Street tires in IT? My Review

[Knestis]

It's a legitimate point that engines are simply better than they were when the IT eligibility window opened (1968). It's also fair to propose that internal tweaks simply aren't going to return the competitive value as a typical "real" IT build on a less optimized-as-stock engine. But the stock-engines model, as attractive as it might seem, is a different category - Touring.

Touring is a convergence between where "trunk kit" SS was not long ago and what IT started as. Problem is that the slowest class T4 is full of ITS-ish cars. You're talking about stock engines, in ITC-ITB power land, with IT suspension. You're talking about B Spec. Plug the next-higher performance envelope of new cars into the mix and call it T5. Take the last step and allow springs/dampers/bars (like Touring SHOULD do anyway). Soup.

K

 

[pfcs]

works for me.....

but maybe my attachment to IT makes me reluctant to re-invent the class somewhere else. IT, IMO, isn't in the greatest place today. It has become too expensive and complicated for any number of reasons, some of them preventable; and there are so many other opportunities beckoning IT racers to stray, whether to another organization or class.
Numbers are down from 15 years and I don't see that trend reversing, especially in the new economy. Bread and butter issues matter. Maybe T4 & 5 would work-we DO need another class, don't we? NOT!
I feel that ITC & ITB are were the spawning grounds for the grass roots that launched that great improved touring momentum-most of which is lost and, also, unfortunately forgotten. I still see it having the possibility of a renaissance.
And regarding B & C driver's being resentful for a class reinvigorated? Why?

 

[pfcs]

It's a legitimate point that engines are simply better than they were when the IT eligibility window opened (1968). It's also fair to propose that internal tweaks simply aren't going to return the competitive value as a typical "real" IT build on a less optimized-as-stock engine. But the stock-engines model, as attractive as it might seem, is a different category - Touring.
K

Consider that the overbore rule is 63 production rules-rules that governed cars that in 63 included MG TDs and Healy 100/4s, etc. Wasn't really that relevant to most 68 blocks, but in the 80s manufacturers turned a page. When was the last time you had a ring job?

 

[RSTPerformance]

Wow... This thread goes from a review and "announcement" of a local series to a fight over tire rules that don't exist (did anyone actually write the CRB after all that?), to engine rules...

Raymond "forget all this other stuff Santa, i just want new FIA belts so I can put those perfectly good out dated ones that are in my racecar now back on a shelf - time sure goes by fast..." Blethen

 

[Knestis]

IT became expensive for ONE REASON - competitiveness. And it hasn't been a bolt-in-a-cage-and-race deal since the late '80s.

Reluctance to let the category "go National" left room for Prep 2 Production and ST, both of which are pretty IT-like, and effectively doomed Improved Touring.

K

 

[Ron Earp]

I agree with you Kirk and your prognosis is what concerns me about IT, not relatively minor issue engine rules or dead classes (ITC, less than 50 entries for 2013 in the entire SE Division, <3% of total, and most of those entries are from three competitors).

There are too many competing classes drawing on IT and the most threatening come from within the SCCA. Cannibals are we. The organization has too many classes and still maintains the National/Regional distinction, much to the detriment for the average ametuer racer that pays the bills and keeps the lights on.

 

[lawtonglenn]

...Cannibals are we. The organization has too many classes and still maintains the National/Regional distinction...

+1

which is the main source of my heartburn about sub-classes and sub-sub-classes


.

 

[gran racing]

Put it out for member input, along with wheel size option to 7in for B and C. Pretty sure that the results will surprise.

I have a difficult time believing that existing racers want to go out and replace all of their wheels. New people to the sport? That I'd buy much more so.

Your screwing everyone in the class that already did the build.

Well, not really. The new cars would use an adjusted classification calculation. I can agree on the point where it's time for me to build a new engine this winter and not having to worry about the block would be nice. If I fell into one of those who still needed to, I can see how I'd fall into one of those who got screwed. Tough call.

 

[quadzjr]

I have a difficult time believing that existing racers want to go out and replace all of their wheels. New people to the sport? That I'd buy much more so.

I agree with Dave, people that want if for a performance gain (like myself)I would like it, if I was building something. However I have already spent a metric crap ton on 14x6 and 15x6 wheels to supply the car with a qualifying set, racing set, spare set, and rain set. Going to a 7" wheel when the current rule currently satisfyies everything.. just would put a thorn in my side. What it would do is create a bigger gap between top level teams and the mid pack.

Most of ITB/ITC runs on a 205 wheel anyways. This fits (both R comp and street tire) just nicely. There are a few of us (myself included) that run 225 R comps on 6" wheels.. not sure if a 225 street tire will fit on a 6" wheel. somebody would have to try it out.

Well, not really. The new cars would use an adjusted classification calculation. I can agree on the point where it's time for me to build a new engine this winter and not having to worry about the block would be nice. If I fell into one of those who still needed to, I can see how I'd fall into one of those who got screwed. Tough call.

I am in the boat of having to source a new block as of yesterday.. built it to the tilt the first time around.. lasted a few years. Unitl something changes the new motor will be built in a similiar fashion.. but not as extreme or as $$$. Cubic dollars for tenths of hp.. pointless.

 

[gran racing]

Interesting participation numbers (on the SCCA.com site) since we’re talking about that…
ITR 248
ITS 947
IT7 255
ITA 1354
ITB 601
ITC 219

For a total of 3626. The vast majority are from the North East and South East. Any speculation why IT isn’t nearly as popular in other areas of the country?

SM 3148
SRF 1891
FV 649

I’d say IT is still very relevant.

 

[pfcs]

regarding dumping the block prep and running stock motors: my vision would apply to new/modern cars classed in B&C; rules for engine prep would remain for legacy cars. (although I for-see how an allowance [weight] could be made for stock engines, I don't see it working too well because many cars as currently classed can't lose any more. Move a B car to C might be possible for them but everything [obviously] depends on the community)

Regarding wheels: If I still was running my Golf, I sure would run the 28 6x14s I had, sty least until I saw a significant advantage of changing.

"I’d say IT is still very relevant."
Agree! The point is to keep it relevant-those who don't see how challenged it currently is have there heads in the sand.

 

[Xian]

Most of ITB/ITC runs on a 205 wheel anyways. This fits (both R comp and street tire) just nicely. There are a few of us (myself included) that run 225 R comps on 6" wheels.. not sure if a 225 street tire will fit on a 6" wheel. somebody would have to try it out.

A 225 street tire will "fit" on a 15x6 but it's not any faster than a 205. Street tire effectiveness is severely limited when you go wider in tread width than the wheel width. IIRC, Andy Hollis did some testing with 205 vs. 225's and ended up running the same times when they were both mounted on 15x7.5's (or 15x8's?). It wasn't until the 225 was on something like a 15x9 that it becomes the faster tire. Regardless, given IT's current wheel rules, a 205 is almost certainly going to be the fastest/best option for 15x6 wheels and *in most cases* for 15x7 wheels. The one caveat to this would be the heavier cars (2400+) where I can see the additional heat capacity of the 225 being advantageous even if you can't put the full tread to use.

 

[jjjanos]

Well, not really. The new cars would use an adjusted classification calculation. I can agree on the point where it's time for me to build a new engine this winter and not having to worry about the block would be nice. If I fell into one of those who still needed to, I can see how I'd fall into one of those who got screwed. Tough call.

Yes, really.

(numbers for example purposes only):

I can race an ITA car in ITB that will cost me $2500 or I can race an actual ITB car that will cost me $3000 to build the engine. What do you think will happen to the price of that ITB car?

Now, you can class that ITB car without the IT-engine prep down into ITC (so that when the race motor craps out, he can slap a junkyard motor into the car and be competitive), but what are you going to do about the ITC guys (not that there are many left...)? And, doesn't that defeat the purpose of having larger fields in each class?

 

[pfcs]

trying out street tires ...

is pretty economical.

 

[jjjanos]

Interesting participation numbers (on the SCCA.com site) since we’re talking about that…
ITR 248
ITS 947
IT7 255
ITA 1354
ITB 601
ITC 219

For a total of 3626. The vast majority are from the North East and South East. Any speculation why IT isn’t nearly as popular in other areas of the country?

SM 3148
SRF 1891
FV 649

I’d say IT is still very relevant.

Need to look at the % of entries in each division. If 100% of the entries in MidDiv were IT, their car count probably still would be dwarfed by the NEDIV IT entries.

 

[pfcs]

"Yes, really.
(numbers for example purposes only):
I can race an ITA car in ITB that will cost me $2500 or I can race an actual ITB car that will cost me $3000 to build the engine. What do you think will happen to the price of that ITB car?"

Cost to built it? Or value if you sell? Unless you can take the stock engine option, nothing different to build it. If you are looking at the car as an investment, very little (as always), although if the stock engine option exists, it would be easy to sell with a handgrenaded motor!

"Now, you can class that ITB car without the IT-engine prep down into ITC (so that when the race motor craps out, he can slap a junkyard motor into the car and be competitive [EDIT-with addt'l weight!]), but what are you going to do about the ITC guys (not that there are many left...)? And, doesn't that defeat the purpose of having larger fields in each class?"

Not really. This way of classifying newer cars into B & C should make building a car MUCH cheaper and encourage new blood. How many would join us if there was a much cheaper option to build a competitive race car in B&C? Do the majority of the B&C entrants expect to cash in their car for a large amount of money? NO! Only the minority who are pushing this envelope to the max with uber-builds and trailer queens. Sorry if I seem condescending, but let them eat cake! Racecars were never a good investment. A problem in B & C is the graying of the cars that exist-the majority are pretty old and used-up. This might revitalize the gene-pool if people with tired A1s. A2s, 142Es, etc saw an economical way to jump ship and stop hoarding extinct parts. As far as the possibility of moving a B car into C: if I were one of the few ITC guys left, I would be so happy to see them coming!

 

[dickita15]

For a total of 3626. The vast majority are from the North East and South East. Any speculation why IT isn’t nearly as popular in other areas of the country?

One of the major factors has been that in parts of the country that have less racing most of the races were Nationals. NE and SE have always had more regional racing than national racing. If I lived in the flyover state I never would have got an IT car. There were not enough chances to race it.
Now with Nationals gone and the new world order being Majors and Divisional Championship events which IT is eligible the bias may change a little, but I imagine it will take years.

 

[gran racing]

Ah, thanks for the explaination. Interesting.

 

[autoxmike]

Cage should fix most of that twisty loading stuff. Most of it.

Another idea Ron, Jeff and I were kicking around yesterday was this. SM gets a great deal on SM6 tires. They do so by negotiation.

What if IT did sometihng similar for the 4-5 most popular sizes? 245/50/15, 225/45/15, 205/50/15, 225/45/13? Last check the SM6 was about $50 per tire less than the equivalent non SM6 tire.

But I thought your position was that cheaper tires won't make for cheaper racing? Why bother?

Why not ask Hoosier to raise prices - this should make everyone spend more of their budget on tires and therefor have less to spend on cheaty bits.

Tongue on cheek - kind of....

 

[autoxmike]

Good discussion that I've just spent the last few hours catching up on. I am with Chip 1000% on this. What I like is that Chip's idea is more about changing the culture - not the rules.

The "End Game" question is interesting. I'll take a shot... I hear many people lamenting the passing of the early days of IT. This tells me that there is a gap in the bottom of the SCCA race class structure pyramid. The gap is for a class where one can be competitive and do it for less $$$ than today running IT or the other SCCA classes. What is the formula? Who knows - but I bet one part of it includes tires more like the current street tires and less like Hoosiers. Maybe the Street Tire Challenge class and some of the other lower cost/street tire initiatives will draw racers that yearn for the early IT days - even if they do not know it. And maybe there will be a push to make even one class for affordable & competitive racing. And maybe the rules makers will use the experiences of IT costs escalating to write a rule set that inherently does a better job of controlling costs.

Or maybe not. Maybe nothing comes of all this. But if the SCCA ends up with a single class that is cheaper than IT and attracts new racers - that would be a good thing IMHO.