IIDSYCYC

quote fron kirk " has his competitive position improved compared to his competition"

where does anything in IT COMPARE COMPETITION, the whole intent stinks. just look at the results from the ARRC, ITA looked like the Honda challenge, they should have one set of rules that apply to cars that can win and another for everyone else, cause frankly, whos going to care if I lower my washer bottle on my rules relegated backmarker. IMHO
 
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:
... on my rules relegated backmarker. IMHO
Click to expand...

Just curious... How have the "rules relegated" ANY car to be a "backmarker"???

Everyone has to follow the SAME rules... don't they??

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
7'sRacing,

So to sum up your position:

If you have a car that you think isn't competitive, it's ok to cheat to make it more so.

Now THAT's a creative interpritation of the GCR.

AB
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
Just curious... How have the "rules relegated" ANY car to be a "backmarker"???

Everyone has to follow the SAME rules... don't they??
Click to expand...

sorry Daryl, I didnt mean to deter your thread.

Darren, how about a 130+ wheel hp 1900# honda dropped in with no C.A's, thats relagation backwards for every other ITA car ever classed.

Andy, absolutly not, but Ill share a tidbit with you, last year I came onto a straight right next to car just like mine, and he beat my two race old LEGAL motor by 20 carlenghts down the straight, as did the other 5 cars in front of me that also were "relagated backmarkers", that tells me what most think of our "INTENT" and classification process. thats why im going EP this year, cause I wont do what there doing, whatever it is.
 
Originally posted by 7'sRracing:

Darren, how about a 130+ wheel hp 1900# honda dropped in with no C.A's, thats relagation backwards for every other ITA car ever classed.

Andy, absolutly not, but Ill share a tidbit with you, last year I came onto a straight right next to car just like mine, and he beat my two race old LEGAL motor by 20 carlenghts down the straight, as did the other 5 cars in front of me that also were "relagated backmarkers", that tells me what most think of our "INTENT" and classification process. thats why im going EP this year, cause I wont do what there doing, whatever it is.
Click to expand...

First off, name the car you are talking about.

Second - sounds like you have a problem with CHEATING, not the RULES. BIG difference. If you put up with a like car doing that to your 100% prepped car, then you deserve your position on track. We must police ourselves at this level.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Andy , no I wont, I like these guys and while I dont agree with how things turned out I do see how they got that way, the LEGAL frontrunners were having a good time and a new comp board comes along and classifies a CRX and a ACURA in ITA , they said screw this and did their own C.A's. its pretty even too, they now run with the overdogs. I tried a few things to see what it would take, tried a bigger intakes/venturies on practice day, ect, but it was still not enough. with a 2380# car I would need 145-150 wheel hp to stay with a CRX on the staight, legally you cant make more than 118-120 hp. I would have to go internal to get it so im bowing out. what kind of sorry assed classification was that, and "PER THE RULES" in nine years it couldnt be fixed. Ask yourself this, how far would any multi marked racing organization get if they said "if you run this car you get a 30 hp advantage". but back to Daryls thread, im realllllly sorry Daryl, Daryl made some good points as usual. I have to go to work, got a weber and a fire systen to purchase.....

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited January 26, 2004).]
 
Sorry - I didn't mean the driver and specific car, just the Model. Am I assuming that we are hating the CRX and the Integra - and you are driving a 1st gen RX-7?

Now these cars ARE indeed the class of the class right now, just as the RX-7 was at one point. I also find it a little disturbing that you have a gripe but yet you haven't even maximized the internals of your engine?!? Not saying that would put you on a level playing field, but it does seem like you haven't made the maximum effort.

So, what cars are we comparing? Am I in the ballpark? If I am, we need to start a philisophical thread...

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
I think what 7's is getting at is that all things equal any car in ITA,B,C,S should have a shot at winning as long as they are in that class. If a new car comes in it should be in the ball park of all the other cars in the same class. But as the rules are now there is no need to correct a "mistake" in putting a car in any given class (oh they can). Remember "no guarantee". And I think that turns people off of IT.
 
Yes Andy, you are correct in the cars, and my engine was all new with carbon apex seals, balanced, top notch headers, yaw carb, 4:88'S in the rear. I would have had to port it (alot) to achieve those numbers.

cherokee your right on the money, and to argue about any IT rule other than the first page of the ITCS is a complete waste of your time, as there is no "competition comparison" to argue about, your either running a honda or your a backmarker or your a --------. PCS rules are written as to give the creative mind an advantage but only until the others catch on, its interesting to hear some of those strained interpretations.

edit to add... Im not hating the hondas, I believe they could be placed in ITA correctly with a few changes, add a few pounds and restrict the thottle body a tad and whaalahh, you havnt pissed off every guy thats invested part of his retirement into his racecar. still believe IT could be the biggest class ever with just a shread recognition from SCCA. but then why would anyone move on to its pricier classes.

[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited January 26, 2004).]
 
Well there you have it.

I would challenge you to try and 'fit' all the cars listed in the ITCS so that they all have a chance. Can't be done without full-bore Comp adjustments like in Prod or WC. THAT is not the intent of IT.

I think the bottom line is that ITA has passed the 1st gen RX-7 by. Some would argue that is a bad thing and some would argue that IT is in DESPERATE NEED of new blood.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Why Andy, do I think if your 2nd gen ITS was 30 hp down from from the E36 we wouldnt be having this conversation, or does your recent move mean it is and being relegated didnt sit well with you?. dosnt matter, I wish you the best in the speedchannel series and we will be cheering your team on. when newbies show up here we welcome them but we really try not to warn them what they will be up against at the wim of a classification, im just as guilty of this even though I myself didnt realize the true impact of "INTENT". if we did they would go spec miata (yuk) or NASA's honda challenge. (yuk)

edit to add, peter, show me a guy that isnt in some way having fun with funds he probly should be putting away.
smile.gif


[This message has been edited by 7'sRracing (edited January 26, 2004).]
 
Thanks on the WC stuff. Actually, we aren't moving, just adding on to our schedule. Nick is the only current driver for our WC plans as they sit. While I am confident I will get there, my RACING skills are not up to the task quite yet.

The E36 may eventually relegate the 2nd gen to the history books, the inclusion of the 944S may add to that. Guess what? That just means ITS is evolving. Do I like it? Not from a "me, me, me" perspective but it just may be the best thing for the category as a whole. Try and name a new car built today that would fit into anything below ITA....ITB and ITC are effectivly 'historic'.
smile.gif


When we look at issues like this,lets try and think up solutions. Have any you would like to throw out there for consideration? Some want an additional class, some want PCA's, some want the class left alone. Where do you fall? Let's try for a solution, shall we?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
First we would have to get past the first page of the ITCS, tear it out and throw it away. we have the formula for success already on the next page that any guy with a decent job in the US can get into. stock floorpanned car slightly modified for fun/racing, no brainer. SCCA tossed out all its old class rules and then there was GT/PROD/SS/IT. All would have been fine except the board decided if C.A's were done to IT no one would ever leave it and move to production and it would dwindle eventually, well with SM/PRO7/Honda challenge/ sentra challenge and all the other spec groups that use the IT formula on a level field, production dwindled anyway. I only see two scenarios curing both problems, 1 is to bring production back to the basic IT formula like it was and eliminate IT or 2, do full bore competition adjustments to IT AND add classes over ITA. Im not holding my breath for either which is why im building an EP car.
 
Originally posted by cherokee:
I think what 7's is getting at is that all things equal any car in ITA,B,C,S should have a shot at winning as long as they are in that class. If a new car comes in it should be in the ball park of all the other cars in the same class. But as the rules are now there is no need to correct a "mistake" in putting a car in any given class (oh they can). Remember "no guarantee". And I think that turns people off of IT.
Click to expand...


Interesting thought Cherokee. I'm inclined to agree w/ you. Darin seems so worried about doing things that will attract people to IT, yet he's not focusing on what, IMHO, is the largest deterent to people going IT racing, the whole PP&I.

Just curious... How have the "rules relegated" ANY car to be a "backmarker"???

Everyone has to follow the SAME rules... don't they??
Click to expand...

C'mon Darin, you're really not that naive are you?


------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Smiley face or no, racing is not the place for this. It tends to over focus the mind on things that detract from the fun.

<font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">peter, show me a guy that isnt in some way having fun with funds he probly should be putting away.
smile.gif
[/B]</font>
Click to expand...
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
C'mon Darin, you're really not that naive are you?
Click to expand...

Does anyone else also get the impression the Miller actually HUNTS down my posts, just for the opportunity to take another poke???
rolleyes.gif
 
Theres software you can buy for $20 that tracks any additions to the internet from a given IP adress and lists them out by date, scary isnt it. but Darren, you did step in that one.
 
Well, I actually get the feeling that some people don't have enough work on their cars to do in the off season and use that energy to pick apart every single word of the GCR.

Modifying includes remove. You've made its weight 0, therefore it is modified.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
 
Originally posted by planet6racing:
Well, I actually get the feeling that some people don't have enough work on their cars to do in the off season and use that energy to pick apart every single word of the GCR.

Modifying includes remove. You've made its weight 0, therefore it is modified.
Click to expand...

Actually Bill, I have 3 races in the next four weeks. My off season is over. I need a little relaxationn time before I go back out to the garage for round 12.

Aren't we, as racers and builders, responsible to familiarize ourselves with the rules?

If you or others want "modify" to include remove, then write a letter and get it added to the definition in the GCR. If you or others want us to not be able to remove any component from our vehicles unless it is specifically allowed, write a letter. Get the words "...for the purpose of obtaining any competitve advantage." removed from the ITCS Intent. Removing those words would end all reasonable debate.

By removing a component I have not modified it. It still has the same mass as it did prior to removing it. Albeit, the car now has a smaller mass.

Stay with me here.

As long as I am over the minimum weight and the rule doesn't tell me I can't remove that specific component and I am able to successfully argue that I haven't gained a competitve advantage by removing that component. What rule have I broken?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top