help me out..define the "look and feel" of IT.

lateapex911

lateapex911

Super Moderator
So in the other thread, we've discussed the concept of adding a narrow range of Mustangs and Camaros into ITR. V8 versions, that is.

Now, it's a proposal that has seen some interesting response, and since it's winter, I guess, it's share of controversy.

I've seen arguments from people that, when "cross examined" with parallel arguments, fall apart, suggesting that their true objection is really being cloaked in their argument. In other words, they are taking a stand that they really don't truly believe, at least when it's applied to another equivalent situation.

which suggests to me that theres more here than meets the eye. That there are underlying perceptions or reasons that are moving people. That some of the objection is emotional, and I wonder what it is.

So, I'd like to get an idea of what the racers think. Answer some questions honestly, if you don't mind. Heck, if you feel that you want to remain secret, fire up a new signon name.

What do YOU think the IT category should be comprised of?
All cars? 4 doors racing against roadsters? Cars from all nationalities?
Do you feel that certain "Types" of cars don't belong, for whatever reason. (could be that you hate French cars, who knows)
Should it be Hondas only?
Or imports only?
Or "sophisticated" cars only?
Should all the classes be "equal"?
Or should one class be about "economy cars" another about "Sporty cars" and another about "sophisticated cars"?
Are there economic lines that you draw in your mind?

I know this is rather "out there", but I'd really like to understand peoples perceptions and ideals.

Thanks.
 
Isn't the point of IT that we allow ALL production based cars taht meet certain criteria.

I can't believe that anyone could look at the present ITCS car list or the ruleset and think that IT is about anything other than diversity.
 
All cars with fenders that can be classed in our current rule set. If someday (due to technology) we have to create ITX, so be it, but the concept is the same. If someone can find a 200 hp Ferrari that fits in ITR, I'd be all for it. Insane though they be, it's still a place to race.

I look at each step as a step in speed. ITC being slowest, ITR being fastest. That and speed=cubic dollars.
 
All cars? 4 doors racing against roadsters? Cars from all nationalities?
All cars from all nationalities.

Do you feel that certain "Types" of cars don't belong, for whatever reason. (could be that you hate French cars, who knows)
No, if it fits the classification and there are at least a couple thousand examples in the US then class them up.

Should it be Hondas only?
No.

 Or imports only?
Absolutely not.

Or "sophisticated" cars only?
No.

Should all the classes be "equal"?
Not sure what you mean by that, if you mean that no IT class excludes certain types, nationalities, etc., then certainly, they should be equal.

 Or should one class be about "economy cars" another about "Sporty cars" and another about "sophisticated cars"?
No, too subjective. My sporty might be your economy.

Are there economic lines that you draw in your mind?
No although I certainly consider it when picking a car.
 
IMO IT is THE class for diversity; if it has four wheels and fits into the performance range of one of the IT classes then bring it on. Want to race your Scion xB? Sure, why not. Got an old K-car you want to run - absolutely. Hell, we've already got Yugos, Fiestas, Starlets, LeCars, Chevettes, Opel GTs, Mustangs, MGBs, Saturns, Beetles, Corvairs, Oldsmobiles, TR7s, TR8s, Alfas, Vegas, and Pintos - tell me what the heck doesn't fit in IT?

Unless it's those damn V8s... OMG, that's right, we already have those too! What is the world coming to :(
 
I've hinted at my thoughts on the subject elsewhere but put simply, the problem is unique to ITR because the cars listed there - at least those perceived to be competitive - are all bucks-up foreign touring and sports cars. That's created an air of exclusivity, that the 'excluders' simply don't see as a place for American POS V8s.

I believe there's some turf protecting going on as well, in competitive terms. There's NO question that a 5.0 Mustang can turn a X:XX.XXX at Road America for less $$ than would be required to make a 944 S2 do the same thing. I can picture how egos might be bruised and few things elicit more fundamental dislikes than do bruised egos.

NOW, to be fair - I'm reacting to only a TINY but very vocal minority of comments that I've seen. If you aren't one of the people harboring these opinions, don't get all defensive 'cause I'm not talking about YOU. If you DO get defensive, ask yourself why.

Sorry, Jake - I didn't really answer your question. I kind of jumped to the end of the story.

K

PS - I asked someone why Camaros would mess up the "look" of the class, since the V6 versions are already listed. The response - that those won't ever be competitive - suggested STRONGLY to me that they really don't care about the look, as much as the competition.
 
spnkzss said:
If someone can find a 200 hp Ferrari that fits in ITR, I'd be all for it.
Click to expand...

214hp anyone? :)

1980%20Ferrari%20308GTSi%20a.jpg
 
Knestis said:
PS - I asked someone why Camaros would mess up the "look" of the class, since the V6 versions are already listed. The response - that those won't ever be competitive - suggested STRONGLY to me that they really don't care about the look, as much as the competition.
Click to expand...

Who actually suggested "look" of the class as a reason to exclude V8s? What does "look" have to do with anything at all?

I think you are 100% correct. Another red herring, one of many surrounding the V8 Pony Car discussion.

Ron
 
Knestis said:
. I kind of jumped to the end of the story.
Click to expand...

tch tch tch, LOL. :018:

K

PS - I asked someone why Camaros would mess up the "look" of the class, since the V6 versions are already listed. The response - that those won't ever be competitive - suggested STRONGLY to me that they really don't care about the look, as much as the competition.
Click to expand...

Or................

MAYbe he was saying that BECAUSE the car wasn't competitive, you'd never see one. And if you can't SEE something, it can't spoil the "look" of that thing????
 
You know, I'm seriously wondering if I could build (not run, just build) an ITR Camero for cheaper than the ITA Honda I'm building.... hmm.......:017:
 
Any car that fits the requirements should get a chance to be classes. If there is support to build cars welcome them to the ranks.

On a side note I believe ITR would have been a better class if we had allowed ABS to remain. Would have been cheaper and moved us forward. RR shocks should also be allowed. I understand the BS about keeping all the classes consistent but it could be done as a spec line allowance to all ITR cars without upsetting the balance in existing classes. No car in ITR is cheap so throw that arguement out the window. Flame away!!:happy204:
 
lateapex911 said:
What do YOU think the IT category should be comprised of?
All cars? 4 doors racing against roadsters? Cars from all nationalities?
Do you feel that certain "Types" of cars don't belong, for whatever reason. (could be that you hate French cars, who knows)
Should it be Hondas only?
Or imports only?
Or "sophisticated" cars only?
Should all the classes be "equal"?
Or should one class be about "economy cars" another about "Sporty cars" and another about "sophisticated cars"?
Are there economic lines that you draw in your mind?

I know this is rather "out there", but I'd really like to understand peoples perceptions and ideals.

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I agree with what others have said in this thread. IT is looking pretty good as it is. I don't feel that anyone would have a hard time finding a place to classify just about anything with four wheels!

Over the years that IT has been in existance, there have been changes that reflect the changes in the automotive world, the creating of ITR. Other classes may see changes as the low end of the performance scale gets higher and higher.

No, I feel that the class, and the ITAC are doing a great job. IT is the place to race! IT rocks!!!!!!!
 
seckerich said:
Any car that fits the requirements should get a chance to be classes. If there is support to build cars welcome them to the ranks.

On a side note I believe ITR would have been a better class if we had allowed ABS to remain. Would have been cheaper and moved us forward. RR shocks should also be allowed. I understand the BS about keeping all the classes consistent but it could be done as a spec line allowance to all ITR cars without upsetting the balance in existing classes. No car in ITR is cheap so throw that arguement out the window. Flame away!!:happy204:
Click to expand...
Steve, I will have to disagree on 2 of your points. 1. the ABS and 2. the RR Shocks and here is my reasoning. Since there is a major technology difference between i.e. 1993 BMW and A 2006 Acura. The newer cars are always comming up with more and more signals per ms thus giving the newer cars a much greater edge when braking with ABS than the older cars. The top of the line RR Shocks are 6 to 9k while top of the line double adjustables are 1.5k to 3.8k. Big difference, if you want to spend more money, go National and you can buy all the RR Shocks you want. You are correct, no top running ITR, or IT car is cheap, let's not make it any more expensive, we all ready cut costs by implimenting the new ecu rule, to a certain degree.
 
I will agree on the ABS technology. The RR shock myth has been proven false in Touring. PS. I have gone National racing in EP and I have RR shocks. Life is good!!!
 
If I have the $5K and want to spend it to go faster, not being able to buy RR shocks is NOT going to keep me from buying more tenths.

It's not possible to control spending with rules. Never has been, never will be. We might make the gains per dollar smaller but that just makes them more valuable.

K
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top