May 2012 Fastrack

[Greg Amy]

Fewer Classes is better than More Classes...

Almost everybody in the Club thinks that fewer classes is better than more classes...as long as you leave my class alone...

 

[Ron Earp]

Almost everybody in the Club thinks that fewer classes is better than more classes...as long as you leave my class alone...

Almost Everybody

But not everybody. Some people have enough sense and vision to look at the larger picture and put the club needs before their own. Many of us here would accept changes, merges, or elimination of our own class if the club would be healthier for it.

 

[Greg Amy]

But not everybody. Some people have enough sense and vision...

Yes, but both of us are dramatically outnumbered. And, we're both human (as far as I know) and we both have to interact on the weekends with the other 99.999% that wants classes eliminated...except for theirs.

Ask any other person if they'd be willing to give up their class for the betterment of the Club if the hierarchy deemed it so; "yes or no", no debate on why their class is not "the" one to go away. I'm willing to wager you'd ask a lot of folks before you got a "yes"...if you ever got one.

While it's not a true democracy (more a meritocracy, actually) it's still a club. I commend the CRB for giving this consolidation thought and presenting it to the membership. I think it'll happen, because there's enough strong wills to move forward with it. We'll see.

GA

 

[Matt93SE]

Almost Everybody

But not everybody. Some people have enough sense and vision to look at the larger picture and put the club needs before their own. Many of us here would accept changes, merges, or elimination of our own class, as long as we didn't have to spend any more money and could run at the front of the new class, and if the club would be healthier for it.

Fixed that for ya.

 

[TStiles]

Would it be the end of the world if we just adopted :

- DOT Tire / IT-ST Prep : HP to Weight Classes 1- ???
- Slick Tire / Prod Prep : HP to Weight Classes 1- ???

I know this is overly simplistic , but we could spend a bunch less on engine development.

If you want to slice and dice a little more you could add X pounds for aero , x pounds for ???

BTW : The objective is not just fewer classes , the objective needs to be fewer groups and that a whole other can of worms ( much more difficult )

 

[Chip42]

Would it be the end of the world if we just adopted :

- DOT Tire / IT-ST Prep : HP to Weight Classes 1- ???
- Slick Tire / Prod Prep : HP to Weight Classes 1- ???

no, it wouldn't be. but people have spent a lot of time and energy honing their cars to a class that is itself still viable and while that won't necessarily be "wasted" effort under such a scheme, it certianly changes the direction of development and could cause the work to be less valuable. I'm not saying that the omlet won't require breaking some eggs, but while merging classes that are already in the same run group might make for better racing it won't help the number of run groups. pising off customers looses customers. the short period between loss of current and gaining of new / regaining old could spell the death of the club.

if I were king, there would be touring and GT (and SM). everything prod and GT would be in GT and all SS/T/IT would go to T. ST would be split between them. this still wouldn't help the number of run groups but it would certainly reduce the number of glasses (and the merger would be painful...)

 

[red986s]

IMHO, if you want change, now would be the time to implement it. SCCA has let be known which classes they want to see thrive. "IT" wasn't on the list. Merging into Prod or ST, to me, would be a natural progression.

 

[seckerich]

IT wasn't on the list because regional only classes are not relevant to their discussion. Had IT gone National it would be a completely different conversation. As it is ST is the "end around" to fix the last bright idea the CRB had for World Challenge cars to go die. Very similar to the start of this thread where SS and TT were to go die. Same discussion except pissed off drivers don't go away mad, they just go away.

 

[Spinnetti]

Seems to me you guys are taking an org centric vs. customer centric view of things. Lots of guys will run whatever wins, but some of us like our cars and want to fit in somewhere. Seems to me there should be less classes and use weight/restrictors like in so many other series to even things up. With all the squabbling over minutea, crap can racing will take over what IT used to be... No problems filling up those fields! Heck I haven't run my fully prepped IT car in years (kinda feel bad about that).

 

[jhooten]

We should dissolve all IT classes, who's with me?

Didn't I say that already?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Would it be the end of the world if we just adopted :

- DOT Tire / IT-ST Prep : HP to Weight Classes 1- ???


I know this is overly simplistic , but we could spend a bunch less on engine development.

If you want to slice and dice a little more you could add X pounds for aero , x pounds for ???

Guess what? The way you describe this is just about what it is now. IT classes ARE power to weight classes with adders. The flaw in the ointment is that validating classes with a dyno is just dumb. Sorry guys but that dog won't hunt. Too easy to cheat, too hard to logistically manage event to event.

The REAL simplicity is what we have. 'Here is what you can do, here is what you weigh, race.' You max out what you can do at your leisure.

 

[JoshS]

Guess what? The way you describe this is just about what it is now. IT classes ARE power to weight classes with adders. The flaw in the ointment is that validating classes with a dyno is just dumb. Sorry guys but that dog won't hunt. Too easy to cheat, too hard to logistically manage event to event.

The REAL simplicity is what we have. 'Here is what you can do, here is what you weigh, race.' You max out what you can do at your leisure.

To expand on that idea:

Andy is right, of course, dyno-based enforcement is a bad idea, so we'll have to limit the rules so that the horsepower is predictable so that the power-to-weight listings in the rulebook make sense. So the IT allowances could say:

1) If it doesn't affect horsepower, you can do it.
2) Among horsepower-related modifications: you may do only the following things:
[ and then list the existing IT horsepower-related allowances ]

The problem with that, of course, is that there are a lot of handling, aero, or braking modifications you could do in that case. So, do you want to limit those too, or leave it unlimited like the power-to-weight classes that you love so much? Because unlimited costs a lot more money (mostly in fabrication and testing). And if you decide that you don't want unlimited handling, braking, and aero mods, and so then start to list them, then you really have something that looks just like the current IT.

So I conclude (with Andy) that the current IT structure is the natural conclusion of a power-to-weight-based classification.

 

[chuck baader]

Bang on Josh! If you want an education in power to weight, visit your local NASA race and talk with the GTS guys. Everyone thought it was a great way to do things but over the last couple of years racers have been pouring money into their cars to get the hp/wt as close as possible for their class. Furthermore, I have seen a dyno at one NASA race and that was 4(?) years ago. You send in your dyno sheet the first of the year and figure your weight. After the race you are weighed to make sure you are compliant with the weight. Turn your timing back on the dyno, sent in sheet, and race with 50 more hp and no one will enforce the rule at a local race. And don't even get me started with the hp+tq divided by 2 for your hp figure!!

 

[FLATKITTY]

jhooten ... "But the numbers for [IT cars] have fallen steadily for the last 4 or 5 years w/the last one only having about 20 cars entered."

I am new to your area (just finished up an IT car) & have been wondering how you folks in the SW Division went from 30 ITS cars (2003) to 21 (2004) to 19 (2005) to 15 (2006) to 18 (2007) to 8 (2008) to 13 (2009) to 9 (2010) & then POOF ... nada for 2011?

Sometimes complete class domination by a single driver &/or marque can kill off a class, but, looking a past class winners, that does not appear the case here at all.

As for IT cars being more like (older ... as in pre-flare) Production cars, as a long time IT supporter, I take that as a compliment. IT has that nice "visual integrity" that current production & GT cars lack. The IT class is a throw-back to when the cars were directly connected (visually) to what was driven on the street. I have never had an issue w/"rules creep" that 1) everyone could take advantage of; & 2) did not cost anything. Examples that come to mind are the removal of items ... heater & A/C systems, washer bottles, seats & interior trim items, etc. One item that I would disagree with that just popped up recently was the request for a non-power steering assembly for cars that never had them. This, IMHO, would be a highly discriminatory ruling that 1) only a select few could take advantage of; & 2) would cost money.

IT has been, & still is, a less expensive class to get started in, or just enjoy a long-term 'relationship' with. I have competed in every IT class but ITR. And I have always enjoyed the competition AND the competitors. Well, most of 'em anyway.

If you noticed, I specifically indicated that IT was a "less expensive" class ... as opposed to "cheap". The word "cheap" & "racing" are, for all intents & purposes, contradictory. We could all start racing Dollar Store wheelbarrows tomorrow &, w/in a VERY short period of time, there would be titanium handles, carbon fiber buckets, a shock system, low-resistance bearings, a half dozen different tire compounds & aero devices. It's just the nature of racing.

And tho I do disagree w/some of the things done in IT, I really do try to, as some of you are fond of saying, "let that ship sail" & just enjoy the racing.

As I indicated earlier in this rant, I have just finished my latest IT race car. My only reason for building it is to travel around the country & drive all of the SCCA tracks that I have never had the opportunity to drive, or that have changed since I last drove them. So if you see this older guy who looks just a bit confused as to where to find that last 10 seconds to a lap record, stop by & say HI.

 

[jhooten]

jhooten ... "But the numbers for [IT cars] have fallen steadily for the last 4 or 5 years w/the last one only having about 20 cars entered."

I am new to your area (just finished up an IT car) & have been wondering how you folks in the SW Division went from 30 ITS cars (2003) to 21 (2004) to 19 (2005) to 15 (2006) to 18 (2007) to 8 (2008) to 13 (2009) to 9 (2010) & then POOF ... nada for 2011?

Sometimes complete class domination by a single driver &/or marque can kill off a class, but, looking a past class winners, that does not appear the case here at all.


As I indicated earlier in this rant, I have just finished my latest IT race car. My only reason for building it is to travel around the country & drive all of the SCCA tracks that I have never had the opportunity to drive, or that have changed since I last drove them. So if you see this older guy who looks just a bit confused as to where to find that last 10 seconds to a lap record, stop by & say HI.

It is not just ITS, About the only viable IT class we have left is ITA and that mainly because of double dipping SM cars. And now most of them are leaving ITA and going to STU/L.

I'll admit I have a 2001 Camaro being prepped for STU. But I started in an ITS 85 Supra and there is one for sale here on the board which will be headed south as soon as I get recovered from the recent disaster and can fund the purchase. There is just something about and I6 and the way it drives off the corners.

If I'm not racing I'm usually in the tech shed harassing drivers. Since you are a sure bet to be in the top three I'll see you there.

 

[Bob Roth]

Whatever you do, please consider having two values in mind. 1st Value. For club/regional racing, the objective should be to maximize the car count. 2nd Value - Protect the car owner's investment with stable classes and rules.

To that end, I think club racing should have more classes built around popular/attractive cars. From what I've seen, NASA '944 spec seems to have a good cluster of cars. Same with Honda challenge. I wonder if we ought to have several Miata classes based on generation. The attraction is once you form those classes, they tend to maintain and police themselves. They also protect drivers investments because of stable parity.

Most everybody I see in 25 years of IT racing has stuck around and not moved up. They are doing it for fun. I think more trophies, and more classes based on popular cars encourage people to get involved, and keep them around because their cars aren't obsolete as some new flavor shows up.

 

[chuck baader]

Or we could just play the hand we are dealt and leave well enough alone. Chuck

 

[seckerich]

Or we could just play the hand we are dealt and leave well enough alone. Chuck

Come on Chuck, like congress we have to keep making new laws or we look irrelevant.

 

[Chip42]

To that end, I think club racing should have more classes built around popular/attractive cars. From what I've seen, NASA '944 spec seems to have a good cluster of cars. Same with Honda challenge. I wonder if we ought to have several Miata classes based on generation. The attraction is once you form those classes, they tend to maintain and police themselves. They also protect drivers investments because of stable parity.

Most everybody I see in 25 years of IT racing has stuck around and not moved up. They are doing it for fun. I think more trophies, and more classes based on popular cars encourage people to get involved, and keep them around because their cars aren't obsolete as some new flavor shows up.

IT has the potential to continue to be stable for many years. it's up to a couple of key things:
1 - ITAC and CRB do their homework. newer cars and technology will respond differently to the IT allowances, and in some cases may require new or revised rules (i.e. how to deal with gasoline direct injection). that stuff has to be worked out on the front end as much as possible. B spec, world challenge, conti challenge can be a great asset here. the goals are to keep the allowances minimal, the rules stable, and the existing cars relevant.

2 - membership has to help. The ITAC really can't do much of anything within our own bylaws unless you guys send us data. IT is a power to weight category and without real power outputs, most stuff is a somewhat statistically driven stab in the dark. turns out it's a pretty god stab much of the time, but when it isn't, it can be fixed with input. this is true if your power is high or low.

There is no reason a brand new car and a 73 datsun can't run door to door using a power/weight system*. weights will be different, strengths will be, too. but that's the best part.

*cars are getting faster, and technology marches on, so yeah, slower classes are going to shrivel and die naturally, and power/weight won't take the more nuanced improvements in handling and braking etc... into account, so newer cars may displace older ones in that way, but I think that's good in that a class full of 50 year old cars isn't appealing to new members, and its should be a long gentle slope, not a hard drop like in SS/T or a protectionist rule set as prod was for many years (and may still have elements of).

 

[Matt93SE]

So if you see this older guy who looks just a bit confused as to where to find that last 10 seconds to a lap record, stop by & say HI.

You could start by getting some good tires vs. those All-Season Yokohoamas you were running on.