The new ITA class

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Jake,

As I've said, I don't care how you do it, it just needs to be done. I'm more inclined to put it between ITS and ITA, only because that's where teh major issue lies. Also, why make all the ITB and ITC folks buy new vinyl?

What really bothers me is that the powers that be have stated that we won't need another class once PCAs are implemented. The PCA concept hasn't even been proven, and they're throwing out the option of another class. That, and the fact that PCAs are primarily designed for newly classified cars. Except of course, in those 'rare' cases.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Jake,

As I've said, I don't care how you do it, it just needs to be done. I'm more inclined to put it between ITS and ITA, only because that's where teh major issue lies. Also, why make all the ITB and ITC folks buy new vinyl?

What really bothers me is that the powers that be have stated that we won't need another class once PCAs are implemented. The PCA concept hasn't even been proven, and they're throwing out the option of another class. That, and the fact that PCAs are primarily designed for newly classified cars. Except of course, in those 'rare' cases.
Click to expand...

I have to admit, maybe I didn't read the PCA rule proposal, but I don't recall seeing anything in there which stated that the Club Racing Board "Now and forevermore" swore off adding another IT class. Indeed, if they're talking (as some here are) about adding cars such as the S2000 and 350Z, which I suspect could really put some hurt even on the vaunted 325's, would it not seem that perhaps they are already thinking about it? Or just us?

Having recently submitted a request to drop my own car down a class, I can only say personally that I'd not mind buying new vinyl (or, actually, in my case, repainting) if it means I have a shot at being competitive! I certainly don't think that's such a big deal. If you can't afford fresh vinyl, you can't afford to race!

I also don't quite see how PCA's would preclude a driver of a previously classed car from requesting a re-evaluation of weight any more than a re-evaluation of classification - since those are, at any rate, two sides of the same coin. If, OTOH, you don't trust the powers that be to give your situation adequate consideration, well, then, you may be back to the idea of looking into a different class or sanctioning body to run with... as many have...

------------------
Vaughan Scott
Detroit Region #280052
'79 924 #77 ITA/GTS1
www.vaughanscott.com
 
Originally posted by ITSRX7:

I think it's FIRMLY in the MIDDLE of ITA, not competitive when you compare apples to apples but not a throw away either.

AB
Click to expand...

In the middle of ITA...well, a look at the Mid Ohio records just posted in another thread adds some interesting light to this thought.

The ITA RX-7 (AKA the IT7) is over a second slower than the ITB record, and about 4 seconds off the ITA pace.

I would submit that the track, and the cars that it sees are pretty good examples, and in fact, the results correlate well with the Road Atlanta results.



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

Not sure why the smiley didn't take after the vinyl comment. That was a tongue-in-cheek comment about why re-name ITB and ITC.

There was nothing in the PCA proposal about not aadding another class. It was in response to a specific request a few (several?) months back. Someone expressly asked to have another class added, and the response was that there was no need for one if PCAs were implemented.

And, I didn't say "now and forever". I suppose that since they flopped so easily on the 1.7 Scirocco (one month, it's too fast for ITC, two months later, it's recommended for the move in '05), they could change their mind about adding another class in IT.

I'll let Kirk comment on driver-initiated rquests for PCA weight adjustment/reclassification.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
Originally posted by Jake:
Thanks for clarifying, in that case I don't agree with you. You can’t just take the lower 50 or 75% (cars that can’t compete with the 325) and lump them in with the ITA CRX/240/Miata/Acura. That will screw up those “fast” ITA cars. What you can do is move some ITS cars, case-by-case, (after requests have been made) into “fast” ITA, with additional weight in some cases (as has been done to the praises and appreciation of many) as to not screw up the “fast” ITA balance. You can also split off the slower 75% of ITA cars (RX7 and slower?) into their own class. You can do this, because it doesn’t screw up anybody.

The ITR idea is great and needs to happen since cars just keep getting faster and faster. However, I feel the ITA split addresses an immediate need due to two tiers of ITA cars as well as the potential of oversubscribed ITA races in the future. Those 350Z cars you mention can run today in T2, and won’t be IT eligible for a couple of years. For those who are against even more IT classes, I would predict that ITR would just begin to flourish just as ITC officially dies.
Click to expand...

Jake,

Oviously I didn't mean 50% exactly. You take the cars that make sense out of the bottom of ITS, put them into the new class, take the top cars out of ITA and move them up. You than have a class that looks liuke Kirk's IT2 that allows RWD and 2 seaters.

That will leave (approx) the bottom of ITA as it's own class and an ITS that is fre to add some new and cool stuff when it comes eligible.

AB

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

Well there you go (re: Mid-Ohio) The 1st gen Rx7 belongs in ITC
tongue.gif
The fastest 1st gen Rx7 in IT trim that has ever appeared there is over a second slower than the fastest ITB car.

Prime example of why you can't just choose one track (or one race) to compare cars. The type of car that holds the ITS record is not listed, but the record has stood for almost 10 years...safe to assume it wasn't a BMW.
 
"Prime example of why you can't just choose one track (or one race) to compare cars. The type of car that holds the ITS record is not listed, but the record has stood for almost 10 years...safe to assume it wasn't a BMW."

and probably illigal!!!

I think that their is a need for a faster ITS class (ITR?) for faster cars than currently classified as well as the BMW, RX-7, 944, etc. ITS would become the slower portion of ITS cars and those few fast ITA cars (Neon, Acura, CRX, etc.) Then we have a great ITR of the rich blooded, a great more affordable ITS, and a great more affordable ITA class that once was. Leave the currently perfect ITB alone and let the colledge students and other 18-25yr olds who are getting into SCCA run a very affordable ITC car.

The only thing I think that has been forgoten is keeping costs down. we need to remember this is an intro level class. We need to keep it that way.

As far as having another class... why are people so afraid??? what does the/a trophy cost??? I am sure not as much as a new entry... And the class can still be grouped with current cars, so you will still be racing against the same people!!!

Raymond Blethen

PS: BOD- I hope you are considering the future... Maybe you should do a survey and see what cars 16 yr olds interested in racing would race in 5 years? Then target that market? Classify current cars acordingly???
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Also, why make all the ITB and ITC folks buy new vinyl?

What really bothers me is that the powers that be have stated that we won't need another class once PCAs are implemented.
[/B]
Click to expand...

ok to be demacratic and spread the suffering out equally the new class structure should be IT1-IT5. new vinyl for all.

Bill there does seem to be an effort to see if pca's will solve the problems without another class and while i don't think it will work, I think we may need to live with pca's for a couple of years to be sure.

I applaud the move to improve IT racing but we must remember that IT is still the most popular division in scca so we must be carefull not to ruin it in the effort to improve it.

dick
 
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
"Prime example of why you can't just choose one track (or one race) to compare cars. The type of car that holds the ITS record is not listed, but the record has stood for almost 10 years...safe to assume it wasn't a BMW."
Click to expand...


that record would have been set by Nick Craw in his 240z during the time he was the scca president and touring in a "beat the boss tour" would someone with a fast ITS car please go to ohio and erase one more trapping of the nick craw years.
dick patullo
 
I like the idea of adding two additional classes like Jake said. By doing this, you are creating a place for everyone to play.

It creates a class for almost everyone and their budget. If a person wants to spend a ton of money and race a newer car, then ITR and ITS would be great.

But if a person that can't or doesn't want to spend as much money (not that a person can't spend a ton in any class) they could race in one of the slower classes.

We do need to make sure that we don't inflate the cost of startig to race much more than it already is. We need to ensure that there is a place for the older cars (ones that can often be bought much cheaper) to race. IT club racing should be a place where many people can become involved in racing at a "reasonable" cost.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
 
I kind of figured this would be the season of IT rules "swirl". Glad I'm sitting out this season as a car owner.

I sold my now-becoming-a-REAL-underdog-unless-it-gets-moved-to-ITB 1st generation CRX Si in January. I'll be renting a few rides this season to try out some new cars/classes and let the rules dust settle. With all the new cars in the class now, I may just be returning to ITA next season - it's just too fun a class in NER to sit out!

-noam
Formerly the #18 ITA Honda CRX Si - soon to be the #18 ITA ???
 
Here's a thought, why not put out the new class idea for member input?

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
WOW...spend the weekend under a car and look at everything that happend.
Let me clearify a few things on the way I think.

By Political I mean that this (RX-7 deal) is only under consideration because there are so many of them.

I am all for change I think it is needed, but to slap a few pounds and skinny wheels on the 7 and think it will not run away from 90% of the ITB cars out there...I think it will happen.

How do you explain that some RX7's do very well, this happens all over the country, and at different "type" tracks. I think that there are very different levels of prep on these cars, some are done to the 9's others are not, more so on this car because of the number of them out there.

I realy think that the IT classes need a re-shuffle. having cars from 196x running with cars from 200x is very very hard, and the day is coming that we are just going to have to let go of the old cars. (this said by a guy building a "new" 1972 race car). That said you pick the car for several reasons. My heart picked my car, if it does well GREAT if not, just let me run I'll still have fun, thats what it is all about.

Someone asked so here is my info:
Greg Mathews
1985 ITA MR2
1972 ITB Opel GT (almost there)
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller:
Here's a thought, why not put out the new class idea for member input?
Click to expand...

That is a great idea, except that in order for it to go out, it needs to be a full concept with defined classes and direction. Right now, the ITAC is not at that at that point. We are hoping PCA's will go through and then work a host of 'smart' reclassing's with that tool and then see where we are.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com
 
WARNING THIS IS A HIJACK!!!

Cherokee- Jim McMahn was very successful with an Opel GT in the Northeast, you may want to contact him... not sure his number :/

Raymond
 
Raymond, thanks for the info. The Opel group of guys are a pretty tight group. I have talked to a couple of Manta, prod, and GT guys running now and in the past. I think it will be a fun car.
 
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
That is a great idea, except that in order for it to go out, it needs to be a full concept with defined classes and direction. Right now, the ITAC is not at that at that point. We are hoping PCA's will go through and then work a host of 'smart' reclassing's with that tool and then see where we are.

AB
Click to expand...

Why's that Andy? IIRC, when comp. adj. in IT first went out, it was pretty much just that, do people favor comp. adj. in IT. Wasn't it only because of the wide variety of responses that the PCA concept even came into being?

Would seem to make more sense in getting a general feel for the interest before fleshing out a full-blown proposal.

/edit/


Maybe I missed something Andy, but why would these 'smart' reclassings be contingent on PCAs going through? They way the rules are today, you can reclass cars and change the weight at that time (not sure why the CB doesn't understand this).

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

[This message has been edited by Bill Miller (edited April 12, 2004).]
 
When PCA's came out for comment, it came out as a concept, not just, "Hey, should we have comp adjustments in IT?"

I meant to say that the reclasses and the PCA's will be used independently, then see if that is enough to give people good racing.

Keep in mind, PCA's would be used on a VERY limited basis.

*I* think that an additional class is needed to get us where I think we should be - but we need to walk before we can run.

AB

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

I didn't say anything about when PCAs went out for comment. I haven't dug through all the old FasTracks to find it, but IIRC, the initial discussion about Comp. Adj. was something to the effect of the BoD directing the CB to determine what the membership thought about Comp. Adj. in IT.

I believe, the lack of clarification about what was meant by Comp. Adj. (Prod style? just weight? ????), led to some of the confusion around what they were really asking. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't this what prompted the whole PCA concept?

Anyway, the point was, why not get a general feel for the overall thoughts of adding a new class? Collect people's feedback, and if there's an interst, use that feedback to help craft a plan.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top