The new ITA class

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Originally posted by Knestis:
I'm still tending toward positive on the changes that are afoot - seriously - but it's a shame that our system makes real strategic thinking impossible.
Click to expand...

It's not impossible. It's just a bit more difficult and slow because of the way the category has developed over the last 20+ years.

It would not be pragmatic, nor even advisable to turn IT upside down by introducing totally formulaic classifications. The risk of screwing up what is actually a good thing (despite certain gripes) is very very high. Like porting a head, it would be much easier to get it wrong than to improve it.

That said, I think there is strategic thinking going on (concurrently with dealing with smaller issues - individual member requests). This is not IMSA, NASCAR, the IRL, or F1, where effectively, one person just wills something to happen. Developing a solid strategy does take time - especially in a volunteer organization with postions that rotate.

The other things that separates SCCA Club Racing from the organizations mentioned above is that it's not a business. It's a club. A club by and for its members. As such, we cannot just blow off a bunch of members (such as those at the bottom end of ITC). They deserve as much representation as those who are at the top of ITS or the bottom of ITS if you prefer. Creating a strategy that includes them within a 4 class structure is not so easy.

There is currently no Grand Strategy in IT, but it's being discussed. That's as much as I should really say. But be assured, it's on the minds of those who are responsible for the future of IT.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com
 
Kirk, exactly (the first part). ITA is serving the cars that IT2 meant to serve. At least one problem solved.

I am very happy with the changes that are occuring. As for the RX7 - I also don't like the Spec thing. It's a big bandaid in my opinion. I would love to see it dropped to B with a handicap. However, note this from May fasttrack:

"3. Reclassify the 1987 Toyota MR2.
(Fisher) Considering the performance
potential of the car, it is correctly classified
now."

I would argue that the RX7 is more competitive than the MR2 - so this doesn't bode well for them. The only thing the RX7 has going for them is more power in numbers. Maybe collectively they can make a better stink than I could. Most have already abandoned their ITA MR2's so nobody really cares anymore.
 
First, as a disclaimer, let me say that I was and still am completely in favor of reclassifying the MR2 to ITB at a weight of around 2450lbs... It should have moved with the FX-16 in my opinion...

That being said, I find it somewhat interesting that everyone keeps screaming about how uncompetitive the RX-7 is in ITA, yet one of those on the ITAC that has been opposed to moving this car to ITB RACES A 1st Gen RX-7 in ITA...
confused.gif


I've seen many of the RX-7s out here, and I am CERTAIN that there is a LOT more development that can be done to them... If you guys are complaining about being slow, yet you are running factory rebuild or otherwise budget motors... if you are running bolt-on headers and exhaust... if you are running the same Tokico shocks that everyone else is running... the same Ground Control suspension system... etc... Well... Perhaps it's time for some to get back to the drawing board and see what you can do, rather than relying on what the GC guys or your paddock buddy says will work...

RX-7s were always considered a good fit for ITA because you could compete with a wrecking yard motor and bolt-on suspensions... This, in my opinion, does not a fully developed car make...

I'm not meaning any offense to those out there who are truely building fully done machines, but if one of the ITAC races one and is happy with the car in the class... what does he know that you don't?

So, honest question here... What are you guys considering "developed", "complete", or whatever else you want to name having a well-prepared racecar?

(Oh, and by the way... before you really go off on me, let me also disclose, that I lean toward the opinion that the car would make a great ITB car at a higher weight... around 2450 or so... or maybe closer to the spec-7 weight... What is the Spec 7 weight for these???)


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg


[This message has been edited by Banzai240 (edited April 07, 2004).]
 
RX7s have been competitive in the SF region in ITA. For example, The top 7 spots at the recent 4/3-4 regional at Infinion race were all RX7s. In addition, the top 7 RX7s were all faster than the current ITB track record with the 2 fastest RX7s besting the ITB record by 3.5 seconds/lap.

Either our ITA RX7s are fast or our ITB cars are slow. I hope it isn't the latter, I'm racing in the B class!
 
Originally posted by Jake:
This was the first step. Read this month's fastrack again. I think they did a great job at choosing the mis-classed ITS cars to drop into A.
Click to expand...

Jake,

Does that mean that you think the 2.0 16v VWs should have to up against the 2.8 VR6 VWs (at their new, lower weight) in ITS? I requested that these cars be moved from ITS to ITA, and was told that they'd be 'too fast'. IIRC, stock HP on these cars is 134-135. Seems to fall right in line w/ the new IT2, I mean ITA, cars.



------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Part of the problem w/ determining if the ITA RX7s are fast or not, is looking at how they finish in tracks around the country. That being said, I'm still of the opinion that they're not the 'car to have' in ITA, but that's another story.

Here's where I'm going w/ this. I'll steal something from the Prod pages to use as an example. Most of you are familiar w/ the Caterham 7s (no relation to the RX7!
biggrin.gif
). Normally, these are front-running EP cars. However, last year when I was at Road America for the June Sprints, these cars were 5-7 seconds off the EP pace. So, how is a car a podium finish at one track and 5-7 seconds off the pace at another? Simple answer is, it's the track. Some cars do better at certain types of tracks than others. Road America is a hp/long legs type track. The Caterhams are light, nimble cars that don't have tons of hp (stock 1.8 Ford Ztec) or particularly long legs. So, they just ran out of steam at RA. That's one of the reasons why I think Prod comp. adj. that are based on Runoffs' results aren't equtible. But that's a different discussion.

Kirk,

Gotta agree re: IT2. I had made my previous post before I read your latest. Sure does seem like ITA is evolving into IT2

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
sure most of the rx7's running now are of moderate prep. but that does not mean there are not cars out there that are well developed. i am a 10th place car and yes if i spent more i could be a 6th place car. there are cars out there that have a lot more spent and they still are giving up 25 horses to the crx/acura/nisson. take a look at jim susko's car and tell me with a staight face that no one is pushing the envelope in development.
racing a rx7 is as cost effective as anything i know of but that alone is not a very good reason to ban it to a uncompetitve status.
dick
 
Originally posted by Joe Craven:
RX7s have been competitive in the SF region in ITA. Either our ITA RX7s are fast or our ITB cars are slow./B]
Click to expand...


joe i am amazed by this. are there well developed crx's and integras out there.
has anyone seen this kind of anomaly around the country.
dick
 
Bill,

The 2.0L GTI is a car that is still under consideration. To be honest, we wanted to 'walk' toward the BoD with these proposals, not 'run' at them and have them flinch. The Neon's made much more sense to test the waters with than the VW.

As for looking like IT2, yes and no. I still wonder why the class concept excluded 2 seaters and RWD. Luckily for all of us, ITA does not.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com

[This message has been edited by ITSRX7 (edited April 08, 2004).]
 
When I first came to the SCCA the 1st generation RX-7 was an ITS car. Now it is in ITA and run in IT7 here in the Southeast. Now the politics of the SCCA or maybe just this web site want to move the car to ITB. That is a joke. The RX-7 is still a great ITA car at most tracks.

http://www.ncrscca.com/Pdf/2004%20Results/...ies/MM04_G2.pdf
at VIR (2004)

http://www.cfrscca.org/results/SEB_FEB/GRO...20RACE%203.html
at sebring club (2003)

http://www.cfrscca.org/results/SEB_NOV/GRO...RRC%20RACE.html
at sebring long (2003)

http://www.cfrscca.org/results/DAY_AUG/GRO...20RACE%204.html

http://www.cfrscca.org/results/DAY_AUG/GRO...20RACE%209.html

at Daytona (2003)

http://www.buccaneerregion.org/club/result...ts/042603-6.txt

http://www.buccaneerregion.org/club/result...ts/042703-6.txt

at Savannah(2003)

http://www.ccrsolo2.org/old/roadrace/event.../r052620021.htm
at Kershaw (2002)


Just so I don’t get 100 posts showing where the RX-7 did poorly. I am going to point the big one out myself: The ARRC last year. But, I didn’t see any Corvairs running the race.
 
Joe,

Well, when those ITA RX-7s show up at Norcal NASA events, they kick my ass in PS1 (aka ITS), so they are most definitely FAST
smile.gif


PaulC
 
Dick, there are occasionally well prepped and driven Honda ITA cars that run right up there battling for top positions with the horde of ITA RX7s. The field at Infineon last weekend had 20 ITA entries and the results can be viewed at
http://www.sfrscca.org/Results/20040404/gr5.htm

The fastest ITA RX7 cars were within 3 seconds of the ITS record which was also set that weekend. There was the 2nd place ITS BMW which ran about 2 seconds faster than the top RX7s. In regards to the prep level, the cars imo are not even fully developed and my Capri will have better preparation than these RX7s have when I bring it out next year. In addition, they aren't exceptionally fast in the straights although they do pull my ITB Capri slightly down the straights. I expect to out power them with my V6 although their suspensions and brakes are superior to the older Capri.
 
Pretty wide range of data there. One event IT7 was quicker than ITA's fast lap by .3 and then it goes all the way up to ITA crushing IT7 by 4 seconds.

When comparing cars and classes, you have to make sure you are looking at apples and apples. I suggest that if you want more accurate data, look at the following two points:

- The AARC results - best of the best
- Track records for both classes at all the tracks. I am willing to be that you see a similar % diference between the classes in track records that you did at this years and last years AARC results.

And did you miss the data point above that showed a 'full-prep' ITA RX-7 driver say that he jumped into a stock-engined Integra and went 2 seconds quicker? Now THAT is interesting.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Let me also ask this to the people who believe the ITA RX-7 is still competitive:

What do you attribute the 3-5 second difference in ITA/IT7 times at the ARRC? Here are the 2001-2003 results. The gap is getting BIGGER. You can't use one race as 100% of your yardstick but this one has to carry more weight.

http://www.arrc-online.com/G4SPLT.pdf

http://www.arrc-online.com/results_2002/ra...2002_group4.pdf

http://www.arrc-online.com/results_2001/ra...2001_group4.pdf

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
The last few posts here are evidence of the thinking behind IT2 being defined only for cars of particular layout and general specifications: There will NEVER be consensus regarding what constitutes sufficient evidence of on-track competitiveness (or lack thereof) if classification decisions are based on lap times and finishing positions.

Watching this conversation evolve leaves me a LOT less confident than I was about PCAs, even just two days ago. It echos the typical "is so", "is not" arguments that are the hallmark of Production-style competition adjustments.

The ARRC entry list is NOT a best-of-the-best sample of US-wide IT entrants. There is no way to know whether those frontrunning cars are legal. We are basing our comparisons on "models" when the biggest factor in their finishing position is arguably the driver. We are doing nothing to control for budget.

This is icky and I wish it had been more than two weeks between the positive feelings of the May FasTrack and this discussion.

K
 
Why is the ARRC considered "the best of the best?" Without and invitation/points system, it is just another regional that gets well traveled too.

I do agree that it truly comes down to the track. My Saturn does great on some tracks but not so good on others. That's racing.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com
 
I do agree that the ARRC MAY not prove who the best of the best in IT really is. Hopefully no one takes this the wrong way...

Obviously for people in the West coast and Mid-west (as well as other areas) it is extremely difficult to make it to Atlanta. So I'm not sure you can honestly say it represents the of the fastest cars in the country. Again, not taking away from the event or drivers who win / do well at the event. So I don't think you can use that as the bible for how well cars may or may not do.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
 
Originally posted by Knestis:
There will NEVER be consensus regarding what constitutes sufficient evidence of on-track competitiveness (or lack thereof) if classification decisions are based on lap times and finishing positions.

Watching this conversation evolve leaves me a LOT less confident than I was about PCAs, even just two days ago.
Click to expand...

Kirk,

You waiver more than my wife trying to pick out clothes!
wink.gif
Just stop it, would ya??
biggrin.gif


Even the best researched hypothesis needs to be proven through experiment... You can't expect racing to be treated like String-Theory...
tongue.gif


No one is basing classifications or reclassifications on "on-track finishing positions", but on-track performance is certainly one of the measuring sticks... It would be foolish to do it any other way. You cannot work off of theory alone, and at some point, there needs to be SOME level of data behind your decisions...

We are looking at the physical characteristics of each car that crosses our desk, and initial weights are being determined from there. Once an initial position is established, some level of experience is involved and we ask ourselves "does this make sense?"... If there is reason to believe that it does, the weight sticks... if not, then we might add or subtract based on speculation, usually directly related to brakes, transmission ratios, suspension design, aero, etc...

Look at it this way... Of the cars suggested for reclassification/classification thus far, show me one that really doesn't make a reasonable amount of logical sense, based both on physical characteristics, as well as what we really know about how it has performed in the past...

The only car to this point that I feel hasn't received fair treatment of those we've considered is the MR-2. It's not sufficient for ITA and belongs in ITB in my opinion, and according to the process described above...

I can't promise you that those that follow us will have the same reasonable approach, which is why we are pushing to get some guidelines documented. But for now, I think the changes are a positive move for IT...

As for being like IT2... I've said all along that we didn't need an IT class stuffed in between ITA and ITS... there is sufficient gap in performance now... The cars that have been moved to ITA are being directly compared to the physical characteristics of the 240SX, the CRX, and the Acura Integra that are currently classified there... These cars define the class...

That's how I see it right now, anyhow...

Oh, and PCAs... I guess you'll just have to trust in the process... There MUST be a place in the process to correct for misjudgements, which is what PCAs will allow us to do... You can't possibly expect us to get everything just right on the first try, and I know of very few who would argue that IT has needed a way to correct classification weights after they are initially set... It's a GOOD change for IT, and in all honesty, it won't effect 90% of us over our lifetime, so it's not really worth pouring a lot of energy into worrying about...

OK, a little more that $.02...

Take care,




------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
The ARRC IS the best data point of what is available. The absolute best may not be there 100% of the time but you can agree that it is considered to be the defacto IT National Championship currently. What race would YOU enter if you wanted to run against the best in your IT class? The ARRC - there is no debate.

While it's not concrete, that is the best single data point out there currently. You need many data points to come to a conclusion, however - rest assured we all know that.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
Andy

Look at the track records for VIR
www.ncrscca.com

I am not saying the RX-7 is the best ITA car it's just a good ITA car. There are several modles that are far less competitive, but only a few much more.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top