October fastrack is out

In response to the "why do miata's get x number of classes?"

About 320,00 Miatas were sold in the US.
According to Mazda, about 270,000 are still running.

The miata is light, rwd, fun to drive, bulletproof, has great aftermarket support, cheap, easy to work on, fully adjustable suspension and has manufacturer support (all mazdas do).
How many other cars can you say that about?

The impreza, while a great car, doesn't approach the miata in volume

When you have a large group of people asking to class a car...what are you supposed to say? "Nope sorry, we can't class your car b/c the folks who drive VW golfs haven't asked for any other classifications, so we're not gonna do it to be fair."

There are a lot of miata's out there and a lot of people who want to race them. If you want a car classified somewhere, write it in.

I think you would be more likely to find favoritism in drivers wanting to run their miatas than policy makers.
 
I haven't seen the clear delta between FWD and AWD you propose. I don't think it is clear that the delta would be any greater for AWD to RWD than has already been excepted for FWD to RWD. If the dominance is as bad as you believe then Touring and SS are in for some huge problems I guess - I don't think such deltas have been observed.

I really enjoy how people who have a multitude of classes to have a log book issued for their car, able to get their racing license in their car and can race their car in a class while developing an alternative class - provide the suggestion that someone else go through the expense of building a car that easily could cost as much as building an ITS BMW without actually having someplace to race it. It is easy to say go do it - yet I don't see where anyone has done it before. Yeah you can develop an SM class when while it is being developed the cars have someplace to race if it fails. It is kind of hard to get a group of people to build a bunch of cars when if it fails you have no place that will let you race and the suggestion that someone persue that route is a little disturbing. "Build and they will class it" is a lot more to ask then "Class it and they will build it". Classing it cost nothing - building it is a different story.

I could have gone that route - but I wouldn't be an SCCA member then either as the only place that I would be able to go on track in wheel to wheel competition is with EMRA or NASA.

Performance above the ITS envolope is one thing (the Z06 example and the full expectation that T cars will not be classed in ITS-ITC at all), but when SS cars have consistently been classed into IT as they have aged out of SS - I think an SS driver is well within reason to expect to be able to take or sell his car into IT.

I pointed out more inconsistencies than just the exclusion of AWD from all club classes except T/SS.

Ensuring all in one decision that one model of car:
-has increased value as a race car
-has a place to race suited to a variety of driver desires
-has a good chance of being a class killer at introduction
is inconsistent with the treatment of 98% of the other model cars in IT.

But regarding AWD you are right I need to take the issue with the exclusion elsewhere as it is not an ITCS rule.
 
The number of classes available to them isn't an issue for me - I think as much as possible all models should have alternatives available and this should be encouraged in general.

My issue is more with what definitely looks to be a very favorable classing and the questionable basis for the decision inconsistent with the basis for other decisions.
 
Originally posted by dickita15+Aug 31 2005, 02:07 PM-->
ed
dude you need to relax a little, either that or you need a little longer historical view.
[snapback]59421[/snapback]​
[/b]

Didn't realize I wasn't relaxed, but OK, fair enough. I wasn't really going to get deep into the topic at all until the reasons for the decision were listed. The reasons listed begged to be called out and challenged IMO. This is how I feel about the reasons listed for the decisions.

<!--QuoteBegin-dickita15
@Aug 31 2005, 02:07 PM
the 1.6 is not on the level of the top three cars in A.
[snapback]59421[/snapback]​

What does that mean for the MARRS points? Is it Bret's superiority or everyone else is lacking?
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Aug 31 2005, 12:22 PM
Top prep RX-7's make 130whp.  The RX-7 would have to weigh in excess of 2600 to fit amongst the other cars currently classified.
[snapback]59371[/snapback]​

OK - you've forced me to do math. If you call the RX7 130rwhp, at 2650lbs it carries 20.4 lbs/hp. Looking at the ITB Golf III at 115hp stock, if you assume that the Golf's 2.0L can make 115hp at the wheels in IT trim (which I think is a good assumption) - the Golf III carries 20.4 lbs/hp at its spec weight of 2350. OK - I can see where you are coming from.

Now's here's where I have a problem. The best dyno data on a built 4AGE in an MR2 is 108RWHP. Scoff as you will, but the 1.6l does not respond well to IT mods. There have been two engines that have been recently built to the letter of the law (overbore, dyno tuning, custom header, etc.) and have not seen any higher than that.

Now plug in our handy formula, and in order to make 20.4 lbs/hp, the MR2 would have to weigh 2200lbs. (2200/108=20.4) Now you say, well the MR2 is mid-engined, has good brakes, modern suspension, yadda yadda yadda - add on ... say... 170lbs, and you got a 2370lb ITB car out of the MR2. TWEENER? No.
 
Originally posted by turboICE@Aug 31 2005, 02:39 PM
What does that mean for the MARRS points?  Is it Bret's superiority or everyone else is lacking?
[snapback]59427[/snapback]​

My guess is you know the answer but the Miata is a great handling car with good brakes, but it is down on power to the nissan, acura and crx. Summit has one long straight but the rest of the course rewards the miata's nible handling. I raced with Bret at the glen this year (well in the same group) and you are right the car is impressive. but I still do not think I would rate it as an overdog.

There have been a couple of well done miatas at the arrc the last two years and they have an uphill fight.

besides if the ITAC and myself are wrong ther are plenty of restrictors available for the miata to fix the problem.
 
No the 1.6 isn't an overdog but I do think MARRS shows that it is on the level potential with the top three A cars. The objection raised was the 1.8's almost assured potential to dominate.

If it has to be done fine, but I really hate restrictor plate class fixes. Restrictor plates pretty much make sure the car with the plate will cost the absolute maximum that it can cost to remain competitive after the plate is added. I think that would be the worse solution.
 
Originally posted by turboICE@Aug 31 2005, 02:27 PM



Ensuring all in one decision that one model of car:
-has increased value as a race car
-has a place to race suited to a variety of driver desires
-has a good chance of being a class killer at introduction
is inconsistent with the treatment of 98% of the other model cars in IT.

But regarding AWD you are right I need to take the issue with the exclusion elsewhere as it is not an ITCS rule.
[snapback]59425[/snapback]​

Sadly, welcome to life, LLOL...everything can't be fair.

The Miata gets it's "favoritism" based on the fact that it's likely that people will actually race it.

The ITAC would love to make every car more valuable, and have a multitude of places to play, but it can't always work that way.

For one, there is no "Spec Cosworth Vega" for instance. It is in IT, but we don't see many. Another example would be the ITA BMW 3 series. Lots were made, they are classed, but nobody made a spec series with them, nor do many bother racing them! Why??? Uhhh... cuz they suck! Ok, the politically correct statement: they aren't all that fun to race with a motor that revs to what, 4500? LOL.

The Miata gets its "star" treatment because it's tough as nails, major fun to drive, can be had relatively cheap, (as a starter), and has great manufacturer and aftermarket support.

This is NOT a case of favoritism, but merely a case of appropriateness.

Now, please show me the figures, the calculations, the empirical data, that proves this "class killer" status you refer to.

Onto the AWD stuff. Write a letter to the CRB and the BoD, explaining that you see a natural progression from T to IT, but it is unfair as it is biased against AWD, and that you would like to see AWD cars classed in IT. State your reasons, your facts to back it up, and see what happens.

As far as I know there has not been much in the way of calling for AWD in IT, but I would entertain discussion on it should it be voiced by a significant number of members.

ITE is a class that has different rules in different regions. Would an "ITAWD" car fit in ITE in any region? That would be a great starting point.
 
Originally posted by turboICE@Aug 31 2005, 04:02 PM
......If it has to be done fine, but I really hate restrictor plate class fixes. Restrictor plates pretty much make sure the car with the plate will cost the absolute maximum that it can cost to remain competitive after the plate is added. I think that would be the worse solution.
[snapback]59437[/snapback]​

Keep in mind that restrictor plates are not the only option.
 
Originally posted by madrabbit15@Aug 31 2005, 11:52 AM
One additional note, rx7s should never be put in ITB, here is the SE they are atleast 2-3 seconds a lap faster than eveyones favorite red volvo.  That alone makes that a mute point.
[snapback]59402[/snapback]​

First, I want to remind everyone that lap times aren't the be all and end all, however, that said, lets look at the ARRCs as an example as well. Last year had fine racing weather and it was the same track for ITB and IT7, so the times are very representative.

(I might point out that getting extra hp thru the tech shed is easier in an IT7 car than an ITB car as well....)

3 seconds a lap??


Un no. On a course with lap times almost 2 minutes, the difference was about 1.35 seconds IIRC. (IT7: Lukas 1:47.2, ITB: Blethen 1:48.5 )

The top ITA cars were well into the 1:43.3 range.

If we were to look at that it looks like the car is much more of a B car than an A car......at about 4 seconds a lap back.
 
Originally posted by lateapex911@Aug 31 2005, 06:41 AM



The 1.8 Miate could be a great ITA car...why not give it a place to race?

I think the move is a win win, so I am not sure I see the issues.
[snapback]59365[/snapback]​

I guess the issue I have is that currently at the track I go to most often, the SM cars are running about the same times as the front running ITA cars. I think the Miata will be better than great in ITA, and that's the problem.

To clarify, I'm complaining about the fact that a few years ago, cars that we coming in got underclassed (Neon in S for example) and overweighted, and then adjusted only when the lynch mob arrived with the torches. The current ITAC philosophy has seemed to over-compensate by placing new cars so that they can immediately be front-runners.

Next, we'll hear that too many people have prepped the car that way to change anything drastically to even things out, and suddenly the performance envelope moves again. And those of us trying to work with 20 year old cars can't possibly hit the current targets, let alone those that move.

Basically, I'm just a whining little PITA. Apparently I too have come full-circle, and I'm now one of those who b!tches that the ITAC is being too forward thinking and proactive, and that my old car will never be competitive. I've become everything I always hated. :bash_1_:

I'm just concerned that the current ITAC is so concerned about doing the right thing for right now, and not for correcting the mistakes that others have made in the past. Just because it's still working, it doesn't mean it's all right.

The approach of 5 years ago was way too conservative and made it impossible for new cars to compete in favor of older cars. We're now getting to the point that older cars are being sacrificed in much the same way. Why isn't there a happy medium? If the car was as close as it appears, why wasn't it put in ITS at a lighter weight? Or are the lap times I see locally some kind of fluke?
 
Originally posted by jwalter@Aug 31 2005, 06:15 PM
In response to the "why do miata's get x number of classes?"

About 320,00 Miatas were sold in the US.
According to Mazda, about 270,000 are still running.

The miata is light, rwd, fun to drive, bulletproof, has great aftermarket support, cheap, easy to work on, fully adjustable suspension and has manufacturer support (all mazdas do).
How many other cars can you say that about?

<broken record player>
Neon.
</broken record player>

Well, all except for the RWD part. Oh, and we don't get our fenders for $15 either, but then again, we don't need them...

I personally have NO problem with Miatas running in every class if it works, but I do have a problem with a car with essentially the same prep levels running in a few different classes.

Put the damn car in ITS at a light weight with no restrictor or other compensation and let it run. That way, a truly competitive IT Miata could not legally run SM just be changing a few parts at the track. I'm not saying a huge investment, but certainly things that would take more than 30 minutes to change. I'm just tired of seeing 10 guys running in more than 1 class while others complain they have no place to run because the group is full, and then they want more groups.

I know. We'll just put SM or SSM in with Wings and Things and Big Bore. Oh, and a few in with Vees and 500s, and hell, throw a few in with the SRFs too. Fill up every hole in every group with a Miata. But make sure its ones that are running more than one group, since they're just there for practice anyway... :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by lateapex911@Aug 31 2005, 05:29 PM
Sadly, welcome to life, LLOL...everything can't be fair. 

..... Another example would be the ITA BMW 3 series. Lots were made, they are classed, but nobody made a spec series with them, nor do many bother racing them! Why??? Uhhh... cuz they suck! Ok, the politically correct statement: they aren't all that fun to race with  a motor that revs to what, 4500? LOL.


Not every ITA 3 series revs to 4500. I could get an e36 318 for the same money as a 1.8 Miata, but why?? Does the M44 have more performance potentianl to warent being 400 lbs heavier? If anything I'd say it has less as it comes already with a good exhaust and a two piece intake, no one's building the motors, VAC, Bimmerworld, well maybe you can pay your local guy to do one. If you run the power to weight it's a dog that'd fit in better with the B cars. If the A's have to bear with performance drift, when why not the B's and C's too.

James

PS. rumor has it that Mazda will one day drop support of the first Gen Miata, especially as they're on the third gen now!
 
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer@Aug 31 2005, 11:17 PM
<broken record player>
Neon.
</broken record player>

Well, all except for the RWD part.  Oh, and we don't get our fenders for $15 either, but then again, we don't need them...

I personally have NO problem with Miatas running in every class if it works, but I do have a problem with a car with essentially the same prep levels running in a few different classes.

Put the damn car in ITS at a light weight with no restrictor or other compensation and let it run.  That way, a truly competitive IT Miata could not legally run SM just be changing a few parts at the track.  ........  :rolleyes:
[snapback]59476[/snapback]​

OK, Matt, what I understand you to say is that you feel some drivers are driving the same car in multiple classes, while others aren't able to drive at all because of oversubscribed groups.

While creating rules scenarios that would eliminate the possibility of "doubling up" it would also limit easy cross class migration, where two drivers share a car, but in separate classes. I've seen it done where an experienced driver drives the car in the class the car fits, then the rookie takes the car to the class where the car is underprepped. I see no harm, no foul with that, and as a matter of fact, it has some advantages as it makes it easy for new drivers to enter our sport.

I suggest that your anger with the Miata is perhaps misplaced. What about contacting your local comp board and requesting that double and triple entries be put on "stand by" until a certain date so that those who want to race can? I think this is a logistical situation better handled locally by the registration and race officials.

Regarding the car in ITS, can you suggest a configuration that would be appropriate? In IT trim just how much power can the 1.8 actually make? Now, how light can the car be....legally? I think you'll see that there is a gulf there. ITS really won't work for that car, just as it really wasn't the right place for the Neon, which is, yes Kirk, now, an ITA car.
 
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer@Aug 31 2005, 11:08 PM
I guess the issue I have is that currently at the track I go to most often, the SM cars are running about the same times as the front running ITA cars.  I think the Miata will be better than great in ITA, and that's the problem.

I think you're seeing a local phenomina. Right now there is maybe one 1.6 Miata running at the front of ITA with the best ITA drivers in the country. I would be shocked to see the car at the front of the ARRCs though.

To clarify, I'm complaining about the fact that a few years ago, cars that we coming in got underclassed (Neon in S for example) and overweighted, and then adjusted only when the lynch mob arrived with the torches.  The current ITAC philosophy has seemed to over-compensate by placing new cars so that they can immediately be front-runners........... And those of us trying to work with 20 year old cars can't possibly hit the current targets, let alone those that move.

..........the ITAC is being too forward thinking and proactive, and that my old car will never be competitive.  ........I'm just concerned that the current ITAC is so concerned about doing the right thing for right now, and not for correcting the mistakes that others have made in the past.  Just because it's still working, it doesn't mean it's all right.

The approach of 5 years ago was way too conservative and made it impossible for new cars to compete in favor of older cars.  We're now getting to the point that older cars are being sacrificed in much the same way.  Why isn't there a happy medium?  If the car was as close as it appears, why wasn't it put in ITS at a lighter weight?  Or are the lap times I see locally some kind of fluke?
[snapback]59475[/snapback]​

A quick history lesson....lets just go back to say 1990. At that time, the top ITA dogs were the RX-2, RX-3, and the BMW 2002. Then the RX-7 came and did well, but a top prepped RX-3 never lost to an RX-7...but the 7 had huge numbers and the wins came. Then the CRX was added, and frankly, it was massively under estimated, the car made more power, more torque, handled well, and was hundreds of pounds lighter than the RX-7, and the bar was raised. But remember, there was NO option, PCAs weren't even a concept. The only option was to add to the class, and cars were added to compete, like the Integra, and the 240SX.

Then...to make matters worse, the ECU rule was relaxed, as policing ECUs was beyond the capability of officials, and the newly classed cars got another step up over the "old school" cars.

So I debate that the "old approach" was too conservative, and didn't allow new cars to have a chance...notwithstanding the Neon and such.

As for correcting "mistakes others have made in the past", well, hindsight is 20/20, and I am sure that those who made the classing decisions did so with good reasons, but the current ITAC is taking a very large picture view, and has discussed the situation at length.....how does a 5.5 hour con call sound?

Stay tuned....don't sell the ITAC short quite yet......
 
Originally posted by lateapex911@Sep 1 2005, 07:30 AM

As for correcting "mistakes others have made in the past", well, hindsight is 20/20, and I am sure that those who made the classing decisions did so with good reasons, but the current ITAC is taking a very large picture view, and has discussed the situation at length.....how does a 5.5 hour con call sound?

Stay tuned....don't sell the ITAC short quite yet......
[snapback]59485[/snapback]​

Not only is hindsight 20/20, but armchair quarterback is also the easiest position to play ;)

While I may criticize some of the choices that are made, I still do appreciate the job performed by the Advisory Committees currently. I think the ITAC in particular is a very forward thinking group, and I think that it makes some people, including myself, a little nervous, just because it's hard to glean the exact direction from the limited information that trickles down to the average member. As I said in my first post, the concept of the Miata as an ITA car is growing on me. Also, I do certainly carry some personal baggage because of the Neon thing (like that isn't obvious...). To be honest, I'm not sure the car *could* be competitive in ITS. If the ITAC did its homework (which I figure it did), it should all work out, and at least the current group is open minded enough to plan for corrections and adjustments.

I just wish that the Advisory Committees could publish minutes so that those in the membership who are interested could see what's being discussed. I mean heck, we all second guess you guys already, so why not give us a little more ammo? :023:
 
This is the VW beetle argument all over again. :bash_1_: :014:

How about we let the 1.8L Miata turn one lap before we start talking about it being an overdog? At least then you all might have some facts to argue about... :rolleyes:
 
Originally posted by ShelbyRacer@Sep 1 2005, 05:15 AM
I just wish that the Advisory Committees could publish minutes so that those in the membership who are interested could see what's being discussed.  I mean heck, we all second guess you guys already, so why not give us a little more ammo?  :023:
[snapback]59487[/snapback]​

Yeah, I want to see one of the ITAC members take comprehensive, useful minutes that would make you guys happy. Especially for the July meeting that lasted late into the night..... :119:

And then have them all agree that they are correct. :unsure:
 
Originally posted by OTLimit@Sep 1 2005, 09:05 AM
Yeah, I want to see one of the ITAC members take comprehensive, useful minutes that would make you guys happy.  Especially for the July meeting that lasted late into the night..... :119: 

And then have them all agree that they are correct. :unsure:
[snapback]59498[/snapback]​

LOL! ROTFLMAO....

"I said what?!?!?!"

Seriously, I think you will see a bit of a "position statement" forthcoming in an upcoming Fastrack, plus a lot of other juicy stuff, pending furhter discussion up the line.

I will say this, (and I say this not to represent any individual, but the ITAC 'majority voice', if you will) that the ITAC is VERY aware of past moves (some going back a lot of years) that have resulted in either outright misclassings, or otherwise unintended consequences, and has the moxie to actually consider remedial actions.

The commitee is trying to take a large view, the Bettencourt coined "10,000 foot view", and is trying to create as fair a game as possible.

BUT:

1- There is a chance that, if certain actions come to pass, some toes will be stepped on in the process. "Overdogs" is an issue getting a lot of attention. Some who own the overdog may not like the attention they get, LOL. (Look at the uproar last year regarding the E36 restrictor)

2- Not everybody will end up in a position that they might feel they deserve.

3- We won't be pleasing all of the people all of the time, and the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few, and so on......

That said, the commitee is trying hard to make IT a better place, and has a blueprint drawn for the present and the future. And while 5 hour con call meeting minutes aren't going to be published, I think notes as to certain specifics are being kept for future ITACs to draw upon.
 
So did somebody ask to have the 1.8 Miata classed in IT? And file all the appropriate paper work that has been mentioned in this thread to get other cars classed?

Also, restrictor plates are going to obviously only affect acceleration. Weight affects acceleration, handling, and braking. It would seem to me that using a restrictor plate to correct an underweighted car is not a complete solution. I'm not saying that the 1.8 weight is wrong, but if it is, then saying a restrictor plate will solve everything doesn't make much sense to me.

David
 
Back
Top