ITAC News.

lateapex911 said:
Well, it matters alot, and the ratio was chose in concert with the others, to render the greatest amount of cars possible to be competitive.
Click to expand...

Odd since most of the popular older cars have ratios in the 19-21 range.

Changing it now might mean that many cars will need to add or subtract ballast.
Click to expand...

No. Since most cars are NOT at the designated ITB ratio, a heap load of cars are going to lose weight and a few will get weight. Finally, some outliers are going to move to new classes.

Since IT didn't come to the party based on bogus hp ratings, it shouldn't suffer.
Click to expand...

Everyone at the same ratio. If you can't make it, you either are uncompetitive or accept getting dropped down to a slower class. Dual classify the folks in the Nash Rambler who want to stay in ITB instead of going to ITC.
 
Gary L said:
As a relatively new Volvo driver, and a really new ITAC member...

For starters, if we were to seriously consider a base power/weight ratio shift in ITB, my vote would be a resounding "no". We have enough issues without completely reinventing the ITB wheel. Further, as I have stated on these pages multiple times, I don't see the 140 series Volvo as being that far out of whack anyway. Yes, there are other Volvo drivers that have called me out on this, and in no uncertain terms. That's too bad... the car is in my opinion, pretty damned close to where it should be (weight wise) in ITB. And it sure as Hell does NOT belong in ITC. I'm carrying ballast now, in the form of extra fuel and a spare tire, not to mention there is still a fair amount of undercoating left on the car, it has a stock radiator, etc. Why would I want to move to (a less-subscribed) ITC, while screwing the car up by adding another 10 or 12% to the as-raced weight? Illogical, Captain. :)

The 240 series is another story altogether, and the ITAC is working that problem as we speak. Yes - at least some of the 240's clearly belong in "C", IMHO. Maybe the whole damned bunch of them... they have (in some cases, significantly) less horsepower potential than the 140 and they all have significantly heavier curb weights. Unlike my car, many of the 240's (particularly with the 2.1 engine) will absolutely never make ITB weight legally; we're talking about missing the target by hundreds of pounds here, not dozens.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Gary. That's an important reminder that we need to keep the 142 and 242 separate in our conversations.

K
 
JoshS said:
Guys, please read the rules before posting. Or overreacting.

As Greg said, cars registered before 1/1/08 have a choice of which set of roll cage rules they wish to abide by. The old rules are in appendix I, and the OP is right, under those rules, an increase in weight would mean an increase in minimum tubing size, either diameter or thickness.

But the new rules, in GCR section 9.4, allow 1.5x.095 for all cars up to 2700 lbs (w/driver), but do have some newer rules with regards to construction. Chances are your cars are all fine under the new rules, and certainly the ones under construction will NEED to abide by the new rules (and as such, can use 1.5x.095).
Click to expand...

Sorry Josh it is not clear to non-talmudic scholars.

From the above I think you are saying that the title of 9.4 (below) refers not to Production as a racing classification, but for all cars based on the regular production of horseless carriages. Is that correct?

I think if you ask someone like Bob Dowie how the original weight was set by ITAC and CRB agreement, one of the issues was avoiding the cage diameter/weight trap we are in here. Can we just eliminate this FUBAR by making the Golf 3 weigh 2380 (a thirty pound increase) OR just adding to the ITCS that cages follow 9.4 "Roll cages for GT and Production Based Cars"?

9.4. ROLL CAGES FOR GT AND PRODUCTION BASED CARS
​
All cars must utilize a roll cage compliant with the following specifications.
These specifications apply to all vehicles registered (issued an
SCCA logbook) after 1/1/08. Cars registered before 1/1/08 may continue
to compete with their previous roll cage as specified in Appendix I.
Cars registered as Production class cars prior to 1/1/08 may continue to​
use their existing roll cage per Appendix J.
F. TUBING
GCR Vehicle Weight


Tubing Size (inches) (outer diameter x wall thickness)
1701 - 2699 lbs
1.375 x .080
2201-3000 lbs.
1.500 x .095
1.625 x .080
2700 lbs and up
1.50 x .120
1.750 x .095
2.00 x 0.80


Appendix I. 2007 Cage Rules

2. Minimum tubing sizes (all Formula, Sports Racing, GT, and
Production Category automobiles, and all automobiles registered
prior to June 1, 1994) for all required roll cage elements
(All dimensions in inches):


Material
Material
Vehicle Weight Without Driver
Mild Steel
Alloy Steel
Up to 1500 lbs
1.375 x .095
1.375 x .080
1500-2500 lbs.
1.50 x .095
1.375 x .095
Over 2500 lbs.
1.50 x .120
1.625 x .120
1.75 x .095
1.50 x .095


3. Minimum tubing sizes for (all Showroom Stock, Touring and
Improved Touring Category auto-mobiles registered after June
1, 1994) for all required roll cage elements (All dimensions in inches):


Material
Vehicle Weight Without Driver
DOM / Seamless / Alloy
Up to 1500 lbs
1.375 x .095
1501-2200 lbs.
1.500 x .095
2201-3000 lbs.
1.50 x .120
1.625 x .120
1.75 x .095


Appendix J 2004 Production Category Roll Cage Rules
This appendix is present so that cages in Production cars with logbooks
from 2004 and earlier can be verified for compliance with the construction
rules required at the time the car was built.

 
The current section of the GCR has only two types of cages. Formula/Sports racer and GT /Production Type Vehicles. IT cars are production type vehicles. As you read through that section you will see the restrictions such as attachment points for IT, SS and SM cars. The same size tubing is specified for all cars from 1701 to 2699. These weights are with driver or in other words what the spec line says.
For cars logbooked before 2008 you have two options, you can comply with the current rules or you can comply with appendix I 2007 cage rules. This appendix has separate tubing rules for SS, IT & Touring
The break point for cage size on this one is 2200pounds but the old rules were without driver so you need to add 180 pounds. So if you spec line weight is over 2380 then you need the larger tubing.
I would be very surprised if Tim’s car does not comply with the current cage design rules.
 
Knestis said:
I'm funny about stuff sometimes but it's annoying in the extreme that a complete reshuffle of B is being considered - primarily to accommodate the Volvos - when it's the shenanigans of past Volvo racers that's put them into their present pickle.

A part of me thinks it's elegant justice if they discover they are stuck with an uphill battle now because of past indiscretions. Drivers of those cars who are still active, who were around back when they were kicking ass and taking names, should be embarrassed and be glad they have the option of moving to ITC where they actually fit.

But remember, this is SCCA and the old saying applies: "The needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many."

Oh, wait...

K
Click to expand...

I've only requested the Volvo 240 get run through the process and have some discrepancies corrected. Any ITB upheaval is purely coincidental.

As for the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many... That is unfortunately the way of the US and subsequently the SCCA, but that is a discussion for another forum.
 
Correct. David has been more than helpful and patient in supplying us with the information needed to handle the Volvos. Many thanks.

Jeff

Knestis said:
If all you did was ask for the 240 to be run through the Process, you aren't the problem David.

K
Click to expand...
 
Quick update from last night's call.

I missed the first bit while on a plane to Dallas, and then the last 10-15 minutes. However, recommendations were made on power steering, motor mounts, and a slew of weight corrections. Lots of good work done.

This committee really works well together. Now, a lot of that is due to the ground work laid by the guys from the last 5 years. We actually have the tools look at and assign weights to cars without arguing who got a draft at the ARRC on the backstraight in 1997 to claim the outside pole. VERY pleased with how the committee is functioning and hats off to Chair Danny Doern for keeping us on track and moving smoothly.

New members Travis Norwald, Chip O'Toole and Gary Learned are all big contributors right out of the box (and I certainly was not).

We next turn to looking at ITB, and trying to square some things up there.

Thanks guys.

Any and all questions welcome.

Jeff
 
Thanks Jeff, I got the update that my request was untabled. Any indication on what the recommendation to the CRB will be?
Thanks,
 
rsportvolvo said:
I've only requested the Volvo 240 get run through the process and have some discrepancies corrected. Any ITB upheaval is purely coincidental.

As for the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many... That is unfortunately the way of the US and subsequently the SCCA, but that is a discussion for another forum.
Click to expand...


My new 1977 242 ITB(which has been raced for years in the midwest...and even raced in the 24hrs of Nelson Ledges)still has the interior door panels and all the dash, including the glove box,original steering wheel....LOL... still installed.The former owner was protested and won the protest because 15" wheels(the reason for the protest) were provided by VOLVO, as standard equipment.If I need to move to ITC because it is a pig, that's ok,too....LOL.
 
Just a quick update...

We "lost" the December call due to the holidays. Back on track on Monday; will put up an update next week.

Thanks guys.
 
JeffYoung said:
Just a quick update...

We "lost" the December call due to the holidays. Back on track on Monday; will put up an update next week.

Thanks guys.
Click to expand...

Thanks, Jeff...Please push for the VOLVO 240 whale" to be downgraded/"upgraded"....LOL to ITC. Many would be "svedes" will thank you!!
 
Really?? I think that the ITAC will wonder if you REALLY want that. And,: Is that the best thing for the 240 drivers across the country? I say that because ITC numbers are non existant in certain areas, yet fair in others. Most people buy race cars to race, and moving a car from a popular class to a poorly subscribed one is likely to upset those who want to race.
ITC MIGHT be OK in your area (or track) for NOW, but, it's awfully hard adding new cars to that class at reasonable weights....so, in my eyes, it's a dying class.
I'd suggest that the ITAc be very diligent in finding how reasonable it is to list it lighter in ITB.
 
lateapex911 said:
Really?? I think that the ITAC will wonder if you REALLY want that. And,: Is that the best thing for the 240 drivers across the country? I say that because ITC numbers are non existant in certain areas, yet fair in others. Most people buy race cars to race, and moving a car from a popular class to a poorly subscribed one is likely to upset those who want to race.
ITC MIGHT be OK in your area (or track) for NOW, but, it's awfully hard adding new cars to that class at reasonable weights....so, in my eyes, it's a dying class.
I'd suggest that the ITAc be very diligent in finding how reasonable it is to list it lighter in ITB.
Click to expand...

Jake...I take your point.As long as I can race similar competition...and be competitive, ITB is fine. However, if everyone in the class is running away from me(and the other 240's) due to weight...that's a different matter.
 
I don't buy any of this stuff about the 240s being uncomptetive. THere is a 242 in the Washington DC region, built & driven by Ernie (can't remember his last name) that set the track record at Summit Point duringa MRRS race a year or two ago, that was then re-set by Tristan a weekend or so later. It was mid 29s at Summit, which is really haulin. I have no idea if the car is legal or not, I do know it got a lot faster once Ernie blew up his old motor at VIR and built a new one. In any case, based on that one data point the car sure doesn't belong in ITC.
 
The MARRS guy on the ITAC had questions about the 240s legality.

We polled the 240 drivers we were aware of (there are only a couple) and the response was mostly fine with a move to C.

The car just can't make ITB weight. Not possible.

So that's where we are.
 
updates from January's call:

we focussed mostly on "old business" and tried to clear out the letters that have been sitting unanswered for a while. most had a lot of work involved over the months, and I think we did a good job with the ones we agreed on sending to the CRB.

we also were able to answer a lot of the rules change and clarification request letters, but I don't think that we have voted up any rules changes since the motor mounts. we do have some minor, "cleanup" changes we are looking at still.

there were a number of car corrections to see to, and we spent a lot of time on those. mostly of a single marque.

we did not add any new classifications, though we are working on a few. if you requested a car in the past 6 months or so and haven't seen any movement on that letter, its because a requested VTS sheet was not submitted, so you might be contacted while we sort them out.

There are a few cars seeking weight adjustments that we are still looking at. again, if you have one of them, you might be contacted.

sorry, nothing controversial :happy204:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top