G
Guest
Guest
And my favorite arriving home to the little woman, HERES A 10 FOR THE 300TH POST
http://members.aol.com/fastnblue/a5.jpg
------------------
Daryl Brightwell
ITA RX7 #11
NORPAC
ITA RX7 #77
SOPAC
http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.p...m&cat=500&page=
EP this summer
http://members.aol.com/fastnblue/a5.jpg
------------------
Daryl Brightwell
ITA RX7 #11
NORPAC
ITA RX7 #77
SOPAC
http://www.calclub.com/gallery/showphoto.p...m&cat=500&page=
EP this summer
G
Guest
Guest
Kirk, thanks for your time and effort for showing us what IT could be. I think your suggestions have gone a long way to help reclassify some cars that were in ITS to ITA.
As someone who just bought his first ITA car, I welcome the new cars in ITA.
For the record, I passed up an ITA/7 car that was my school car in the Southeast because it is an underdog here in the NE. I instead bought an overdog, or at the time it seemed like it anyway.
USTCC seems like the closest thing to what I would see as an ideal ruleset for IT... but I know this is not an ideal world. Besides as the new owner of an 89CRX Si, my car would be put to pasture since it has no back seat.
Most of all, I'm really looking forward to just going out and driving/racing.
dave, newbie-dude
As someone who just bought his first ITA car, I welcome the new cars in ITA.
For the record, I passed up an ITA/7 car that was my school car in the Southeast because it is an underdog here in the NE. I instead bought an overdog, or at the time it seemed like it anyway.
USTCC seems like the closest thing to what I would see as an ideal ruleset for IT... but I know this is not an ideal world. Besides as the new owner of an 89CRX Si, my car would be put to pasture since it has no back seat.
Most of all, I'm really looking forward to just going out and driving/racing.
dave, newbie-dude
Bill Miller
New member
What makes you say that Bill? Because I currently drive a Prod car? You can bet that if I had no interest in IT, I sure wouldn't spend time here. BTW, not sure if Chris is still running his car as 'dual purpose' or not, but there are already ITAC members that are racing Prod cars. And, I believe Darin has more posts on the Prod board than he does here. So, I'm not really sure what you meant by that comment.
Andy,
I have never said that whatever formula that would be developed, should be applied to the existing IT cars. Maybe some, yes, but probably not all of them. Here's one of my issues w/ a subjective classification/specification process. Without a defined set of guidelines, what happens when you get new people in that have a different set or priorities? Things change. Wouldn't it have made it a lot easier on you guys had this set of guidelines already been in place?
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Bill,
What is to say that a new set of committee members couldn't tweek, revise or otherwise change that 'formula'? That argument is either valid ALWAYS, regardless of what is in place - or not valid at all. Talk amongst yourselves...
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
What is to say that a new set of committee members couldn't tweek, revise or otherwise change that 'formula'? That argument is either valid ALWAYS, regardless of what is in place - or not valid at all. Talk amongst yourselves...
AB
------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
G
Guest
Guest
I think everyone is overlooking the most important point in classifying and/or trying to find a way to make the older cars in each of the classes at least competitive enough that the drivers will continue to compete in IT
What's the major factor? COST!
When you allow an "overdog" into the class such as the E-36(just as an example) owned and driven by people who have large budgets and then go on to dominate a class as they have here in the DC region, the older cars in the class get parked, or sold.
If you allow cars with 20+ years technology advantage over the rest of the class, and they aren't spec'd properly to keep them from dominating the class, you increase the costs associated with older cars trying to remain at the same level of competition as they once had. Many times, the cars they are dominating are at their highest potential already within the rules. Spending more money on them is wasting money as they will not be able to compete at the same level as they once enjoyed versus the yearly budget to run the car.
IT should not become what caused the downturn in Production car counts. There's a limit to what some people will be willing to pay to go out and have fun on the weekends, and we are seeing decreasing numbers of "older" IT drivers that still compete on a regular basis becuase the price to be competitive in their classes has reached a limit where they aren't getting their money's worth out of their car budgets. They keep spending and spending, yet, they keep getting further and further from the front of the field.
IMO the open ECU rule is as much to blame for the problems as is anything else.
Car A is classified, and then because of the ECU rules, can simply "plug in" an extra 30+hp for X amount of dollars. Cars B, C, D and E that have been competitve for 5-10 years and are prepped to the maximum of the rules, yet have carbs, are at a fixed state. Car A meanwhile, as the driver gets more time behind the wheel decides he can finally afford to do that "high dollar" ECU and suddenly goes from being mixed in the pack of cars B-E, is now running 1-2 seconds faster per lap. Is it fair to the drivers who have supported IT for years to be left in the dust, simply due to a loophole that was left in the rules only due to it being so difficult to police?
Leave the open ECU rule in place, but restrict them with plates to negate a small percentage of the gains they may achieve, or allow the rest of the field PCA's to remain reasonable competitive.
If the IT rules have to be re-written to allow PCA, then so be it. It may be the only way to keep fields full on a regular basis.
What's the major factor? COST!
When you allow an "overdog" into the class such as the E-36(just as an example) owned and driven by people who have large budgets and then go on to dominate a class as they have here in the DC region, the older cars in the class get parked, or sold.
If you allow cars with 20+ years technology advantage over the rest of the class, and they aren't spec'd properly to keep them from dominating the class, you increase the costs associated with older cars trying to remain at the same level of competition as they once had. Many times, the cars they are dominating are at their highest potential already within the rules. Spending more money on them is wasting money as they will not be able to compete at the same level as they once enjoyed versus the yearly budget to run the car.
IT should not become what caused the downturn in Production car counts. There's a limit to what some people will be willing to pay to go out and have fun on the weekends, and we are seeing decreasing numbers of "older" IT drivers that still compete on a regular basis becuase the price to be competitive in their classes has reached a limit where they aren't getting their money's worth out of their car budgets. They keep spending and spending, yet, they keep getting further and further from the front of the field.
IMO the open ECU rule is as much to blame for the problems as is anything else.
Car A is classified, and then because of the ECU rules, can simply "plug in" an extra 30+hp for X amount of dollars. Cars B, C, D and E that have been competitve for 5-10 years and are prepped to the maximum of the rules, yet have carbs, are at a fixed state. Car A meanwhile, as the driver gets more time behind the wheel decides he can finally afford to do that "high dollar" ECU and suddenly goes from being mixed in the pack of cars B-E, is now running 1-2 seconds faster per lap. Is it fair to the drivers who have supported IT for years to be left in the dust, simply due to a loophole that was left in the rules only due to it being so difficult to police?
Leave the open ECU rule in place, but restrict them with plates to negate a small percentage of the gains they may achieve, or allow the rest of the field PCA's to remain reasonable competitive.
If the IT rules have to be re-written to allow PCA, then so be it. It may be the only way to keep fields full on a regular basis.
It certainly doesn't help matters much. IMHO the rule has been opened up too much, but ECU modifications are going to happen whether legal or not because they cannot be policed.
No way. Getting 30hp from remapping the ECU is a pipe dream. Anyone who tells you differntly is trying to sell you something (like their ECU).
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
racerdave600
New member
As someone who has spent 3 years building an underdog ITA car (MR2, looking to be on track this year), I have a bit of interest in this. I was hoping for a reclass or other adjustment, as there is no way that an MR2 can run with some of the other ITA cars. (I'm going to put a friend of mine who is an SCCA and IMSA champion in the car at the ARRC hopefully to get a clearer idea.)
Although I knew this going in, it was my least expensive alternative as I had much of the parts needed, as well as the car. That still doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to have a shot at competitiveness. My take is as follows:
What myself and others want is not to have our cars classed in such a way that in dominates, all we want is a place that as our development as drivers, and as our cars are prepared to a higher level takes place, that we have some chance of running at or near the front. Most people do this because they are competitive and like to race, not because they have money to throw away and this seems like a good idea.
What the SCCA lacks in my opinion is the insight that people use up their disposable income on a hobby that at a stroke of a pen, can render their investment totally worthless. Nothing is harder to sell that an outdated uncompetitive race car.
A case in point, my friend who has 4 National titles in Solo II (DSP), has had the value in his car dropped to about a 4th of what it was only 2 years ago simply because of car classing. His car is developed to the point where there is no more legally (over 200 dyno pulls alone testing various exhaust set ups and fuel curves etc.) to be had. I have other road racing examples as well, but you get the idea. I'm sure there are a few ITS guys who can relate.
Although no one builds a race car as an investment, there are still many of us that can't afford to build new cars everytime the SCCA decides it wants to obsolete something, and I for one would look for alternative series to go play.
Having crewed in IMSA, Nascar, and SCCA, I can say that this is not limited to this club, but the big difference is that this is not professional. It's guys like myself that do this for the fun of it in a "club" atmosphere that do spend a large chunk of our disposable income on a sport we love. For most of us, we will never move on, but we would still like to be able to excel in our chosen area of play if we choose to develop in that direction.
I'm kinda rambling here, but I do feel that if the SCCA drops the ball on IT, it stands to open the door up more for many other series to come in and take up the slack. If that happens, it can weaken the structure further up the ladder. There is a big picture here to consider as well.
Just my thoughts...
Dave
Although I knew this going in, it was my least expensive alternative as I had much of the parts needed, as well as the car. That still doesn't mean that I wouldn't like to have a shot at competitiveness. My take is as follows:
What myself and others want is not to have our cars classed in such a way that in dominates, all we want is a place that as our development as drivers, and as our cars are prepared to a higher level takes place, that we have some chance of running at or near the front. Most people do this because they are competitive and like to race, not because they have money to throw away and this seems like a good idea.
What the SCCA lacks in my opinion is the insight that people use up their disposable income on a hobby that at a stroke of a pen, can render their investment totally worthless. Nothing is harder to sell that an outdated uncompetitive race car.
A case in point, my friend who has 4 National titles in Solo II (DSP), has had the value in his car dropped to about a 4th of what it was only 2 years ago simply because of car classing. His car is developed to the point where there is no more legally (over 200 dyno pulls alone testing various exhaust set ups and fuel curves etc.) to be had. I have other road racing examples as well, but you get the idea. I'm sure there are a few ITS guys who can relate.
Although no one builds a race car as an investment, there are still many of us that can't afford to build new cars everytime the SCCA decides it wants to obsolete something, and I for one would look for alternative series to go play.
Having crewed in IMSA, Nascar, and SCCA, I can say that this is not limited to this club, but the big difference is that this is not professional. It's guys like myself that do this for the fun of it in a "club" atmosphere that do spend a large chunk of our disposable income on a sport we love. For most of us, we will never move on, but we would still like to be able to excel in our chosen area of play if we choose to develop in that direction.
I'm kinda rambling here, but I do feel that if the SCCA drops the ball on IT, it stands to open the door up more for many other series to come in and take up the slack. If that happens, it can weaken the structure further up the ladder. There is a big picture here to consider as well.
Just my thoughts...
Dave
I think this is a valid concern. This is a difficult issue. You did know going in that you had no guarantees. I do think that we need to explore this issue more and that there is more that can be done in this area. But, there are others who have an equally valid point that there a no guarantees and no comp adjustments.
But as you know, there is no provision to assure this. That said, I want the same thing and I agree that probably most people want the same thing. The difficulty lay in determining the performance potential of every car before they are built. And therein lay the problem. So, short of comp adjustments (which still don't guarantee squat and make for a moving target) what do you propose?
First of all, we (you, me, everyone who is a member) are the SCCA. The SCCA is not some robot or some computer that makes arbitrary decisions. That said, I think the ITAC we have now is accutely aware of this and is trying to take some active steps to improve matters, but it's not a simple matter.
I can assure you that every member of the ITAC falls into the description you just gave.
And I think the current ITAC generally (although not unanamously) feels the same way.
Yes, these are just words, but we are finally starting to see positive steps and I think we will see more. That is my opinion. IT, IMHO is not broken (it's in fact quite healthy), but also IMHO it needs some updating to it's largely 20+ year old rules.
------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
LOL - that's what you call a few very well thought out reclassifications and adjustments that virtually everyone applauded? I recall the only complaints I've heard were that they were long overdue. We should all be happy that Grumpy Miller isn't in charge. Bill, can you think of anything positive to say about the most successful amateur road race class in the country if not the world?
[This message has been edited by Jake (edited April 19, 2004).]
Agreed, that is probably what most people want. The problem is that if your not yet fully developed car is capable of winning or beating fully developed cars (assuming equally driven), what happens when your car is fully developed?
IT is a happy "resting" place for many racers. They aren't moving on to bigger and better. It is still, in the grand scheme of things, a cheap place to race. Therefore well within the means of many who choose to race there. When that is the case you are going to have to race against people that have been doing this gig for a long time. You can't expect to beat them while you and your car are still in the early stages.
The only way I have seen this avoided in other lower cost forms of racing is some type of rule that excludes drivers with certain accomplishments from racing in certain classes.
Bill Miller
New member
Not exactly Andy. How do you figure that a futer ITAC/CB could change the guidelines w/o putting it out for review, or providing some valid justification as to why a change was needed?
Ok Jake, how do you explain how a car is 'too fast' to be reclassified one month, and two months later, the same car is one of these 'well thought out' reclassifications that you mention? Or, how one car gets moved, yet two VERY similar ones w/ the same powerplant don't (FX16 vs. AW11 MR2 and AE86 Corolla)?
And positive things about IT? Yeah, it's a great category that has plenty of room for improvement.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
Banzai240
New member
Hey Miller... You are bitching at the wrong people and you know it. You are VERY well aware by now that the ITAC is NOT the group making the final decisions on these issues. We've told you where we stand on them. We are NOT the final word.
This can be explained VERY simply... The ITAC, in both cases, recommended the changes. In the first, the CRB shot it down. The ITAC then insisted on keeping the issue open, and were able to convince them to change their opinion.
On the second, the majority on the ITAC recommended the move. The CRB shot it down. Some on the ITAC insisted on keeping the issue open. The CRB still shot it down.
Hey, we tried, and continue to do so (I think another letter on the MR2 is on the books right now, so it will get addressed again and, once again, I will fight like Heck to get it moved...)
You don't like whats happening... How about focusing your animosity toward your area Directors... they are the ones that pick the CRBs and the CRBs pick the ACs, and the BoD, along with the CRB, are the ones that make the ultimate decisions in these cases...
But then, you know that already, now, don't you...?
------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 20, 2004).]
G
Guest
Guest
gettim Darin, Dave, you sound like a guy thats raced outside this club most of his life like me, and cant quite understand some of the logic thats passed as logic here so long. I got into this club building a PRO7 car, disagreed with the roll cage rules (no stiffening) and switched it over to ITA not realizing the extent of the "intent" rule. Never would have built it if I knew, 12k later im stuck with a backmarker. Stupid me. I fought the ECU rule and won with the "No added external sensors" added to the GCR, so dont think I havnt tried to fix what I can. But the no comp adjustments EVER rule means ill never be happy here and that and the train of thought of some that frequently show their moronic veiws here convinced me to spend another 25k to race in EP where there is at least a shread of thought put into competitiveness being an important part of why a guy would spend thousands of dollars for recreation. Its lame and unheard of to have a set of rules written in this way. good luck with your MR2 and because I own a P.O.S. I cant sell ill no dought have a stake in this bastard class as long as it is run this way. PCA'S are a start, but I would like to see the members have more input into true comp adjustments so people dont have to spend 50k in three years to be competitive. rant mode off, I've just spent 10 hours shaping bondo and fiberglass, can you tell?
Bill Miller
New member
Listen Darin,
That comment was made in response to a comment Jake made. I had originally commented about decisions that seemed to have no 'rhyme or reason'. We all know that the ITAC has no decision-making authority. You've made that painfully clear, time and again. We don't need to rehash how the ITAC has been thrwon under the bus by the CB in FasTrack.
Anyway, that's not the point. I was complaining about decisions that were made w/o rhyme or reason. And since the ITAC doesn't make decisions, and since I didn't mention the ITAC, you can safely assume that I wasn't complaining about the ITAC. So get over yourself already.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
That comment was made in response to a comment Jake made. I had originally commented about decisions that seemed to have no 'rhyme or reason'. We all know that the ITAC has no decision-making authority. You've made that painfully clear, time and again. We don't need to rehash how the ITAC has been thrwon under the bus by the CB in FasTrack.
Anyway, that's not the point. I was complaining about decisions that were made w/o rhyme or reason. And since the ITAC doesn't make decisions, and since I didn't mention the ITAC, you can safely assume that I wasn't complaining about the ITAC. So get over yourself already.
------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
I've seen cars gain that and maybe a bit more only messing with A/F ratios and ignition timing, but I bet that the cars whose ECU controls cam timing, for example, can get quite more than that.
(now, back to the regular topic programming...)
------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA