IT to Prod hurdles

Darin: If you go to the SCCA website, open the pulldown menu under club racing, you will find a item called 'car classification'. When you select this and click 'go' a window will come up that has a link to the SCCA car classification searchable database. If you leave everything in the search data box blank and select the 'show all' button, you will get a list of all SCCA classified cars, one line for each car, showing what classes they are classified to run in, prod, gt, ss or it. However, it states that it has not been updated since 10Jul03, so we should start bugging Topeka, but they are probably goingto busy fixing up their other it woes - renewing membership is a month behind, and their merchandise ordering system did some really strange things when I ordered my GCR.
 
Not to go on about 924's, since this is intended to be a general thread, but it was perhaps a 924-specific issue of brake package. Apparently Prod only allows the base brake package, which would mean I would have to dump my disc/disc brakes for wimpy solid disc/drums... and this when I'm going faster. Maybe it's a misunderstanding of rules, but that's why I wanted to bring it up as an example of possible or at least perceived rules disparity.

As far as safety, I see where everyone's comeing from about car speeds, and the added cost, however I personally rank it at the bottom of the priority list when I categorize all my issues with a possible change to LP. To me, I think the rules should be closely enough aligned to allow a switch to (legal) LP status with minimal financial outlay; admitting that it's a step up the ladder, it's reasonable to me that it might cost a couple more bucks, but those should be a modest progression for a well-built IT car, not a huge tear-up and rebuild.

I still have no EFFIN idea how I could take 400# off my car to make weight in FP, though! Of course, that's back to the competitive argument, not a legality question. Methinks maybe my car isn't an ITA car?
wink.gif


------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
 
Thanks to everyone who has posted here. It is going to make my job a lot easier. One thought on the fuel cell issue or should I say argument, that was brought up to me, was that a rear mounted stock tank like in a ITS RX7 is protected by the body and bumper system behind it. In Prod you are allowed to remove that protective structure and thus making the stock tank very venerable. I would like to suggest that any car with the stock tank mounted between the axle center lines would be ok for prod. Otherwise you would need to get a cell.
On the issue of fire systems, just suck it up and buy one. This is a no brainier and should be mandatory in all classes.
 
Mark,
I never said anything about being competitive. I don't think my car would be all that competitive nationally in GP no matter how much money I threw at it. But it'd be nice to have that flexibility to be able to run some nationals, and maybe even go to the runoffs, with what is basically an ITC car with slicks. Then, switch it back over to ITC for the ARRC.

My point is all about the rules being sensible rather than competitiveness. My point is that if you're NOT going to require a fuel cell and a fire system for IT, then why in the world do you require it for a limited prep Production car? As I mentioned before, exactly how does removing some weight and running slicks make my car more of a fire hazard?
In my mind you create more fire hazards when untrained do-it-yourselfers start ripping out perfectly good OEM Honda, VW, and BMW fuel tanks and shade-tree installing fuel cells and plumbing. Now we all know this isn't SUPPOSED to be happening, but by the same token we all know it IS happening.

Make the rules consistent and make them make sense. This will add flexibility for all of us. Thats all I'm saying.
 
***I would like to suggest that any car with the stock tank mounted between the axle center lines would be ok for prod. Otherwise you would need to get a cell.***

See, now we're making sense. Perfect, logical sense. Much better than blanket rules that apply to everyone regardless.

***On the issue of fire systems, just suck it up and buy one. This is a no brainier and should be mandatory in all classes.***

Again, we agree.
My argument isn't about the usefulness of fire systems or whether one should have one. Its about why they are required for some cars and not for others that are nearly identical just because one has an "ITx" on the door and another has a "xP" on the door.
 
Originally posted by Catch22:
Mark,
I never said anything about being competitive. I don't think my car would be all that competitive nationally in GP no matter how much money I threw at it. But it'd be nice to have that flexibility to be able to run some nationals, and maybe even go to the runoffs, with what is basically an ITC car with slicks. Then, switch it back over to ITC for the ARRC.

My point is all about the rules being sensible rather than competitiveness. My point is that if you're NOT going to require a fuel cell and a fire system for IT, then why in the world do you require it for a limited prep Production car? As I mentioned before, exactly how does removing some weight and running slicks make my car more of a fire hazard?
In my mind you create more fire hazards when untrained do-it-yourselfers start ripping out perfectly good OEM Honda, VW, and BMW fuel tanks and shade-tree installing fuel cells and plumbing. Now we all know this isn't SUPPOSED to be happening, but by the same token we all know it IS happening.

Make the rules consistent and make them make sense. This will add flexibility for all of us. Thats all I'm saying.
Click to expand...

I agree with the part about shade tree mechanics installing fuel cells. But isn't that what tech inspectors are for? I'll be surprised if the CRB permits prod cars to compete without fuel cells. Maybe newer cars will be permitted to use OEM tanks? Obviously showroom stock cars don't have cells and neither do the T1/T2 cars. We'll see what the CRB has to say on this one. If the CRB allows IT cars to run without fuel cells, then the separation between fully prepped IT cars and Production cars becomes very slim indeed. Is that a good thing?? At that point, simply mandate fire systems, windshield clips, 8 point cages, and you have no need for IT classes anymore...they'd just be folded into production.

And you might be surprised what a limited prep Honda can do in GP. The ones that are out there are getting faster every race as more development is done.

MC
 
The separation between Prod and IT would still (and likely always) be some level of expenditure and people who just plain don't *want* to race production. Lets face it, just modifying the Prod fuel cell requirement isn't going to mean the end of IT racing. It'll just make it a little easier to turn an IT car into a prod car, which IMO is a good thing.
 
OK guys/gals... As of whenever the SCCA list was updated, there are approximately 104 IT cars that currently have NO corresponding Production classification. There are, additionally, approximately 48 IT cars that ARE classified in Production, but as Full-Prep only...

Keep in mind that a lot of classifications have happened since 07-03, or whenever the SCCA last updated this database, but there are still some obvious gaps...

When I get home tonight, I'll post these two spreadsheets. There are a lot of what I would call "oddballs" out there.. which would be cars that are classified but likely aren't raced in any significant numbers. Still, there are many examples of VWs, Hondas, Acuras, etc., on the list as well...

Also, of the IT cars that have Full-Prep Production classification, I'd say that each should be classfied as Limited-Prep as well... This would make a more logical stepping stone in the development of an IT car.

I'll post the links to these files tonight...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Originally posted by racer14itc:
If the CRB allows IT cars to run without fuel cells, then the separation between fully prepped IT cars and Production cars becomes very slim indeed..
Click to expand...


I just don't see this ulimately as an issue of safety... If the cars are "safe" in IT, SS, and Touring, many of which are every bit as fast as a Production car, then how can they be any less safe in Production?

Don't get me wrong here, as I'm not necessarily an advocate of being "cell-less", but looking at this from a simple logic standpoint... Safety is Safety, and having different standards for different classes is really pretty silly...

As for cell installation... the very nature of the rules on this (cut out the trunk, plop it in, and make sure it's not below the minimum... too low in my opinion... height)... provides ample opportunity for poor installations. It's not too likely that your average, or even seasoned, Production car builder has the resources at their disposal to equal the Millions of dollars of engineering that went into the installation of most factory fuel tanks... installations that have to pass some pretty stringent safety standards.

I think that this issue should be taken more on a case-by-case basis.

The only reason I would replace my stock tank in the 240 with a cell would have to do with performance... I could reduce the weight of the car, and pick up every last drop with a decent cell installation. However, with the stock tank saddled across the front of the rear diff, tucked safely away between the frame-rails and under the rear passenger section of the car... I think I can safely say that it's not going to suffer from an impact-related failure any time in the near future...

A cell hanging out back... well, it needs to be explosion-proof, because it's eventually going to have to prove itself...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
Interesting that most (all?) the ITS cars are faster than the HP (GP?) cars, yet aren't required to run cells. I don't have the data handy, but what were the trap speeds in T1/T2 compared to EP at the Runoffs this year?

I agree that the cell issue needs to be addressed on a case-by-case basis. As has been pointed out before, it's pretty hard to get a safer stock tank setup than that of an AW11 MR2. For those that don't know, it's cigar shaped, and is nestled in the 'tunnel' where the tranny would normally be. Also, Speed Touring doesn't require cells (don't know about Speed GT).

I can understand, on older cars, w/ no bumpers and fiberglass bodywork, that additional protection for the fuel tank is needed. But I think a more pragmatic approach needs to be taken w/ newer cars.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
OK everyone... here are the links to the two files I mentioned earlier...

IT cars NOT classified in Production

IT cars w/ Full-Prep Production Classification ONLY... (no LP classification)


I just pulled this directly from the SCCA site, so it doesn't take into account recent classifications in both IT and Production, so please keep that in mind. If you see any cars there that stand out, let's get a thread going and see if something needs to get into the works...

GRASSROOTS BABY!!
wink.gif


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


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 31, 2004).]
 
Don't know if this is an oversite or if I just misunderstood your charts....

510's are full prep GP and limited prep HP

84-87 Civics/CRX's (carbed ITC and Si ITA) are FP full prep and GP limited prep.

Fiestas (ITC) are FP full prep.
 
Originally posted by Greg Gauper:
Don't know if this is an oversite or if I just misunderstood your charts....
Click to expand...

The only information I've placed in these charts are 1) IT cars NOT classified in Production in any way (as of 07-03, or whenever the last time the SCCA updated their web database), and 2) any IT cars that are classified in Production, but as Full-Prep (again, with the same web data accuracy...)

Cars that are in IT, and already classified as LP in Production, are not going to be on either of these lists... except within the accuracy of the web database...

I've e-mailed Jeremy to see if there is a more recent update to this, and will correct the lists should that information be available...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
how about the list ofLP prod cars...

I don't see the specline of an Audi coupe GT 85-86 2.2L wich is an ITB car... been one for years... Just want to make sure it was an oversight.

Raymond
 
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
how about the list ofLP prod cars...

I don't see the specline of an Audi coupe GT 85-86 2.2L wich is an ITB car...
Click to expand...

Raymond... the audi you speak of does not appear on the SCCA database that is on their website... Likely could use a thorough updating...

I've put together a complete list, that shows ALL of the cars listed in the Database, and indicates which are classified in IT (shown in Medium green)... Those under the Production column marked in light green are the IT cars that have a corresponding Production LP classification. The red squares represent IT cars that either have NO Production classification, or only Full-Prep.

In my opinion, the red squares represent all of the opportunities missed for Production LP and bolstering the Production numbers... Some would be silly to consider, but there are a lot of popular cars listed there that could very well have a home in LP Production, as well as some in Full-Prep that could have a second coming in a lower class with an LP classification...

Enjoy...

SCCA Classifications - IT, LP Production



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

There will be no more full prep classifications in prod, per the old Comp Board last summer. Limited prep classifications only. So, there really is only ONE prod set of rules for the cars being discussed here, that is, ones that aren't classed yet.

Don't forget that prod cars can run regionals, you've lost nothing by doing a permanent swap with respect to races you can run.

Overall comment from me:
If they'd just classify some of the popular IT cars that are missing in prod, I be happy, and based on the last FasTrack, it appears that the dam is about to burst!

[This message has been edited by tderonne (edited April 01, 2004).]
 
Originally posted by tderonne:
Couple quick comments.
Don't forget that prod cars can run regionals, you've lost nothing by doing a permanant swap with respect to races you can run.
Click to expand...
well in our area at least you lose the ability to race in a class with decent competition. at nationals we get 2 - 5 prod cars. at regionals 1-2. in ita we get 25-30.

while i have no huge desire to run my car in nationals if the rules were such that i could run a few i might. I already have a cell as i belive the stock tank in a ITA rx7 is too vunerable so adding a fire system and window clips are doable. I think the suggestion that stock tanks within the wheelbase be allowed is brilliant. do it.

obviously for me running nationals in my case would not be serious racing, and if we did not have as many regionals availabe i would probaby already be doing it. if i was in the sw div instead of ne div i would most likely have a spare door set to go.
dick
 
I may be wrong with this but isn't one of the main benefits of a fuel cell roll over protection? I do think that it should be mandatory for every class if it is a safety issue. The fire system thing is a no brainer, I think they should require that for all classes. Anyway I say let them all into prod, the more cars classes the better the fields will be and better racing to boot. Plus their would be a lot of diversity of cars in the classes. Thats one thing I like about GP, Spridgets, MGA's, 510s, Scirocco's, Golf's, Rabbit's, CRX's, Spitfires, Swift's, Civic's, X19's, lots of different cars that are close to being or at the front.

------------------
Sam Rolfe
TBR Motorsports
#85 ITC VW Rabbit
#85 GP Scirocco
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top