May 2011 Fastrack

[Andy Bettencourt]

lo I think the system is retarded. Objective or not, if you want real racing, make restrictor adjustments annually based on the last years race results. IT has always been lopsided. Drive the "It" car or watch from the back. First Rx7s, then the damn Hondas, then whatever...

No way in heck. THAT is the worst possible thing to do. You want weight added to your mid-packer based on a dominant car posting track records in the Northeast (or wherever)?

Look at the class, see the weights, estimate your potential and choose a car. Have fun.

 

[JoshS]

Greg, sorry for the hijack, and I know I should probably know this, but who do I contact/write to about classing? My car (Corolla GTS) got dumped to ITB with 220lb of ballast added to it. I probably have the First Corolla run in ITA of this year, most developed, and probably one of the last of these, and Its been a race car for 22years. I'm just not going to race with the scca that way. I'm trying to find out if I can just run some kind of open class or stay in ITA... I'll know wether I've "won" or not, and don't need the plastic trophies.

Thnx

It's probably legal for ITE in your region (where is that?) as-is, if you want to race it there. You'd need to check the region rules to be sure.

You can submit letters to the CRB at http://www.crbscca.com.

I believe you have mentioned in the past that you could never get your car anywhere near the minimum weight listed in ITA, right? The idea here is that this should now be a competitive, achieveable weight in ITB. It's not a punishment, it's an opportunity to run at the front of its listed class.

 

[Lael Cleland]

I feel the weight is very close for ITB... We have some good competition here! I race a A1 GTI, STD new pistons, not a full tilt IT head, never been on a dyno & tuned, but it has Spherical bearing c-arms, 4.25 fd, Peloquin lsd, running on Nito NT01's... When it finishes a race its constantly in the top 3... If I had the time & money to place my toe nails on edge of the rules, the car or the car & I, would be on top.

There are generally 12-15 ITB cars at our races, 15ish ITA cars, the best part is no matter how fast you are, you have some one to race! To me and my other racing buddies this is the best place to be! so if you leave your helmet 20 miles from the track and miss Qual, you might have the most fun race ever battling with your old instructor & the guy you sold your ITA 16v scirocco too. It took me a while, but I am not in it to win it, just fun!

"I go to the track for the party & People, getting to race a car is just a bonus"!

 

[Greg Amy]

If you're a "run whatcha brung" class kinda guy, look at Super Touring Light. Your 1.6 will weigh 2080 pounds, and you can do more mods.

But the IT system is what it is, and well established.

GA

 

[Charlie Broring]

But the IT system is what it is, and well established.

GA

This statement is untrue. The IT system changed dramatically with the introduction of "The Process". Better or worse depends on your perspective. The current classification process was only established a few years ago and is just now being implemented. The number of club members who are dissatisfied with or adversely effected by the changes is far greater then the ITAC cares to acknowledge.

 

[tnord]

there is a whole world outside of summit point charlie.

 

[Greg Amy]

Charlie, I think IT is a really nice, organized slot between the Showroom Stock/Touring crowd and Super Touring/Production. "We have too many classes" arguments aside, if you want a long-established, consistent, structured, categorization system, IT provides that. If you want more flexibility on mods, wings, and more "whatcha brung", Super Touring provides you that. If you want slicks and active competition management, Production provides you that.

I've seen the history of IT evolve over three decades, and by far the biggest cultural change was The Great Realignment, a movement that started about a decade ago and was put into practice about 5 years ago. That length of time, in any racing org's history, can easily be considered "established" (hell, some classes never last that long!) And all it did was attempt to put a repeatable, consistent blanket over a random process that was already in place.

Yeah, some people gained, and some people lost, but at least everyone pretty much now understands going in where they stand. And that is a good thing.

GA

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

This statement is untrue. The IT system changed dramatically with the introduction of "The Process". Better or worse depends on your perspective. The current classification process was only established a few years ago and is just now being implemented. The number of club members who are dissatisfied with or adversely effected by the changes is far greater then the ITAC cares to acknowledge.

More like 7-8 years ago now. The current system is really not much different other than policy.

The perception of IT is SOOOOO much better now that the 'building-sized' dart board has been torn down and a standard sized one has replaced it.

Trying to use 15 mildly-prepped cars all running the same lap times from decades ago has NOTHING to do with how well they were classed, just how well your group was 'the same'.

 

[Chip42]

My car (Corolla GTS) got dumped to ITB with 220lb of ballast added to it. I probably have the First Corolla run in ITA of this year, most developed

The MR2 with the same engine just lost 95lbs from its original ITB weight and that will trickle to the other 4AGE cars like yours (so you should only have 105# of ballast). I already wrote that letter because I like to help out like that.

These cars stood no chance in ITA even if they could reach their classified weight. Moving to ITB was a favor to all of us (we have a few MR2s). Are they too heavy? you can search up pages and pages of discussion where the bulk of the posts say yes, it is.

Based on what I know, I say that it's a 12% motor, and I think it should be classed at 115%, or 2190# base in ITB. that would be your weight if i were king. The current classifications are 125%/2430# for the MR2 and 130% for the FX16 at 2445# and Corolla GTS at 2475#.

Being TOO HEAVY is good! Unlike being too light, you can work to correct the situation and loose some of that weight by building the case for the car. Please present build info and dyno numbers to the ITAC using the links at http://www.crbscca.com to help in these efforts. Having a non-MR2, "most developed" 4AGE car will be a welcome addition to the piles of data they already have that are admittedly MR2 centric. and will help all of the 4AGE crowd to loose their shiny new ballast.

 

[JeffYoung]

"It" car? I think IT has been really good about avoiding that. Right now, you have many chassis to chose from to run up front, if you have the talent and prep skills:

ITS: 944S, E30, 240/260z, 240sx, 280zx, 300zx, RX7, Miata, TR8, Integra, Corrado, Prelude.
ITA: Integra, 240sx, Miata, CRX, SE-R/NX2000.
ITB: 924, 2002, Volvo 142, A3 Golf, Civic, CRX, Accord.

"200 lbs of ballast were added" to what, when? The 4AGE cars were moved to be because of repeated requests/information that they couldn't make power/weight in ITA.

I'd like to see these cars be competitive, so help me out with your build, and your real beef with things.

lol... I did each and every one of the tuning things you mentioned and then some. Then they added over 200lb of ballast to it because its screaming 1.6l 112hp engine was too much of a threat I guess.... I think the system is retarded. Objective or not, if you want real racing, make restrictor adjustments annually based on the last years race results. IT has always been lopsided. Drive the "It" car or watch from the back. First Rx7s, then the damn Hondas, then whatever...

 

[JeffYoung]

Completely incorrect and not really worth the time any more to argue about.

This statement is untrue. The IT system changed dramatically with the introduction of "The Process". Better or worse depends on your perspective. The current classification process was only established a few years ago and is just now being implemented. The number of club members who are dissatisfied with or adversely effected by the changes is far greater then the ITAC cares to acknowledge.

 

[JLawton]

" Right now, you have many chassis to chose from to run up front, if you have the talent and prep skills:

ITA: Integra, 240sx, Miata, CRX, SE-R/NX2000.
.

You're killin' me Jeff!!!! No Saturn?





if IT is in such shambles why is it the highest prescribed class behind the Miata's?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Based on what I know, I say that it's a 12% motor, and I think it should be classed at 115%, or 2270# base in ITB. that would be your weight if i were king. The current classifications are 125%/2430# for the MR2 and 130% for the FX16 at 2445# and Corolla GTS at 2475#.

15% is the number for me. If I were king:

FX16: 2145lbs
GTS: 2190lbs
MR2: 2240lbs

legend: -2% on FX, GTS stays same, MR2 gets 50lbs for mid engine

 

[Spinnetti]

It's probably legal for ITE in your region (where is that?) as-is, if you want to race it there. You'd need to check the region rules to be sure.

You can submit letters to the CRB at http://www.crbscca.com.

I believe you have mentioned in the past that you could never get your car anywhere near the minimum weight listed in ITA, right? The idea here is that this should now be a competitive, achieveable weight in ITB. It's not a punishment, it's an opportunity to run at the front of its listed class.

Thanks for the info.

My car was exactly on the original minimum weight of 2030 with 1 gallon of gas, and after cage revisions and whatnot to keep up with rules, the current weight with me in it was exactly on the new minimum weight with driver prior to getting moved to ITB. I could maybe get 50lb more out by dipping the tub to get rid of undercoating and removing non-required cage tubes, but realistically, I doubt it could get any lighter, so I understand that setting a lighter weight just wouldn't be meaningful unless I subbed a 100lb driver. I'm pretty sure my car was the first ITA 85 Corolla and was used to set that minimum weight.

I'd literally have to add over 220lb of ballast to run ITB. This car has had way too much development over the last 20 years to get it where it is only to throw it all away. I'd pretty much have to run it in stock trim to make weight - even then would need ballast. Old enough for vintage? Just run it as is in Prod? I kinda feel pushed out. Its WAY too nice to dump to the drift/rice crowd. I guess I could sell it to somebody to run ITB, or run ITE, then just compare how I finish with the ITA cars.. I should be faster than the ITB guys, and at least mid pack or better in ITA.... (I'd only finished out of the top 5 once in all the years I've had it - at the IT fest) Well, at least there's some options.

 

[Spinnetti]

If you're a "run whatcha brung" class kinda guy, look at Super Touring Light. Your 1.6 will weigh 2080 pounds, and you can do more mods.

But the IT system is what it is, and well established.

GA

I'm not exactly a run what you brung kind of guy, I'm a run what I like developed to the hilt to see how good my engineering and driving is. Used to be plenty good enough.

Thanks for the STL info.. Like I said, I've been out a while, so that sounds like a winner. Since my car is 2030, I only need a bit of ballast, and more mods sounds fun. I got used to running the speeds I did, and getting pulled down to A1 GTI speeds (no offense to the vedub guys) would be horrible - I'd feel like I was pulling a parachute!

Having run IT in the same car for nearly 20 years, its constantly changing, constantly creeping, but I guess time marches on....

 

[JeffYoung]

With all due respect I think that statement speaks volumes for the competiveness of the car.

You've clearly got it well developed and I'm sure it is well driven. But when you ran against the very best ITA cars in the country (or some of them) it was a tough row to hoe.

I'm on the ITAC and with the data I saw, did not think the car could run competitvely in ITA at any realistically achievable spec weight (I'm talking about the MR2 -- are you saying you could make the Process weight in the Corolla in ITA? If so that is somethign for us to consider).

A lot of cars run a couple hundred pounds ballast. It can be an advantage since you are able to put the weight where you want it using cage, cool suit, lead in the passenger floor, etc.

I hate that you are giving up on IT. We made the move to ITB because we thought it would enhance the competitiveness of the car. And, honestly, you say you think the car would be faster than other ITB cars -- in your region. I'd invite you to come to the ARRC and run against the Keanes, Underwood, Ruck, Knestis, Vaughan Scott, etc.

Jeff L -- sorry dude, I forgot you had that thing winning championships in probably the most competitive ITA region in the country. DEFINITELY add the Saturn to that list.

(I'd only finished out of the top 5 once in all the years I've had it - at the IT fest) Well, at least there's some options.

 

[Spinnetti]

The MR2 with the same engine just lost 95lbs from its original ITB weight and that will trickle to the other 4AGE cars like yours (so you should only have 105# of ballast). I already wrote that letter because I like to help out like that.

These cars stood no chance in ITA even if they could reach their classified weight. Moving to ITB was a favor to all of us (we have a few MR2s). Are they too heavy? you can search up pages and pages of discussion where the bulk of the posts say yes, it is.

Based on what I know, I say that it's a 12% motor, and I think it should be classed at 115%, or 2190# base in ITB. that would be your weight if i were king. The current classifications are 125%/2430# for the MR2 and 130% for the FX16 at 2445# and Corolla GTS at 2475#.

Being TOO HEAVY is good! Unlike being too light, you can work to correct the situation and loose some of that weight by building the case for the car. Please present build info and dyno numbers to the ITAC using the links at http://www.crbscca.com to help in these efforts. Having a non-MR2, "most developed" 4AGE car will be a welcome addition to the piles of data they already have that are admittedly MR2 centric. and will help all of the 4AGE crowd to loose their shiny new ballast.

Hmm... I imagine so... I've been thinking about a dyno run. To be honest, except for a couple races where I was going for the 110% tune and totally screwed up, I've never run with the MR2s, but not sure if there were any that time that were as developed as the Corolla, so maybe hard to say (I've had two MR2's also, one with a 165hp 20v vvt motor too). Motor is .040 over, balanced, pulley, match ported... all the legal stuff.

 

[Spinnetti]

"It" car? I think IT has been really good about avoiding that. Right now, you have many chassis to chose from to run up front, if you have the talent and prep skills:

ITS: 944S, E30, 240/260z, 240sx, 280zx, 300zx, RX7, Miata, TR8, Integra, Corrado, Prelude.
ITA: Integra, 240sx, Miata, CRX, SE-R/NX2000.
ITB: 924, 2002, Volvo 142, A3 Golf, Civic, CRX, Accord.

"200 lbs of ballast were added" to what, when? The 4AGE cars were moved to be because of repeated requests/information that they couldn't make power/weight in ITA.

I'd like to see these cars be competitive, so help me out with your build, and your real beef with things.

I hear you.. Sorry for generalizing about IT - I've just been running here a long time and that's what it feels like.

The move to ITB adds around 220lb to my exactly on weight ITA Corolla... that's just too much weight to add back. I know the MR2 wasn't close. My car couldn't run with the top Honda guys anymore either, but I could still run in the top pack. My car is built to the full limit of the rules and I've had 19 years practice driving and tuning it - not exactly representative I admit. When there was the noise to move the MR2 down, I chimed in then.. It was probably the right move for the MR2, but I sure didn't want to move down. As somebody mentioned, I'll look at STL and see if that's a fit.

 

[Greg Amy]

...I'll look at STL and see if that's a fit.

Just keep in mind that Super Touring is a whole 'nother step on the modifications/development/tuning ladder. If you're averse to changes to re-do/re-learn in ITB, you may be a bit put-off by having to compete against approaching-200whp 2340# Acura Integras and Mazda Miatas...we'd welcome you over, but be sure you understand what you're getting into first... - GA

 

[StephenB]

Your the reason I wish these "tweeners" could be dual classed at two weights. It creates choices, possibly double dipping, and has no harm on the club other than an extra line in the gcr.

Stephen