Stay in A or move to B?

[Bill Miller]

SPEC 7 and IT7 are a success for the SCCA in terms of the RESULT. The symptom is the considered failure. Just the NEED for such a class is the issue.

Well, there we have it Andy (and who would have thought???). We finally agree on something. You're 110% correct, the symptom is the failure. That symptom being the fact that the IT PP&I is no longer valid. The 1st gen. RX7 folks were just lucky enough that they had enough critical mass to do something about it. And having a mfg that supports motorsports (even at the grassroots level) the way Mazda does, didn't hurt.

I've been saying this for ~ 3 years now.

Here's a thought for the ITA RX7 crowd. Keep 'em in ITA and let them street port the things and add 200# to them!

That should make the Honda/Acura/Nissan crowd happy!

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[ddewhurst]

Being that I have a Spec-7 I have the option to convert to ITA/7 or bigger yet convert to E Production.

The Spec-7 & Spec Miata classes have flurished. Spec-7 in the SoPac, South West, South East & the DC Region. Spec-7 sucks in the CenDiv. Spec Miata has flurished throughout the country. People at the onset want to openly have the ability (they may not have the capability) to race up front. There are lessions to be learned from these Spec classes. Include SRF in this mess of Specs. IMHJ people in these Spec classes call the event "racing the car". In some other classes the event would appear to be "continious development" of the car or "BIG CASH to procure a car".

ITAC members dumping the ITA/7 to B & expecting the 7's folks to sell their 7 inch rims & procure 6 inch rims SUCKS. I happen to have 7" Panasports.

Again to try acheiving some sort of parity for the 7 in ITA what would happen if the 7 weighed 2100 pounds(if at could get there with a 180pound driver) with a lightened flywheel & a smaller diameter clutch & lighter than an OEM ?

Bill, IMHJ the street port is not the economical method to speed up the 7 for ITA.

Have Fun

David

 

[lateapex911]

Two years ago I was commenting on the need for the CRX, et al, to be reigned in, due to:

1- The CRBs mis estimating of the actual performance potential, and the setting of a weight that has proven to be significantly low, and....

2- The recent "competition adjustment" afforded all non carbureted cars that were classified before the ECU rule change.

Unfortunately, for ITA, it wasn't attended to, and actually other cars have been added to the class in such a way as to be competitive with the new top dog.

As a result, every new car built further bleakens the world for any RX-7, or Fiero, or 2002, or MR-2, or whatever driver.

I wish that giving the cars that are popular enough to have established performance benchmarks a weight would be effective, but I'm afraid were talking a heck of a weight break! As it is the CRX has 200 pounds on the RX-7, and is a better handler with a better suspension. I have no idea where I would go to get 150 of those 200 pounds out of my car if I were suddenly given the chance.

I would suggest that there are two scenarios with the RX-7.
A- Reaadjust weights in A. Give the RX-7 a break, and pile on more weight to the CRX, the 240SX, the Miata, and the Integra. IF there are other ITA cars that are well documented as being well developed by more than one talented driver, then they would be considered for a weight break as well. Net of this should benefit more that the RX-7. If the frontrunners are brought backwards, the entire class wins. And any other car that has the credentials to get a break moves up as well. In a perfect world, ALL ITA cars could be considered, but it just won't happen. Too many models with too little data. Again, the needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few. It isn't as Ray suggests, a popularity contest, but an attempt to serve the greatest number of the membership.

Keep in mind, this scenario is HIGHLY unlikely to occur, as the ITAC and the CRB is faced with a huge problem in ITS: What to do with the Neon? (And all the other "tweeners") And the answer is: Move 'em to A. So, ain't no way to slow those cars down THAT much.....

.......or, plan B-
Move to B. Frankly, the RX-7 is off the pace at certain tracks, and seriously off the pace at others in A. As such, it could compete at the front of B with some changes. Ray, if I told you you had to run on 15% narrower rims, AND carry 40 more pounds, would you be happy and consider it an advantage? No, you'd scream holy hell, knowing your lap times would be taking a hit. As it is right now, the RX-7 could be dropped into B, AS IS, and have a fight for the front. Last year the fastest RX-7 at Lime Rock went a high 4, (and I don't think there was one other RX-7 that got into the 5s even once) and the ITB cars were around a 5 flat. A couple tenths isn't a pushover, thats for sure! Add weight and take away rim, and that picture would be different.

Personally, I don't relish the concept of a move to B, but taken in with the big picture, it might be the better move, for all of IT.

------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

 

[cherokee]

If it does move to B then it seems not quite right that it gets to keep it 7" wheels. Thats nuts, we all agreed that B has been frozen in time....so lets take a car from the same time period and drop it in with cars that where classed around the same time....but in a lower class, thats crazy....oh and we will let them run wider wheels too.

You are right...adding tonnage to cars is not the answer, it can't be, you will have to add 3-400# to some cars to bring them back in line. There are only a couple of hings that can happen.

1) Do nothing and let the 7 live on in it's spec classes or to duke it out with the fiero's, MR2's ect.

2) Move it to B and wait for drivers of other mid pack cars in A to chime in with that the precident has been set to move non-competive cars down a class.

3) Car specific CA's once this genie is out of the bottle it is out for good.

What it realy comes down to is should we let the old cars slowly fade away? Only people with true love for the make model run TR8's or GT6's,Chevy corvairs,Opels,240z,cosworth vega,2002...the list goes on and on. Perhaps the 7 is in this company...they are all fantastic cars and people love them but they are not or never where at the top of the field. It might just be evolution.

 

[cherokee]

One more thing:

Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car...

Unless this changes it is all just a fun exercise.

 

[lateapex911]

Originally posted by cherokee:
If it does move to B then it seems not quite right that it gets to keep it 7" wheels. Thats nuts,... ....but in a lower class, thats crazy....oh and we will let them run wider wheels too.

WHERE did you come up with that??? Go back and read my comments. Go back and read Andy's comments. He has NEVER even HINTED at the car going to B on 7" rims. Crazy? What's crazy is thinking a car that is currently turning lap times similar to many B frontrunners is going to speed up on narrower rims while running more weight!

Perhaps you weren't refering to mine or Andy's comments, but as your entry followed mine, I'm at a loss as to where the concept came from.

<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\"> What it realy comes down to is should we let the old cars slowly fade away?  Only people with true love for the make model run TR8's or GT6's,Chevy corvairs,Opels,240z,cosworth vega,2002...the list goes on and on.  Perhaps the 7 is in this company...they are all fantastic cars and people love them but they are not or never where at the top of the field.  It might just be evolution.</font>

Wrong. The cars you list are not even close to the RX-7. A LOT of racers own the car, and it epitomizes the goals of IT! Sure the other cars are great cars, but none of them has the car counts currently, the maunfacturer support, or the aftermarket support that the 7 has.

And falling back on the old crutch is getting tired. No there are no guarantees of competiveness, just as there are none in life. The RX-7 was never dominant, although there was strength in numbers. But why shouldn't the CRB try to do better?? Screwing up, then ponting to the "no guarantees" clause isn't productive.

Nobody wants a free ride, just a chance to race hard, and when things actually go right, the stars align, and you don't screw up, to have your day in the sun.

(And I don't agree with the concept per se, of 'evolution' in rules controlled, competition controlled racing. No reason we can't have the old and the new duking it out if we control it properly.)



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by lateapex911:
Wrong. The cars you list are not even close to the RX-7. A LOT of racers own the car, and it epitomizes the goals of IT! Sure the other cars are great cars, but none of them has the car counts currently, the maunfacturer support, or the aftermarket support that the 7 has.

And falling back on the old crutch is getting tired. No there are no guarantees of competiveness, just as there are none in life. The RX-7 was never dominant, although there was strength in numbers. But why shouldn't the CRB try to do better?? Screwing up, then ponting to the "no guarantees" clause isn't productive.

Nobody wants a free ride, just a chance to race hard, and when things actually go right, the stars align, and you don't screw up, to have your day in the sun.

(And I don't agree with the concept per se, of 'evolution' in rules controlled, competition controlled racing. No reason we can't have the old and the new duking it out if we control it properly.)

Jake,

I think you and John have been spending too much time under the bridge!!! (inside joke).

RX7 never dominant in ITA? C'mon now. Let's not even get into this one.

And could it possibly be that the reason the car counts were up was due to the factory support (and the fact that they were dominant cars)? Kind of a self-fullfilling prophacey (sp?). I contend that the aftermarket for the Rabbit GTI is on par w/ that for the 1st gen RX7. Still a popular car, even though it was never dominant in ITB (can you say Volvo?), and hasn't had any factory support in almost 20 years.

And, are you saying that because the RX7 is in ITA, and that it isn't running at the front, that the CB screwed up?

And I agree, falling back on the IT PP&I is getting old. But here's a news flash, the CB does it all the time, and until the PP&I gets changed, they, and others, will continue to point to it.

And, the RX7 folks do have a chance to race hard, just not necessarily for the win. That my friend, is the story of IT racing. So, either fix the root problem (PP&I), live with it, or move on.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

 

[cherokee]

Sounds like I struck a nerve.
I am sorry that quoting the RULE BOOK is getting old, it's there in black and white, it is the IT Bible you don't like get it changed, did you know about this clause when you started? You knew the rules to the game when you came in...right? Maybe you should have read the book a little closer. Or maybe you should find a way to cheat that is impossible to police, that way they will re-wright the rules for you...just like they did for the ECU cars, after all there is a huge pool of cars out there. I also guess that if there where a huge amount of Triumphs out there you would be talking about them. Those cars are exactly like the 7...they are getting long in the tooth, sorry but that is a fact, News flash the 1gen RX7 is over 20yrs old,just like all the cars that I exampled. BTW I am running a 30+yr old car. Put the same guy in equally prepped VW's and my car and the VW will walk away, but I do know that I have "just a chance to race hard, and when things actually go right, the stars align, and you don't screw up, to have your day in the sun." Just like the 7 does.

"ITAC members dumping the ITA/7 to B & expecting the 7's folks to sell their 7 inch rims & procure 6 inch rims SUCKS. I happen to have 7" Panasports."

This is where that Idea came from, and I would be upset too if I was told I had to sell my new wheels for some 6",gee maybe if all classes got to run the same inch wheels this part would be a non-issue...oops there I go again.

 

[ITSRX7]

We all know that there is no guarantee of competitivness (NGOC). But that doesn't preclude us from trying to make things better.

I find it hard to believe that given the choice, 1st gen RX-7 drivers would rather languish in ITA than add some weight and buy new wheels to have a chance amongst another class.

Is this a case of the vocal minority or are we way off here thinking that giving a large pocket of cars and drivers a better place to play is "right"?

What if each SCCA Region said no to IT7...isn't that the same thing as has been said in a way? "You can't have your own class, I don't care how many of you there are, IT says NGOC - you picked your class - didn't you read the rules you dopes?"

Plllease. We need to make an effort here. Doing it for everyone and every car is a MISTAKE. Doing it for a large group is the right thing IMHO.

If the Cosworth Vega club of America was running a RR series to IT rules and there was a couple hundred of them out there, I would say it would make sense to try and 're-fit' them into IT...

Maybe the big-picture view can be wrong, I don't think so, but I don't know anymore with some of the responses here.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

 

[oanglade]

Originally posted by ddewhurst:
ITAC members dumping the ITA/7 to B & expecting the 7's folks to sell their 7 inch rims & procure 6 inch rims SUCKS. I happen to have 7" Panasports.

I don't think it would suck at all! For one set of 7" Panasports that you sell, you could probably get all the 6" wheels you would need! Well, I'm probably exagerating, but the point is that you would definitely make money on that deal of selling the 7" wheels to buy 6" wheels.


As for:

Originally posted by cherokee:
Entrants shall not be guaranteed the competitiveness of any car...

I don't need them to guarantee it, but I want them to at least make the effort and to correct any gross miscalculation. Otherwise, why don't we just dump all the IT classes into one?

Everytime that line comes up, to me it sounds like "I'm tired and this is such a hassle..."

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA

 

[ddewhurst]

***If the Cosworth Vega club of America was running a RR series to IT rules and there was a couple hundred of them out there, I would say it would make sense to try and 're-fit' them into IT...***

Andy, this is not a whack at you. This is a whack at the SCCA.

To my humble knowledge the SCCA has zero FACTUAL DATA on how many cars of each model are raced. If that is a given how the smell can the ITAC, CRB or the BoD make quality decisions about the cars in the SCCA. & before some of you jump at your key board & start stuttering about the Purpose & Intent just maybe the SCCA should have some factual knowledge about the numbers of models of cars in each race class of the SCCA.

How high on the numbers list do you think the IT class would be. Oil the wheel that brings in the CASH. The hell with it's been like this from the get-go. With their typical responses they are still reminding we poor folks that the WEALTHY started the club. & when track costs got to high for them they let the poor folks in with a SCCA member as a sponser.

Sorry for the rant. If there is some FACTUAL DATA on the numbers of cars/class please post the info.

Have Fun

David

 

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

"Maybe the big-picture view can be wrong, I don't think so, but I don't know anymore with some of the responses here."

I think that we/you/SCCA does need to look at the big picture of rebuilding IT. I think that you should refer to your view not as the big picture but a part of it, it is the large #'s picture.

I don't agree with the large #'s view in an effort to fix the big picture of IT, but I do think that it is a start (or rather a problem that should be part of the big picture that gets fixed). Don't get discouraged with the feedback; just use the feedback to maybe look at a bigger picture. Their are multiple ways to "fix" all of IT,
I think it is a mistake to concentrate only on small parts (even though it is large #'s the RX-& is still just a small part).

Thanks again for your ideas, and your efforts to fix things that need fixing.

Raymond Blethen

PS: I hate it when people think that I don’t want the RX-7 in “B” because I think it will beat me, I am not worried about that at all, I just want the ‘73 ITA Capri that once dominated the Northeast ITA that is in our basement to be moved as well… That would make a very fun ITB car, and I think my dad and crew would love to run that car again.

Dad- 1988 ITA NARRC Champion (Runoffs winner), ‘73 Ford Capri

 

[cherokee]

Originally posted by ITSRX7:

Plllease. We need to make an effort here. Doing it for everyone and every car is a MISTAKE. Doing it for a large group is the right thing IMHO.

A quota system....reverse affermitive action as applied to race cars.

We will have to disagree on this point.

What number is the magic number 5,10,50,1000 cars?
That is my point, doing something to appease the masses is a very wrong reason. If I run a car that is equal to the 7 in every way but name they get to be moved and I don't. How do you write that rule "if more then 10 cars are run in country then you have the abaility to appeal to move classes"...that sounds nutty.

I also think that to have to sell your wheels because (if) your car moved classes is wrong. Sure you can get some of you money back, but not all. And why would I want to, I would need the 7"'s if I ever wanted to run IT7,spec7..., we are not talking about doing away with those classes are we? so I have 6" and 7" to run both places right?
I agree that there are cars in A&S that need to be "adjusted" to bring them in line with everything else that is running in that class. The mistake was made in classing the Honda,BMW... in the first place. Why can't we fix the problem in these cars insted of moving the other cars to different classes?
And I am sorry but I still think that throwing the mass of Rosie O'donnell in cars is the right way to adjust.

apology to Rosie fans

 

[cherokee]

Originally posted by RSTPerformance:

PS: I hate it when people think that I don’t want the RX-7 in “B” because I think it will beat me, I am not worried about that at all, I just want the ‘73 ITA Capri that once dominated the Northeast ITA that is in our basement to be moved as well… That would make a very fun ITB car, and I think my dad and crew would love to run that car again.

Dad- 1988 ITA NARRC Champion (Runoffs winner), ‘73 Ford Capri

Dust that sucker off...it is a real fun car and I had a heck of a good time running with one at Gateway, both of us were having a ball, most fun I have had yet.

Someone suggested a "dionsaur" class be made up for the older cars. I don't think that this is a half bad idea. I think that we could get all the older cars pretty close with out having to spend big $$ on speeding some up and slowing some down.

 

[ITSRX7]

Originally posted by cherokee:
Someone suggested a "dionsaur" class be made up for the older cars. I don't think that this is a half bad idea. I think that we could get all the older cars pretty close with out having to spend big $$ on speeding some up and slowing some down.

They already exist...ITB and ITC. Seriously.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

 

[ITSRX7]

David,

You don't have to be a brain surgeon to know that there is a huge pocket of ITA prepared RX-7's racing out there. It doesn't take more than a 30 minute look at some of the larger Regional web results to know that there is no pocket of 'business' for Cosworth Vega's.

There may not be any hard and fast numbers (and they may be), but we aren't talking about setting up a hard and fast rule on who qualifies for consideration. There are VERY FEW pockets of cars like this. Try and name some others with numbers like the RX-7...

It isn't favoritism either - it's just what makes sense for the MEMBERSHIP AS A WHOLE. Just because 3 guys have dusty Capri's on battery tenders doesn't mean it makes sense to move them. You can't do it for everyone - you just can't. THEN the real move toward Production starts - and we all know we don't want that.

So - UNDERSTANDING that you CAN'T do it for everyone, the question I have for David, Cherokee, Ray-Ray, etc is simple:

If you can't do it for everyone, should you do it for SOME? I say there ARE cases when it makes sense to do so and IMHO, the ITA RX-7 is one that should be heavily considered.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region #188967

 

[cherokee]

Well we will just end it with an "I don't" and I would doubt that many a non 7 driver would agree with it.

And is catering to the 7 drivers serving the membership as a whole?

[This message has been edited by cherokee (edited March 05, 2004).]

 

[Dave Ebersole]

So now you displace, or render completely uncompetitive the many (and there are many!) 2002, VW GTI, and other miscellaneous ITB owners who can run in the top 10.

Why not address the original problem instead of just pushing it off onto smaller collections of cars that don't have the same voice/support?

The RX7 is no longer competitive because of the CRX. So what to do? Make several other makes in another class uncompetitive to bail out the RX7 owners. So typical.
Dave Ebersole
O=00=O
ITB 2002(of course)

[This message has been edited by Dave Ebersole (edited March 05, 2004).]

 

[RacerBill]

'Has anyone really spent the $30k it would take to make a real MR2 race car?'

It seems that if you spend that much, you should have a Prod or a GT car! I must have been wrong when I thought that one of the goals of IT was cost containment!

Well, my car will probably be mid-pack anyway, so if you want to spend $30k instead of only $5k to stay ahead of me, thanks for your support to the economy. I would think it really funny if one would spend that amount of money and still be behind me!

 

[Banzai240]

I am not about to alter the basic IT rules in an effort to cater to ONE marque...

ITC and ITB have 6" wheel width limits. They always have, and, for the forseeable future, they will continue to have these limits. There would be very little right about allowing ONE car to run 7" wheels, while restricting everyone else to 6" widths.

EVERY car that has been reclassified to ITB from ITA has had to face this same challenge. That's the way the rules are written. If you don't like it, then do something to change it.

It would be unfair to those who are currently vested in ITB to suddenly allow one car in the class, that has every potential of being a front-runner, with a special allowance, just because they are a "popular" car.

I came from an RX background, so don't take this the wrong way, but if you don't like the way the IT rules are written, then you have SEVERAL others options for places to race. Choose one that makes you happy.

I have been a strong advocate for trying to get the IT7 cars back into IT racing, but I'm not willing to do it at the expense of current IT competitors. As far as I'm concerned, you can follow the same rules as the rest of us in every aspect, with the exception of the engine rules, or go race somewhere else...

Sorry, I know that is blunt, but this is about multi-marque racing, and is NOT Production. I am not interested in beginning a list of special allowances for specific platforms...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX

[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited March 05, 2004).]