E46 IN ITS

"There is a provision in the rules that dates back years that allows for a car only having to meet the appropriate age... so if its in the rules isnt it the philosophy of IT?"


W/ all due respect, the notion that the 5-year rule means that ANY 5 year old car has a right to be classified in ITS is patently absurd. In fact, MOST cars are not classified.

In 1993 I bought my first 2nd gen. RX-7 ITS car and I think I paid $7000. In 1995 I bought a very-well prepared S5 ('89) car for $10,000. In 2002 I sold a decent S5 car w/ trailer for $8000. Ex-SpeedSource cars can be had today for $10,000.
 
I don't know how we get all the way to "patently absurd."

The fact that more cars aren't listed is STRICTLY a function of the fact that additional listings are not requested. In talking with non-members interested in SCCA racing, they are terribly put off with the idea of submitting paperwork to a national organization, as a newbie member, requesting that the car that interests them be reviewed and added to the rules. "That's stupid" was one pretty unequivocal response, of someone who had come to a NASA race to spectate and see if there was a place to race his Korean econobox.

Only someone experienced with club racing is likely to pursue that option and then there's a good chance that he/she is already commited to a make/model that already listed. THEN, there's really only an GOOD incentive to request that a new model be listed, if it looks likely to be significantly better than existing options.

Recipe for stagnation. Most people already running something are going to be reluctant to help add cars that might beat them, in the Club Racing mindset.

K

EDIT - because I have the numbers handy, the price of a base VW Golf increased from $6400 to $15000, between 1983 and 2001 - that's from the "beginning of IT" through a newly eligible year. Even adjusted to the Consumer Price Index, that still represents a 2001-dollar rise in cost of about 29%.
 
"The fact that more cars aren't listed is STRICTLY a function of the fact that additional listings are not requested."

Says who? Are you seriously suggesting that if enough people wanted some 2001 Ferrari in IT, the CRB would have to classify it? You can guess what I think about that. :P

17.1.4.A. simply states in the negative that "Cars from the previous four (4) model years and the current model year will not be eligible." What does that mean? It means only that cars have to be at least 5 model years old in order to be eligible for classification. In no way does that imply that all such cars will in fact be classified if there is enough interest.
 
Bill,
I don't think any of us needs to worry too much about the might e46, my guess is they will be few and far between..... I think the few you might see will be underdeveloped for some time to come and the guys who could fully develop them right away will play elsewhere. Just my .02
 
... Are you seriously suggesting that if enough people wanted some 2001 Ferrari in IT, the CRB would have to classify it? ... [/b]
Click to expand...

Of COURSE not. You are talking not about the NUMBER of cars classified but about their performance envelope. There are two issues at play here. I was responding to the "most are not classified" comment, as it was presented as support for your point about performance. Or price. Both? The two have nothing to do with one-another, except in instances where the CRB actually says, "No - that car is too fast and we won't list it."

K
 
I guess I haven't clearly stated my position because I have said nothing about performance - of the E46, Ferrari, or any other car. I simply mean that in order for a car to be appropriately classified in IT it has to meet the age requirement AND the class philosophy of "low cost/inexpensive" racing. "This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible; however, those determined by the Club to be outside these parameters will not be classified." 17.1.4.B. So, actually, while I absolutely disagree w/ snowmann's notion that ALL 5-year old cars must be classified if there is demand for them (even if they are expensive), I conversely do not think that otherwise appropriate cars should be excluded based on their inherent or potential performance envelope. They should just be classified w/ enough weight or other restrictions to make them fit in.
 
I......I conversely do not think that otherwise appropriate cars should be excluded based on their inherent or potential performance envelope. They should just be classified w/ enough weight or other restrictions to make them fit in.
[/b]
Click to expand...

The bottom line here is that the car must first:

- Be able to fit a class in the category, and race well with the other cars in the class. So it's performance characteristics must fit the envelope for the class. If it has too much potential, the restrictions needed will become too invasive in some manner, and the class will be better without the car, as the car wouln't be appropriate for racing

- It has to be 5 yrs old.

- It needs to be available enough to build examples of, and have proper documentation for effective policing.

- If it were the only car in the class it would need to be a reasonable build financially. If there are other options that are reasonable already in the class, that range of reasonability can open up.

All of the above is dependent on the car being classed appropriately.

In other words, the worst outcome would be a car that is too fast for the class, gets improperly restricted, and is an expensive build, as you have now created an overdog .....a "must have", that is expensive.

But having more expensive options....that are not overdogs...isn't such a bad thing, and allows those that choose to, the option of diversity.

The bottom line is that the cost to be competitive shouldn't be unduly expensive in any class, and that the category as a whole, have inexpensive options. But let's not kid ourselves, as the term "reaonably inexpensive" could be stretched to include prep allowances thet require labor. There are lots of rule change requests that woudn't have improved competition, but would have increased the cost for every one.

So the financial policing of the category isn't just about the cars chosen.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top