IT Class Philosophy

It was actually my request to add weight to the SOHC Neon and let it run ITB. There are many old SSC Neons out there that are not running ITA because they cannot win against the fully prepaired Miata's & Intergra's. I have spent a lot of money on my Neon this year to bring it to a front running car but still several seconds behind the above mentioned cars. If dual classification was a way to bring some of these old SSC cars out of retirement it could be good for all.
 
As a "new-to-IT" racer, I am very careful about the opinions I carry related to "class philosophy". IT racing has been around long before me or any of my humble opinions.

The above being said, my ultimate opinions stem from the purpose and intent that is listed in the GCR.

Purpose: "Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition."

Intent: "It is the intent of these rules to restrict modifications to those useful and necessary to construct a safe race car. This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, inexpensive cars to be eligible; however, those determined by the Club to be outside of these parameters will not be classified. Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car, and competition adjustments, other than as outlined in section 9.1.3.C, are not allowed..."

It is my strongest and first opinion that everyone should open their GCR, read these statements, and then rethink that letter, complaint, or request for adjustment that they are about to send.

Almost every car is well classified as is, the rules are good like they are (sans the impending open ECU bullcrap) and if you're not winning with your IT car... build it better or build something else! If your car is too old to find parts, build a newer one! Constant rule changes, adjustments, and vehicle specific allowances are always a slippery slope that leads downhill. We do not need to turn Improved Touring into class full of drama, confusion, and constant vehicle specific adjustments like Touring is. None of us should ever have to worry about building a different "hot car" every time a new fastrack is published.

In equal strength, I additionally feel that all classifications should be based upon maximum build of the vehicle and that weights should be factored upon the medical averages for the weight of an adult. Subsequently, I don't want to hear anything about moving the MR2 to ITB until I see a 100% build failing horribly or anything from a 300lb driver that can't meet minimum weight in his car.

In closing, feel free to paint me how you like. My opinions are not based upon years of experience, but I hope they are still valued. IT racing is just as important to me as anyone else.
 
It was actually my request to add weight to the SOHC Neon and let it run ITB. There are many old SSC Neons out there that are not running ITA because they cannot win against the fully prepaired Miata's & Intergra's. I have spent a lot of money on my Neon this year to bring it to a front running car but still several seconds behind the above mentioned cars. If dual classification was a way to bring some of these old SSC cars out of retirement it could be good for all.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I also own an ex-SSC SOHC Neon and run it in ITA. My car can't keep up with the miatas either, but that doesn't mean it is classed wrong. If your car is not competitive, have you done everything you can to make it competitive? 4:12 final drive? coilovers? 225s? light weight wheels? good roll cage? header? fat radiator? ECU?

for what little it's worth, I'm currently leading the mid-am championship with a far under-prepared Neon and I know it could be even faster if developed further (and if I were a better driver :lol: )
 
Congratulations on leading your region in your Neon.

My idea of reclassifying the Neon or dual classifying it was to encourage more people to want to build a Neon. Many people are not building their SSC cars up because they feel they cannot be competitive in ITA. Thats where giving them the chance to possible run in ITB might encourage that. What is so wrong with dual classification anyway, look at the Miata running in SM and ITA.

In conclusion it was just an idea and if the majority don't agree then so be it. I will still continue to build my Neon to hopefully someday soon win some races.

To answer your questions about my prep, yes I do have most of what you mentioned on my Neon. The 4:12 is on order and will be installed by years end and I have high hopes for the improvement it will make.

Darryl
 
... Many people are not building their SSC cars up because they feel they cannot be competitive in ITA. Thats where giving them the chance to possible run in ITB might encourage that. ...
[/b]
Click to expand...
Problem is (and refer back to Jake's point about the RX7 math), just listing the car in B won't make it automagically more competitive than it would be in A - IF the math and basic assumptions applied to the listed weight are applied consistently. Is a Neon going to be more competitive in B than in A, if it has to weigh 300 pounds more and run on 6" rather than 7" wheels?

It's not like we can look at lap times of those yet-to-be-fully-developed ex-SSC cars and say, "Well, they're doing '28s now, so they'll be right with the ITB guys who are doing similar times."

Remember (and this isn't just for the new guys/gals in this game) that we ought to try very hard to not get caught up in making classification or specification decisions based on on-track performance. Our questions/concerns might START there but lack of competitiveness is s symptom of something, not a disease in and of itself to be cured by liberal applications of soothing adjustment. :)

K

EDIT - and I'd be interested to hear from those who really know the package why the Neon might not be competitive against the current most obvious choices.
 
EDIT - and I'd be interested to hear from those who really know the package why the Neon might not be competitive against the current most obvious choices.
[/b]
Click to expand...

What do you want to know?

Remember, I am not saying that the Neon isn't a strong ITA car. I can often run in the top 10% of the ITA group. Considering the class philosophy that states that cars are not guaranteed competitiveness I think that isn't so bad.
 
...and the RX family is a special case because (1) the basic form of the powerplant is different than everything else out there, and (2) there's some historical (hysterical?) precedent still in the organization that rotaries just make mythical power, going back to their introduction in the '70s.

K
[/b]
Click to expand...


Yea, still looking for that mythical power...

I'm not really looking for anything for the car. It had its time and now it is gone. :( The dual clasification would be the only thing I'm looking for since my butt is too big to make weight. Yep, it will be at the back of B too, that would be my choice. I agree with no changing parts ...I might invent a 12b engine...maybe it would have the Mythical power. :023: Count me in for the bye bye to the vin number.


Roland
 
I can see dual classification in certain cases. Yes it is fuzzy as to how you decide which cars to consider for this, but so are other aspects of our classification method. I would certainly want the ITAC and CRB to really keep the reigns on the idea, rather than open dual classes up for any underprepared car. The ones that come immediately to mind for me are the 944 and MR2.

OTOH I don't know if I see a burning need for it. Yes a few cars are affected, but a few cars are afflicted with tons off issues such as NLA parts - from any source, short life expectancy critical parts, very expensive engine parts/modifications. At the end of the day if a car can make weight it can make weight. The point about knowing what is in what class is a valid one, from a racer, worker or spectator viewpoint.

So - I am firmly on the fence here. I would not be knashing my teeth either way as long as our heretofore well performing 'process' were applied in all cases.

I don't agree with any type of special consideration beyond our classing process and/or possible dual classification.

Yeah I think the VIN rule is retarded too.
 
As I read this thread, one thing that occurs to me, and I don't want anybody to take this as an endorsement of the dual classification idea, is that if a few of these cars were moved, and the new weight set using 'the process' and the cars turn out to be well classed and not overdogs... that, to me anyway, would verify the integrity of 'the process'. Sort of like checking your math by calculating your results backwards.
Does anybody get what I'm saying?
Andrew Rowe
 
Problem is (and refer back to Jake's point about the RX7 math), just listing the car in B won't make it automagically more competitive than it would be in A - IF the math and basic assumptions applied to the listed weight are applied consistently. Is a Neon going to be more competitive in B than in A, if it has to weigh 300 pounds more and run on 6" rather than 7" wheels?
[/b]
Click to expand...
Thank you Kirk. This is exactly the point. Moving the car to a different class is not likely to make it any more competitive.

I do understand the argument that it's an easier (and maybe cheaper) build if you don't have to worry about removing weight. Heck, the SSC Neons could just keep their interiors as ballast for the heavier ITB weight, that makes the build really really easy. But it doesn't make them any more competitive than they would be in A.

I personally do not like dual classifications. I don't think we should ever do them. The only exception that I find compelling is the one that led us to the current DCs: we created a new class, and some existing cars were listed there. We left the cars in the old class as well to give a reasonable transition period. In my opinion, an expiration date should have been placed on that older classification right from the get-go (and it's not too late.)

So, temporary DCs when a new class is created, with clear expiration dates from the start, and no permanent DCs.

As far as reclassing goes: I'm okay with a reclass (but not a DC) to a slower class (at a different weight, of course), for cars that have low popularity, if both of the following conditions are met:
A -- The new weight doesn't require "silly" amounts of ballast. Specifically, a car should not have to weigh more than its showroom stock/touring weight in IT. We could also try to make a similar statement about curb weights.
B -- There is CONSENSUS among the active drivers of the car in question. We'll need to define "active."
 
the SSC Neons could just keep their interiors as ballast for the heavier ITB weight, that makes the build really really easy.[/b]
Click to expand...

Is getting down to the minimum weight that difficult for the Neon in ITA (meaning needing to go on a rotisserie or other more extreme measures)?
 
Is getting down to the minimum weight that difficult for the Neon in ITA (meaning needing to go on a rotisserie or other more extreme measures)?
[/b]
Click to expand...

It's not too difficult with a SOHC, but you do need to make sure you work at it. The unfortunate part is most of the good legal ways to remove weight are on the wrong end of the car. I weigh in at 220 and my car is about 20 lbs over after the race.

The DOHC weight is such that you could leave all the interior in and still not be there without ballast!
 
Although I am one skinny SOB, I found it VERY easy to reach minimum weight with the SOHC Neon. I actually run heavy on gas + ballast to make sure I come in a little over on the scales.
 
BUT I still contend that there is value in having particular makes/models identified with particular classes - particularly for spectators, casual participants, and newbies looking at IT as an option. The more "sloppy" or complex the classification process is (or appears), the more daunting it is to get started and the less cohesive the resulting groups.
K
[/b]
Click to expand...

?????

The Miata, VW Golf, RX7, Ford Fiesta, Honda CRX, etc are classed in many different Production and GT classes. Often these classes are on the track at the same time. So that means for example that an FP and EP Miata will be racing at the same time. I don't believe the drivers, workers, or spectators are terribly confused by this. I guess we could mandate bigger class disignation fonts.

So is ITB supposed to be an Econo Box class? Is that a valid argument against putting "sports cars" like the RX7 and MR2 in ITB? In midiv we have Alfa Romeo sportscars that run in ITB. It never seemed to out of place to me. After all when I saw the car and noticed that It said ITB on the door I knew I didn't have to race it. I assumed also that the workers, spectators and other drivers could read too.

Not trying to be a smart ass but it seems to me that a car fits were it fits no matter what it looks like. Worrying about keeping "like" cars together is one of the things that killed and is killing Production.
 
One more thing...

IF we determine the car ...lets say the MR 2 or the RX-7...isn't capable of hitting the process estimates in it's current class, then merely movig it down a class and rejigging the numbers based on the same estimates will be a complete waste of time and money.

Because, if, say the RX-7 is getting creamed in ITA because it has 101 ft lbs of tq, and 128 at the wheels and the process has it at 130 at the wheels but has no "subtractoer" for it's huge lack of torque, (cars of equal weight have roughly 25% more tq) then it will remain uncompetitive in any class it goes to, as the weights will be adjusted in excess of it's real capabilities.

I use the RX-7 as it has a much better base of knowledge..there are a multitude of pro builders that have made the dyno runs needed to really know what the car can do, and there are an equal number of pro builders and suspension engineers, (professionals) who have built cars themselves.

In the case of the RX-7, moving it down and using the same process is just a sideways move.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I disagree. A fully built, well driven 2280LB ITA RX7 may be a really good car. Maybe even competitive at some tracks. this would mean that the process worked for the car in ITA. Hpwever the argument that many of us are making is that the weight generated by the process is not realistic. As result we cannot prove the process to be correct.

Let's assume that the process works for ITA. Wouldn't that mean that it would also work for the same car in ITB since one of the components of the claissification process - minimum weight - is now attainable?

I am in favor of Dual Classifications for tweener cars.
 
I disagree. A fully built, well driven 2280LB ITA RX7 may be a really good car. Maybe even competitive at some tracks. this would mean that the process worked for the car in ITA. Hpwever the argument that many of us are making is that the weight generated by the process is not realistic. As result we cannot prove the process to be correct.

[/b]
Click to expand...

Except the weight IS achevable, and has been done.
 
I am the guy Andy referred to that made weight with an ITA Rx7. My old car was heavy and tweaked in places and while the Rx is not a winner I have a slew of parts and the knowledge to maintain it and I also wanted to do a ground up. I really was not in a cash flow position to change cars.

I was intending to prove you could not get the car to weight but I failed. Now the caveats, I started with a pretty good 79 shell. The 79 is reported to be the lightest. I built a rotisserie and removed every single part from the car. I think I exploited every grey area in the rule book. If you can remove a part then I ground off every attachment bracket. Remember this was an exercise (think watts link, parking brake, ect). The cars was stripped mechanically, grinders and wire wheels. The number of hour is this project is ludicrous, it has to be 1000. Some kind of media stripping would have saved a few hundred. I spent 20 hours on the wiring harness eliminating every wire that you could argue the GCR says you can. That saved 8 pounds. I used a 8 gallon fuel cell, of course I had to put the 12 back in to run Mid Ohio. The rear bumper is a 79 but the front sheet metal and bumper are late as they are lighter. The exhaust could still be lighter, maybe 10 pounds. I still need to add a couple of parts, I need to score some horns, license plate light for a 79 and door locks but the car is pretty close. Without a driver the car weighs 2038 pounds. Oh yea that was before paint, add 5 pounds but still the car makes weight with a 240 pound driver.

So if you pick the right year, build a minimum cage and push the rules on component removal it is possible. But no sane person would want to. I should mention that we have two extra dormant ex IT RXs sitting in the shop that no one wants to race, but I built this one anyway.
Jakes point about the formula is good, we suffer from lack of torque, and still will if moved to ITB but to have that disadvantage AND expect someone to go through what I did to make an illogical weight is just too much to expect.

Yes it is expensive to build a Porsche motor but that is because it is a Porsche. The reason I had to go to this expense and effort to reduce the weight is because of an arbitrary rule.
 
>> [mustanghammer said] ...The Miata, VW Golf, RX7, Ford Fiesta, Honda CRX, etc are classed in many different Production and GT classes. ...

Yeah - not the strongest argument for the practice, based on the underwhelming recent success of those categories, now is it?

As long as we assume that the people we need to care about are already entrenched in the cultural knowledge of the organization, you're right - it's not an issue. If on the other hand we think outside of the box a little and worry about what someone new to the scene is going to understand, the answer might be completely different. As an organization, we've spend decades focusing on what existing members want, without much of a strategic position re: what POTENTIAL or FUTURE members might care about.

>> So is ITB supposed to be an Econo Box class? Is that a valid argument against putting "sports cars" like the RX7 and MR2 in ITB? In midiv we have Alfa Romeo sportscars that run in ITB. It never seemed to out of place to me. After all when I saw the car and noticed that It said ITB on the door I knew I didn't have to race it. I assumed also that the workers, spectators and other drivers could read too.

...and with respect - that isn't even remotely related to my point. I said...

...there is value in having particular makes/models identified with particular classes - particularly for spectators, casual participants, and newbies looking at IT as an option.

That means what it says - that all other things being equal, it's helpful for people coming into the sport, or reading about it on web sites or in other media, to be able to count on a given make/model to always be in the same class, racing against the same cars. If I had to explain that my car might be in PTE one weekend and PTD another, because I put on a different size tire that looks the same from 50' away, the average Joe - even one with a passing understanding of what's going on - is going to think it's goofy. I think we run the risk of diluting or compromising the integrity of the category every time we make things more complex or obtuse but there ARE other considerations, and different intelligent people will see the situation differently.

>> ...it seems to me that a car fits were it fits no matter what it looks like. Worrying about keeping "like" cars together is one of the things that killed and is killing Production.

You made up the part where I said that we should classify cars based on "what they look like," and where I was opposed in any fashion to the RX7 and MR2 ending up in B, for that matter. And if THAT'S what's killing production, I'll eat my GCR. The single thing that could be done to save the Prod and GT categories would be to ELIMINATE options, rather than allowing a Rabbit to run in any of four(?) Prod classes. A couple of healthy classes makes oh, so much more sense than a bunch of poorly subscribed ones but those with a vested interest in their established positions are willing to watch classes die rather than consider change. Those old sporty car guys aren't opposed to a new look - they just don't want competition running with an equal shot at winning, regardless of what shape the metal box around the driver might be...

...and THAT is an example of the strongest argument for staying WAY far away from practices common to that category.

K

EDIT - frakin' quote function is p'ing me off.

What do you want to know?

Remember, I am not saying that the Neon isn't a strong ITA car. I can often run in the top 10% of the ITA group. Considering the class philosophy that states that cars are not guaranteed competitiveness I think that isn't so bad.
[/b]
Click to expand...

I'm wondering what mechanical attributes of the car (or either version of the car) make it inherently uncompetitive against the Acura, CRX, et al. I'm taking it on faith that there ARE such issues behind any suggestion that the Neon should be moved to B.

(Actually I don't buy that there IS anything keeping it from the winner's circle, other than the fact that nobody's pushed it all the way to its limit. It's kind of a rhetorical question.)

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