The new ITA class

  • Thread starter Thread starter Guest
  • Start date Start date
Originally posted by Geo:
Oh, I don't know Greg. With a national championship on the line at The Runoffs, I'm sure there would be more money spent. I don't know that there would be a change in the level of talent, but I could very easily envision more money spent.
Click to expand...


Having been to the Runoffs (as crew) and to the ARRC, my observation is that a lot of people will spend whatever they have or can get their hands on to win either.
Not everyone, but a lot of people will.
Paddock machine work and motor rebuilds, thousands of dollars in dyno time and ECU development, etc.



------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA
 
I'm sorry to continue to sound like an elitist, George, but I really, really, really wish you'd come up here for a free vacation and attend a race or two. You've got to see some of these $40K RX-7s, $50K BMWs, and top-prep Acuras, Hondas, and Nissans to fully understand what it's like to race SCCA outside of Texas.

And please don't take offense: don't forget that I was born in Dallas, went to school (woop!) and lived there for half my adult life, and I've raced at all of those same tracks for nearly a decade (well, except for that new-fangled one near H. Ross's airport). I've been there, I've seen and done that, and even *I* didn't believe it when they were telling me the same thing 10 years ago. It took a few trips to the Runoffs to even begin to understand. Now I believe...

Trust me, George, there's no way to spend more money up here in the Northeast to build some of these cars...travel, maybe, but prep? Uh-uh.


[This message has been edited by grega (edited April 13, 2004).]
 
I think what is ment by affordable racing is that the IT car can ease its way into racing where most other classes can't. You can pop the safety stuff in slap on some tires and go racing, then as funds allow you can modify you car from there. You can still even use your IT car as a every day driver if you should choose to. You most likely will not run at the top but that will not happen till your skills get you there anyway.

I think that now there is a need for another class, lots of new cars that will not fit anywere. We all run together anyway and if you can deal with an ITE Viper or Cobra R Mustang blowing by you some cars faster then the current ITS cars should be no problem.
 
Greaga-

I don't disagree with what you said about the, entry level, cost issues, or talent issues.

I wrote a big long responce including my story again from us at the ARRC with the $1,000 budget and used tires but I am just going to say SCCA needs to keep a class where it is possible to race and just have fun without spending thousands of dollars and getting compleatly blown away as your car gets outclassed every couple years.

It already is almoast impossible for someone to race in SCCA with a income less than $50,000 a year. Forget it if you have a family, you had better make $100,000 a year to race and support the family (hopefully you then have a husband or wife kicking in a lot to help and who is suportive and willing to make that the families life).

Why is circle track so successful??? because it is cost effective.

SCCA has a huge untapped market and their are a lot of drivers I know in that market who could be just as fast and just as fun as any of the champions here if they could only afford it. Why make it harder by making all the classes faster and more expensive?

Raymond Blethen

[This message has been edited by RSTPerformance (edited April 13, 2004).]
 
Greg,
I think you're looking too closely about IT being MORE affordable and A way to enter into racing. On the spectrum of all road racing, where is IT "Club" racing? It all depends on a person's perspective, right? And it is what people make of it. What defines entry level? Not pro? And IT does provide people a wide spectrum amounts they "have" to spend.

If a person wants to race and not spend a significant amount of money (again, perspective here) you can do it in IT. For argument's sake, we'll say $5,000. And you can get a decent already prepared car for $3,000. No, you shouldn't choose an ITS car. And will you win at that budget? No, but you can do o.k. and have a great time especially if you are a good driver. Take a stock CRX si and put safety gear in, do the exhaust and get race tires. I know that a good driver could go out and do decent and have lots of fun.

There are also many other "entry level" race classes. Show room stock? That could be considered entry level to some. FV? There are lots. I wouldn't be insulted by the notion that IT can be a great entry into racing.

Just because IT provides a way for a person to enter into racing doesn't mean that it also can't be a place for a person to grow for a life time. I have no plans on leaving IT for many years to come. For me, I consider IT to be a place that provided me a way into racing, and a place I can continue to become a better driver and drive a better prepared car. There are people at all different levels and budgets in IT.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
 
<font face=\"Verdana, Arial\" size=\"2\">...the IT car can ease its way into racing where most other classes can't...</font>
Click to expand...

I disagree. I raced in Showroom Stock while I was still in college, using it as my daily driver car. I had a 5-year loan, my monthly payments were affordable, and I drove to the track. How many "affordable" IT racers can claim to be doing that now?

Have a truck and trailer? You're stylin' now! Since you're committed to buying a separate race car, the sky's the limit. Why not buy a 1980's Formula Ford and "ease" into racing? A good old Formula Vee? What about an old GT-1 Mustang? There's plenty of old Prod cars out there for the taking. If you're not looking to start at the top you've got a lot of opportunities.

Best part? All of these classes are NATIONAL, you *can* afford to pop in the safety stuff and ease into racing. You won't be competitive, but neither will you be in IT, so what's the difference? Chances are, you might even qualify for the Runoffs! It's all in the attitude.

So, just because it's a Regional-only class don't mean it's "less expensive." It's all a matter of what you want to do...
 
Thr reason SOLO II nationals are losing attendance is because they have not addressed the new calsses thet are growng like wildfire at the local level. The majority of the SOLO II gowth is the local "run what you brung" new classes that match what the younger drivers are currently driving. Most of these kids are not driving anything that will fit in the traditional SOLO classes thet run at Topeka.

Just my 2 cents worth

Chuck
 
Originally posted by grega:
I disagree. I raced in Showroom Stock while I was still in college, using it as my daily driver car. I had a 5-year loan, my monthly payments were affordable, and I drove to the track.
Click to expand...

yes greg but look at what you were putting at risk. if i ball up my IT car i can get another shell for $200 and replace a few bent race parts and be back in a couple of months.

in a field of 35 cars there is plenty of room for drivers with your attitude and well as raymond's. you are right greg that to run at the front of S or A you can not cut corners but for me where a good day is top 10 it is a totally different perspective. look at jake's mr2 budget. top half of the field and as frugal as they come. there is room for both attitudes in IT racing and rule writing should consider both types of racers when discussing the future.

dick
 
I think this comes down to how you define "affordable racing" or "affordable racing class". To some people it means how cheap can you win and to others it means how cheap can you race. Some people don't have fun unless they win, some people have enough fun battling for next-to-last place.

"Price of admission" to race in IT is pretty cheap. The price to win is probably as high as many national classes.

------------------
Ony Anglade
ITA Miata
Sugar Hill, GA
 
Guys,
I think many are missing the point here... I think IT should be more about affordable "competition"... Does that mean it's going to be cheap to win? Heck NO... It's not cheap to win in ANY form of racing.

However, if we (the CRB and ITAC) do our jobs correctly, the average level of competition should be improved. You are STILL going to have to make an effort to actually WIN, but my goal would be to do our best to create a situation where there would be a finer line between the haves and the have-nots... Or, in other words, try to find a way to make the extra expenditures pay off in the LEAST amount, thereby discouraging, or making it unneccesary to spend the money in the first place...

The details of how to do this are where the idea gets a little sticky...

------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
DJ_AV1.jpg
 
I agree with what has happened so far in IT, and I only disagree with the idea that older cars and cheeper cars/classes need to deal with the changes in time. As the economy has made a place for "faster" cars to be available I think a need exists or will exist for another class, not an elimination of a class (es) that already exists (ITB/ITC). I think that more affordable slower cars should continue to be classed into ITC and ITB so that people can get into IT and move as they see need into another car/class.

Yes winning (most of the time) takes a lot of money OR a lot of dedication on your part (to learn to build a car) and the dedication of other people/companies to help. We are fortunate enough to be of the part with less money and a lot of our own knowledge and a lot of helpful people/companies supporting us.

Raymond "expresed my concern now I am gone
smile.gif
" Blethen
 
You guys have made some interesting conversation here, but I am curious as to why no one has taken me up on my previous request for a list of those cars in ITC that are "bottom feeders"...???

If we are going to deal with REAL problems, we need to know the scope of them. The subject of older/slower cars getting put out to pasture keeps coming up as a reason to implement another class in IT, but I have to wonder if there is really a problem requiring this solution to begin with...

If ITC is fairly competitive, and some ITB cars get moved there that have NEVER been competitive in ITB, at a weight that will make them on par with current ITC cars, then no one needs to be displaced...

So, again, WHAT is the extent of the ACTUAL "problem"? Give me a list of cars that you believe are currently ITC bottom feeders.

Let's stop operating off of hypotheticals and start looking at real data...

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

I didn't want to post anymore but I will clarify my view...

"The subject of older/slower cars getting put out to pasture keeps coming up as a reason to implement another class in IT" - Not my view Darrin, we need to look at the future but continue to hold on to our current “good” classes. There is no feasible way to classify all these cars into 4 classes. SCCA does not have a consistent volunteer base that could handle all of the constant changes and PCA’s that would be required to make it a 4-class system.

I don't see a problem moving the cars around such as the cars have been moved this year or cars that never were competitive (not necessarily my view about the ones for next year, I am undecided about those). I do see an issue moving the ITS and ITA cars around to make ITS a group of faster cars ITA a group of faster cars and ITB a group of faster cars (that came from ITA).

The majority of ITA and ITS cars are NOT competitive (IE: 2 or 3 "cars to have" in each class). If ITS took on the killer ITA cars and the Killer ITS cars got bumped to a higher class (ITR?) then we would have a much better balanced 5 class structure. The NEW cars that are in need of a place to be classed could get classed in (ITR?), ITS, and ITA.

I doubt this idea will ever happen as you would need to add a lot of weight to some of the current ITS cars to make the Integra and CRX competitive but hey that is my view of what might work.

I had made a list of what cars were competitive in each class, the ratio of cars that were competitive vs. number of entrants (and different cars entered) really showed that ITS and ITA are a real problem and need to be completely re-vamped. I think it also showed me that in the past most cars were classed into ITA or ITS and someone A) didn’t look to the future, or B) did a poor job at it, but maybe (IMO) that was because 2 classes is not enough for the current market needs.

I hope the future holds a better outcome for all of IT. I think it is a shame when only 2 or possibly 3 cars can win in a class, weather it is IT, PROD, GT, WC, ALMS, or F1. No matter how many people race “that car” it just makes for poor racing IMO.

Raymond
 
You are STILL going to have to make an effort to actually WIN, but my goal would be to do our best to create a situation where there would be a finer line between the haves and the have-nots... Or, in other words, try to find a way to make the extra expenditures pay off in the LEAST amount, thereby discouraging, or making it unneccesary to spend the money in the first place...
Click to expand...

Darin,

Where did this come from? How did we get from talking about the need to increase the granularity level of the classes (or not) to money? I'm really curious as to what things you think would make it unnecessary to spend the money in the first place.

You want to do things that will help control costs, get rid of that open ECU rule. It's been demonstrated time and again, the only way to lessen the amount of money someone will spend is to have spec parts or claiming rules. And even those don't always work. The stories of parts-bin blueprinted motors in SS are as old as the category itself.

**Interesting side note: SS rules say you're not allowed to parts-bin blueprint (p-b B), yet there's no way to enforce the rule. Wasn't that the reason we were given for the ECU rule, because you couldn't enforce it? Things that make you go hmmmm

You can't stop people that have the money, from spending it, period.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608
 
You might not be able to stop the people that have money from spending it, but you can reduce its benefit. (No idea how that would actually be done fairly)

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
 
Raymond

I enjoy your posts most of the time maybe because I enjoyed watching you or your brother at the ARRC last year. Great racing.

But... Your flat out wrong. More than 3 cars can and *DO* win in ITS and ITA.

ITS - e36, 944S*, 240Z, Achieva, RX-7, Integra GSR, pick a VW VR-6*, e30, 300Z, 190E 16V, Prelude si, 98' Prelude* there is already one of these looking good in texas and the car just got classified.

ITA- 240sx, Miata, Saturn, Integra, CRX si, 325e, RX-7, Escort Gt or the new face of ITA: Neon-X-two*, Prelude*, NX2000*, Sentra SER*, Civic V-tec*, or Z3*

* = a car I have never seen run but looks... wow. The rest I have seen win over the others.

What is wrong with IT. Don’t try to fix something that’s not broke. The majority of IT cars have never been built so who is to say with absolute certainty that they can’t win. I can't.
 
Originally posted by Banzai240:
The details of how to do this are where the idea gets a little sticky...
Click to expand...

It seems to me that adding another class above ITS makes sense, and I would love to see a 350Z in full-race trim at my track, and not running a NASA race. I think the other classes are close now and can easily be managed by mild re-arranging.

Also, I think having more and slower classes have the natural effect of making some of the racing more affordable. And this is why: there will always be people in each class who will build a car to its max. However, more of these people gravitate toward the faster classes. Not that I have any hard evidence of this, but from what I see at the track, there are more bad-ass ITS and ITA cars than there are in ITB or ITC. Entry-level cars that are sort-of competitive locally are out there. For cheap. They're just 510s and Rabbits that run in ITC. Slower, older cars are the discount bin of racing.

Yes, we need to have a place for all the guys with their new Hondas to move to, but also for the guy who just wants to buy a cheap car and race, you should always be able to do that in IT if the classes are kept similar to how they are now.

Right now, if I was starting from scratch, no gear or license or anything, I could go racing in my own car for $5000. If the SCCA really wanted to get more people into racing, they'd start a financing program for race cars. If people could make payments on a car, they'd line up to do it.

I think I'm off topic now. dangit.
jpd
 
Not off topic at all! Thats what made this thread so great...it is all over the place!!!! Will it hit 300?

Seems to me it's important to distinguish between affordable racing, and affordable winning .

The cost of winning will always be more than than just racing and will not be "affordable (vis a vis racing) in any class of racing, short of a claiming class.

Look at Spec Miata. The cost of running is one thing, the cost at the front is another. But the thing that seems to make SM so popular is the fact that the "haves" and the "have nots" are very close in performance. The expenditures are big while the results are diminishing.

The joy of IT is the fact that you CAN pick up, lets say, a CRX, pretty cheap, and start racing with only the safety gear, adding to the package as you learn. THAT is what makes a good "entry" level classs, one that encourages you to join up, and grow at your own pace. The CRX buyer might not win today, but once he gets his program rolling he can be at the front.

The downsides are just two. One, no chance, as it stands, that you will ever see the Runoffs from behind the drivers seat. And two, you better develop quickly lest the Gods of classing add a new bigdog to the class, and the slide down the results charts begins.

We'll talk about the first in another thread sometime, but I think the second one should cease to be an option in the new IT world.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]
 
"And two, you better develop quickly lest the Gods of classing add a new bigdog to the class, and the slide down the results charts begins."

So does this mean that you've rethought things and the RX7 should stay in ITA? Just had to ask.
biggrin.gif





------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude
 
Lets not forget that the RX-7(12A) started in ITS, now you want it in ITB. But that is called evolution. I still rember my RX-7 what a great car. dave
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top