Longevity of ITC???

[dave parker]

After reading four pages of this I have a headache. But I think that the person it may have JJanos, that mentioned new cars not being in the performance envelope for ITC hit it right on the head. But we can't force the car manufacturers to make cars to fit our racing desires.
Ultimately ITC will stay healthy where there is participation and fade away where there is not. I can remember back when (and it was only nine years ago) when ITC in the DC Region would field thirty to forty cars every race weekend. Now it usually fields ten to fifteen. I think that is called evolution. I used to wonder what happened to the thirty to forty ITC cars that would show up back in the day so I took an informal poll in 2005. The results:
about thirty percent sold the car (in or out of region) and started racing in another class
about twenty-five percent got caught up in other things (life) like kids,work, financial change/hardship
about twenty-five percent parked the car (no reason other than "I am not driving it anymore"
and about fifteen percent were destroyed in on track incidents


If you look closely at the ITC class there are not a lot of "modern" (less than twenty years old) cars classified. If you are a newbie looking to get involved in SCCA racing don't you think that it would be really daunting to start in a class that involves racing a car you can't buy body parts for?

I have not been a 20 or 30 something for a decade but all of my racecars are of the "hot hatch" variety. I also drive a "hot hatch" to work every day.

My opinion and worth exactly what it cost you.
cheers
Dave Parker
WDCR HP#97
2007 MARRS HP Champion

 

[toddgreene]

Pragmatically, I think that ITC drivers certainly see the writing on the wall. Times change, and we can't live in 1986 forever. Some will use the VIN rule to rebirth their cars in ITB, other will at some point decide that ITC is too: boring (no competition), slow, (new challenge time), difficult to continue in (can't find parts for their car) and move on, perhaps to B, where the expense can actually be pretty close to ITC.

Thanks Jake,

That is exactly on point. I'm trying to opinions about the longevity of the class.
I'm not necessarily proposing to change or add to the class.
I'm just trying to figure out if I need to start building something else for the near future.

Thanka again,

Todd

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

So we won't see any of these running with ballast because the minimum weight was set so high.

What you are saying now are two completely and seperate things. These cars will proabably have to run ballast..but that doesn't mean the cars weight was set outside SOP. There are hundreds of cars that have to run ballast to make minimum weight.

Then one wonders how this is applied...

At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated.

Seems to me that the only way to do that would be via lap times.

You are taking that out of context. Paste the rest of the paragraph in there and you will see that it pertains to cars that are so fast that they are upsetting a classes balance. Clearly not to be used proactively in a comp-adjustment manner.

I wasn't suggesting leaving the door open for making weight in the higher class. You asked for ways to increase car counts in ITC without obsoleting the current cars. Putting B cars in at heavier weight without the option of running in B is one way to do it. I also didn't say it would be a popular decision or a particularly smart one. None-the-less, it's probably the only way to increase ITC car counts without making the current crop obsolete.

And while you may be correct in that we might be able to get more cars LISTED in the ITCS for ITC by doing this, I submit you won't get any ACTUAL cars on track because nobody would do it. So the net is zero increased cars counts in ITC.

 

[Knestis]

Wow.

Lots of solutions to lots of problems, not all of which seem to align. I have a question, that's kind of been hinted at: If ITC is petering out, what necessarily makes it worth changing things to save it?

If the new VIN rule allows a bunch of the current C cars to become B or A cars, and the drivers are happy about that, why lose any sleep trying to preserve a class? The only reason to have a class is that people want to race in it. If nobody does, it's just a lines in a rulebook.

There's no ONE reason that ITC's popularity has waned. Perceptions and expectations have changed a lot, over the lifetime of IT. It used to be that drivers actually treated the slower classes as entry points to the sport, then moved to faster cars but I think the popularity of track days and pro driver school experiences has changed that. People will start with a sports racer or T2 car, where 20 years ago most people would never go that fast in their whole career.

The performance "distance" between ITC and the fastest cars in the category have changed a LOT, too.

And as preparation levels have increased the COST distance has SHRUNK. In 1985, the purchase price of the car you would run in IT was a big huge part of the build price. Now, the difference between a free metal box for your parts and a $4000 metal box for your parts gets swallowed up pretty quickly.

I've advocated for actively classing cars that fit into C - and there ARE a reasonable number that do. I don't know that it would make a huge difference in the long run but I think it's worth a shot. Again, I'm the old guy but when we started racing Rabbits, there wasn't any aftermarket for them either. It grew to accommodate racers' needs, rather than the other way around.

Ultimately though, market forces will decide.

K

 

[iambhooper]

this will be my 5th year racing, all in ITC. i chose the class more by budget and what was available than anything. budget is important to all of us... even the guy running the Viper, it's just all in relation.

have the entry's in ITC dwindled in 5 years? i think so. when i started, 5 cars was the average, now having 4 ITC entries is the exception. at best, i am able to race 4 weekends a year, and only twice in the past 2 years have there been more than 4 cars in class (both of those were the SARRC/MARRS at VIR).

what has hurt ITC? pretty much any class that offers a group of cars to run with. SM comes to mind, as does IT7 regionally. in addition, the argument of not offering any cool hip cars for the younger crowd to enjoy.

will i change classes? yep, as soon as i can sell my car, or turn it into an ITB car... someone has t push those azule VW's! in the meantime, i'll keep racing it

hoop

 

[jjjanos]

[/SIZE][/FONT]
What you are saying now are two completely and seperate things. These cars will proabably have to run ballast..but that doesn't mean the cars weight was set outside SOP. There are hundreds of cars that have to run ballast to make minimum weight.

Its part and parcel to the same thing. I remove everything I am allowed to remove from the car, I put in a legal cage, I put my fat arse in the car and I weigh it. If I have to ADD ballast, then the car has made FAT on purpose for competition equalization and using your logic re: people not running cars that are too heavy in the rulebook, nobody will build one by design of its specification.

out of context

During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as—but not limited to—manufacturer’s published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or
downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a “performance compensation adjustment” shall be made. Any performance
compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle’s fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established.

Ahhh, no it doesn't mention an overdog. In fact, it specifically mentions the possibility of REMOVING weight which wouldn't be done if the car was an overdog. The rule is pretty clear, based on the cars lap times, aka relative performance, it can be: reclassified as it sits, it can be reclassified at a higher weight and it can be reclassified at a lower weight. The only thing it mentions is doing it within the second through fourth years. Taking the Beetle as an example, it has been classified for 4? years now so if it turns out to be an overdog in ITC and competitive at an achievable weight in ITB, the door is shut. Except for the restrictor rule... which means it's not only fat, but it cannot breath either.​

And while you may be correct in that we might be able to get more cars LISTED in the ITCS for ITC by doing this, I submit you won't get any ACTUAL cars on track because nobody would do it. So the net is zero increased cars counts in ITC.

And based on your logic, one can conclude why the new cars aren't being raced in ITC.

 

[evanwebb]

I wonder if now that gas is becoming Europe-type expensive (well not quite but almost), and cars like the Smart are becoming available along with can't-get-out-of-their-own-way hybrids, maybe slow cars will make a comeback? ALthough I definitely want to try out some fast as hell cars in my driving career (my current fascination would be to build a V-6 Camaro in ITR), I have always enjoyed driving slow cars, not sure why... I think it's like picking a scab...

 

[Greg Amy]

I have always enjoyed driving slow cars, not sure why... I think it's like picking a scab...

Heh.

He too, Evan. One of the first things I tell my students (well, after "you can't impress me because I know Joe DiMinno") is "it's much harder - and more impressive - to make a slow car go fast than to make a fast car go fast. Make a slow car go fast and people notice; make a fast car go slow and people notice. Which one do you want?"

One of the fun times I had at LRP was at a PDA HPDE in the NX. Turns out the car was over the dB limit. So, Matt rigged up a "restrictor plate" in the exhaust to dampen the sounds. I could barely get the damn thing above 4500 RPM and we figure we had less than 100 ponies (from 140 crank, stock). I learned more about driving LRP that way than ANY test day since...bring on the C cars! - GA

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Its part and parcel to the same thing. I remove everything I am allowed to remove from the car, I put in a legal cage, I put my fat arse in the car and I weigh it. If I have to ADD ballast, then the car has made FAT on purpose for competition equalization and using your logic re: people not running cars that are too heavy in the rulebook, nobody will build one by design of its specification.

We will agree to disagree. Yes, cars are 'weighted' using the process to try and class them similarly - or for 'competition equalization' as you state. But CERTAINLY NOT outside SOP as you suggested in your first statements about the Beetle. SOP classes cars around a target power to weight. If some car have to add ballast, so be it. The only think that means is that they wouldn't be able to make the minimum ever in the lower class.

My theory on people not ever wanting to run artifically heavy cars applies to cars that fit in a class already and then have to add 300-400lbs of ballast to step down one more.

During the initial vehicle classification process, the Club shall assess vehicle performance factors such as—but not limited to—manufacturer’s published specifications for engine type, displacement, horsepower, and torque; vehicle weight; brake type and size; suspension design; and aerodynamic efficiency. Based on such factors, a minimum allowable weight shall be established. At the end of the second, third, and fourth years of classification, the vehicle’s racing performance relative to other vehicles in its class shall be evaluated. If the Club deems that, in the interest of fostering greater equity within a class, a vehicle should be reclassified to another Improved Touring class, such a reclassification shall be made. Alternatively or additionally, if the Club deems that an upward or

downward revision in the minimum allowable weight is warranted, such a “performance compensation adjustment” shall be made. Any performance compensation adjustments made after the second and third years of classification shall be provisional. At the end of a vehicle’s fourth year of Improved Touring classification, an assessment of class equity shall be made and the vehicle’s minimum weight shall be established.

Ahhh, no it doesn't mention an overdog. In fact, it specifically mentions the possibility of REMOVING weight which wouldn't be done if the car was an overdog. The rule is pretty clear, based on the cars lap times, aka relative performance, it can be: reclassified as it sits, it can be reclassified at a higher weight and it can be reclassified at a lower weight. The only thing it mentions is doing it within the second through fourth years. Taking the Beetle as an example, it has been classified for 4? years now so if it turns out to be an overdog in ITC and competitive at an achievable weight in ITB, the door is shut. Except for the restrictor rule... which means it's not only fat, but it cannot breath either.​

And based on your logic, one can conclude why the new cars aren't being raced in ITC.

I have highlighted the applicable areas in your quote. What this means is that if a car is obsoleting everything else, it can get looked at again. Hopefully, if such a thing is happening, there will be new and hard evidence to plug into the process.

You can add weight, you can reduce weight and add a restrictor, etc. What the statement does is put together the provisions for something that could be done should a car prove to be an overdog.

The door is NEVER shut on a PCA. How come you don't include he last paragraph in the section for your quote? Let's try and be complete, it's the key to the whole point of PCA's.

 

[dickita15]

we figure we had less than 100 ponies

welcome to my world

 

[Greg Amy]

welcome to my world

Zing!!!

Yep, but I still ripped in some low 1:06s...on MacPherson street struts and Kumhos... It was pretty cool not having to lift from the left hander all the way back to T1, and figure out that any loss of momentum reeeeally hurts when you ain't "got torque" to cover up your blunders... - GA

 

[RacerBill]

Zing!!!

Yep, but I still ripped in some low 1:06s...on MacPherson street struts and Kumhos... It was pretty cool not having to lift from the left hander all the way back to T1, and figure out that any loss of momentum reeeeally hurts when you ain't "got torque" to cover up your blunders... - GA

What? Flat out from the left hander? Weren't you concerned about eclipsing Sam Posey's high marks in the tree on the outside of 8?

 

[jjjanos]

[/size][/font]
My theory on people not ever wanting to run artifically heavy cars applies to cars that fit in a class already and then have to add 300-400lbs of ballast to step down one more.

We'll have to disagree on that. The car is built and someone will race it. If the choice is between the rear of ITB or the front if ITC, I think ego is enough to keep those cars in the pool.

But the issue really is moot since it all resolves around whether cars should be moved to "save" another class and I don't think they should.

I have highlighted the applicable areas in your quote. What this means is that if a car is obsoleting everything else, it can get looked at again. Hopefully, if such a thing is happening, there will be new and hard evidence to plug into the process.

You can add weight, you can reduce weight and add a restrictor, etc. What the statement does is put together the provisions for something that could be done should a car prove to be an overdog.
​

It's the statement that lap times are never used that troubles me. Unless it's HP off a dyno, everything else is on-track performance and that's been removed from the table since lap times aren't used. And if I've built that overdog, I'm not letting you put my car on a dyno to get new or hard evidence.

So, I've built an overdog. How do you know it's an overdog? Relative performance could mean finishing position or laptimes. Lap times are off the table. Finishing position? A car gets reclassified because it wins most or all of its races? To me, that seems an arbitrary standard - how many wins is too many?

But ignoring that without examinging lap times relative to the rest of the class, the car has been determined to be an overdog... the only new data available since classification are its lap times and if those aren't being used, the PCA process is nothing more than throwing weight on the car and hoping it's neither too much or too little.

And how far in the finishing positions must a car fall before the committee decides that it added too much weight? I.e. excluding the recent wholesale weight adjustment process, has there every been a case where either a car's initial weight has been reduced or the extra weight added as part of the PCA been removed?

The rule, as written, applies to both overdogs and underdogs. It's just that it rarely gets applied to underdogs because: 1. most people won't build an underdog 2. Only the drivers of that car will be complaining as opposed to an overdog where the rest of the class is complaining.​

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

We'll have to disagree on that. The car is built and someone will race it. If the choice is between the rear of ITB or the front if ITC, I think ego is enough to keep those cars in the pool.

But the issue really is moot since it all resolves around whether cars should be moved to "save" another class and I don't think they should.

In THEORY only, the cars 'position' on grid won't change just beacuse they move down a class. If the process works, it should land smack-dab in the same spot of that grid as well.

It's the statement that lap times are never used that troubles me.

Unless it's HP off a dyno, everything else is on-track performance and that's been removed from the table since lap times aren't used. And if I've built that overdog, I'm not letting you put my car on a dyno to get new or hard evidence.

So, I've built an overdog. How do you know it's an overdog? Relative performance could mean finishing position or laptimes. Lap times are off the table. Finishing position? A car gets reclassified because it wins most or all of its races? To me, that seems an arbitrary standard - how many wins is too many?

But ignoring that without examinging lap times relative to the rest of the class, the car has been determined to be an overdog... the only new data available since classification are its lap times and if those aren't being used, the PCA process is nothing more than throwing weight on the car and hoping it's neither too much or too little.

And how far in the finishing positions must a car fall before the committee decides that it added too much weight? I.e. excluding the recent wholesale weight adjustment process, has there every been a case where either a car's initial weight has been reduced or the extra weight added as part of the PCA been removed?

The rule, as written, applies to both overdogs and underdogs. It's just that it rarely gets applied to underdogs because: 1. most people won't build an underdog 2. Only the drivers of that car will be complaining as opposed to an overdog where the rest of the class is complaining.

Like the rules states, if a car is upsetting the balance of the class, it could get another 'look' at any time. ANY TIME.

The missing connection here is that cars are run through this 'process'. Without any different information, nothing will change. Currently, the CRX looks like the car to have in ITA. It has been through the process and in the right hands with the right drivers, they are VERY tough to beat. Recent ARRC wins and ITFest wins show that. So what, I say! The cream will rise to the top. There is nothing out of the ordinary to show us that the car is misclassed. For me, it says its a damn good car with damn good prep and damn good driving. Put all 3 together and you get a winner. I know *I* have to elevate all levels of my game to compete.

To answer you comments more specifically, you can use wins and lap times (in bulk - hurting the class) as a trigger to search deeper. *IF* you find something that was a boo-boo in the process the first time, you can fix it via PCA. WRT the slower cars, you can't prove a negative.

REMEMBER, this is not about adding arbitrary amounts of weight, it's about going with what the process spits out.

PCA's are NOT intended to make slow cars faster, they are intended to 'correct' uber-fast cars that were mis-classed using the process. Point of fact, we haven't had to use PCA's on ANY car that was run through the process, but it's there in case we screw up.

 

[jjjanos]

To answer you comments more specifically, you can use wins and lap times (in bulk - hurting the class) as a trigger to search deeper. *IF* you find something that was a boo-boo in the process the first time, you can fix it via PCA. WRT the slower cars, you can't prove a negative.

REMEMBER, this is not about adding arbitrary amounts of weight, it's about going with what the process spits out.

PCA's are NOT intended to make slow cars faster, they are intended to 'correct' uber-fast cars that were mis-classed using the process. Point of fact, we haven't had to use PCA's on ANY car that was run through the process, but it's there in case we screw up.

Andy,

Thank you for your answers.

So, if a newly classified car kicks arse in its first year and the specifications are rerun through the process with the same numbers... the car's classification remains unchanged?

If someone gets the car on a dyno and discovers the legal engine is producing more HP than what the process estimated, then the numbers are rerun through the process and the new output is applied?

If it turns out that the thing that makes this go-fast is handling or aero related - i.e. something about this car's suspension just makes it stick like glue despite appearing to be like the rest of the cars in the class or darn, that little lip on the rear is actually creating a low pressure zone under the car - then the car stays the way it was classified because the process is going to generate the same output? (I.e. the inputs remain the same, therefore the output remains the same?)

 

[JeffYoung]

I would think no. There are subjective adders to the process. If the car is kicking ass because of a non-hp related factor, it can be adjusted for handling, brakes, etc.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Thank you for your answers.

So, if a newly classified car kicks arse in its first year and the specifications are rerun through the process with the same numbers... the car's classification remains unchanged?

Sure! The only reason to 're-run' it through would be to introduce some part of the process that was either wrong or overlooked. If it was kicking arse, and you don't 'know' anything new, any change would be 100% subjective and based on track results - which can almost never be quantified...and is against the IT Philosophy.

If someone gets the car on a dyno and discovers the legal engine is producing more HP than what the process estimated, then the numbers are rerun through the process and the new output is applied?

Yes and no. First, verification of legality is critical. Second, for *me*, is that a small sample isn't enough to make a change. I would like to see lots of repeatable data from different sources. A trend really - not a single piece of data. To me, that is way too reactionary - and not fair to most.

If there was a pile of data, the needed 'imbalance' in class the wording calls for and the resultant HP number produced a new weight more than 100lbs from it's current weight, then I would say yes it would be a candidate for a PCA.

If it turns out that the thing that makes this go-fast is handling or aero related - i.e. something about this car's suspension just makes it stick like glue despite appearing to be like the rest of the cars in the class or darn, that little lip on the rear is actually creating a low pressure zone under the car - then the car stays the way it was classified because the process is going to generate the same output? (I.e. the inputs remain the same, therefore the output remains the same?)

Those are really hard items to quantify to the point where you can call them out as the reason a car is dominating a class. But if it were possible to single that out (which I don't think is possible) then I suppose you could re-evaluate the 'adder' that was applied to that subjective piece of the process. Again, I can't see how you could do it in practical application.

 

[jjjanos]

Those are really hard items to quantify to the point where you can call them out as the reason a car is dominating a class. But if it were possible to single that out (which I don't think is possible) then I suppose you could re-evaluate the 'adder' that was applied to that subjective piece of the process. Again, I can't see how you could do it in practical application.

Thanks again.

Hopefully one last question, let's say the overdog part turns out to be the Whorfin Overthruster. Instead of being a 10lb adder, it should be a 100lb adder and that's why this car is kicking butt.

Do you go back and reprocess ALL the cars that have Whorfin Overthrusters?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thanks again.

Hopefully one last question, let's say the overdog part turns out to be the Whorfin Overthruster. Instead of being a 10lb adder, it should be a 100lb adder and that's why this car is kicking butt.

Do you go back and reprocess ALL the cars that have Whorfin Overthrusters?

I think that if the WO is SOMEHOW (not sure how) determined to require a different adder, then yes, you would apply that adder to all cars with a WO.

I highly doubt however that you would determine that a singular car was an overdog because of it's WO, but that other cars with a WO were not overdogs...that would lead me to believe it wasn't the WO afterall.

 

[jjjanos]

I think that if the WO is SOMEHOW (not sure how) determined to require a different adder, then yes, you would apply that adder to all cars with a WO.

I highly doubt however that you would determine that a singular car was an overdog because of it's WO, but that other cars with a WO were not overdogs...that would lead me to believe it wasn't the WO afterall.

Thanks. Basically none-HP reasons for being an overdog are going to be very difficult or impossible to isolate and thus, unless the initial estimates of IT-legal HP are off, the car is going to remain at its classified weight because the procedure will generate the same min weight.

I.e. if the speed cannot be explained, the weight does not change.