January 2014 Fastrack
- Thread starter pfrichardson
- Start date
January Fastrack Preliminary Minutes/Tech Bulletin
12/09/13- Preliminary Minutes
12/09/13- Preliminary Tech Bulletin
12/09/13- Preliminary Minutes
12/09/13- Preliminary Tech Bulletin
What Do You Think
ITR
1. #11955 (Lee Niffenegger) Move 2006-Up Civic SI from ITS to ITR
The Club Racing Board seeks your input on this question. Please submit responses to crbscca.com. Should the 2006-2008 Civic Si remain in ITS at 3000 lbs or be moved to ITR at 2605 lbs?
ITS
1. #11724 (Willie Phee) Classify Acura TSX in ITS
The Club Racing Board requests member feedback for this question. Please submit letters to crbscca.com. Should the 04-08 Acura TSX remain as currently classified in ITR at 2760 lbs or be moved to ITS at a weight of 3175 lbs?
I sent a letter to the ITAC/CRB (http://crbscca.com/) pointing out that no matter what you do, you're gonna piss someone off, likely someone already running or building a car. So let's stop dancing this silly little "where do you want this car to be?" tango and approve dual classifications in Improved Touring.
Done. - GA
ITR
1. #11955 (Lee Niffenegger) Move 2006-Up Civic SI from ITS to ITR
The Club Racing Board seeks your input on this question. Please submit responses to crbscca.com. Should the 2006-2008 Civic Si remain in ITS at 3000 lbs or be moved to ITR at 2605 lbs?
ITS
1. #11724 (Willie Phee) Classify Acura TSX in ITS
The Club Racing Board requests member feedback for this question. Please submit letters to crbscca.com. Should the 04-08 Acura TSX remain as currently classified in ITR at 2760 lbs or be moved to ITS at a weight of 3175 lbs?
I sent a letter to the ITAC/CRB (http://crbscca.com/) pointing out that no matter what you do, you're gonna piss someone off, likely someone already running or building a car. So let's stop dancing this silly little "where do you want this car to be?" tango and approve dual classifications in Improved Touring.
Done. - GA
Kai Noeske
Member
When my "tweener" 99 Civic Si was classed, there was some back and forth between people wanting it in ITA at higher weight, because there were plenty of former SSC cars that could have run without a massive stripping-down effort. After initial claims the car could not make ITS weight, some builds claimed it could, so it was moved to ITS. The argument for that procedure was, as I was told, that "we want every car in the class where it has its lowest attainable weight."
I can see the merit of this approach, but it seems inconsistent with what they do now, ie ask people about their preferences. As Greg said, this approach will piss people off no matter which way it goes; with a consistent "lowest reasonably attainable weight" procedure, there'd be at least a consistent rule to point to that would prevent some of the bickering and arguing, and perpetual requests for reclassifications.
Yes, dual classifications would be the way to go IMO. No violation of the process, with the downside of request for power/weight assessments, special allowances, etc being submitted for the same car in 2 classes; I'd assume the increase of such letters would be rather mild though, since most cars are pretty firmly planted in one class.
EDIT: Dual classifications would also lower the entry barrier for new car builds, and mix up the competition. Beginner car and not worried yet about winning? Leave your fresh build at the heavier weight, leave the sound dampening and nasty underside coating on and the glass in and go racing. Car a bit of an underdog in one class? Maybe try the other; could increase diversity in the fields.
Last edited:
gran racing
Super Moderator
It would be interesting to see how that played out. I'd be curious at what weight and if my car could be competitive in ITA.
Or we could be charitable and assume that they aren't asking who will get pissed but instead are uncertain whether the car can reasonably make the ITR and want input.
I also don't have a problem with dual classifications, especially if a car is being moved from one class to another.
Then since we don't know, let's dual-classify them and let the competitors do all the figuring out for us, instead of using WAG and POOMA.
Open market and all that.
Then write a letter.
http://crbscca.com
Last edited:
RSTPerformance
New member
dickita15
New member
Flyinglizard
New member
Dual class makes sense unless it bounces over the cage size limits.
crossing cage size/ car weight limits is a problem with straight reclassing too. of the 3 cars we considered last month, 2 cross the 2700# threshold moving up or down. 1 is up for member input (06-09 Civic Si), the other was denied, again (99-00 Civic Si). the TSX is safe by 60#, and depending on what permutation of the ITR process you like, it might have dropped under (I'm guessing, I haven't checked). though being on the cusp is an easier place to just opt for the "heavier" cage than when you are fighting for ounces 300# below it.
I personally have no objection to dual classing, but I respect that some others do. we'll have to discuss it on committee and see where we stand. send letters if you feel strongly about it.
I personally have no objection to dual classing, but I respect that some others do. we'll have to discuss it on committee and see where we stand. send letters if you feel strongly about it.
ShelbyRacer
New member
I'm not personally fond of dual classing, but I'll read any letters to that effect with great interest.
One of the sticky points on some of these cars is that they also have stock HP numbers outside the typical envelope for the class (Civic Si is certainly one in ITA, but there are others to be looked at).
In the end, there is also another factor in *my* mind- if the car works in both classes numbers-wise, where does it "fit"? In the case of the Civic, my feeling is it's a better fit in ITA, but the numbers are such that it seemed better in ITS. When I joined the ITAC, it was actually one of about 10 cars that I "processed" on my own to see where the numbers all were and to get completely familiar with the process math. When the numbers didn't work, I checked the ITAC letter history. If I didn't find it, I asked why, and learned more about the decisions and how they get made.
Personally, I'd like to put several cars out to the membership that are fence-sitters. tGA- you can make fun of me if you desire, but I'd prefer to get member input in more cases. We are an *appointed* body, overseen by another appointed body, who answers to people elected to run the entire club (side note: when typing "run", I mistyped it as "ruin". Freudian slip?). I don't want to bog down the process, but *at least* in cases where we on the ITAC can't clearly see one way or another, I'd prefer the member input process. But, as I said, that's because I'd prefer *not* to dual classify.
To go to the oft-cited nth degree, why wouldn't we dual classify everything? In fact, why not just adopt the system where we post stock hp, process multiplier, and adders for every car for confirmation purposes, and then allow a competitor to pick their own class? I could conceivably run an 83-86 Camarobird in ITS at 3370 (195hp stock, 1.3 multiplier, +100 torque)... Not sure if I'd get the 10.5" front discs to last 20 laps at Summit (let alone other tracks), but hey, that's my problem... Especially since I'm really not sure I'm going to be able to get down to its classified weight in ITR. Please keep in mind this question is NOT meant to be sarcastic by any means, as I'd actually like to know if people think this would be The Way To Go (TM). I would've used my ITB Charger as an example, but there is NO WAY I could legally get the car down to its sub-2000-pound ITA weight...
Final thought- since our statement of class philosphy specifically mentions that dual-classifications aren't part of the plan, then we'd need to run that up the CRB/BoD flagpole for approval, and I for one would sure as heck want member input for that...
One of the sticky points on some of these cars is that they also have stock HP numbers outside the typical envelope for the class (Civic Si is certainly one in ITA, but there are others to be looked at).
In the end, there is also another factor in *my* mind- if the car works in both classes numbers-wise, where does it "fit"? In the case of the Civic, my feeling is it's a better fit in ITA, but the numbers are such that it seemed better in ITS. When I joined the ITAC, it was actually one of about 10 cars that I "processed" on my own to see where the numbers all were and to get completely familiar with the process math. When the numbers didn't work, I checked the ITAC letter history. If I didn't find it, I asked why, and learned more about the decisions and how they get made.
Personally, I'd like to put several cars out to the membership that are fence-sitters. tGA- you can make fun of me if you desire, but I'd prefer to get member input in more cases. We are an *appointed* body, overseen by another appointed body, who answers to people elected to run the entire club (side note: when typing "run", I mistyped it as "ruin". Freudian slip?). I don't want to bog down the process, but *at least* in cases where we on the ITAC can't clearly see one way or another, I'd prefer the member input process. But, as I said, that's because I'd prefer *not* to dual classify.
To go to the oft-cited nth degree, why wouldn't we dual classify everything? In fact, why not just adopt the system where we post stock hp, process multiplier, and adders for every car for confirmation purposes, and then allow a competitor to pick their own class? I could conceivably run an 83-86 Camarobird in ITS at 3370 (195hp stock, 1.3 multiplier, +100 torque)... Not sure if I'd get the 10.5" front discs to last 20 laps at Summit (let alone other tracks), but hey, that's my problem... Especially since I'm really not sure I'm going to be able to get down to its classified weight in ITR. Please keep in mind this question is NOT meant to be sarcastic by any means, as I'd actually like to know if people think this would be The Way To Go (TM). I would've used my ITB Charger as an example, but there is NO WAY I could legally get the car down to its sub-2000-pound ITA weight...
Final thought- since our statement of class philosphy specifically mentions that dual-classifications aren't part of the plan, then we'd need to run that up the CRB/BoD flagpole for approval, and I for one would sure as heck want member input for that...
We kind of do already. First-gen CRX si is in three classes....
IMO, such a car would be the target for dual classification as it is neither fish nor fowl. Too piggy to be an ITR car and too hard to woe to be an ITS car. I wouldn't build one because of that, but it appears at least one person has wood over the car -- let them decide where it races.
And if you are moving a car down a class, leave it in both. I know I'd be really pissed off I owned a mid-pack ITB car that got dropped to ITC. I'd much rather be working hard for 9th place in a 16-car field than being guaranteed a second place finish.
JeffYoung
New member
I don't like it (dual classification).
In almost all cases, there generally IS a "right" class for the car that comes from acheivable weight and achievable HP. If someone is asking for a dual classification, in my opinion, at least in some cases they know something the ITAC doesn't and are seeking an advantage.
In almost all cases, there generally IS a "right" class for the car that comes from acheivable weight and achievable HP. If someone is asking for a dual classification, in my opinion, at least in some cases they know something the ITAC doesn't and are seeking an advantage.
ShelbyRacer
New member
What three IT classes is it in?