IS300 in ITS?

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by chuck baader@Sep 23 2005, 06:37 PM
Darin, THANK YOU.
Bill..."thrown into a class" I think is a slight oversimplification
Scott: You have had a problem with me and everything I have said for a couple of years. That is the reason I usually don't post after you but unfortunately I allowed myself to be drawn in this time. Everyone please excuse me for this lapse in judgment.

See ya'll on the track. Chuck

[snapback]61086[/snapback]​

How is it an oversimplification Chuck? It's pretty damn obvious that there was no objectivity applied to the E36 classing in ITS. Otherwise, how do you explain a car that makes 11 more hp than the E36 (both stock numbers) ends up over 500# heavier?

As far as the 'no guarantee' thing goes, long before PCAs were a twinkle in anyone's eye, comp. adj., in the form of reclassification, have been around. That meant that cars could be moved down or up. Ask the Accord folks how they felt when they got moved from B to A. Problem is, there's no place above S to push the E36. So maybe they should just push them out. No need to worry about dyno numbers, no need to worry about an overdog car, no need to worry about whiny drivers that think they're entitled to run an overdog because it got slid in at the wrong weight, and no need to deal w/ 20+ page threads on the IT board!

The ITAC has developed a pretty objective process, that's being applied to ALL IT cars. Doesn't really matter how things were done in the past, that's how they're being done now. I feel pretty safe in saying that the vast majority of the people on this board, myself included, think that that is a VERY good thing for the future of IT.

Some cars will get weight, some cars will lose weight, some cars may go up a class, some cars may (and have) gone down a class. Some cars won't change a bit (that's probably the majority). Point is, it's objective, and everybody's playing by the same rules. If you don't like the outcome, work w/in the system to get the process changed. The alternative is to take your car and your $$ elsewhere. People have done it before, and people will do it again.

 

[lateapex911]

Touche'

 

[charrbq]

Originally posted by zracre@Sep 23 2005, 12:04 PM
the driver variable is what is so hard to calculate...there are many fast high dollar guys in ITS with the bimmer so that makes it harder yet...as many saw a place to race a current fast car for the class...yes i think it is an overdog, but what did people think when the gen 2 rx-7 came to bat?  it destroyed everything out there...maybe some adjustments need to be made but i think the scca may have jumped on the restrictor without proper testing or knowing the potential with the restrictor.  if all cars in all classes were as developed as some of the bimmers out there we would have world challenge.  I have an 8/10ths car and do pretty well on my local tracks, but have some driving work to do at away ones.  does that make my car an overdog?  I know all regions have some cars that are fast and some slow (I have seen some bimmers in my rear view before with bimmerworld on them) so driving has to play a large variable in the equasion.  all this banter about high numbers can only be resolved with someone tearing down their car to make sure it is legal then dynoing the thing to see the raw numbers...with scca tech witnesses...then make a decision.  enough back and forth with quotes and accusations.  I like this website and dont think we should drive people away from it with trash talk.  we are here for our HOBBY! lets just have fun and make rash tech based decisions at the top so we can continue.  It really is very simple if you put all aside and look at it.

[snapback]61034[/snapback]​

Exactly right as right can get! This has turned into a real piss and moan contest! I haven't seen this kind of cat fight since "Desperate Housewives"!

 

[lateapex911]

I disagree....to some extent, there has been some personality conflicts, but it has returned to the center, and has some great posts...Dave Grans made me spit my dinner...it rocked, LOL.

Also, some interesting factiods have come to light, some good policy statements have been made, and some peoples opinions have been outed.

All in all, one of the better threads..

If you want some bickering, find the "New Beetle in ITC" thread, LOL...

 

[charrbq]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 24 2005, 03:03 AM
I disagree....to some extent, there has been some personality conflicts, but it has returned to the center, and has some great posts...Dave Grans made me spit my dinner...it rocked, LOL.

Also, some interesting factiods have come to light, some good policy statements have been made, and some peoples opinions have been outed.

All in all, one of the better threads..

If you want some bickering, find the "New Beetle in ITC" thread, LOL...

[snapback]61096[/snapback]​

You're right. How soon I forget. I even got my foot shoved into my mouth on that one. I'd hoped it had died. That said, there have been some vicious things said and personality attacks made on this thread that really amaze me. If the tempers that have flared here were displayed on the track (thank goodness they don't), then the race stewards would be really busy dudes...for a change.

 

[Catch22]

I'm still waiiting for someone to build one of those beetles and come obsolete all us ITC guys. Oddly, it hasn't happened yet.
Wait... i forgot that the whole Beetle thing happened back when VW was pulling the strings of the ITAC and the comp board. Now its apparently Mazda, so... Carry on.

And I still haven't been beaten by a Fiesta.

Maybe next year.

 

[charrbq]

Originally posted by Catch22@Sep 24 2005, 03:14 AM
I'm still waiiting for someone to build one of those beetles and come obsolete all us ITC guys.  Oddly, it hasn't happened yet.
Wait... i forgot that the whole Beetle thing happened back when VW was pulling the strings of the ITAC and the comp board.  Now its apparently Mazda, so... Carry on.

And I still haven't been beaten by a Fiesta.

Maybe next year.

[snapback]61099[/snapback]​

Sadly, I have. To my defense, my alternator shot it's goo. Until then, I had him by several seconds. I still hang my head in shame, though.

 

[Racerlinn]

Originally posted by charrbq@Sep 24 2005, 03:30 AM
my alternator shot it's goo. 

Uh, why do you have a gooey alternator? Am I missing something?
Or is it a Louisiana thing that I wouldn't understand? Have we hit 400 yet?
I need another beer.....

 

[Greg Amy]

Originally posted by Racerlinn@Sep 24 2005, 09:44 PM
Have we hit 400 yet?

[snapback]61117[/snapback]​

429!!!!!!

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Sep 21 2005, 09:57 PM
Looking at putting in a cutoff date for car eligibility I looked at the recent results from the MARRS labor day event. Based on the results adding a cutoff date would result in the following percent reduction in the field.

Cutoff          30            25          20          15
ITS              12%        18%        18%        53%
ITA              7%          20%        47%      87%
ITB              53%        65%        76%      100%
ITC              8%          69%        85%      100%

So you can see that even a 25 year cutoff immediately decimates the ITB and ITC fields. ITA would be cut in roughly half in five years. Overall it looks like a cutoff date would significantly including several top ten cars in each ITB and ITC with only a 25 year cutoff.

I don't think an arbitrary year cutoff makes any more sense than using stock horsepower and curb weights to class cars. This is only one data point but I hope the ITAC, CRB does a lot of research before they put o lot of cars out to pasture.

[snapback]60880[/snapback]​

You forgot one cut off, what if it was set at 40 years, then kept at 40? In 3 years the '68s are no longer allowed to race. How many people are racing anything made in '68 anyway? It gives anyone who's racing a really old car a chance to know the deadline is comming up without immeaditely being canned, any 71's have 5 years left and ect. This also keeps people looking for the newer car, and allows for performance creep. It'll also allow for things like SMG and drive by wire throttles. Maybe Vintage should pick up used IT cars as a source for car classes? After all how many pro cars are being built from street chassies? Isn't campagaining an IT car give it a peddigree? I'd say if it survives it does.

James

 

[JeffYoung]

Actually quite a few cars from the 68-75 time frame are still racing in IT, some very competitively:

240z, 260z
510
Volvo 142
Opel GT and Manta
Pinto
BMW 2002

We start losing RX7s THIS YEAR if we adopt a 25 year rule (and my Triumph, I might add). 944s in 2008.

Not sure running cars off by rule is good policy. Running them off because no parts exist, different story and I think totally appropriate.

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by JeffYoung@Sep 26 2005, 12:57 PM

Not sure running cars off by rule is good policy. Running them off because no parts exist, different story and I think totally appropriate.

[snapback]61187[/snapback]​

Guys... This is a pointless direction for this conversation... The ITAC has NO intention at this time of putting any further restrictions on the age of the vehicles that are eligible for IT... The limit now is 68, and I don't anticipate revising that anytime soon... We have more important things to deal with...

 

[cherokee]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 26 2005, 01:23 PM
Guys...  This is a pointless direction for this conversation...  The ITAC has NO intention at this time of putting any further restrictions on the age of the vehicles that are eligible for IT...  The limit now is 68, and I don't anticipate revising that anytime soon...  We have more important things to deal with...

[snapback]61190[/snapback]​

Me and my old car thank you.

 

[Ron Earp]

Thanks, me too. Why kick'em out, if people can scrounge and get them on track let them at it!

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Oops double post see below....

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Sep 26 2005, 06:23 AM
Guys...  This is a pointless direction for this conversation...  The ITAC has NO intention at this time of putting any further restrictions on the age of the vehicles that are eligible for IT...  The limit now is 68, and I don't anticipate revising that anytime soon...  We have more important things to deal with...

[snapback]61190[/snapback]​

The reason I susgested a 40 year limit is that it wouldn't start untill 2008, then once it did start you could anticipate it's arrival. Let's face it there are a lot of cars that could be classed if the natural progression was that ITS moves to ITA, ITA to ITB and ect. This accounts for the dreaded performance creep and also rules creep due to technology changes. Just for conversation sake, how about a 45 year limit, wouldn't start untill 2013. There are cars from the late 90's that havn't been classed yet because they're outside of the current envelope. That's the original intent of this thread. How do you keep the current classes and allow for performance creep? Add a Uber class is one way, another is planned progressive retirement. The Uber class means splitting up a limited number of drivers and still doesn't account for technology creep. Ron, I agree that to all of a sudden de-class a car wouldn't be right, but what if you could anticipate it comming. You and I both know you can keep your JH running a long time even without any parts, that's what a CNC center is for after all. for rescuing your JH from the boneyard that's a real piece of work.

James