October 2012 Prelim Minutes and TB

[Prof. Chaos]

Preliminary October Fastrack question

SCCA posted the prelim minutes for the October Fastrack.

In those minutes under suggested rule changes for 2013, it says:

“3. #9046 (SCCA Staff) Require Minimum Windshield Thickness in GCR Section 9
Change GCR section 9.3.55 as follows: 9.3.55 WINDSHIELDS/WINDSHIELD CLIPS/REAR WINDOW
STRAPS
Add a new first sentence as follows: Polycarbonate windshields such as Lexan are allowed except in Improved Touring, Super Touring, American Sedan, Showroom Stock, B-Spec, Spec Miata, and Touring. Alternate windshields must be of 6mm minimum thickness.”

But currently in the GCR under 9.1.4.F.8 Super Touring, it reads:

“All vehicles must use a stock, OEM equivalent, safety glass windshield, or 0.25 inch minimum thickness Lexan replacement, mounted in the stock location, at the stock angle and maintaining the stock profile.”

So starting in 2013 are polycarbonate/Lexan windshields no longer allowed in Super Touring, or is this just an error?

 

[Greg Amy]

Error, already submitted request for correction. Super Touring can continue with poly windshields; expect updated verbiage in the Sept 20 Fastrack. - GA

 

[RacerBill]

I think that would wind up being a case where we'd kill ITC and just deal with the fallout. we're not talking about it, but there's just about no way most C cars could ever be competitive in B.

we have to move IT forward somehow or it will loose relevance.

But in Ohio, the ITC gang is the best of show. The OVR Double a couple of weeks ago at Mid-Ohio saw three ITC races that had the crowds on there feet (ok, maybe not crowds) for the entire races. Lead changes, outside passes, you name it. And all of those guys are good friends, to boot. They even padock all together! And that may be an issue with SCCA. Different classes are stronger in some areas of the country than others. It will take the wisdom of Solomon to iron it all out.

 

[Chip42]

But in Ohio, the ITC gang is the best of show. The OVR Double a couple of weeks ago at Mid-Ohio saw three ITC races that had the crowds on there feet (ok, maybe not crowds) for the entire races. Lead changes, outside passes, you name it. And all of those guys are good friends, to boot. They even padock all together! And that may be an issue with SCCA. Different classes are stronger in some areas of the country than others. It will take the wisdom of Solomon to iron it all out.

I'm not suggesting doing away with ITC - I'm suggesting that if the time came to "roll them in" to ITB, to make room for a new class above ITR, that it would make more sense to me if we just did away with ITC as a nationally maintained ruleset. and as I said, it's on no ones agenda and I'm certainly not runnign the show, I'm just a single vote in an adhoc.

 

[dickita15]

I do not think the two are related. Making C go away in order to create a new class is not necessary and would just make more enemies. All you need to do is not expend any committee time on ITC and it is not a problem. Wait a minute I guess we are already doing that.

 

[Bill Miller]

I'm not suggesting doing away with ITC - I'm suggesting that if the time came to "roll them in" to ITB, to make room for a new class above ITR, that it would make more sense to me if we just did away with ITC as a nationally maintained ruleset. and as I said, it's on no ones agenda and I'm certainly not runnign the show, I'm just a single vote in an adhoc.

Not sure where anyone would get the idea that you would need to eliminate on IT class to make room for another one. That was never a consideration when we put ITR together. And since IT isn't a National class, there's no Runoffs impact. The driver behind ITR was that there were a metric shit ton of popular cars, that couldn't be run in IT, w/o being saddle w/ massive amount of weight to fit into ITS. There was never any discussion around needing to drop C to make R fit. I think the same would hold w/ another class above R. You're just defining another performance envelope for cars that are too fast for ITR.

And honestly Chip, I don't think you could make most of the ITC cars light enough to be competitive in ITB.

I do not think the two are related. Making C go away in order to create a new class is not necessary and would just make more enemies. All you need to do is not expend any committee time on ITC and it is not a problem. Wait a minute I guess we are already doing that.

Wow, nothing like telling the ITC crowd that they are insignificant. Where are all these B-spec cars going to age into? Are they fast enough for ITB?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Wow, nothing like telling the ITC crowd that they are insignificant. Where are all these B-spec cars going to age into? Are they fast enough for ITB?

So Bill,

Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I know *I* have been, but seem to recall your position as similar on this concept: The SCCA seems to never have enough balls to consolidate classes for a forward-thinking framework. If we had to bundle ITB and ITC (maybe adjust the multiplier to 17.92 (17 + 18.84 /2) so we could add a class above ITR, why not? The future is certainly in that class I would think.

Those of us who are critics of the 'a class for everyone' syndrome can't also be critical of the CONCEPT of the elimination/consolidation of classes. Short term pain for long term gain?

Maybe.

 

[dickita15]

Wow, nothing like telling the ITC crowd that they are insignificant. Where are all these B-spec cars going to age into? Are they fast enough for ITB?

Well actually Bill I would say we would be promising stability. They can race in C as long as they have someone to race with. It’s not like we have been adding many new cars. If I and 10 of my best friends raced ITC I would be happy with that response.
As for the B Spec cars they all make much more power, the only question is can they make a reasonable weight.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Does anyone know how many actual B-Spec cars are out there? 10?

 

[EH9racing]

As for the B Spec cars they all make much more power, the only question is can they make a reasonable weight.

Most of them "fit" into ITB @ 25%, but most would end up at 30% considering the requirement of information. Also most of them are at or near curb weight when processed at 30% (Fit, 2, Versa, Yaris, Fiesta). The Mini would have to carry lead (@30%) and the Fiat (%30) would be hard to get to minimum weight. Two of them would go to ITA (Kia and Chevy).

 

[JLawton]

OK, it was me who originally suggested doing away with ITC <raising hand> Not Chip or anyone else. I think everyone is on the same page here except for me but after reading the arguments I don't think it's a good idea either.

Sorry to stir things up!!!

 

[Ron Earp]

Does anyone know how many actual B-Spec cars are out there? 10?

Ding ding ding.

I was going to say we don't need to worry about where they'll fit because there will only be three or four of them when the time comes around and heck, they could be off in Chump.

But then I remembered this is the SCCA where three or four cars makes a National Runoff Class. Silly me.

 

[JeffYoung]

We don't spend a lot of time on C .... interest in the class is very low. But like I said, the racing in C at Mid Ohio was eye opening ot me. I don't think I'd ever seen more than 2-3 ITC cars on track at any time.

I'm not in favor of "eliminating" the ITC cars.

I am in favor of trying to consolidate classes.

Andy may be on to something. If we adjusted the power to weight so we could have the "true" B cars weigh a bit more and so we could squeeze most C cars in...might work.....although B guys may not like it because the weights of existing cars would go up.

 

[Bill Miller]

So Bill,

Just playing Devil's Advocate here. I know *I* have been, but seem to recall your position as similar on this concept: The SCCA seems to never have enough balls to consolidate classes for a forward-thinking framework. If we had to bundle ITB and ITC (maybe adjust the multiplier to 17.92 (17 + 18.84 /2) so we could add a class above ITR, why not? The future is certainly in that class I would think.

Those of us who are critics of the 'a class for everyone' syndrome can't also be critical of the CONCEPT of the elimination/consolidation of classes. Short term pain for long term gain?

Maybe.

Andy, I'm not sure why you would need to consolidate/eliminate anything, to add a class above R. IIRC, when you, I, Kirk, Jake, George, etc., etc. were working on the ITR proposal, I don't think the topic of eliminating ITC ever even came up. I also don't see how adding a class for cars that are too fast to run in ITR is playing the 'class for everyone' game. If IT were a National category, and had to deal w/ the issue of how many run groups they could manage at the Runoffs, I could see it being an issue. But until that day comes, I don't see where adding an additional class would have any impact on the existing IT classes. In fact, the Regions have been doing it for years (e.g. IT7, SSM, SRX7)

Well actually Bill I would say we would be promising stability. They can race in C as long as they have someone to race with. It’s not like we have been adding many new cars. If I and 10 of my best friends raced ITC I would be happy with that response.
As for the B Spec cars they all make much more power, the only question is can they make a reasonable weight.

Dick,

Why should ITC have any more or less stability than any of the other IT classes? And I read your earlier comment as basically no time would get spent on an ITC-specfic business / issues.

And I realize that ITC is in a tough spot. Not many 75hp cars built these days. But if they started winnowing off the bottom of ITB, into ITC, it may give the class a shot in the arm. So, not so much consolidation, as moving some cars down. Mostly ones that don't stand a chance in ITB right now, anyway.

The comment about the B-spec cars was because I really don't know anything about them, or where they would fit in IT.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy, I'm not sure why you would need to consolidate/eliminate anything, to add a class above R. IIRC, when you, I, Kirk, Jake, George, etc., etc. were working on the ITR proposal, I don't think the topic of eliminating ITC ever even came up. I also don't see how adding a class for cars that are too fast to run in ITR is playing the 'class for everyone' game. If IT were a National category, and had to deal w/ the issue of how many run groups they could manage at the Runoffs, I could see it being an issue. But until that day comes, I don't see where adding an additional class would have any impact on the existing IT classes. In fact, the Regions have been doing it for years (e.g. IT7, SSM, SRX7)

My comment on the consolidation to facilitate the addition was brought on by the comments made that made it seem like the CRB thought there were enough IT classes now. So if that was the case, we look at the long term health of the category as a whole and adjust accordingly.

The 'class for everyone' was not a comment on a class above ITR but a comment on the SCCA structure as a whole. Everyone complains about how there is no vision for the future yet those same people hold onto their class (no matter how small the numbers are) with a white knuckle grip. Classic 'change is great for you but not for ME' mentality.

I personally think you could add a class above ITR without touching ITC. I don't see the necessity of a one-in, one-out model at this point.

On B-Spec - no need to worry where they will go. There aren't enough of them now, and as I predicted, won't be many more. At some point, people actually have to like the car they race. The guys with the wallets don't want to go into work on Monday and tell people they came in 3rd driving their rented Mazda 2. No cool factor which really needs to be there for most of these guys. It would for me if I had the money. GAC ST all the way.

 

[924Guy]

Andy may be on to something. If we adjusted the power to weight so we could have the "true" B cars weigh a bit more and so we could squeeze most C cars in...might work.....although B guys may not like it because the weights of existing cars would go up.

As owner (and occasional driver) of one of the fastest and heaviest B cars in the country... I don't have an objection to adding weight to increase field sizes. OK, things may (should) get a bit slower... but let's face it, no-one's running ITB now to set their hair on fire... ITB and ITC are definitely all about the quality of the racing, IMO...

 

[JeffYoung]

On B-Spec - no need to worry where they will go. There aren't enough of them now, and as I predicted, won't be many more. At some point, people actually have to like the car they race. The guys with the wallets don't want to go into work on Monday and tell people they came in 3rd driving their rented Mazda 2. No cool factor which really needs to be there for most of these guys. It would for me if I had the money. GAC ST all the way.

AMEN. I'm telling you guys, if they did something like B-Spec with V6 Hyundai Genesis, Challenger, Camaro and Mustang? You might see 30 car fields. I would consider it.

 

[Bill Miller]

My comment on the consolidation to facilitate the addition was brought on by the comments made that made it seem like the CRB thought there were enough IT classes now. So if that was the case, we look at the long term health of the category as a whole and adjust accordingly.

The 'class for everyone' was not a comment on a class above ITR but a comment on the SCCA structure as a whole. Everyone complains about how there is no vision for the future yet those same people hold onto their class (no matter how small the numbers are) with a white knuckle grip. Classic 'change is great for you but not for ME' mentality.

I personally think you could add a class above ITR without touching ITC. I don't see the necessity of a one-in, one-out model at this point.

On B-Spec - no need to worry where they will go. There aren't enough of them now, and as I predicted, won't be many more. At some point, people actually have to like the car they race. The guys with the wallets don't want to go into work on Monday and tell people they came in 3rd driving their rented Mazda 2. No cool factor which really needs to be there for most of these guys. It would for me if I had the money. GAC ST all the way.

You and I are on the same page Andy. The overall good of the category should be the #1 priority. Unfortunately, Club Racing has been too me-centric for a long, long time. I'm not sure why the CRB would take the approach that there are enough IT classes. It doesn't really impact anything, by adding another IT class, expect possibly bringing some more people to the track. The nice thing is, the Regions could implement it on their own, w/o needing any input or blessing from the CRB. The only trick is to get them (the Regions) to agree on a uniform rule set. So, Travis could pitch his ITU proposal to all the regions, get their buy in, and implement it w/o any need for CRB involvement. What would be really cool, is if all the Regions agree to have the ITAC manage the class.

As far as the whole B-spec thing goes, I'm not sure who's brain child that was. But I didn't think it was as expensive as GAC ST. I have a good friend of mine that runs that (John Weisberg), and I'm pretty sure seats are way more $$$$ than a B-spec ride, but I could be wrong.

 

[Bill Miller]

AMEN. I'm telling you guys, if they did something like B-Spec with V6 Hyundai Genesis, Challenger, Camaro and Mustang? You might see 30 car fields. I would consider it.

They actually used to do that Jeff, I think it was called SSGT.

 

[Ron Earp]

AMEN. I'm telling you guys, if they did something like B-Spec with V6 Hyundai Genesis, Challenger, Camaro and Mustang? You might see 30 car fields. I would consider it.

I like the concept, but the economics of it might not play out as you'd think. Since there are so many aftermarket go fast parts for the V8 Camaro, Challenger, and Mustang, and not many for the V6 versions, it could be cheaper to race the V8. And then on the used market a V8 donor won't cost much more than a V6.

On the other hand, one can argue that since it is a full on race car you'll be designing and making parts and not using off the shelf stuff. Maybe or maybe not.

I do know for sure that a V6 ITS Mustang isn't a cheap proposition and I certainly could have saved some coin had there been some good aftermarket parts, anything from ECU knowledge/know how to rear suspension parts.