Jay_Taylor
New member
Sence there was some talk of this in the IT-R thred, what could be classed in ITC to help it out?
ITC
- Thread starter Jay_Taylor
- Start date
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
Good thread Jay. Here are a couple VERY RANDOM thoughts:
1. 90-105 stock hp should get this done without huge manditory weight
2. What runs in ITC now? Honda's, VW's, 510's - all have cult-like following. There was nothing at the 2005 ARRC that wasn't a VW or a Honda.
3. Are there cars with these HP levels even being made...but what sort of 'enthusiast' following do they have? Who the heck is going to build a ITC Kia/Hyundia?
4. There are 10 year old Honda's with 105 stock HP...(1997 Civic CX) - could work...
5. The 'popularity' of being in the 'slowest' IT class is limited. BUT some guys enjoy the challenge of running a 'slower' car and beating cars and drivers that are supposed to be faster...it has to be gratifying!
I think we can get cars in - but it's the recruitment of drivers that makes me wonder.
AB
1. 90-105 stock hp should get this done without huge manditory weight
2. What runs in ITC now? Honda's, VW's, 510's - all have cult-like following. There was nothing at the 2005 ARRC that wasn't a VW or a Honda.
3. Are there cars with these HP levels even being made...but what sort of 'enthusiast' following do they have? Who the heck is going to build a ITC Kia/Hyundia?
4. There are 10 year old Honda's with 105 stock HP...(1997 Civic CX) - could work...
5. The 'popularity' of being in the 'slowest' IT class is limited. BUT some guys enjoy the challenge of running a 'slower' car and beating cars and drivers that are supposed to be faster...it has to be gratifying!
I think we can get cars in - but it's the recruitment of drivers that makes me wonder.
AB
zracre
New member
how about adding some new stuff there...this was hit on before, but if the other option is losing ITC, better to add stuff there
toyota tercel, paseo, corolla
nissan nx 1600, sentra e (4spd)
mazda mx3 (lucky to break 100hp)
said honda civic cx
mitsu mirage/dodge colt
anything with fuel injection!!! makes life easier for newbies...
toyota tercel, paseo, corolla
nissan nx 1600, sentra e (4spd)
mazda mx3 (lucky to break 100hp)
said honda civic cx
mitsu mirage/dodge colt
anything with fuel injection!!! makes life easier for newbies...
Bill Miller
New member
I think the biggest problem w/ new ITC cars, is that most of the ones that people would be interested in racing, will have to be saddled w/ a lot of weight, to make them fit. Not to mention, that they would really fall into ITB, and 'better' weights. Look at the New Beetle. 115 hp, stock, comes in at 2760# in ITC. Its first cousins, the Mk III Golf/Jetta 2.0 w/ the same motor (2.0 8v, 115hp) are in ITB at 2350#. The concensus among the powers that be, is that the Rabbit GTI (90 hp stock) is 'too much' for ITC. If a 90hp FWD car is 'too much' for ITC, I'm not sure how you make many (any?) of the current crop of econo-boxes fit, w/o saddling them w/ a bunch of weight, ala the new beetle.
Someone mentioned the Scion xA/xB. They'd probably be good ITC cars, but they're making ~100hp stock.
And I don't know if you can give enough of the current ITC cars weight breaks (that they could meet), to make them competitive w/ the current ITB cars, if the classes were combined. Now, take the lower 1/3 or so of ITB, add some lead, and move them to ITC. Problem is, I don't know if that really address the issue, from a strategic point of view, or just band-aids a problem.
Someone mentioned the Scion xA/xB. They'd probably be good ITC cars, but they're making ~100hp stock.
And I don't know if you can give enough of the current ITC cars weight breaks (that they could meet), to make them competitive w/ the current ITB cars, if the classes were combined. Now, take the lower 1/3 or so of ITB, add some lead, and move them to ITC. Problem is, I don't know if that really address the issue, from a strategic point of view, or just band-aids a problem.
There's been a number of lists of likely ITC options posted here but the simple fact of the matter is that, absent any kind of major strategic push by the ITAC, new cars probably won't get listed - since the system requires that someone actually request that models be considered.
There's no built-in incentive for current ITC entrants to do so - to grow their own competition? - and, all other things being equal, new drivers are either going to build something in another class that's already listed, or go play elsewhere.
I know there are a lot of fish to fry on the ITAC stovetop but it seems like it would be a good planning move to make what is clearly the cheapest IT class healthy. Who knows - this might be addressed to some degree in the current strategic proposal that's been sent up to the CRB...?
K
There's no built-in incentive for current ITC entrants to do so - to grow their own competition? - and, all other things being equal, new drivers are either going to build something in another class that's already listed, or go play elsewhere.
I know there are a lot of fish to fry on the ITAC stovetop but it seems like it would be a good planning move to make what is clearly the cheapest IT class healthy. Who knows - this might be addressed to some degree in the current strategic proposal that's been sent up to the CRB...?
K
Ouch, Kirk, I tihnk you stepped on your own circular logic somehow.
The reason ITC is so "cheap" is because it's so "unpopular." Do you really think that a Serra-class ITC effort on whatever the car-to-have would be less expensive than, say ITA or ITB? Maybe only in the very narrow range of initial purchase price (unless one considers the not-so-easy task of finding a suitable candidate with which to start), but just about everything else (suspension, engine builds, trans builds, safety equipment, wheels, tires, etc) costs the same money (and, once again, maybe more considering the cost of procuring/fabricating those parts).
Add more cars, make ITC more popular, and I guarantee you that ITC gets "much less cheaper" if not downright expensive. If I were happy in ITC today, I'd be saying "hands off!" to the ITAC... - GA
Banzai240
New member
The proposal sent forth by the ITAC to the CRB includes NO changes to ITC...
I know the Hondas seems to dominate, but the "numbers" show that cars are classified appropriately...
I still believe that a well-built 510 can compete with a Honda... I just don't think there has been one done is some time... Should be more than capable...
Nope - I stand by my contention, but NOT that it is cheaper to BUILD a C car: It is cheaper to run one, at any given level of preparation.
Light and slow means that they are easier on components, tires, brakes, even fuel. The suspension on an ITC Civic is identical to that on an ITA version, and I have NO question that parts will last longer on the former. I wonder how much more often I'd have to replace hubs, rotors, pads, etc. if Pablo had a VR6 stuffed under the hood, was a bunch heavier, and ran in ITS...?
You are right - and I have argued myself - that class rules and specifications don't do anything to directly control costs. Even if ITC was as well populated as is ITA, for example, and the price to build a top-shelf car went up, it would still cost less to run one than to run a similar ITA, ITS, or ITR? car. The difference between C and B is arguably much smaller...
K
Kirk, agreed on all except that the ITA and the ITC suspension is the same...it's not. Beyond that you're right. The only car I could possibly justify driving in a different class would be an Si in ITB. Yes, I could afford a more expensive car, or a faster car, or any of the above, but racing isn't the only thing I do. I see absolutely no sense in building or competing in something that costs as much as the down payment on a house. My car cost $200 with a broken hatch glass. Absolutely nothing added to it to race anywhere near competively has been so cheap.
As far as a "Serra-type effort" driving the cost of the class up...I doubt it. My team mate built, developed, and maintained his 4 time ARRC championship winning car in his garage. There have been several way more expensive efforts come along as competitive, but have yet to have his domination of the class. Now a whole quantum lot of that is driver, but he's not the only fast driver in ITC.
He and I have given repeated consideration to running in ITA or ITS, but simply cannot justify the expense of maintaining a car in those classes. I've heard all the arguements and agree with some, but even the cheapest of efforts end up costing way more to be competitive in higher classes than my C car does. The faster, the heavier; the heavier, the harder on parts; the harder on parts, the more that have to be replaced, ad.infinitum
As far as a "Serra-type effort" driving the cost of the class up...I doubt it. My team mate built, developed, and maintained his 4 time ARRC championship winning car in his garage. There have been several way more expensive efforts come along as competitive, but have yet to have his domination of the class. Now a whole quantum lot of that is driver, but he's not the only fast driver in ITC.
He and I have given repeated consideration to running in ITA or ITS, but simply cannot justify the expense of maintaining a car in those classes. I've heard all the arguements and agree with some, but even the cheapest of efforts end up costing way more to be competitive in higher classes than my C car does. The faster, the heavier; the heavier, the harder on parts; the harder on parts, the more that have to be replaced, ad.infinitum
If the recruitment of drivers to ITC seems to be a problem, then look at the entire IT group of cars. There are a bunch of builders out there that will build you a SM or rent one any time, any where. Several of these guys used to build IT cars, but went where the market demanded. The price's I've heard quoted are in the $25,000 range. None of the ITC cars they used to build cost near that much. That price is in the neighborhood of and ITA or even an ITS car (not a BMW!).
Of course I agree with you, Kirk. However, when you sit down and total up what it would take to build a top-flight, no-holds-barred ITC car, amortize that cost over the expected life of the car (5 years or so?), and then compare that to the costs of campaigning it over that same period, you'll find that the reduced costs of running ITC car aren't that significantly different than that of an ITA car. That's exactly why you and I and others are always telling folks to BUY a car instead of BUILD.
Sure, with a lighter car you'll use up less brakes ($100 per set), tires ($600 per set), and bearings ($25, $50, $75?), but the top-flight guy is gonna put on new Hoosiers every other race or so (mine heat-cycle out long before they wear out), is still gonna replace those brakes and bearings as a preventive maintenance item on a regular basis (we never wait for failures), and is gonna spend what it's gonna take to make the baddest, meanest, fastest ITC car there ever is/was (think an ITC car has already been built to the absolute max? Yeah, well, we thought the same thing about ITA and ITS just a few - couple? - years ago).
My point is that by trying to promoting ITC as the "cheapest" class in order to improve participation you are in effect eliminating that point of attraction. It's a Catch-22 (sorry for the bad pun, Scott). There is nothing right now to keep anyone from spending A LOT of money - likely the same amount spent in ITA today - and wiping out the competition...the only thing stopping it is interest. - GA
Catch22
New member
I have to disagree with you Greg.
My car was identical to the ITA version except for the motor and tranny, yet I managed to build a "top flight" car for far less than one could build the same ITA car.
How?
Because I bought the straight, rust free, running car for $750 (try that with an Si).
Then I added several spare motors and trannys. Cost - Free. How? Nobody wants a D15B1 engine and 4 speed tranny except an ITC racer.
The motor work, suspension, and tranny parts were just as expensive as the ITA parts (many of them were the same parts actually), but after than the money saving started again. Its in consumables, and its significant.
Example...
This year, prior to the ARRC (I throw out the ARRC because I replaced alot of things, as most everyone who is serious does, that I would have normally used for another weekend) we ran 2 test days, 4 sprint races and 5 endurance races. For that we used...
- 8 Hoosiers (with good rubber still left on 4 of them)
- One set of brake pads
- One set of brake rotors
- One set of wheel bearings
- The same rear brake shoes we used last year
- The same front and rear hubs we started with in 2003
- The same drive shafts we started with in 2003
- Alot less gas than the ITA version uses.
With qualifying and practice sessions, thats about 18 hours of track time with about 10 of those hours being actual race time.
Now, try to do the same thing in an ITA or ITS car. You can't. Not and be even remotely competitive. Was my car competitive... Very.
The key is in the light weight and lack of straight line speed. It just doesn't tear up stuff. Think of the difference between hitting Road Atlanta 10a for 45 minutes at 112 to 114mph vs hitting it at 125 to 130mph and it becomes pretty clear.
The issue is all about the "cool" aspect of running in ITC. New drivers especially don't understand the allure of "going slow." Later, after they've raced for a couple of years and destroyed their 401K on an ITS car, they understand. But its too late at that point.
More than classify new cars, what ITC needs is REAL information for the beginner. It needs to be advertised as the class where you really can buy a competitive car for $6000 (or build for $12K) and race it on a minimal budget. The cars are out there, and most of them have plenty of aftermarket.
Spec Miata was marketed this way (even though it isn't remotely true) and look at what happened there. People WANT to race cheaply, they just need to understand how to do it BEFORE they start building a car.
You really can't spend $8000 on a Miata and go win races, but you certainly CAN do it in ITC.
Finally, once again, one of the best races at the ARRC was ITC. 3 cars took the checkered within spitting distance of each other (it should have been 4 cars, but...) yet again.
Its some of the best racing out there, its just that nobody knows it. And thats where the problem really hides.
My car was identical to the ITA version except for the motor and tranny, yet I managed to build a "top flight" car for far less than one could build the same ITA car.
How?
Because I bought the straight, rust free, running car for $750 (try that with an Si).
Then I added several spare motors and trannys. Cost - Free. How? Nobody wants a D15B1 engine and 4 speed tranny except an ITC racer.
The motor work, suspension, and tranny parts were just as expensive as the ITA parts (many of them were the same parts actually), but after than the money saving started again. Its in consumables, and its significant.
Example...
This year, prior to the ARRC (I throw out the ARRC because I replaced alot of things, as most everyone who is serious does, that I would have normally used for another weekend) we ran 2 test days, 4 sprint races and 5 endurance races. For that we used...
- 8 Hoosiers (with good rubber still left on 4 of them)
- One set of brake pads
- One set of brake rotors
- One set of wheel bearings
- The same rear brake shoes we used last year
- The same front and rear hubs we started with in 2003
- The same drive shafts we started with in 2003
- Alot less gas than the ITA version uses.
With qualifying and practice sessions, thats about 18 hours of track time with about 10 of those hours being actual race time.
Now, try to do the same thing in an ITA or ITS car. You can't. Not and be even remotely competitive. Was my car competitive... Very.
The key is in the light weight and lack of straight line speed. It just doesn't tear up stuff. Think of the difference between hitting Road Atlanta 10a for 45 minutes at 112 to 114mph vs hitting it at 125 to 130mph and it becomes pretty clear.
The issue is all about the "cool" aspect of running in ITC. New drivers especially don't understand the allure of "going slow." Later, after they've raced for a couple of years and destroyed their 401K on an ITS car, they understand. But its too late at that point.
More than classify new cars, what ITC needs is REAL information for the beginner. It needs to be advertised as the class where you really can buy a competitive car for $6000 (or build for $12K) and race it on a minimal budget. The cars are out there, and most of them have plenty of aftermarket.
Spec Miata was marketed this way (even though it isn't remotely true) and look at what happened there. People WANT to race cheaply, they just need to understand how to do it BEFORE they start building a car.
You really can't spend $8000 on a Miata and go win races, but you certainly CAN do it in ITC.
Finally, once again, one of the best races at the ARRC was ITC. 3 cars took the checkered within spitting distance of each other (it should have been 4 cars, but...) yet again.
Its some of the best racing out there, its just that nobody knows it. And thats where the problem really hides.
I think we are all right.
Greg's point is accurate, as far as it goes. If there were SM numbers of ITC cars out there, the best of them would cost 2x what Scott indicates above. My point is about the law of diminishing returns, which I THINK kicks in with a C car a lot more quickly than with one from a faster class.
NOW we are going in circles.
K
Greg's point is accurate, as far as it goes. If there were SM numbers of ITC cars out there, the best of them would cost 2x what Scott indicates above. My point is about the law of diminishing returns, which I THINK kicks in with a C car a lot more quickly than with one from a faster class.
NOW we are going in circles.
K
Wow Greg, a 5 year life span on a race car! If that's what you give a race car, then ITA is really expensive! I've been running mine for 6 yrs since I built it, and I'm still developing it (and me). My team mate has been running his since '98, has never finished off the podium at the ARRC, and has won it 4 times. You would be shocked at how cheap that car was built and how cheap it has been to maintain.
Catch22
New member
See Kirk, Having raced in ITC, at the front, for the last 3 years, I disagree.
One doesn't race in ITC because its cool or because its fast. Its all about the money. The cost to play.
Throw out the cost to play, and I (and I'm guessing everyone I know in ITC) am racing in ITS or ITA. Its cooler, the cars are newer, and its faster.
I don't see ITC EVER getting out of control as SM has because to do so would defeat the purpose of being there in the first place. I know if costs started to skyrocket, and BSI started selling turn key ITC cars for $35000, I'd go race somewhere else.
In short, even if there were 30 ITC cars on every grid I don't think the cost to play would be any different than it is right now. It just doesn't make any sense.
Why be out there getting lapped and raped by BMWs and Miatas for $30000 when you can be the raper for the same price?
See... That doesn't make sense, and its why (IMO) the costs to play in ITC and ITB haven't jumped like they have in the other classes.
Scott, who's ITC car was as well developed and turned out as most any ITA car on any grid but still costs a helluva lot less to build and race.
One doesn't race in ITC because its cool or because its fast. Its all about the money. The cost to play.
Throw out the cost to play, and I (and I'm guessing everyone I know in ITC) am racing in ITS or ITA. Its cooler, the cars are newer, and its faster.
I don't see ITC EVER getting out of control as SM has because to do so would defeat the purpose of being there in the first place. I know if costs started to skyrocket, and BSI started selling turn key ITC cars for $35000, I'd go race somewhere else.
In short, even if there were 30 ITC cars on every grid I don't think the cost to play would be any different than it is right now. It just doesn't make any sense.
Why be out there getting lapped and raped by BMWs and Miatas for $30000 when you can be the raper for the same price?
See... That doesn't make sense, and its why (IMO) the costs to play in ITC and ITB haven't jumped like they have in the other classes.
Scott, who's ITC car was as well developed and turned out as most any ITA car on any grid but still costs a helluva lot less to build and race.
Hey, I'll defer to your experience(s), however keep in mind mine: if I had told you 5-7 years ago that someone would spend $40k+ to build an ITA car (in some cases significantly more), you would have called me a madman. If I had told you near-Touring ITS cars would be offered brandy-new with Motec systems for nearly $50k, you would have handed me another beer and told me to continue getting drunk.
A 5-year lifespan for a race car is an eternity. If you were offering insurance for an ITC car, would you write me a term-life policy on it for 5 years? If so, at what price: the price to build it? Well, guess what: that's a depreciation to zero in five years. And, if it did survive that 5 years, what kind of shape will it be in - or - how much of it would be actually leftover from the original (the old ax-head-and-handle routine)? These are the kinda things you may not WANT to think about, but it's reality. Right, Scott?
Like I said, I defer to your experiences and I agree that ITC is cheap -- today. But
trust me: if you make ITC popular that $6k won't buy much of an old used-up ITC car... - GA
A 5-year lifespan for a race car is an eternity. If you were offering insurance for an ITC car, would you write me a term-life policy on it for 5 years? If so, at what price: the price to build it? Well, guess what: that's a depreciation to zero in five years. And, if it did survive that 5 years, what kind of shape will it be in - or - how much of it would be actually leftover from the original (the old ax-head-and-handle routine)? These are the kinda things you may not WANT to think about, but it's reality. Right, Scott?
Like I said, I defer to your experiences and I agree that ITC is cheap -- today. But
trust me: if you make ITC popular that $6k won't buy much of an old used-up ITC car... - GA