IT V8 Isn't it time?

[Cobrar05]

at present scca is becoming a small bore racing body. the options for V8 cars outside of the narrow scca national classes are few and unrealistic. meanwhile nasa in many regions are fielding 12 to 15 cars in american iron. in cmc2. in st2. in gts3.

these cars could all be built to a single competitive class. nasa seperates them for business reasons. scca doesnt have that restriction.

if nasa can attract 40 cars in what might be a single class, you would think scca could attract 10-12. that many cars in a single class would be very successful.

is there any support for this here? or is it time for V8 drivers to move on?

opinions?

 

[Flyinglizard]

The GTA cars are way better. Cheap, fast, and close racing. The NASA has a few really good cars, but has a huge speed differential among the class.
T 1,T2 ,GT 1, 2, AS, TA-2, STO , what else would you want?

 

[Cobrar05]

shall we start with the fact that most of those v8 classes dont fit well with the majority of existing v8 racers. i have a mustang fr500c. i can race grand am gs or world challenge gts. depending on configuration i can race nasa american iron and nasa st2. in scca, ive got squat.

t1, t2, as are dying. sto is not a realistic option. again. my point is that nasa is fielding quality mustangs, corvettes, m3's, camaros and so forth that run competitive. the c5 corvettes that fill nasa
st2 are in far greater supply than the nasa st1 cars that crossover as STO cars. the St2 car might could work in T1, but that car is aging out of t1 anyway.

i am just saying that there are a lot of race cars available to race in a single V8 class that have no place to race at present in scca

 

[ITEGT]

Most of the guys here already have a specific IT class that they built or bought a car to race in. I doubt you'll generate much interest in building another IT class for V8 cars built to other rule sets to come play in. Sounds like ITE to me.

All the vettes and vipers bailed out of ITE for STO.

ITR is the hot ticket right now from the posts Ive read on here. Lots of well built cars either racing or taking shape across the country as I type this.

 

[Knestis]

When ITR was coming together, it became clear that only the lowest-performing of the 8's from IT-period cars would fit. We talked about, "What about the faster cars?" but the consensus was to let R get established, then ask the question.

I don't think it would be a problem but one wonders if there's enough interest to support it. ITE will already capture pretty much any NASA AI (etc.) car so it kind of seems that if there were a lot of interest, there would at least be regional pockets of entries there.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

I think some of this is guys buying a car and then wanting a class to run in rather than looking at the rules and building a car.

You can run, as Kirk notes, ITR in a Fox or SN95, with the lower hp versions of those cars.

We on the ITAC are just scratching at the surface of a new class about ITR that, roughly speaking would see stock hp in the range of 240 to 310ish (Travis Nordwald has done good work on that). But my guess is that class is several years out and probably a lot more than that.

I frankly would like to see less classes in SCCA racing in general, and to a certain extent IT as well. I'm not sure of the need for say IT7, and SRX7, and would rather they get folded into B (or A, where those cars are now). I would be generally opposed to a "V8" only IT class that ran outside of the regular IT class structure. Note at one point we had that with ITGT. On the other hand, I'd personally do anything I could to encourage additional V8 builds within the existing IT classes.

 

[Ron Earp]

I don't agree that V8s do not have a place to race in the SCCA, but one does get the feeling from time to time that the SCCA is an import/small bore club. There is AS and SPO, but neither class is for limited prep (IT-like) builds on V8s cars.

There are some pony cars in ITR and it was a big battle to get them included in the mix. I'm glad they are there but after talking with an AS racer I'd not relish running a V8 pony car in IT trim using stock brakes. At 3200 lbs the AS guys have an expensive brake and tire bill. Sure, ITR pony car speeds will be a good deal less but they still weigh 3200-3300 lbs.

And I agree with the others that have posted here - less is more in the SCCA. We've already got too many classes that draw a handful of cars, both regionally and nationally. SSM, SRX7, IT7, etc - all look like good ITB or ITC fodder to me.

Do we need a ITV8 class that draws a couple of cars a weekend? ITR is already in that position and has a wonderful group of cars to choose from. For whatever reason it is experiencing extremely slow growth in most regions. And, as Kirk points out ITE handles V8 cars nicely (at least in the NCR SCCA it does) and gives anyone with a car built to IT safety specs a place to race.

Maybe an ITQ class would give more V8 cars a place to race. 350Z, 370Z, Mustangs, BMW M3s, and other cars in that 240-320hp range might be a nice addition to IT. However, with ITR being stagnant I don't know that a surely more expensive IT category is going to take off.

 

[Knestis]

...and remember that to a substantial degree, the racers of many of those V8 cars that have been in Club Racing have only themselves to blame for the current state of affairs. American Sedan has it's roots in SSGT and (where it happened) ITGT, but it turned into a poster child for what happens when racers get their wishes about additional rules allowances.

That said, what's wrong with AS...?

K

 

[Ron Earp]

That said, what's wrong with AS...?

K

Obviously I can only write for myself but it might be that my line of thinking is similar to others' with respect to AS.

I've considered AS but after talking with one AS guy at VIR and another at RRR I've come to these conclusions:

• The fields seem very light. One AS car came to each VIR race this year. Maybe the national race was more populated but I'm a regional guy and the fields are small.
• AS motor prep is far above what I want to do. 7000+ RPM V8s making 400+ rwhp is exciting but these motors need to be rebuilt often if turned up to their full potential. Outside of my budget.
• Brake and tire bills are more than I can afford. Apparently a 3200 lb car goes through a few sets of tires per year and lots of brake pads.

AS is far from IT-like and if IT is your flavor then AS is probably not going to do it for you. I like the imperfect but interesting multi-marquee racing that we have in IT.

 

[ITEGT]

Rules creep sucks period. I'm glad that IT has remained mostly unchanged for so long.

What's wrong with A-Sedan....

16" wheels
carbs
race gas only
small front brake rotors

All the AS cars are mostly equal in HP, road racing is about different classes of cars on track at the same time.

I'll stay and play in ITE, even if I am all by myself in class, I still wont be alone out on the race track!

17" wheels
Fuel injected
Pump gas only
13" 4 piston Brembos

 

[TomL]

I I'm not sure of the need for say IT7, and SRX7, and would rather they get folded into B (or A, where those cars are now).

How about the fact that for most of the last dozen years IT7 has been the fifth most popular SARRC class. Even with a drop off in IT7 numbers in the last 3-4 years, it's still the seventh most popular class we have. And a large percentage of those numbers (AKA entries and money for the regions) would disappear if they got stuck back in ITA again. Don't believe it? I refer you back to when IT7 started - in 2000, there were 248 entries in IT7, 239 in ITA (487 total). In 2002, there were 263 IT7s and 234 ITAs (497 total). In 2001, SEDiv followed your advice and eliminated IT7. The combined ITA (including RX7s) dropped to 334 entries for the year. So about 150 entries went away because we got rid of an "unneeded" class.

Remember why IT7 exists. A hugely popular car was rendered effectively uncompetitive in ITA when CRXs and the like got dropped in. Either IT7 happened or a large percentage of RX7s would have disappeared. Yes, I know the "process" has helped with competitiveness (but I think it's silly to argue that a 100 pound weight loss that is difficult to achieve restored the RX7 as a truly competitive ITA car). I've seen discussion that the RX7 would be a very good ITB car at close to its previous weight, but no one in authority seems interested in actually putting it in that class. And, yes, IT7 is declining in numbers, but at last check there are 37 other classes that draw fewer cars.

Its always easy to get rid of somebody else's "unneeded" class. Maybe we should combine ITR with ITS. After all, with all its growth, ITR now up to almost half as many entries this year as IT7, so surely it would be a prime candidate for "unneeded". And ITRs and ITSs are very close in speed whenever they run together, so what objection could the ITS guys have?

 

[Knestis]

>> So about 150 entries went away because we got rid of an "unneeded" class. ...

Things are rarely that simple, Tom. Did SARRC entries as a whole increase, decrease, or stay the same for the same year-to-year period you cite?

And if R and S cars are turning the same lap times, that's evidence that the R entrants still have a lot of homework to do.

K

 

[JeffYoung]

I understand all of the reasons why IT7 was formed. I know and like a lot of IT7 drivers (yourself included). I just think class proliferation is a bad idea. I would be perfectly fine collapsing S and R together into one class if it could be done in a way such that all cars in the combined class had a shot at meeting their power/weight ratio. Fewer classes, not more -- if possible.

To me, and I am coming late ot the party, the 12A RX7 is an ITB car using the Process, and yes I understand the issue with cages and wheel widths.

Single marque sub-classes within IT in my view - in the long run -- hurt SCCA not help it, although I fully agree with you IT7 was well-intentioned and has been very successful on its own.

How about the fact that for most of the last dozen years IT7 has been the fifth most popular SARRC class. Even with a drop off in IT7 numbers in the last 3-4 years, it's still the seventh most popular class we have. And a large percentage of those numbers (AKA entries and money for the regions) would disappear if they got stuck back in ITA again. Don't believe it? I refer you back to when IT7 started - in 2000, there were 248 entries in IT7, 239 in ITA (487 total). In 2002, there were 263 IT7s and 234 ITAs (497 total). In 2001, SEDiv followed your advice and eliminated IT7. The combined ITA (including RX7s) dropped to 334 entries for the year. So about 150 entries went away because we got rid of an "unneeded" class.

Remember why IT7 exists. A hugely popular car was rendered effectively uncompetitive in ITA when CRXs and the like got dropped in. Either IT7 happened or a large percentage of RX7s would have disappeared. Yes, I know the "process" has helped with competitiveness (but I think it's silly to argue that a 100 pound weight loss that is difficult to achieve restored the RX7 as a truly competitive ITA car). I've seen discussion that the RX7 would be a very good ITB car at close to its previous weight, but no one in authority seems interested in actually putting it in that class. And, yes, IT7 is declining in numbers, but at last check there are 37 other classes that draw fewer cars.

Its always easy to get rid of somebody else's "unneeded" class. Maybe we should combine ITR with ITS. After all, with all its growth, ITR now up to almost half as many entries this year as IT7, so surely it would be a prime candidate for "unneeded". And ITRs and ITSs are very close in speed whenever they run together, so what objection could the ITS guys have?

 

[Ron Earp]

Remember why IT7 exists. A hugely popular car was rendered effectively uncompetitive in ITA when CRXs and the like got dropped in. Either IT7 happened or a large percentage of RX7s would have disappeared. Yes, I know the "process" has helped with competitiveness (but I think it's silly to argue that a 100 pound weight loss that is difficult to achieve restored the RX7 as a truly competitive ITA car). I've seen discussion that the RX7 would be a very good ITB car at close to its previous weight, but no one in authority seems interested in actually putting it in that class. And, yes, IT7 is declining in numbers, but at last check there are 37 other classes that draw fewer cars.

Its always easy to get rid of somebody else's "unneeded" class. Maybe we should combine ITR with ITS. After all, with all its growth, ITR now up to almost half as many entries this year as IT7, so surely it would be a prime candidate for "unneeded". And ITRs and ITSs are very close in speed whenever they run together, so what objection could the ITS guys have?

Some years ago, before ITA became super competitive, Ricky Thompson ran a 10/10ths RX7 in ITA and did pretty well with it. So I think it is inaccurate to call the car uncompetitive in ITA but it definitely appears to be disadvantaged. But that aside, it seems like a perfect B car. Why didn't the cars get put into B in the first place instead of making another splinter class specific for one model car?

The ITR/ITS class merger doesn't stand up to scrutiny. First off, ITR is composed of many different cars, not just one car, and the cars have a performance potential that is far outside of ITS. The 1st generation RX7 is just one car and it clearly fits into the IT class frame work as is. Now with respect to performance, some of the ITR cars that have been built were done well and run much faster than ITS cars, i.e., KVS's Porsche 944 S2. But many others have not been nearly as developed and run ITS times. As Kirk points out these folks have a lot more work to do and they don't need their cars classed in ITS due to their lack of development.

I'm not sure what the future of IT7 is going to be. A couple of people I know say they are on their last motor and that when this one gives up they are moving to ITS or ITR. And others I know are wanting to stick with it and make a new "IT7" class that will incorporate changes to keep the cars viable for the near foreseeable future.

 

[Russ Myers]

I understand all of the reasons why IT7 was formed. I know and like a lot of IT7 drivers (yourself included). I just think class proliferation is a bad idea. I would be perfectly fine collapsing S and R together into one class if it could be done in a way such that all cars in the combined class had a shot at meeting their power/weight ratio. Fewer classes, not more -- if possible.

To me, and I am coming late ot the party, the 12A RX7 is an ITB car using the Process, and yes I understand the issue with cages and wheel widths.

Single marque sub-classes within IT in my view - in the long run -- hurt SCCA not help it, although I fully agree with you IT7 was well-intentioned and has been very successful on its own.

How can you think an RX-7, which was an SSA car, be thought of as a car to run against a Pinto, which was an SSC car??? Not that it will happen, but where is the logic in that.? There was obviously a reason one was in "A", and one was in "C".

Russ

 

[Ron Earp]

How can you think an RX-7, which was an SSA car, be thought of as a car to run against a Pinto, which was an SSC car??? Not that it will happen, but where is the logic in that.? There was obviously a reason one was in "A", and one was in "C".

Russ

What difference does it make where the cars were classed in Showroom Stock? IT is a different set of prep rules than Showroom Stock and IT is a power/weight class.

Boy, we're now far and away from talking about any V8s.

 

[JeffYoung]

All power to weight Russ. If the RX7 and Pinto have similar power to weights in IT prep in ITB, then that is the logical place for them.

How can you think an RX-7, which was an SSA car, be thought of as a car to run against a Pinto, which was an SSC car??? Not that it will happen, but where is the logic in that.? There was obviously a reason one was in "A", and one was in "C".

Russ

 

[Flyinglizard]

The IT7 makes a lot more power to weight than the ITb cars. When IT7 and B were in the same group, I was on the pole in the VW. The RX7s rolled me so bad on the front straight that I was about 7th going into T1(Sebring short pro course south) The RX7s handled poorly and I was back to 4 th by the end of the first lap. The power they make is way above ITB @ their race weight. They would need about 200# to be square in ITB.
V8? The GTA class is the hapening thing. There are plenty of V8 classes. All of which will require fresh tires, pads and lots of fuel per race. The ITB cars are about 200$ per hr. The Cup style cars are 1200$ per hr. The stock brake, big cars are big money because they dont stop and eat lots of gas.
Most of the racers here have decided that there is no money @ the end of the road . racing is racing. The closer the racing, the better. IE Spec miata, spec Ford,etc. Reduce the cost per race and we can do it more often. Race the whole race without passing anyone and the money is wasted.
If youwant to drive your V8 stang, do track days @ 96% effeort and race a real race car.
MM
V

 

[JeffYoung]

Sure they do, at 23xx or whatever their race weight is in ITA. In ITB, they'd weigh more.

And Tom L -- just to clarify, these are internet musings of an ITAC guy. Nothing it is gong to happen to IT7 and I'm not even sure we on the ITAC can make any real recommendations about it, since it is a regional class. We just make recommendations as to where teh 12A goes in A/B etc.

Philosophical question for you, as a long time IT7 guy -- if the 12A was competitive in ITB, do you think that would help or hurt overall 12A participation numbers (which I agree is the ultimate goal here)?

The IT7 makes a lot more power to weight than the ITb cars. When IT7 and B were in the same group, I was on the pole in the VW. The RX7s rolled me so bad on the front straight that I was about 7th going into T1(Sebring short pro course south) The RX7s handled poorly and I was back to 4 th by the end of the first lap. The power they make is way above ITB @ their race weight. They would need about 200# to be square in ITB.
V8? The GTA class is the hapening thing. There are plenty of V8 classes. All of which will require fresh tires, pads and lots of fuel per race. The ITB cars are about 200$ per hr. The Cup style cars are 1200$ per hr. The stock brake, big cars are big money because they dont stop and eat lots of gas.
Most of the racers here have decided that there is no money @ the end of the road . racing is racing. The closer the racing, the better. IE Spec miata, spec Ford,etc. Reduce the cost per race and we can do it more often. Race the whole race without passing anyone and the money is wasted.
If youwant to drive your V8 stang, do track days @ 96% effeort and race a real race car.
MM
V

 

[lateapex911]

Ron, you stated, "Before ITA became super competititive, one guy ran well".

So, ONE guy, (I love Ricky, and will say that he is THE most thorough and leave no stone unturned guy I know) ran well in a class that wasn't at it's full strength, of HUNDREDS of similar cars tells us something, if we are talking results which we seem to be doing here.

Also, MM, keep in mind that there are, shall we say. "regional differences" with IT7 cars. And that part of the country is known for having unique power levels, according to my sources from the area.

Fact is, moving to ITB is a bad idea because of three issues.
- The Process fails it in ITA. It will, of course, fail it in ITB. The ITAc has stood on a power level that is, from what I've seen over the years, impossible to achieve in a legal car (cake in a slightly tweaked car). And it ignores tq, IIRC, which is in the 104 range on a car with an assumed 130-135 whp. Class that strut/live axle chassis in ITB, using those numbers, the resultant weight will be in the 2600 pound range.
I guarantee you that if you look at the ARRC laptimes (The best ITb guys vs the best IT7 guys on the same track on the same day, presumably ) thru the years, and I bet you'll see maybe three guys who run faster than ITB times out of ALLL the IT7 entries. Adding 300 lbs and taking an inch off wheel width makes them ITB field fillers.
- Wheel changes. I have four sets of 13 x7 wheels in a weird pattern. Now I, and EVERY IT7 driver gets to sell them to what, EIGHT Prod guys who might want them? Pfffft, THAT will be a good return on investment. THEN I get to spend my proceeds of $50 on four sets of 13 x 6 wheels in an odd pattern. OR 14 x6 wheels AND a new final drive.
- I should reread the cage rules, but at the time it was last discussed the existing IT7 cars were deemed to have cages in half of them that would be illegal at the new weight. The CRB refused any exceptions at the time. In a car worth $3500 on a good day, recaging and re quivering the wheel inventory (ignoring tires!) is going to be upside down money. Dumb.


My opinion is that the IT7 class (which I resisted for years) does far more good than harm. Should the cars be moved to B, I suspect the value of the cars would drop to zero, (assuming IT7 were to go away as Jeff would like) and entries would disperse.

Disperse: Some would get a SM (Many IT7 guys have done that already), some would remain in IT in a different car, and some ...the smart ones...would get a boat.


(What SHOULD have happened, is the Process should have come to power 7+ years before it did, it should have handled the cars better and they should have been moved to B. But, the time for that has passed by AT LEAST 7 yrs or a decade. The horse has left the barn, has raced for another stable, and has gone to pasture.
Now, you can not get new core engine parts, you can't repair the worn ones legally, you struggle getting decent brake discs and certainly other parts are becoming scarce, at best. It is what it is. Too late now guys)