger will still be running in the same run group and all likelyhood will still probably be beating on SM crossovers.

James