Letter 9387

E

evanwebb

New member
I have submitted this to crbscca:

Letter ID Number: #9387
Title: Allow selective dual classing for ITC and ITB
Class: ITC
Request: In many regions of the country ITC is no longer a viable class. A number of the cars in ITC are substantially the same mechanically as some cars classed in ITB. I request that these cars be identified and allow racers to convert their ITC cars to ITB-equivalent specs by allowing specific substitutions on the vehicle spec line. For instance, the early VW Scirocco 1.5/1.6/1.7 are essentially the same chassis as the later 1.8 VW Scirocco that is classed in ITB. The early cars could run in ITB if they are allowed the 1.8 engine and transmission and the same brakes as used in the later car, and would be specified at the existing ITB weight. The early car would still be at a slight aerodynamic disadvantage compared to the later car and there fore would not be more competitive. There are other cars that could also have a similar dual classing. I realize this is a departure from past IT practice but if done judiciously this will benefit the size of ITB fields by bringing out cars that are currently classed in ITC but are not raced due to lack of other cars in class. I believe this is not a huge leap for IT since some dual classing is allowed for the ITS/ITR BMW 325, and since the VIN rule has been rescinded.
 
...but what you are really asking for is an entirely new, additional level of preparation in the category, that breaks the fundamental assumptions behind update-backdate.

It complicates things pretty dramatically because the IMMEDIATE next step is to allow (for example) all MkI and MkII Golfs to run the MkIII ABA 2.0 and bigger brakes. You're proposing changing the entire category.

I also fear you've got your cause-effect backward, Evan. It's not that people aren't entering ITC because the fields are small. The fields are small because people aren't entering ITC.

K
 
I don't think so Kirk since my request is for chassis that are substantially the same which is not the case for the example you cited. The early and late siroccos are both the A1 chassis.
 
Also Kirk you seem to be talking about changes to the spec line of a car while staying in the same class (like an ITB Mk.1 Golf or Mk.II Golf using an engine from an ITB Mk.III Golf). I'm talking about specific changes to a car's spec line to be able to add it to a different class. This isn't really much different than the situation where some Hondas and perhaps others can run either ITC or ITB depending which engine/transmission, etc. is used. The only difference with the case I'm referring to is bodywork difference between the early or late scirocco. Similarly, if you put Mk.I Gti 1.8 engine/trans/brakes in an ITC Rabbit, it would basically be an ITB Mk.I Gti but with different headlights and taillights. Or maybe rescinding the VIN rule already allows what I want?
 
You are talking about a ST*/GT* level of change. That is way way outside of what IT is about.

The VIN rule was done so that people could have a larger selection of chassis with which to pull from for the car they want to run. In Honda land that means you can buy a 94 Civic EX Coupe (1.6VTEC motor, runs in ITA) and change it to a 94 Civic DX (1.5 non vtec, runs in ITB, with smaller brakes, and uprights). In the end the Civic EX car that is changed to a Civic DX in ITB is effectively EXACTLY what the factory delivered as a stock civic DX with modifications already allowed in IT, but it has a Civic EX vin.
 
I'm not against the idea in and of itself, but different from IT is not IT. it might make for a good region-specific class, or maybe a sub STL ST class, but it's really outside of the philosophy of IT, and I am not comfortable with allowing it in the ITCS for a number of reasons, not the least of which is the HUGE change in direction it would mean for IT, and massive rules creep.

I doubt the CRB would bite either.

sorry it's just too outside the box for this place. why not encourage ITC to grow in your area, rather than try to abandon it for B?
 
Good luck Evan.
I have seen more than one done this way . 1.8 in the MK 1 Rock,

Run Prod, STU,STL ITE, with it.
The IT logic is really missing at this point.
The car is the same, only missing 6 in from the front end. Is the glass the same?? :)
But it is not written in the rules, and we all know the the rules , are the rules.
 
Mike,

I tire of the constant IT bashing. I don't know if you noticed but this is ImprovedTouring.com. disagreements about the rules are one thing, but a desire to see the rules change whole cloth to suite a vision you have is not likely to happen.

that said, everythign about IT is about limited modifications to stock cars, as delivered to showrooms in the US. as soon as you get into "well the powertrain is the same, so just bolt it into whatever body from the OEM it fits in" logic, which is eaxactly what this proposal grows in to, you have what is, in effect, a tiered ST class with IT performance envelopes.

it's not a bad idea for "a thing to do with my car" but it's NOT IT, nor is it PROD for that matter. it falls well outside of those philosophies. it's not ST, either, as being ITC chassis, they are likely too old (85+ chassis and motor) and as proposed, definatley too slow. so it's just a good idea in need of a home. and I doubt that there's sufficient interest to make a class of ITB-speed cars with engine swaps. GTL is about the closest thing SCCA has to a home for this idea. chumpcar would take it, I'm sure. all hail chumpcar, yadda yadda.
 
Last edited:
ITC is way too slow for a Chumpcar.. I have no love for Chumpcar.It is merely a venue for hassle free racing ,that IT is not. There are no rules, which will fail it. FWIW the market is huge at this point tho( and filled with ex SCCA cars and drivers). Make your own conclusion.

I agree the rules are the rule per ITC.
Creating a car that the OE did not make, is outside of the rule set. Should it be? I dont know.
Maybe, " if the car came in later years with the same suspension/chassis, but updated power, the car can run as the later car,but add 50#." How hard is that?
Does it solve some problems that the membership has? Yes./
Is the resulting car going to be a game changer? No
Are there lots of ITC cars sitting? yes
Do we need them. ? yes.
Do we need to keep their owners happy and racing? yes.
Just keep telling them to get a new car. Not the best move from a business sense.IMHO..

Please dont continue to live in the past. Make small adjustments to the present, to accommodate the current situation.

I do not bash the IT class. I will bash the ITAC for non logic.


When I have the ITAC guys telling me that, 1) AERO cant be estimated or used.
2) 50# wont matter
These two simple things show me that the ITAC is clearly out of touch with reality.
You ,as a ME from a decent school ,should know better.IE aero is big, 50# does matter.
The front running SM guys cross the scales 6# over. Not many cross over more than 20# over. If any of my cars scale more than 10# over, I have failed. There is a reason that the front cars scale and pump out between rounds. We play to win. Spend a little time with a calculator and work the hp to weights, moving 50# here and there.
Removing the outside mirrors from the Rocco gained 2mph, dropping the rear ride alt gained 2 more. Now simple aero has counted for 4mph without any other changes.
I have been doing this way too long to make crap up.
When I have offered my professional services to address some useful classing issues to the ITAC and been scoffed at . I can deduce that the bus is not well driven .
And My cars dont even run IT anymore!!
 
mike - aero DOES matter. it's just too hard to codify from available info, especially given the available changes that can be made within the ITCS, most notably mirrors, air dams/splitters, ride height as you have said and We don't need to go off on that AGAIN. it's what we call "warts and all". you pick a car and deal with it's shortcomings. if it can't make the power it's classed with (note I said "cannot", not "is not") then an adjustment is well founded. otherwise it's good enough, that's how the class is set up, and I'm sorry if you don't like it. it's not about engineering, it's about clear and transparent class management. /and it's not just IT. if you think ST or GT is about to start handing out weight brakes to hatchbacks, I'll put $100 on "you're wrong".

and 50#s does matter... when everything else is 100%. there is too much evidence of cars that are ±100 lbs or so to their ideal weights/ each other and staying on an even footing because of prep level and driver and a number of other factors. again, we aren't going for bullseyes here, just good groupings. that seems to be the point you miss.

and we DO allow for the same chassis (i.e. body) to be swapped between different factory configurations. it's known as the "VIN rule". we do not allow for A2 parts in an A1, etc... doing so would opens cans of worms. many, big, messy ones. you view everythign through the prism of ITB A1/A2 VWs. at least you seem to. there are other, faster cars in the ITCS with simillar swap capabilities that could create much different animals - note that there are cars with the same engine in different classes (like the 1ZZ-FE MR2 spyder in ITS vs celica GT in ITA, or 2ZZ-GE gelica GTS in ITR vs. corolla XRS in ITS) so there's already "evidence" that the motor isn't the whole package. swaps would need to be codified to the chassis/engine combo level, and it's not a good idea to trend in that direction.

we absolutely want to keep racers in the club, and on the track, and happy. we'd like to keep them competitive, but that part has a lot to do with them stepping up to the plate, too. long term, a racer will be happy with consistant rules that don't constantly throw them curve balls, and with large, competitive fields. but we can't make a rule that there be large, competitive fields, only rules to nurture them. A class starting from scratch might be wise to include this idea. the one we have I think is to well established for such a change.

I'm sympathetic to evan's situation. there are a lot of cars in ITC that CAN LEGALLY swap to ITB. his cannot. it takes numbers out of an already shrinking class, leaving him no one to race with. that really sucks. But the philosophy of the category cannot change for one man's needs when it could be so detrimental to the overall health of the category. SCCA has other options FOR THAT CAR in the club, if under different rules. Evan, I suggest you either do some work to scare up ITC fields against which to race or look at one of those other classes. I'm sorry that there arent good ITC fields in your area.
 
Last edited:
So this proposal is specific to ITC since that is the slowest class in SCCA and is already not viable in multiple regions of the country, and I think most people would agree that the overall trend is that newer cars tend to be faster and it is unlikely that this class will ever revive. Hence, a controlled transition for this specific class for cars that can be accommodated reasonably within IT would be nice. Otherwise the cars will simply be parted out or converted to Prod or some other higher level of prep if that is an option for that car. My proposal would allow transition to ITB with specific changes that are noted on each car's spec line where that can be accomplished with swapping out stock assemblies in a way that is very similar to what was allowed following the removal of the VIN rule. I don't think it represents an existential threat to the rest of IT as some have implied...
 
Evan, I forgot to mention that your region might look kindly at your idea and allow it. I'm not sure how much help that is to you, as it would be separate from ITB still, but it's another possible option.
 
Chip42 said:
... as it would be separate from ITB still, but it's another possible option.
Click to expand...

The event supps could include these Franksteins as ITB, but that wording would need to be approved by the Divisional CS and the Club Racing Department.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top