May 2011 Fastrack

StephenB said:
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.
Click to expand...
Plus a big one. I've been a fan of dual-classification even before we did it with the E36, and I really haven't seen cats and dogs living together since we did. Actually, I think it has created nice competition in both classes and, ultimately, answered its own question.

What's it gonna take for the ITAC and CRB to consider dual classification more widely? Really, where's the harm in it? Let the participants make that decision.

GA
 
Spinnetti said:
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.
Click to expand...

I still don't get why you think you would be throwing it all away. You add some weight and run with a slower group. You get closer to the target power to weight for the class and you are getting pushed out? Heck no.

Post some pics and a price......
 
Spinnetti said:
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...
Click to expand...


If you think you'd be faster than the ITB cars without the ballst, you darned sure should be competitive in the class with the 220lbs added. Do you just not want to run in ITB? It sounds like the car isn't going to be as uncompetitive in ITB as it was in ITA.
 
One: It's an entirely subjective opinion I have that it confuses things, particularly prospective new members, and really isn't needed. For the most part, all of the "tweeners" have been shown to be "better" in one class or the other, and there really aren't that many of them.

But on this point, if membership truly wanted it for a car or two, I'd support it. So I'd need to see a lot of input in favor.

Two: The real problem I think is a practical one and that is it could open the flood gates to a whole host of people wanting their car dual classed, which would just create a classification mess in my view.

We do try -- I know it doesn't look that way sometimes -- to keep things simple in IT, and single classifications seem to me to make the most sense.

But I would defer to membership on this if a strong preference was articulated.

Greg Amy said:
Plus a big one. I've been a fan of dual-classification even before we did it with the E36, and I really haven't seen cats and dogs living together since we did. Actually, I think it has created nice competition in both classes and, ultimately, answered its own question.

What's it gonna take for the ITAC and CRB to consider dual classification more widely? Really, where's the harm in it? Let the participants make that decision.

GA
Click to expand...
 
I think there's two issues here, unless i missed something earlier in the thread.

Someone needs to show that IT adder does/doesn't holds true for 10/10ths Corolla GTS motor... 25% in ITA, albeit 30% in ITB.

I say classify cars in dual class at a case-by-case basis, that is, is the work warranted because there are enough cars of that model in IT AND it be classed at two different weights w/o excessive lead?
 
Last edited:
That's a good point on the 16 valve gain percentage, although it's been effectively "solved" for all 4AGE cars since we decided to peg the MR2 at 25% (and I personally believe it should be lower).
 
JeffYoung said:
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.
Click to expand...

Sorry for any confusion:
1. I could NOT get down to process weight if it stayed in ITA - Its already as light as it can realistically get short of me cutting my weight in half (at my age, not likely!)

2. I WAS well faster than many of the ITB cars (though the volvos were dang fast then)at my current weight and 7" wheels. Tack on 220lb and narrower wheels, and I imagine I'll struggle a fair bit in ITB as expected, but adding all that weight takes away all the work I've done over the years. Heck, I pull stuff out of my street car to get it as light as possible!

3. In summary, I spent 19 years trying to go faster. Not just to win races, but to constantly improve me and the car. To go slower, is to go backwards. ITB is a good class but if anything, I want to go faster not slower, and to do that I guess I have to bail on IT as I don't plan to lose the investment in this car. Winning is nice, but my ego is over that I think. That's just a nice to have (though there no way I'd run as a back marker)... I was no longer really competitive in ITA, but I still ran top 5, and got wins when the top guys weren't there. That was good enough. I like the dual class idea.
 
Spinnetti said:
2. I WAS well faster than many of the ITB cars (though the volvos were dang fast then)at my current weight and 7" wheels. Tack on 220lb and narrower wheels, and I imagine I'll struggle a fair bit in ITB as expected, but adding all that weight takes away all the work I've done over the years. Heck, I pull stuff out of my street car to get it as light as possible!

3. In summary, I spent 19 years trying to go faster. Not just to win races, but to constantly improve me and the car.
Click to expand...

re: The weight... excellent. You've removed all the weight that you can from bad places and now you can put some if back in a better location.

re: The challenge ... the same challenge is there. Consider it a clean slate instead of comparisons to your ITB times. Seek to go faster in an ITB car rather than faster in a car that use to be ITA. The extra weight in the car is going to put more emphasis on driving skill. It's a much harder to gain a tenth of a second in an ITC car than it is in an ITB. Same goes for an ITB car versus ITA.
 
jjjanos said:
re: The weight... excellent. You've removed all the weight that you can from bad places and now you can put some if back in a better location.

re: The challenge ... the same challenge is there. Consider it a clean slate instead of comparisons to your ITB times. Seek to go faster in an ITB car rather than faster in a car that use to be ITA. The extra weight in the car is going to put more emphasis on driving skill. It's a much harder to gain a tenth of a second in an ITC car than it is in an ITB. Same goes for an ITB car versus ITA.
Click to expand...

Ok, fair enough. I give... but 220lbs!! and an expensive wheel swap. Thanks for all the feedback - didn't mean to irritate... STL is out because have to have 90 or newer, and mines and 85. Maybe prep2 Prod. Until I figure it out, I've got my Lexus LS400 Lemons car that is surprising fun to drive an seriously fast comparatively!
 
Last edited:
I don't remember if it was mentioned here or not, but moving from ITA to ITB also reduces the wheel width from 7" to 6" :-(
 
More important to me than the cost of wheels or the fact that the car may be slower would be the fact that most of us at this level are doing this because we dream to be pros and/or for the social aspect. Some of us have run with the same group of guys/gals for 10+ years and we have built trust and relationships on and off the track. Forcing someone to take that all away from a third party would push me away and piss me off as well. If someone doesn't care about winning but wants to keep racing with his or her buddies I see no harm in allowing it. All these cars should be dual classed, period. Leave them as they are in the class it was in (or even post the un-achievable weight) and post what class the car would fit better in based on the new classification process. Let the drivers decide... this is as someone else said "gentlemen racing" aka amatuer... we do this just as much for the social aspect as the racing aspect.

The #1 reason I didn't want to leave ITB was because of the people I race with and trust on and off the track. I will miss going side by side with several of the people that I have really enjoyed racing with over the years.

Stephen
 
I see both sides of the dual classing debate.
But, in cases where cars are moved up or down across a 'tier classing" line, such as from A to B or S to R (or vice versas), and significant changes are demanded upon the mebership, such as the disposal of a quiver of wheels and tires and the aquisition of same, i feel dual classing is an absolute MUST.

The goal of moving the car is to enhance the competitors racing experience by placing the car in a class where it has (according to the process) a better chance of being competitive. And thats great, but, for many budget limited competitors, the move makes them LESS competitive, because they need to purchase a whole set of running stock.

If i were moved from A to B, I'd have to: Sell a bunch of wheels that fit basically only my car (which just got moved and now nobody needs them! which = worthless) And buy: 4 sets of wheels, with two sets of race tires, 1 set of A compound qualifier and cold temp tires and 1 set of rain tires. Thats probably about 5 grand worth of stuff, just to get back what I already had.

That expenditure...or the inability to do that, destroys the very competitiveness the move is supposed to foster.

Dual classing is a must do to avoid situations like that.

Also, there's the local and social aspects as mentioned above.
 
Charlie Broring said:
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.
Click to expand...

You're right. The process removed idiotic car classing like the 1st gen RX-7 being placed in ITS. And things like having to remain the same weight if a car gets moved down a class.

But, you're really pretty dead wrong on your "A few years ago...and just now being implemented" statement, and that's embarrassing for a guy who's ON the ITAC (or was). You SHOULD know and understand IT history, and the big view better if you are to serve as an effective member.

Since you were on the ITAC, and clearly have inside information about the number of dissatisfied people, why not actually back that statement up with, you know, facts? Or even examples?

In my tenure on the ITAC, I traveled to, and talked to IT racers from Atlanta to Ohio to NY state to Pennsylvania, to New Hampshire to West Virginia, to Virginia, to the Carolinas, to New Jersey and California. Oh and to Connecticut.

I talked to people confused (A fair number), disgruntled (Tom Lamb, for example), hopeful and satisfied, (Kip VanSteenberg) and the number of people who were positive in general far outweighed those who were dissatisfied. Were there people who were satisfied but with specific issues? Absolutely, but, in nearly every case, the issue had little to do with the larger "Process", and more to do with specific calibrations of a certain car or cars.

I'd love you to fill us in on the breadth, scope and results of your similar research.
 
I have never really understood the fear of dual classification in IT. It happens in Prod and GT where cars can run with different displacement motors. Personally I would like people given a choice but of course talking about it here does not really do much. Submitting letters and forcing the ITAC to talk about it and make a recommendation to the CRB is the right way to make change happen. Spinnetti is a proper poster child for why this is a good idea.
 
Well said Stephen.

The wheel change was the biggest I saw before but do also understand the social aspect too. Yes, I AM mad at you for going to ITR (I totally get that too though). Do you know how hard it's going to be for me to block you at the Glen in a few weeks? I'm working on extending my bumper out much further by stealing one of those contraptions from a school bus.

Maybe just dual class for those cars being moved to another class makes sense.
 
gran racing said:
Well said Stephen.

The wheel change was the biggest I saw before but do also understand the social aspect too. Yes, I AM mad at you for going to ITR (I totally get that too though). Do you know how hard it's going to be for me to block you at the Glen in a few weeks? I'm working on extending my bumper out much further by stealing one of those contraptions from a school bus.

Maybe just dual class for those cars being moved to another class makes sense.
Click to expand...

This. When you move an established car from one class to another they should be given the option to stay in their current class, especially when that move involves changes in weight, wheel size, etc.

The ITAC, CRB, and BoD just don't seem to get that there are still quite a few guys out there (although obviously in the minority) who are racing with very limited budgets and/or time to make changes to move from one class to another. I know many of them just don't care, but I also know there are some who do - maybe they just don't get it?
 
Makes total sense Mr. P.! Even though it doesn't affect me personally I am going to send in a letter later tonight when I get home (Can't do it from a phone on the SCCA site) I am doing it because of my moral beliefs and encourage others to do so as well even if it doesn't affect you it probably affects someone you probably race with.

Stephen
 
We certainly do care, and we certainly understand most ITers run on a budget. I'd say a significant portion of the ITAC membership does.

Most of the classification changes we make are based on requests from membership. Very rarely is anything done sua sponte, although on occasion we do individually determine a car can't make spec weight in its class and move it down.

erlrich said:
This. When you move an established car from one class to another they should be given the option to stay in their current class, especially when that move involves changes in weight, wheel size, etc.

The ITAC, CRB, and BoD just don't seem to get that there are still quite a few guys out there (although obviously in the minority) who are racing with very limited budgets and/or time to make changes to move from one class to another. I know many of them just don't care, but I also know there are some who do - maybe they just don't get it?
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top