January Fastrack

Jake, no offense taken, but I don't see any shenanigans. There are folks on the ITAC who think small 4 valve motors make 30% generally speaking. I don't think they are doing that for an improper reason. It is there fundamental belief about the motor. I can disagree with that, but I don't think there is anything improper in it.

I thought I was clear with Stephen. My understanding is the rule is 25% default unless strong evidence acceptable to a majority of the committee to the contrary. For the RX8, I really think the proces worked. We had a lot of folks looking at it, and a lot of data from a lot of places. You, Josh and Kirk did great work in collecting the data and making sure the process (little p) was done up front, above board and correctly.

On the Porsches, ar you sure the 944S2 and 968 weren't classed at 15%
 
JeffYoung said:
My guess is, as to individual cars, we've spent more time on the ITA Miata and ITB in general than all other issues combined.
Click to expand...

ITB is the class that has been most impacted by the "Process". It seems that the ITAC and CRB keep scrambling to make the things fit together in "B" and not getting it done. It doesn't apear to me that they "Get" what the problem really is, although it's pretty clear to some of us that have been racing in ITB for a long time.

Now the Club is making wholesale changes in ITB and ITC to try it make the class fit the process, rather then adapting the process to fit the class. With more time and hard work this will eventually sort itself out, however ITB is going to look a whole lot different then it did for the past 20 years. In my mind this goes against the goal of Rule Stability, a highly held value in IT.

The Miata is another car that doesn't fit too well with the Process. That's why it's challenging you.

The Process is like a brand new tool. You don,t know how to best use it or understand it's limitations, but your already rebuilding the whole IT race structure with it. It aslo seems like you already threw out the old tools in your toolbox.
 
Just a quick response.

The Process has been around for quite some time now. The old method of classing cars was complete BS -- curb weight minus 180 lbs or something? How is that a tool?

You are a Volvo guy right? And so your point is that newer cars are threatening the old in ITB and in the interest of stability we should stop that?

That's true in ALL IT classes including S (mine), and there is nothing we can or should do to stop that.

Devising rules to ensure that 30 and 40 year old chassis are competitive with new ones is THE real road to Prod in my view.

We have a power to weight based system. It doesn't and can't account for all factors. Some cars will just be better than others.

But right now anyway, when I look out and see the type of racing you guys had in ITB at Summit, or the ARRC, I have a real hard time thinking that anything is broken (and that applies to S and A too).
 
Charlie Broring said:
...... It aslo seems like you already threw out the old tools in your toolbox.
Click to expand...

What WERE the old "tools"??

Case: ITA; In '93 (or so) the CRX was added. Based on, exactly what, I don't know. Whatever it was, it resulted in the car being a pretty obvious big dog.

So, the next step was to class a car that could compete. (I get this info from a former CRB guy). And another. Next thing we know, cars that are added are classed at weights that the committee thinks will be competitive with the new top dog.
The result is an entire class being relegated to also ran status. I call this the 'compounding mistakes effect'.

Another 'tool' was the 'next version' of a car going to the higher class. I don't think this was done as an absolute rule, but it seemed like it was a 'norm'.
Then there was a method that Jeff mentioned involving curb weight.

I've looked, and talked to guys involved, and I've never been able to find a long term policy and process. It always seemed to involve "what we know" and "what we see". That mindset has always been, and I'd dare say, still is, a central tenet to the way the CRB and committees work.
 
Last edited:
JeffYoung said:
J
You are a Volvo guy right? And so your point is that newer cars are threatening the old in ITB and in the interest of stability we should stop that?

That's true in ALL IT classes including S (mine), and there is nothing we can or should do to stop that.

Devising rules to ensure that 30 and 40 year old chassis are competitive with new ones is THE real road to Prod in my view.

We have a power to weight based system. It doesn't and can't account for all factors. Some cars will just be better than others.
Click to expand...
Yea, the current system is designed to set up performance targets and envelopes for each class. but it tries to not micromanage (comp adjust) individual cars.
In the long run, old cars will fade. The Volvos were and are contenders in in ITB, but they are ooooold cars. They are becoming few and far between. And with that comes less than dominance. That's teh natural progression. I agree with Jeff, you can't adjust an entire class for one model in the name of stability. Now, if ONE car is classed that resets class records, is the clear and dominant winner wherever it runs, then we have an issue. But I don't see that as an issue in ITB.
 
Classes that don't evolve are destined to whiter and die.
Click to expand...

I guess that depends upon how one defines evolve. lol At some point when there's a lack of cars to classify for a given class, let it die. That's essentially what's happening now. ITC is slowly dieing off but new blood was introduced with ITR. I don't see that as a horrible thing.
 
lateapex911 said:
The Volvos were and are contenders in in ITB, but they are ooooold cars. They are becoming few and far between. And with that comes less than dominance. That's teh natural progression.
Click to expand...

Exactly.

The same happens in other classes. It is happening now in S and that is fine. With the ECU rules and the natural development that occurs over time some older carbed cars, like the Z series, will lose a bit of their competitiveness. Such is life.

gran racing said:
IAt some point when there's a lack of cars to classify for a given class, let it die. .
Click to expand...

Wat? In the SCCA, a class dying due to lack of participation? You mean when like three guys show up for a Prod class at a National? Doesn't happen in the SCCA, a class dying off that is. Class can have two entries and an entire paddock of 600+ people will need to spend a few hours a weekend tending to them.
 
Last edited:
WOW 4 pages since yesterday,holy crap.

Since the MR2 is the car in question,wasent it originally classed in ITA then moved to ITB,now you want it reweighted or moved again.

Wait for it......

WHAT ABOUT THE FIRST GEN RX7??????????????????????

Why cant that car move to ITB and be a competitive car again? Jake has all the data in his head cause hs super smart about that stuff. Yes it will be beat by the current crop of B cars but it will be at the pointy end of the field. and every squrell finds a nut someday.

Ok done now.

If a car was produced with a turbo and its removed can it run in STU or STL,found a sweet deal on a 3rd gen RX7 roller and need to decide if ST is the place for this chassis.

Dan 77 IT7
 
Dano, I think most opposition to moving the 1st Gen RX7 (originally an ITS car!) to ITB has been from IT7 drivers themselves.

Plus, it would require moving to a different wheel (15X6) and possibly a recage at the higher ITB weight.

Conceptually Jake has convinced me it is the right thing, but I don't want to support anything the majority of the drivers of a particular chassis don't want.
 
lateapex911 said:
What WERE the old "tools"??

Case: ITA; In '93 (or so) the CRX was added. Based on, exactly what, I don't know. Whatever it was, it resulted in the car being a pretty obvious big dog.

So, the next step was to class a car that could compete. (I get this info from a former CRB guy). And another. Next thing we know, cars that are added are classed at weights that the committee thinks will be competitive with the new top dog.
The result is an entire class being relegated to also ran status. I call this the 'compounding mistakes effect'.

Another 'tool' was the 'next version' of a car going to the higher class. I don't think this was done as an absolute rule, but it seemed like it was a 'norm'.
Then there was a method that Jeff mentioned involving curb weight.

I've looked, and talked to guys involved, and I've never been able to find a long term policy and process. It always seemed to involve "what we know" and "what we see". That mindset has always been, and I'd dare say, still is, a central tenet to the way the CRB and committees work.
Click to expand...


Cavemen had tools like this... no offense (or not much) to anyone involved, you gotta start somewhere!

Next model of a car trim wise or time wise? Are you refering to something like the ACR Neon being thrown into ITS? Quite laughable looking back on it now, but then again, so are steam cars... lol
 
Yep, as I understand it, one way of classing cars back in the day was look at the car, look at other cars, determine it is "like" other ITA cars, and then put it in ITS to be safe.


CRallo said:
Cavemen had tools like this... no offense (or not much) to anyone involved, you gotta start somewhere!

Next model of a car trim wise or time wise? Are you refering to something like the ACR Neon being thrown into ITS? Quite laughable looking back on it now, but then again, so are steam cars... lol
Click to expand...
 
Ive always thought the cage issue was gonna be a big hurdle. Now I know.

Good answer. The wheel thing wont make as big an issue as the cage part. Thanks

Dan 77 IT7
 
Ron, there's a difference between letting a class die and killing it. I don't think SCCA needs to kill them, let it happen naturally. For IT, there's not a big problem finding a place to put these cars where it doesn't require seperate run groups. For the open wheel cars you're talking about, put them in a group where they best fit. Now these drivers may not like what that constitutes, but this is where I think we need to say sorry, but if the class grows we can make changes in the future. I wouldn't want to completely turn them away.
 
I think that is exactly where we are now, and what Ron is saying. No one is saying "kill" a class. But if it dies a natural death due to lack of interest, so it goes.

On the other hand, I've not been in SCCA long, but there certainly seems to be ebb and flows. ITB is flowing right now, back from what to me looked like the dead a few years back.

Why? Lots of newer chassis options that make it attractive and competitive and varied and fun class to run in.

gran racing said:
Ron, there's a difference between letting a class die and killing it. I don't think SCCA needs to kill them, let it happen naturally. For IT, there's not a big problem finding a place to put these cars where it doesn't require seperate run groups. For the open wheel cars you're talking about, put them in a group where they best fit. Now these drivers may not like what that constitutes, but this is where I think we need to say sorry, but if the class grows we can make changes in the future. I wouldn't want to completely turn them away.
Click to expand...
 
JeffYoung said:
Devising rules to ensure that 30 and 40 year old chassis are competitive with new ones is THE real road to Prod in my view.
Click to expand...
One of the major failings of prod has been to effectively integrate new car classifications to race alongside the older cars. And, this is exactly what is happening in three IT classes currently.
 
Right. And I'm saying there is no acceptable fix for that.

I drive a 30 year old chassis in ITS. It has a live rear and drum brakes. Eventually, it will no longer be competitive in ITS as newer cars come in and are developed. I see no real way to fix that with our power to weight process other than a Harrison Bergeronish set of factors, and adjustments and other mess that is what Prod has now.

In my personal view, the older cars (including mine) are on their way out. They can still run, but you can't expect your chassis to be competitive forever. I don't mean SS like car of the year, but I am talking about after 20 years of racing and auto technology moving forward, there just comes a time.

Charlie Broring said:
One of the major failings of prod has been to effectively integrate new car classifications to race alongside the older cars. And, this is exactly what is happening in three IT classes currently.
Click to expand...
 
Must be the off season. I find it ironic how some people are quick to say a car should be weighted using 30%, but when people suggest that the car they drive be treated the same way things change.

Tristan, are you going to be able to make the new weight?
 
DavidM said:
Must be the off season. I find it ironic how some people are quick to say a car should be weighted using 30%, but when people suggest that the car they drive be treated the same way things change.
Click to expand...

Having read the thread I didn't see that...but I guess I missed that....example please?
 
DavidM said:
Must be the off season. I find it ironic how some people are quick to say a car should be weighted using 30%, but when people suggest that the car they drive be treated the same way things change.

Tristan, are you going to be able to make the new weight?
Click to expand...

Not sure. I think i will get close.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top