Dual Classifications in IT

[Andy Bettencourt]

From another thread. Let's debate here.

After much debate the ITAC recommended a dual classification (DC) for the cars in ITS that are now part of ITR. One of the immediate concerns was the precident that it would set for requests for DC's of other cars. The pros and cons were discussed about this new line of thinking and the benefits seemed to outweight the negatives.
I would think these will be approached in an extreamly conservative manner (like PCA's) only being applied in situations where it made sense in that the car was a 'tweener'. Very few cars can be argued to be such.

In an effort to make this as productive as possible, please explain WHY you think something so we can all benefit from your thought process.

 

[steve s]

i think the cars that will be moved to another class should be given some time in DC to figure things out.[for the club and competitors ]
now it should only apply to cars built before the DC date. and the DC should be for 1 or 2 years.

 

[Knestis]

From the other thread, taken out of order for the sake of logic, not to alter the context (I hope)...

The DC is not to allow people to share cars. It's a benefit, not the driving force. More choices for drivers and an attractive category to non-SCCA members is what drives this thought process.[/b]

If that is a statement of policy, it's a good thing. Please don't let the tables get turned and allow 'sharing' to become its rationale. THAT would be open to abuse and if it can be avoided, one route to possible unintended consequences is, I think, avoided. Good.

... the majority of cars can 'fit'. Some can't. Those cars aren't "misclassed". They are tweeners. They are cars that may be listed too light to be practical in a higher class. A DC may be a good thing.[/b]

If this is also a matter of policy - that the DC is an option only to resolve (perhaps transitionally?) cars that don't "fit" effectively (e.g., those with cage diameter/minimum weight conflicts, YES), then...good.

This policy HAS NOT been put into effect to satisfy the E36 guys. Get that out of your head. SOme IATC members wanted an immediate swapover, some wanted a sunset on a DC, and then discussion was led by a CRB member on the pros and cons to DC's in general. And here we are. I still haven't heard a solid reason NOT to do it.[/b]

If the policy's primary intention is not to enable sharing, and is not to placate disenfranchised BMW racers, what is it? Maybe that's all I need. Is it to address the tweener question more broadly, and the e36 ITS/ITR situation is just one instantiation of that policy issue?

Your 'what if the next 5 ITAC guys think different' is a red herring IMHO. You could use that arguement for any change at any time.[/b]

Sorry, I don't think that's a fair and strikes me as a bit of a brush off, pesonally. If the DC policy is NEVER PUT IN PLACE, it can't be repurposed by some future decision maker. All I ask is that the immediate upside be balanced against consideration of the almost inevitable "transformation of intentions" that we'll have to deal with in the future. I have an entire dissertation on the subject (and I mean Dissertation, literally) if you want the link.

... Please detail the unintended conciquences so that we can address them. ... [/b]

Again, that's just not very fair. If we KNEW what the unintended consequences were, they wouldn't be unintended consequences. Would it be reasonable to have expected the folks who wrote the "no threaded shock" rule to anticipate that in 20 years the market would be flooded with affordable, adjustable suspension kits? Was it anticipated that someone would pack a Motec in a stock box when the ECU rule was written? Did the guy who said, "Hey, let's allow alternate bushing materials!" picture spherical bearings, when the then state-of-the-art was mod, new aftermarket urethane parts molded off of OE bits? No, no, and no. The cloudiness of my crystal ball - my inability to prove that something "bad" WILL happen - is not a fair baiss for outright condemnation of my concerns.

Kirk (who wants to remind anyone reading this that Andy is smart enough to know that it's a discussion of policy, not an attack)

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

If that is a statement of policy, it's a good thing. Please don't let the tables get turned and allow 'sharing' to become its rationale. THAT would be open to abuse and if it can be avoided, one route to possible unintended consequences is, I think, avoided. Good.[/b]

We are 100% on the same page.

If this is also a matter of policy - that the DC is an option only to resolve (perhaps transitionally?) cars that don't "fit" effectively (e.g., those with cage diameter/minimum weight conflicts, YES), then...good.[/b]

Again, 100% with you. I can't speak 100% for written in stone policy, but this is certainly how I look at it.

If the policy's primary intention is not to enable sharing, and is not to placate disenfranchised BMW racers, what is it? Maybe that's all I need. Is it to address the tweener question more broadly, and the e36 ITS/ITR situation is just one instantiation of that policy issue?[/b]

This may be hard to understand but here is how I see the progression of the recommendation: The ITS/ITR cars started the discussion. After we went round and round, it was thought that a DC for tweeners could be a good thing. Additional benefits are the potential for more revenue and satisfy ITS/ITR issues as the class shakes out.

Sorry, I don't think that's a fair and strikes me as a bit of a brush off, pesonally. If the DC policy is NEVER PUT IN PLACE, it can't be repurposed by some future decision maker. All I ask is that the immediate upside be balanced against consideration of the almost inevitable "transformation of intentions" that we'll have to deal with in the future. I have an entire dissertation on the subject (and I mean Dissertation, literally) if you want the link.[/b]

It's not intended to be a brush off but any new 'majority' on the CRB/BoD can give or take as they see fit when they are serving their term. The next batch of CRB guys could strike the PCA language from the GCR and allow any future overdogs to run free forever. I guess I don't understand your point. All we can do is our best in the here-and-now while leaving enough breadcrumbs for the followers to undertand why we did what we did to help them make their own decisions.

Again, that's just not very fair. If we KNEW what the unintended consequences were, they wouldn't be unintended consequences. Would it be reasonable to have expected the folks who wrote the "no threaded shock" rule to anticipate that in 20 years the market would be flooded with affordable, adjustable suspension kits? Was it anticipated that someone would pack a Motec in a stock box when the ECU rule was written? Did the guy who said, "Hey, let's allow alternate bushing materials!" picture spherical bearings, when the then state-of-the-art was mod, new aftermarket urethane parts molded off of OE bits? No, no, and no. The cloudiness of my crystal ball - my inability to prove that something "bad" WILL happen - is not a fair baiss for outright condemnation of my concerns.[/b]

I disagree here. One of the most key qualities of a committee member IMHO is the ability to extrapolate the concequences of a rule change. Just because they are 'unintended' does not mean they have to be 'unforeseen'. The reason I don't like the ECU rule is that someone SHOULD have seen that coming. The suspension bushing was an unclear rule right from the start. Each change needs to be looked at for it's pros and cons...and this isn't a rule change that has many - if any - it's just a policy change that limits such damage - no?

Kirk (who wants to remind anyone reading this that Andy is smart enough to know that it's a discussion of policy, not an attack) [/b]

AB (who wants to remind everyone that this kind of discussion is what makes these BB's worth it. We all don't have to agree, but we need to hear all the angles so we can formulate educated opinions)

If that is a statement of policy, it's a good thing. Please don't let the tables get turned and allow 'sharing' to become its rationale. THAT would be open to abuse and if it can be avoided, one route to possible unintended consequences is, I think, avoided. Good.[/b]

We are 100% on the same page.

If this is also a matter of policy - that the DC is an option only to resolve (perhaps transitionally?) cars that don't "fit" effectively (e.g., those with cage diameter/minimum weight conflicts, YES), then...good.[/b]

Again, 100% with you. I can't speak 100% for written in stone policy, but this is certainly how I look at it.

If the policy's primary intention is not to enable sharing, and is not to placate disenfranchised BMW racers, what is it? Maybe that's all I need. Is it to address the tweener question more broadly, and the e36 ITS/ITR situation is just one instantiation of that policy issue?[/b]

This may be hard to understand but here is how I see the progression of the recommendation: The ITS/ITR cars started the discussion. After we went round and round, it was thought that a DC for tweeners could be a good thing. Additional benefits are the potential for more revenue and satisfy ITS/ITR issues as the class shakes out.

Sorry, I don't think that's a fair and strikes me as a bit of a brush off, pesonally. If the DC policy is NEVER PUT IN PLACE, it can't be repurposed by some future decision maker. All I ask is that the immediate upside be balanced against consideration of the almost inevitable "transformation of intentions" that we'll have to deal with in the future. I have an entire dissertation on the subject (and I mean Dissertation, literally) if you want the link.[/b]

It's not intended to be a brush off but any new 'majority' on the CRB/BoD can give or take as they see fit when they are serving their term. The next batch of CRB guys could strike the PCA language from the GCR and allow any future overdogs to run free forever. I guess I don't understand your point. All we can do is our best in the here-and-now while leaving enough breadcrumbs for the followers to undertand why we dd what we did to help them make their own decisions.

Again, that's just not very fair. If we KNEW what the unintended consequences were, they wouldn't be unintended consequences. Would it be reasonable to have expected the folks who wrote the "no threaded shock" rule to anticipate that in 20 years the market would be flooded with affordable, adjustable suspension kits? Was it anticipated that someone would pack a Motec in a stock box when the ECU rule was written? Did the guy who said, "Hey, let's allow alternate bushing materials!" picture spherical bearings, when the then state-of-the-art was mod, new aftermarket urethane parts molded off of OE bits? No, no, and no. The cloudiness of my crystal ball - my inability to prove that something "bad" WILL happen - is not a fair baiss for outright condemnation of my concerns.[/b]

I disagree here. One of the most key qualities of a committee member IMHO is the ability to extrapolate the concequences of a rule change. Just because they are 'unintended' does not mean they have to be 'unforeseen'. The reason I don't like the ECU rule is that someone SHOULD have seen that coming. The suspension bushing was a unclear rule. Each change needs to be looked at for it's pros and cons...and this isn't a rule change that has many - if any - it's just a policy change that limits such damage - no?

Kirk (who wants to remind anyone reading this that Andy is smart enough to know that it's a discussion of policy, not an attack) [/b]

AB (who wants to remind everyone that this kind of discussion is what makes these BB's worth it. We all don't have to agree, but we need to hear all the angles so we can formulate educated opinions - so THEN and only THEN should you write in and tell the ITAC they are morons... )

 

[dickita15]

First of all I strongly believe that the cars being moving from S to R should get Dual Classification at least for a couple of years. The wheel and weight changes do take some work and expense and there are many scca racers who only race a few times a year.

Then the more I think about the broader question of DCs the more I like it. ITA for instance has never been healthier, but there are cars now that cannot make the cut. I am not trying to make this about me but I will speak of what I know as illustration. First Gen Rx7’s where talked about moving to B when PCA came along. Some guys liked it and some did not want to move. Most of those who did not want to move down sited going slower and buying new wheels as the most common reasons. In the end the final reason not to consider it was that the minimum cages in the cars could not support the new process weight. I have four ITA Rx7’s at my shop (two are actively raced at this time) and all 4 have cages that were legal for the heavier weight. I poll the Mazda section of this sight and got about 50 answers. Just about half the cars had small cages and half were oversized.
The Rx7 got a 100-pound weight break in A last year. While possible with a light driver it is not easy or cheap to get to that weight. I am going to try. I have a new shell on a rotisserie as we speak. It is going to take a lot of work and a bit of expense to do it but hopefully I can get close to minimum. There is no practical reason for me to put this much effort in to building an ITA Rx7 but I want to try.

But if the car had DC available someone could take anyone of the 50% of the cars out there and be able to race quite cheap. If the Rx7 fits this scenario how about the many other cars that cannot even keep up with a Rx7. In ITA alone think of the Fieros, Collolas, MR2s and other cars that have no chance now.

I am not worried about the confusion to spectators, at the Glen last month there were 1st gens in Spec 7, IT7, ITA, EP & GT3. I don’t think there were any GT2’s.

I just can’t think of the down side. Give the racers a choice where there is no clear cut best answer and let the market decide.

SCCA club racing is a participant driven. Rules should be written for the participant’s not theoretical spectators.

 

[lateapex911]

Kirk raises excellent points, as usual.

My vote was initially (when DC was discussed a year or so ago for certain tweener cars) "No", as it seemed to complicate the classes, was confusing to onlookers, was historically not done, and I was afraid of the unknown.

Then ITR came to pass, and I started thinking about cars in ITS that really were better suited for ITR.

Out of fairness to the owners of those cars, I thought that dual classification was a proper solution, if applied categorically. At this point, the policy is that DC only be granted to cars that have been moved from one class to a new class.

It is different than the great reshuffle of 05/06 where cars were being moved as "corrections", and always downward. A downward move is most always easier than an upward move. So allowing the owners of the moved cars time to deal with the changes of an upward move is an important point in my book.

Now, that said, if you fail to aknowledge the stipulation that DC is only granted to upward class moves, (and into a new class at that), then yes, a precedent has been set that allows Dual Classing.

And that point has been discussed...that we need to be careful with this move, or we could find ourselves hit with a hundred DC requests based on the precident. But the precedent at this point will only come up again when a class over ITR is created.

Now, that said, with regards to a larger scope dual classing concept, (extended to inlude cars being moved up a class, AND cars that the process deems "tweeners") here are the pros and cons that I see:

Pros:

- Increased customer satisfaction. Their car hasn't been railroaded against their will.

- Increased revenue and participation. Drivers who couldn't afford or couldn't maintain a car now can now race by sharing a car, as it can fit in two classes. Obviously, this will vary from region to region, and run grouping will determine the viability of that concept. But it's still a possible upside.

- Avoidence of the loss of competitors who object to the cost, or can't bufget for the cost of the required changes from the move upwards. (many cars are built to the weight specs of a certain class, and losing weight requires a rethink and reworking of some significant issues)

- Better member retention. Members of cars that are classed unrealistically can choose whether to stay in the current class, or move to a new class, perhaps after adding weight and changing wheels to comply with the new class requirements. Some cars can't make the move though, as their cage has been built to a weight standard that will be exceeded in the new class. A forced move would require recaging of those cars, and the possible loss of those members to other venues. DC allows them to remain as is, but benefits at least some of that marques owners.

- Better racing. Cars that have not been moved in the past because of concerns of cage issues and have continued to languish. Dual classing will allow many of those cars to return to a competitive position, improving racing across the board.

- Helping to reduce un needed spending.

- Allowing a form of "free market" thinking to deteimine the survival and balance of the cars and classes.

Cons:

- Allowing a "free market" thinking means we can't always put cars where we (only) want them. In ITRs case, it might hurt growth. (On the other hand, forcing cars into the class can backfire, and the owners of those cars might go elsewhere. lose-lose)

- Confusion to spectators. (yea, I know, what spectators?!) And yes, it's a subtle point as we already have identical body styles in different classes as it is.

- The creation of a precedent that could spread to cars that aren't in "need" of dual classification.

Some discussion points as I see them.

Overall, I am hugely in favor of the current policy of DC.

 

[Knestis]

Questions for consideration:

1. Is the IT7/spec7/ITA situation good for the club, stategically? Why or why not? Answers to this question go some way in illustrating an individual's propensities on this subject.

2. Is it politically feasible to allow DCs and NOT have them be perpetual? Seems like, once there are 325s logbooked in ITS and in ITR, someone would have to be squatted on again to consolidate. We have (the Club) not demonstrated that we are at all good at consolidating or eliminating listings.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Questions for consideration:

1. Is the IT7/spec7/ITA situation good for the club, stategically? Why or why not? Answers to this question go some way in illustrating an individual's propensities on this subject.

K [/b]

Ahhh, the trick question!

In my mind the Triple 7 (T7) classing is both good and bad for the club. Here is how I see it:

1. The birth of T7 manifested from a large amount of drivers in a car that was increasingly uncompetitive in an environment that showed no sympathy or light at the end of the tunnel - BAD

2. Each Region has it's unique ability to support it's racers. If there is demand and particiapation, then the local teams can create a class - GOOD

3. Now that the ship has been 'righted', there are more classes to run in for these drivers - GOOD and BAD (depends on who you ask - some will say it's not fair that a Regional class exisits almost exclusively to allow some to run double track time - others will say you can always run your IT-whatever in ITE or your local catch-all if that is what you really need)

4. What matters now is that the 12A RX-7 fits in ITA. GOOD

5. What also matters is that each local Region can decide for themselves (and what is best for their members) if they keep T7 (for those that even have it - NER is SCCA's second largest Region and we don't recognize either)

So the answer is there is no clear answer from me. The T7 issue was born under duress and may die because of harmony. I have always thought that splinter Spec classes signaled a failure from the 10,000 foot level but may be a success at the local level.

Clear as mud.

 

[dickita15]

Questions for consideration:

1. Is the IT7/spec7/ITA situation good for the club, stategically? Why or why not? Answers to this question go some way in illustrating an individual's propensities on this subject.
[/b]

What makes something good for the club? From our perspective as club racers it is a healthy racing program. How can we make the program healthy? One way is to lower barriers to entry. Of course we need to do this while not compromising safety or ending with a club where we would not want to race.

I like to race where there is lots of competition, so I personally do not like a club where there is a class so everyone wins.

IT7 was/is good for the club in that it kept cars for becoming barn queens. This is less true maybe with PCAs, but still in this case a lot of cheap popular cars kept racing. When IT7 started I would have thought it better to give them some reasonable chance of success within the existing IT structure.

2. Is it politically feasible to allow DCs and NOT have them be perpetual? Seems like, once there are 325s logbooked in ITS and in ITR, someone would have to be squatted on again to consolidate. We have (the Club) not demonstrated that we are at all good at consolidating or eliminating listings.
[/b]

I only see this as being possible in a case like cars moving from ITS to ITR, but I guess that is your point, you are concerned about expanding them further.

Cons:
- Allowing a "free market" thinking means we can't always put cars where we (only) want them. In ITRs case, it might hurt growth. (On the other hand, forcing cars into the class can backfire, and the owners of those cars might go elsewhere. lose-lose)
-[/b]

ahh Comrad, Stalin faced the same problem.

 

[ggnagy]

two comments:

1. Shared rides have been mentioned as an extra benefit. Where does it say that ITS and ITR will be in seperate run groups. Given the close relations of the 2 classes, I could see !TR and ITS being a good match in sharing a run group unless either becomes so popular to be come the proverbial 800lb gorilla. Down in the little ole MARRS series, IT7 runs with ITA. SRX7 run with ITC, but we (SRX7s) are so underprepared compared to IT specs that I have seen very few people enter both. The only cars that seem to get away with that are the Miatas. (see Gorilla, .4 Tons)

2. SRX7 may not be the right class for every region, but it seems to have been a very good one for WDCR. Cost of entry is very low, consumables are low to moderate (until we drain every junkyard in the US of transmissions), the racing close no matter where you qualify, and the fellow drivers very supportive.

 

[zracre]

Gee wasn't a certain car not competitive in ITS and drew enough interest to start a class that snowballed into one of the biggest to date? SPEC MIATA! IT7 is a good thing. Some cars are cheap available and not competitive in the class they run. If members want a class it should be voted on, researched for feasability and implemented on a region to region basis...if there is enough interest, make it an official class. As far as DC's go why not? more track time=more people racing in the same classes=more $$$ for the club. If the 325 is ITS and ITR how is that bad??

 

[Knestis]

... I have always thought that splinter Spec classes signaled a failure from the 10,000 foot level but may be a success at the local level.
[/b]

Very well put, Andy - that actually goes a long way toward illuminating how these things do seem to work.

When I say "good for the club, strategically," I mean STRATEGICALLY. Like from the "10,000 foot level." The big view. I'm not sure that it's safe to say that lots of little local successes make for a national success and Andy's comment seems to align with that thinking.

NASA appears to be suffering through this reality, as the national office tries to consolidate something like 65 regional classes into a coherent national program. (A "national championship" will do that to you.) In some ways, this is where the National/Regional designation split in SCCA gets it right - we can have our national soup and eat regionally, too - but IT is a regional-only category with consistent nation-wide rules. Neither fish nor fowl.

We aren't talking here about dual classification being applied to a regional-only class. Instead, it's being applied to a class (ostensibly, one) in a national category. Surely that makes this a higher-risk decision than if Montana Region decided to do apply the same policy...

K

 

[itracer]

I like the DC idea. When I started racing, I did not have my own car. My brother loaned me his car for the school and my first year and a half of racing. After the school we both ran the car on a race weekend. He raced the ITB Rabbit in ITB and I raced the same car in ITE. As a result, I spent the first year of racing learning how to point cars by. If cars that were on the edge of the class could be easily converted (i.e. add bolt in weight) I could have run with ITC and been a lot safer.

DC seems to work for the Miatas. There are many that run in more than one race group throughout the day with little or no change to the car (SM, SSM, ITA).

DC can lead to dual entries which is better for most of the regions. In my case, it would have made for a better transition into racing. It also may allow me to sucker some more peopel into trying it without impacting my season.

~Jason

 

[Bill Miller]

Good comments from a lot of folks.

Andy, I'm not sure that the T7 thing is accurate. The way I understand it, you've go Spec7 (actually a few flavors of this w/ rules and names that vary by Region). It's a supposed spec class w/ a prep level below that of ITA. Then you've got IT7, which I understand is no different than ITA, from a prep level. What it did was to give a bunch of folks a place to race IT-prepared cars, and have a chance at a podium. I think that it was good for the Club from a strategic standpoint, because it helped shine the light on the need to address the class structure in IT. I know for me, it was probably the one thing that really got me thinking about an increased level of granularity in the IT classes.

NER is the 2nd largest Region, and doesn't have Spec7 or IT7, yet the WDCR is the 3rd largest Region (by <1000 members) and now has both. I'm actually not sure why they needed to add IT7 after the weight reduction for the 12A car in ITA was implemented. It's true that ITA/IT7 is a DC, but it's a different animal than what's being put forth for the ITS cars moving to ITR. In the case of ITA/IT7, the prep levels and weights are the same. That's not the case for the ITS cars going to ITR.

I support giving the ITS cars going to ITR DC for the '07 season, but that's only for currently logbooked cars. I don't think a perpetual DC is a good thing for the Club, from a strategic viewpoint. I do understand the cost issues associated w/ the move (mostly wheels/tires), but the same thing applied to the ITA cars that got moved to ITB (they had to dump their 7" wheels and get new 6" wheels). I know that some made the arguement that the cars going from A to B would be happy about the move, and would gladly get new wheels. But the big difference w/ the A -> B moves vs. the S -> R moves, is that the folks going to ITR don't HAVE to buy new wheels, where as the A -> B folks did.

I'll be happy to support perpetual DCs if somebody can give me a compelling arguement as to why it's good for the Club in the long term. And part of that is that the opportunity needs to be extended to other cars in other classes. If not, then it's just another case of certain cars getting special treatment.

 

[zracre]

ITA and IT7 run in the same group down here...there were almost as many IT7 cars as there are ITA cars at some races...adds a competitive class to the group. I believe at a few tracks ITA RX7's can be competitive, but it is very limited. I like the IT7 class and think it should be kept. As Dickita15 says, it keeps them from becoming barn queens, or yard art for that matter!

 

[Knestis]

Evan and Jason are doing a great job of illustrating why I'm concerned...

...adds a competitive class to the group

...at a few tracks ITA RX7's can be competitive, but it is very limited

...keeps them from becoming barn queens

...can lead to dual entries which is better for most of the regions[/b]

These are the kinds of reasons that resonate with folks, when viewed from a "tactical" point of view. They without a doubt are benefits to some individual racers, helping them further their individual goals. But I ask again...

If this logic applies, it applies broadly. If it doesn't apply broadly, then WHY? The answer to that question is the beginning of identifying where the DC policy will start to go wrong down the road, after it can't be undone.

K

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Maybe I am missing it but so far all I read for Bill and Kirk is that it's 'not good strategically' or might be 'bad down the road'...but I haven't heard why. Give me specifics other than the CRB is "gonna get a flood of requests to DC my Humpmobile XLR".

The upside is happier customers. The reasons have been stated in this thread. More options for certain cars, increased multiple run group options, easier entry into Club Racing, a potential solution for tweeners, increased revenue for the club, etc.

What are the downsides? We talked about why it can't be applied from IT to Prod...as far as a DC for every car in the book? IMHO, DC only works for tweeners - or misclassed cars. The ITS cars going to ITR are misclassed so they work. It works for tweeners becasue it gives them another option.

What is doesn't work for in most cases is cars that fit the process. Go a class 'up' and the minimum weight would be impossible to make - go a class 'down' and the amount of ballast needed becomes a major concern to drivers.

Again, what are the downsides? What is ' The wrong road'? How about a policy statement in the GCR?

"Dual Classifications in the ITCS will be implemented on a case-by-case basis for those cars that.......(wording to be determined by the CRB after evaluating thier intent).

 

[JoshS]

I've gotta tell you all, I really don't like dual classifications.

I never really gave the whole idea much thought until I was standing around in the paddock at a San Francision Region regional weekend, and I realized that about half the paddock is made up of Miatas. Then you watch the races, and about half the groups have these same Miatas running in them, usually making up around half of the field. Of course, in the Spec Miata group, they make up the entire field.

A majority of these Miatas are rentals, run by companies that have a fleet of them, renting them out to run in 3 or more run groupsm with no changes at all. (They run in the SM group, the IT group (in ITA), and in the "everything-else" group (in a regional-only class, ITX). ITA and ITX have large turnouts only because of these SM cars, which are not really prepped for ITA or ITX, but just happen to get track time in those classes.

Is it really interesting to see that the bulk of the entries in some class are made up of cars that aren't really prepped to the rules for that class, but are just allowed there anyway?

I guess it bugs me that the paddock looks like a Miata Club meet. It seems unfair that if you like another kind of car, that you can't run in 3 run groups like the Miata guys can.

I think the dual classification within IT isn't likely to get the same effect that the Miata classifications do, because they will very likely be run in the same run group. I feel confident that in San Francisco Region, ITR will run in the current ITS/ITA/ITB/ITC/FP/GP/HP run group.

All of that said, I do feel there is some merit in allowing the cars already running ITS to keep running there for a year or two, giving those people the opportunity to take some time to buy the parts necessary to be competitive in ITR. But in my opinion, new cars on that list without existing logbooks shouldn't be eligible to run in ITS.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Josh, other than your dislike for the 'Miata meet', what is the downside? Every IT car can run in at least 2 classes - it's own and the local catch-all. It's not exclusive to Miata's. It just may be that Miata's are perfect rental cars in that they are easy to drive, easy on parts, low power and are reliable.

Prep level varies so much in IT that an SM to ITA is a non issue. Hell, here in NER, 3/4 of the ITA field is faster than half of the EP/GP/FP cas we get grouped with.

We don't rent our cars for more than 1 class as we don't want to deal with disgruntled customers if another driver fubars a car.

Again, another vote 'no' with no real reason.......... <_<


And did anyone ever stop and realize WHY the fields are populated of tons of Miata's? They are classed according to the process, there is interest and it is EASY to run them. Maybe a trend we ought to learn from...

 

[zracre]

dual classing will manifest itself in instances like IT7 and SM...many cheap cars available...no brainer race cars...uncompetitive as classed. As far as creating it i do believe it is a mistake...unless neccesary as in E36 overdog situations. if a car gets classed, unless there is a large force of people wanting change, it should stay as classed unless it is drastically uncompetitive. I see the toyota corolla FX16 in ITB but the MR2 is not. If we have data, cant we make a change in weight to the car? As far as I have seen, MR2's cannot seem to make the power to hang in ITA...and in ITB with smaller wheels and a little weight it should fit right in...I would not think it would be alot of weight as the car doesn't make lots of power. You could raise the weight to whatever as the car always weighed more than 2200#