The ITR Star Chamber

At some point, I believe there is a wt/pwr threshold that has an effect on the safety rules mandated for a racing class... I may be wrong, but I think that, at some point, once you exceed a certain threshold, you move out of the realm of IT cage legality and start getting into GT style requirements...

I may be wrong... Just thought I read that somewhere in the past... The numbers you mention here are approaching GT-1 numbers. I'm pretty sure that stricter safety regs would be required at that point...
[/b]
Click to expand...

The stocker is setup like a Nextel Cup car - safety cage is a GT-1 safety level. I'd race in GT-1 but is seems like SPO is the Nascar class. I'd like to put ITE on the door so I can run enduros, but the speed differential would be big. Doubt it would be allowed.
 
The stocker is setup like a Nextel Cup car - safety cage is a GT-1 safety level. I'd race in GT-1 but is seems like SPO is the Nascar class. I'd like to put ITE on the door so I can run enduros, but the speed differential would be big. Doubt it would be allowed. [/b]
Click to expand...

Ben, put some DOT racing on it and you'll be legal. Any previously pro series car can run ITE. Don't worry about about the speed, they will get out of the way. :D This exactly why I got out of ITEverything.
 
In all the debate I haven't seen any inquiry into allowing AWD in ITR. There have been numerous people questioning about the Subaru 2.5 RS and they still seem to have nowhere to go. I'm sure they will be way underpowered for a class like this, but at least that will give them a place to race away from the autocross, and the inability to make the power of the other proposed cars seems to negate the AWD advantage that so many people overestimate at a low prep level such as IT.
 
In all the debate I haven't seen any inquiry into allowing AWD in ITR. There have been numerous people questioning about the Subaru 2.5 RS and they still seem to have nowhere to go. I'm sure they will be way underpowered for a class like this, but at least that will give them a place to race away from the autocross, and the inability to make the power of the other proposed cars seems to negate the AWD advantage that so many people overestimate at a low prep level such as IT. [/b]
Click to expand...

Joel,

One of the goals for the proposal is to not change any rules. This is destined to fail should rules differ between classes instide a category. Besides, there is NO WAY a 164hp 2.5RS could compete in ITR at those power levels unless you gave it some sort of power allowance - see my first point above. And who would build one that could never win?

AWD may come, but it won't be in ITR - at least right away.
 
Well it could be but it depends on the CRB and the BOD.
If everyone who has the ear of someone on either of those boards tell that person that we are in need of a class above ITS and if there is not a lot of controversy over the details of the final proposal and if the “no new class people” are not threatened by a regional only class.
It is possible it could be voted in August for 07 implementation.
 
Is the RX8 on the list? I have seen some comments about it being too powerful for the class. Based on the Grand Am power numbers that are spot on for IT prep levels--it should fit well. And yes--I will build one.
 
Steve, right now it is out for two reasons, one technical one more problematic.

1. I believe first year of manufacture was 2003 (or 2004), so technically not eligible for IT racing until 2008 at least.

2. The group's initial opinion is that the car is too powerful for ITR, given the known gains you can make with a rotary with exhaust, etc. If you have some dyno info to the contrary, would love to see it. Anything more than 280-300 at the crank or 230 or so at the wheels is going to be a problem.

Thanks Steve.

See you at Roebling I hope.

Jeff
 
Jeff,
Would this class (ITR) be ready to go in 2007?
[/b]
Click to expand...

(Ooops...sorry, I just saw you asked earlier, and that you readressed this to jeff, but hey, i wrote all this crap, so I'm leavin' it!)

It's possible........

But...that's only IF certain events occur.

1- A large and undeniable groundswell of grassroots support from real members who want to build cars nd who write to the SCCA.

2- The CRB and the BoD get behind it, and quickly. It takes time to get things on the dockets for meetings. IF the ITAC likes it, it passes it to the CRB...who then put it on their list. When they get to it, they discuss it, and A: Reject it flatly, B Reject it for more info, or C, pass it up to the BoD, who put it on their list, and get to it when they have a chance. Then it goes thru the same process. You can see how it could take months. I suspect, at some point, one of the boards will likely want it put out for member feedback....IF we're lucky!

3- All of which presumes that the BoD is willing to do the same for IT that they did for Touring, which is to create a class from the top own, skipping the standard "regional implementation" method. (such as how Spec Miata came to be)

#3 Is a HUGE presumption. But #1 could have a positive effect.

The likely response could be: "If there is so much support, let them build the cars, and when we see them, we'll make the class."

Another response could be, (By the CRB to the ITAC, which, if it likes the presentation, will present to the CRB): You've got 4 classes, if you want, just class them all in ITS and move everybody else down a class. We are not creating any new classes at this time"

(Clearly that puts the ITC cars in a bind)

Getting beyond the current climate of "No new classes" will be the hardest part. The BoD is struggling with undersubscibed classes at the Runoffs, but the defensive patrons of those classes...who are very vocal, and the current 25 National classes that they need to cram into a Runoffs program that has 24 spots.

We will need to remind and impress that this won't add to the troubles, and will actually help solve other SCCA problems like the graying of members (newer cars) the issues with member retention (going to marque clubs & NASA) and the recruitment of new members (Cool new cars, easy to prep).

Honestly, it makes all the sense in the world to do this, but it will be a huge uphill and long battle to convince those in charge of that.
 
For the record, I'm very much a "we have too many classes" guy, but we NEED this class for IT.

What SCCA needs in terms of class reduction is to ditch a couple of those national classes that see 1 or 2 cars in most regions (oops! Did I say that out loud?).
 
For the record, I'm very much a "we have too many classes" guy, but we NEED this class for IT.

What SCCA needs in terms of class reduction is to ditch a couple of those national classes that see 1 or 2 cars in most regions (oops! Did I say that out loud?).
[/b]
Click to expand...
I'd second that, except that it would come back to bite me in the ass about ITC.
 
For the record, I'm very much a "we have too many classes" guy, but we NEED this class for IT.

What SCCA needs in terms of class reduction is to ditch a couple of those national classes that see 1 or 2 cars in most regions (oops! Did I say that out loud?).
[/b]
Click to expand...

Agreed, I'm not sure about other regions, but here in CFR there is a HUGE IT community and we just keep growing. Another step up in the IT ranks is inevitable, and would really gather more interest in the club with the greater variety of cars that would now be included. I really don't WANT to see any other classes get broken up, but the fact of the matter is that SCCA needs to cater to the masses rather than the few. Wouldn't it be great if we had the time and resources to have a class for every single watchamacallit? There are limits to classification, so we do need to be sure (as I was corrected about the AWD question I had asked earlier) that an ITR class eases into the current rules set of IT. I do have doubts, however, as to how many cars will actually fit into such a class, so I'll just watch and see.
 
(Ooops...sorry, I just saw you asked earlier, and that you readressed this to jeff, but hey, i wrote all this crap, so I'm leavin' it!)

It's possible........

But...that's only IF certain events occur.

1- A large and undeniable groundswell of grassroots support from real members who want to build cars nd who write to the SCCA.

2- The CRB and the BoD get behind it, and quickly. It takes time to get things on the dockets for meetings. IF the ITAC likes it, it passes it to the CRB...who then put it on their list. When they get to it, they discuss it, and A: Reject it flatly, B Reject it for more info, or C, pass it up to the BoD, who put it on their list, and get to it when they have a chance. Then it goes thru the same process. You can see how it could take months. I suspect, at some point, one of the boards will likely want it put out for member feedback....IF we're lucky!

3- All of which presumes that the BoD is willing to do the same for IT that they did for Touring, which is to create a class from the top own, skipping the standard "regional implementation" method. (such as how Spec Miata came to be)

#3 Is a HUGE presumption. But #1 could have a positive effect.

The likely response could be: "If there is so much support, let them build the cars, and when we see them, we'll make the class."

Another response could be, (By the CRB to the ITAC, which, if it likes the presentation, will present to the CRB): You've got 4 classes, if you want, just class them all in ITS and move everybody else down a class. We are not creating any new classes at this time"

(Clearly that puts the ITC cars in a bind)

Getting beyond the current climate of "No new classes" will be the hardest part. The BoD is struggling with undersubscibed classes at the Runoffs, but the defensive patrons of those classes...who are very vocal, and the current 25 National classes that they need to cram into a Runoffs program that has 24 spots.

We will need to remind and impress that this won't add to the troubles, and will actually help solve other SCCA problems like the graying of members (newer cars) the issues with member retention (going to marque clubs & NASA) and the recruitment of new members (Cool new cars, easy to prep).

Honestly, it makes all the sense in the world to do this, but it will be a huge uphill and long battle to convince those in charge of that. [/b]
Click to expand...

Thanks for answering Jake. There are some BMW owners who are trying to sell their cars because of recent events. If there is a possibility of this happening........you understand what I'm getting at.

I'm afraid if this gets to the BoD, well, it won't happen in my life time. :D Miracles happen sometimes? I can't understand the command flow here. The BoD should stay out of things only as a last resort. They should be a review only when it comes to Competition rules and classes. This is like Congress telling the military how to run a war! We would lose again. If we need it, lets shi% or get off the pot.
 
I am drafting my letter to request a class above ITS now...Look at the numbers for SCCA...IT is probably the best subscribed group out there (SM a close second and SRF prob 3rd). If you add another class and put the real big dogs there, ITS and down will become more pure and maybe have less ultra high dollar guys trying to buy championships...not so good for ITS but good for the class overall. The only downfall is that ITC will probably suffer the most. It is a very unsubscribed class and only getting worse. I guess you could help the majority of them by allowing the ITC group to upgrade to ITB or ITA with swaps...but a whole different can...i guess you could grandfather the already built cars in...
 
Evan, no need for a letter asking for a new class at this time. We have a pretty firmed up proposal, with a detailed spreadsheet of cars, etc. Once it goes in, THEN let's get a massive letter writing campaign to support it.

If you are at Roebling this weekend, I'll be there -- let's talk.

Jeff
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top