May 2011 Fastrack

[lateapex911]

In my time on the ITAC, the subject came up numerous times. In general, the idea was frowned upon. I can see both sides and I only fought hard for it in cases like the E36 and other ITS cars being moved to ITR.

But, the make up of the ITAC at the time was not in favor. I wouldn't say that they "didn't care about the budget racer", though. One guy is VERY budget oriented, (the guy who says use a chain as an engine mount substitute) and IIRC he was no fan of dual classing.
I can't comment on the CRB as a whole, as they all aren't on the concalls.

I CAN see how appreciating the low budget guy can be hard for anybody though, when you look around the padddock at races, especially big National races. I'm always impressed by the what i call "relax/race dollar ratio" has changed over the years. It used to be guys would put the majority of their racing budget into the car, and sleep in a tent or the back of a truck. MAYbe an enclosed trailer...but that was living large, LOL. Now, I see diesel pushers and toter homes pulling $10K racecars.

 

[gran racing]

Most of the classification changes we make are based on requests from membership.

Agreed, however it doesn't take a unanimous vote of acceptance from all drivers who are either racing them currently or potentially in the build process. The MR2 is one of the sereral examples. There most definately were people who wanted the car to stay in ITA. While I agree putting it in ITB was the right move in terms of where it fits, having a choice and offering flexibility does not hurt.


I also believe it might cause some confusion, but would take that and work on the many other more confusing aspects of this game.

I CAN see how appreciating the low budget guy can be hard for anybody though

So continue to make it harder? I know that's not what you meant but it is what this (again, really just because of the wheel change) does. And before anyone says it, no, changing the wheel rule in B & C does not help this.

 

[Spinnetti]

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.

Jeff, Who Voted the Corolla down to B? I understand, and honestly it probably makes sense, but when it was talked about some years ago, I was pretty clear here I sure didn't want to go down to B. Look at it this way. I can spend thousands and enjoy my car less to finish higher, or I can stay where I am and still end up racing with the pointy end of the B field... Hmm. Seems pretty easy to me. I'll still beat half of the A field anyway. I know you guys are trying to do the right thing, and this is a VERY difficult customer base, but what members specifically wanted to move it? For 19 years there were never more than a handful of Corollas (never were that competitive - that was the challenge for me to go for 10/10ths), and at least 2 of them were destroyed along the way. Is there anybody but me left? If not, it sure wasn't based on Corolla owner input!

 

[quadzjr]

Spinnetti..

I feel your pain (races ITB MR2). I had to melt down 4.5 gallon buckets of wheel waits to get the my car to minimum weight. Mostly becuase the use of alot of steel weights instead of lead.. but in either cae I had a total of 5 bricks of lead in my passenger side compartment totalling ~190lbs.

I just pulled 96.3lbs out of the car for the new classification. I still have Two large bricks, spare tire, etc..

About the 220lbs.. though currently that is true, I see no reason why the ITAC would not class the car similiarly to how they just re-classed the MR2 @25% based on Chip's letter submitted. So in all probablity expect to reduce 95lbs from that number.

If you are in the market to sell, by brother is looking for an ITB car, if the right one came along. We have tons of toyota and honda spares, but he likes "right" wheel drive.

 

[Ron Earp]

How many cars are we talking about here that should/could/can be dual classed? 3? 19? 41? What is the criteria, not making weight in the assigned class?

Off the cuff:

• ITR BMW 325 - already is DC
• ITR V6 Camaro ITS/ITR as some claim it can't make weight in R although 200hp stock seems like a lot in S
• ITR Celcia GTS into ITS
• ITS Mustang - the car I'm fixing to build, no way it'll ever hit 2480 lbs in ITS. A at a higher weight?
• New Miata - ITS or ITR? I suppose it is ITS only based on power
• RX8? ITS at a higher weight?
• IT7 cars - B material also?

 

[erlrich]

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.

Jeff, I include you in the "does give a shit" category, and I know there are others as well. I just have to think you're in the minority.

JHMO.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

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?

Or maybe, just maybe, people in decision-making positions need to make their decisions with the greater good in mind all while looking at the past, present and future ramifications of every decision.

The problem with many squeeky wheels is that many of them only look at their house and not the whole neigborhood, or the town or state, etc.

If I had a dollar for every time I explained a decision to someone who initially thought it was the worst one on the whole world becuase of how it effected HIM, then changed their tune when you lay out the whys and hows and what may be good for the category as a whole - I'd be rich.

(On edit - dual classing is a no-brainer. You could easily define what could be considered a tweener and also give cars moving from A to B or R to S a 5 year window.)

 

[Spinnetti]

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

Oh, I know I have no chance, I just need something to put on the entry form. By having a "legal" class to run in, I can get on track and will still run with the ITB/ITA crowd...

 

[Spinnetti]

Or maybe, just maybe, people in decision-making positions need to make their decisions with the greater good in mind all while looking at the past, present and future ramifications of every decision.

The problem with many squeeky wheels is that many of them only look at their house and not the whole neigborhood, or the town or state, etc.

If I had a dollar for every time I explained a decision to someone who initially thought it was the worst one on the whole world becuase of how it effected HIM, then changed their tune when you lay out the whys and hows and what may be good for the category as a whole - I'd be rich.

(On edit - dual classing is a no-brainer. You could easily define what could be considered a tweener and also give cars moving from A to B or R to S a 5 year window.)

Andy, I never indicated it was a bad decision for competitiveness, its just a big cost up, and car slow down for me, and as a customer, you guys are sending me shopping. I like your transition window idea. By that time I can build a decent ITR car and retire the Corolla to car shows and track days.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, I never indicated it was a bad decision for competitiveness, its just a big cost up, and car slow down for me, and as a customer, you guys are sending me shopping. I like your transition window idea. By that time I can build a decent ITR car and retire the Corolla to car shows and track days.

This wasn't aimed at you specifically. Each of us make our own decisions on a very personal level. Like I said, I would rather go slightly slower and run at the front of B than be slightly faster and not have a shot in A. But that is a position that is personal to me.

The ITAC needs to decide which position best represents the drivers as a whole, and drivers who may want to enter IT racing in a car like this.

PS: Notchback or fastback?

 

[dickita15]

Here again I am not sure why this has to be complicated. If dual classification is not a threat to the natural order of life why put artificial limits like only cars that have been moved or only for so many years. I just do not understand the threat.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here again I am not sure why this has to be complicated. If dual classification is not a threat to the natural order of life why put artificial limits like only cars that have been moved or only for so many years. I just do not understand the threat.

Because we WILL get people who want to run in a different class or stay in a class when there is no issues with new wheels etc.

You can't allow every car to be DC'd. Just cars that NEED it.

When I was on teh Stock CLass Advisory Committee for Solo, we had a guy who was pissed his car got moved DOWN (slower) a class because he was winning B-Stock but would get crushed by the local F-Stock competition. He didn't know FS was supposed to be slower than BS.

 

[Ron Earp]

You can't allow every car to be DC'd. Just cars that NEED it.
.

Back to my post that got lost back there in the name calling - how many need it? A few? A lot? How do we know what cars need DC?

 

[JeffYoung]

Fair question.

It was moved along with the MR2 (we had many requests to move it to b) because it was the same engine. The thinking was the Corolla would never make weight in ITA given the limited ability of the 4AGE to make power, and so it was really a B car like the MR2.

However, if you are the only guy racing the car and want a dual classification in A/B, I do not have any problem with that. I don't understand it...lol...but I agree on issues like this we should be responsive to what membership wants.

Jeff, Who Voted the Corolla down to B? I understand, and honestly it probably makes sense, but when it was talked about some years ago, I was pretty clear here I sure didn't want to go down to B. Look at it this way. I can spend thousands and enjoy my car less to finish higher, or I can stay where I am and still end up racing with the pointy end of the B field... Hmm. Seems pretty easy to me. I'll still beat half of the A field anyway. I know you guys are trying to do the right thing, and this is a VERY difficult customer base, but what members specifically wanted to move it? For 19 years there were never more than a handful of Corollas (never were that competitive - that was the challenge for me to go for 10/10ths), and at least 2 of them were destroyed along the way. Is there anybody but me left? If not, it sure wasn't based on Corolla owner input!

 

[tnord]

I don't do this often...but you've earned it:

Fuck off Travis - go be a troll somewhere else.

thanks buddy!

happy to serve you and the rest of the membership.

 

[JoshS]

FWIW, I hate dual classing and during my time on the ITAC I was dead-set against it ... EXCEPT in the case of the creation of a whole new class, where the class needs some time to seed.

What I think should have happened when ITR was created is that the existing ITS cars that were better fits in ITR should have been allowed dual-classing, but their ITS classing should have had an expiration date on it, so that after a little while it was ITR or nothing.

Whether or not to allow dual classing to me is about determining whether or not we exist to serve the current members, or be attractive to future ones. The answer of course is "both" but that means that decisions are difficult. Existing members, sure, it's a club, let people run in any class, do the DC, sure, why not? But to have the classing be attractive to people who are on the outside looking in, it makes it very hard to determine what you're going to be up against when you decide to build a car for IT. Plus, it makes it hard to get a picture of what (say) ITB is going to look like if you're looking to build a car for it. You go to the track and you see the same car in multiple classes, people always wonder what that's all about. I've seen the confusion over and over.

I think there are five approaches to dual classing:

1) No DC at all.
2) DC only in the case of an all-new class, as mentioned above. I'd want to expire the original listing if the class "works out."
3) Allow DC as #1 except for any car being reclassed. Again, expire the old listing after a couple of years.
4) There could be DC for a limited set of cars who "need it" as proposed by Andy. To me, that's big-time problematic in terms of managing expectations with the members.
5) There could be a blanket DC rule: class the car in the "slowest" appropriate class, then allow *any* car to run in the next faster class with a 100lb or so weight break.

We're somewhere between #2 and #3 right now. I'd rather be at #2 but we don't have any expiration for the older listings.

The last approach #5 is good for the current members and the regions, as in some regions members would have opportunities to double-dip. But in my mind there are other ways to double-dip already (STU, STL, ITE, etc) and regions are free to make up their own classes to encourage double-dipping -- here in SFR we have been doing this for years. I don't think that classing decisions should ever be made with the idea of allowing double-dipping, that's a race operations thing to me.

So, yeah, I just can't say that I'm a fan. But I no longer have a voice on the ITAC.

 

[jjjanos]

You can't allow every car to be DC'd. Just cars that NEED it.

I'm sorry.... why?

If the car ain't a tweener, then just classify it at its current weight in the "faster" class.

If the "Process" is correct, then it isn't going to be competitive in the faster class.

For me, the biggest cost expense in doing an 'away' race is the fact that it is away -- towing, food, lodging, the flowers because I'm not home helping with the kid. Kee-rist, I'd love to be able to triple dip. You can't tell me that the speed differential between an ITB car running as STU and an EP is going to be smaller than an ITB car running as an ITA with ITA cars. If I'm at VIR, I don't care if I'm competitive... I just want to drive the damn thing.

Hell, with a small child, getting an entire weekend free of birthday parties, swim lessons, soccer practice, ad nauseum is damn near impossible. Let people run as many race groups as can be done safely.

More track time for the driver. More entrie$ for the regions.

So... exactly where is the harm?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

I'm sorry.... why?

If the car ain't a tweener, then just classify it at its current weight in the "faster" class.

If the "Process" is correct, then it isn't going to be competitive in the faster class.

This is totally different that what I am thinking for 'dual classing'. To me it's listing the same car, at its appropriate process weight in each of those classes...not the SAME weight.

Take my car (using 25% in all classes , not ever subscribing to the 30% multi-valve BS)

ITS: 2065
ITA: 2370
ITB: 2770 (wondering what kind of times my car would run with 425lbs of ballast)

But I say for tweeners and R to S and A to B because you would triple, or 4x or 5x the amount of weights in the GCR - AS WELL AS, force the CRB to allow a full calculation of every car. Besides the political BS, it's just not needed.

You don't need people cherry picking classes. In the case of the 2nd gen RX-7, the MR2, etc - go for it.

 

[JoshS]

For me, the biggest cost expense in doing an 'away' race is the fact that it is away -- towing, food, lodging, the flowers because I'm not home helping with the kid. Kee-rist, I'd love to be able to triple dip.

I totally agree with the cost equation (especially the flowers!) and how it works out best if you can enter multiple times.

But being listed in multiple IT classes is no guarantee that you'll be able to double or triple dip ... after all, here in SFR, we run all of the IT classes together in a single race group. It wouldn't help at all.

I'll say again that since race groupings are done by the regions, there's no reason that nationally-based classing should be considering "the ability to double-dip" when figuring out how a car should be classed. That's a problem for the regions to solve, and they are each going to do it their own way.

 

[Spinnetti]

PS: Notchback or fastback?

Hatchback (is that Fastback?)....

You could allow it in A at process weight knowing there's no way in He** anybody can hit it. I understand you guys, I just want options. For instance why wouldn't your let ANY car run one class up in the same spec? (i.e. any IT car go up 1 IT class)... gives more options, maybe more money for the clubs if guys want to double dip etc... I'll move on, but I'm not buying 8-12 new Panasports so I can go slower - I know you don't think that way, but the machine is as important as the racing.

Here's the impact - a lack of options in this case means my buddy who was on the cusp today of looking at buying an ITA neon isn't going to do it because we can't run in the same class. I think all of your technical reasoning is quite sound - I have no issue with it per se, but from a value proposition to the members, more options = more competitors.....