ITAC News.
- Thread starter lateapex911
- Start date
JeffYoung
New member
What "prod" allowances have we granted?
IT core: stock engines, brakes, trannies, body panels, suspension pick up points.
All of that unchanged over many years save MAYBE the ECU rules.
We did get your letter on the ITAC; the thought is appreciated but it was not recommended up the chain to the CRB. I am sure you can raise it with them but from little I know about how IT is viewed above my level (ITAC) I think this idea is dead in the water.
IT core: stock engines, brakes, trannies, body panels, suspension pick up points.
All of that unchanged over many years save MAYBE the ECU rules.
We did get your letter on the ITAC; the thought is appreciated but it was not recommended up the chain to the CRB. I am sure you can raise it with them but from little I know about how IT is viewed above my level (ITAC) I think this idea is dead in the water.
Color me confused. I feel like I've accidentally been cc'd into someone's personal email conversation, and late in the game to boot.
K
"what we have heah, is a faileah to communicate"....LOL
(Thanks,Paul Newman)
lateapex911
Super Moderator
Seems like Jerry shot a letter to the ITAC asking them to roll back spherical bearings, ECUs, engine mounts and other recent allowances, OR eliminate IT altogether and roll the cars into LP Prod.
Correct or illuminate us Jerry.
Not the first time that's been run up the flagpole. As a matter of fact, an ITAC member suggested an LP IT idea, where the cars were classed based on a different ruleset. You'd have an ITA Focus, and the same car would be an ITB Focus in LP mode, with stock exhaust manifolds, no sphericals, etc etc etc. Personally, I didn't really love the idea, as it made the whole category race together weird, and I just didn't think we needed to DOUBLE the number of classifications (in theory), AND try to balance the 'stockish' prep level with the standard IT ruleset prep level. But he liked it because he was a guy that loved to do things on the cheap, and hated that he had to prep as hard as he did to be competitive. Valid points no doubt.
The issue with such requests like Jerry's is, if I'm assuming correctly, is that it basically throws years of development and money that thousands of members have invested, right into the trash, AND it makes them go REinvent the setups, and try and source old impossible to find junk parts.
Correct or illuminate us Jerry.
Not the first time that's been run up the flagpole. As a matter of fact, an ITAC member suggested an LP IT idea, where the cars were classed based on a different ruleset. You'd have an ITA Focus, and the same car would be an ITB Focus in LP mode, with stock exhaust manifolds, no sphericals, etc etc etc. Personally, I didn't really love the idea, as it made the whole category race together weird, and I just didn't think we needed to DOUBLE the number of classifications (in theory), AND try to balance the 'stockish' prep level with the standard IT ruleset prep level. But he liked it because he was a guy that loved to do things on the cheap, and hated that he had to prep as hard as he did to be competitive. Valid points no doubt.
The issue with such requests like Jerry's is, if I'm assuming correctly, is that it basically throws years of development and money that thousands of members have invested, right into the trash, AND it makes them go REinvent the setups, and try and source old impossible to find junk parts.
seckerich
New member
I thought that prep level already existed, don't the call it chump car? Please lets go back to a rotten passenger seat everyone hid the flywheel under, and that pretty headliner that made to car so nice to clean. At least with some of the old rules only a few with tweakable computers could win and it kept out the Rif Raf we see on the podium now. 
Last I checked SS is legal forever in SCCA regionals and fits the prep level Jerry is asking for so he already has what he wants. Why screw with a healthy, growing catagory to please a few. Kudos to the ITAC for voting it down (except the Tennessee contingent I'm sure).
Last I checked SS is legal forever in SCCA regionals and fits the prep level Jerry is asking for so he already has what he wants. Why screw with a healthy, growing catagory to please a few. Kudos to the ITAC for voting it down (except the Tennessee contingent I'm sure).
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Actually, when I bought up LP IT, it was simply LP ENGINE - and everything else the same. So the cars would be VERY equal everywhere, you just limit power.
Concept: 110hp stock ITB car is between a 135hp and 140hp car in IT-prep (crank).
What if all you allowed was the addition of a traditional (rearward most) cat-back exhaust and a drop in K&N filter, and classed cars using their stock HP number (or +5%)? No ECU, no overbore, etc. This would effectively drop cars down 1 full class. It COULD repopulate ALL the classes (especially ITC and IT
and actually add cars up to 275hp crank into ITR.
Just some spitballin' from previous years. At one point, I thought LP-Prod was going to be so popular and prolific that it would eat away at the guys spending money on full-prep builds. No seeing why that couldn't work here...but the current rules are also good. Both levels could easily intermingle as there would be no advantage in theory.
Concept: 110hp stock ITB car is between a 135hp and 140hp car in IT-prep (crank).
What if all you allowed was the addition of a traditional (rearward most) cat-back exhaust and a drop in K&N filter, and classed cars using their stock HP number (or +5%)? No ECU, no overbore, etc. This would effectively drop cars down 1 full class. It COULD repopulate ALL the classes (especially ITC and IT
and actually add cars up to 275hp crank into ITR.Just some spitballin' from previous years. At one point, I thought LP-Prod was going to be so popular and prolific that it would eat away at the guys spending money on full-prep builds. No seeing why that couldn't work here...but the current rules are also good. Both levels could easily intermingle as there would be no advantage in theory.
JeffYoung
New member
In my opinion -- opinion -- the ruleset is confusing enough and with too many classes/options as is.
The only advantage I see to LP IT is that it may result in more cars running ITC, etc. But I don't see it resulting in more overall entries (LP Prod hasn't) so I just don't see the need.
Plus it makes it that much harder for the ITAC on the whole "IT gain" issue related to weight. More and more I think our formula is a good one, but flawed, and the less we have to do with it the better. Trying to figure out gain on a motor TWO ways gives us an extra chance to screw things up.
The only advantage I see to LP IT is that it may result in more cars running ITC, etc. But I don't see it resulting in more overall entries (LP Prod hasn't) so I just don't see the need.
Plus it makes it that much harder for the ITAC on the whole "IT gain" issue related to weight. More and more I think our formula is a good one, but flawed, and the less we have to do with it the better. Trying to figure out gain on a motor TWO ways gives us an extra chance to screw things up.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
I bet we could have a healthy debate on how 'easy' it would be to run numbers on cars with a 0% adder. 
And we could certainly debate whether or not limiting the engine and ECU rules would draw builders.
It would be a fun exercise to write a full proposal.
And we could certainly debate whether or not limiting the engine and ECU rules would draw builders.
It would be a fun exercise to write a full proposal.
preparedcivic
New member
Oh noes! Loosing washer bottles and windshield fluid lines this year has now crossed the prep line to eternal damnation. Not to mention being able to Window-Weld motor mounts.
Yes, sphericals are out there some, but. It substantively different than a hard bushing replacement. Obviously, opinions vary.
Yes, sphericals are out there some, but. It substantively different than a hard bushing replacement. Obviously, opinions vary.
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Just a drop-in filter and a cat-back. OK fine, call it 5%. Same effect. No internals, no ECU, etc.
JeffYoung
New member
The point is, we don't know what cars will see what gains with a filter and cat back.
Didn't you say you saw a dyno plot for an SSA 300zx with JUST a catback that made 220 whp? That's a HUGE gain for the exhaust alone.
Other cars will see zero gain.
So now for any particular motor, we are going to have to sort out gain in 2 different configurations.
Unnecessary complication I say!
Didn't you say you saw a dyno plot for an SSA 300zx with JUST a catback that made 220 whp? That's a HUGE gain for the exhaust alone.
Other cars will see zero gain.
So now for any particular motor, we are going to have to sort out gain in 2 different configurations.
Unnecessary complication I say!
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
The point is, we don't know what cars will see in IT trim either. It's just educated guesses. It would be simple to take 5 cars and test a hypothesis.
The Z had open intakes and a chip FWIW.
But I get it. Change is bad. It doesn't have to be complicated if you are committed to it AND if you determine engine prep, complication, expense and ECU's to be a barrier to builds and entries, then it IS necessary! Not saying I agree with that, just sayin'.