ITR Class Poll

[Ron Earp]

This is a poll to determine how many IT Forum members would be interested in an "ITR" class. For purposes of this poll the ITR class would:

*Class cars above the performance envelope of ITS

*Class "newer" cars and make attempts to accommodate T2 and T3 cars

*Generally be a step above ITS costs in terms of basic car costs and running costs

 

[Eagle7]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 01:15 PM
This is a poll to determine how many IT Forum members would be interested in an "ITR" class.  For purposes of this poll the ITR class would:

*Class cars above the performance envelope of ITS

*Class "newer" cars and make attempts to accommodate T2 and T3 cars

*Generally be a step above ITS costs in terms of basic car costs and running costs

[snapback]67270[/snapback]​

Not quite sure what "interested" means. Do I think it's a good idea, or would I campaign a car in it?

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Eagle7@Dec 3 2005, 06:05 PM
Not quite sure what "interested" means. Do I think it's a good idea, or would I campaign a car in it?

[snapback]67291[/snapback]​

My question exactly.

AB

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 4 2005, 12:35 AM
My question exactly.

AB

[snapback]67294[/snapback]​

Hmmm. Interested I would, for the sake of this poll, indicate "I think it is a good idea."

So, choices equate to:

I think it is a good idea.

I do not think it is a good idea.

Ron

 

[pfcs]

it's not a good idea in the context of improved touring.
it may be a good idea as a new class/category if the club would decide to create it.
It should not be under the IT umbrella, just like AS-which began as an IT concept.
I'm very afraid of what IT could become if this class and the attendant philosphical shifts it will require, would be married. Sometimes simple IS better.

 

[Knestis]

As discussed so far, I'm not convinced, I'm afraid. If it's going to happen, it needs to be more strategic in nature, addressing the AWD and turbo questions as well as the "faster than S " issue. This puts it outside of the frame of how we currently define "Improved Touring."

K

 

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 4 2005, 02:51 AM
As discussed so far, I'm not convinced, I'm afraid. If it's going to happen, it needs to be more strategic in nature, addressing the AWD and turbo questions as well as the "faster than S " issue. This puts it outside of the frame of how we currently define "Improved Touring."

K

[snapback]67300[/snapback]​

K

... So I guess I need to take my 98 BMW Z3 and run it in another club. Since it doesn't fit in the SCCA.

 

[racer_tim]

Ron, We already have a IT Catch all class in San Francisco Region. As long as the car meets IT safety requirements, and runs on DOT tires, and is a tub chassis, we have a regional class called ITE

http://www.sfrscca.org/RoadRacing/Supps-Re..._SP_ITE_ITX.pdf

 

[Bill Miller]

Tim,

Don't take this the wrong way, but I think it's a bit much to tell everyone that has, or wants, a car outside the current ITS performance envelope, that they can just go race in ITE. My take on ITE, is that it's a nod to the people w/ stuff that doesn't fit ANYWHERE in Club Racing. But that it's viewed as a place to turn some laps, and maybe race w/ a friend or two, but that's about it. Essentially "you've got a place to run, but don't ask for anything". To me, it's somewhere between a time trial and a 'conventional' race. Not really much of a point to race a 300hp (insert car here) against a 600hp (insert car here).

While I think it's cool that we have places for owners of these cars to bring them out and play, I also think we need to provide a competitive racing environment for cars above the ITS performance envelope. I think there are a couple of ways to approach it. You could pick a few example cars, and derive a desired wt/hp ratio (may not be the best approach), or, define the performance envelope, and look at what cars fit, based on the process, and what weight they would have to run at (more desireable appoach, IMHO).

 

[Knestis]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 3 2005, 10:01 PM
... So I guess I need to take my 98 BMW Z3 and run it in another club. Since it doesn't fit in the SCCA.

It's a little early to play the "take my ball and go home" card, don't you think? Particularly if you read what I wrote, rather than what you wanted to hear...

There is NO question that something has to be done to meet the needs of a changing market and increasing performance envelopes of new cars. You are never going to find anyone who is more enthusiastic about that philosophy than I am, I don't think. (See three years worth of effort to make IT2 happen, conversations about MT2, and a thousand other bits of evidence.)

I just do NOT think that there is any chance of making the kind of meaningful change necessary to do this, simply by tacking another IT class on top of what - and with the same rules as - we currently have for the category. Further, mucking up the existing IT classes to allow a new one to be created just doesn't seem to be a good idea.

For example...

Most current Touring cars, if prepared to IT rules, will be too fast for ITS. However, a bunch of them will have turbos and/or AWD. In order to create an IT class for them, the blanket prohibition on those technologies in the IT category would have to be lifted. That's a pretty huge issue that someone needs to think through VERY carefully before making a decision, since it might then trickle down to the other classes. You think rules enforcement is a problem now? Wait until someone gets a Toyota MR2 Turbo listed in ITS, and diddles the brain a little...

Better perhaps that, if this class is going to include that groovy stuff, it not be called IT(anything). It would be to Touring as IT was originally to Showroom Stock, applying IT-type modifications to the new classes, so maybe it's Super Touring or something completely new. Maybe it's more like the Modified Touring concept, to poke it more firmly into the import performance niche - http://www.it2.evaluand.com/compare.php3

Maybe these cars are fast enough that it's just stupid to have the puny minimum cage rules and OE fuel tanks that we allow in IT. Maybe there are a LOT of things that we need to figure out. Maybe it's OK for me to say, "Not this plan, thanks" and not have someone get a pout on, thinking that I just want to send them to NASA.

K

 

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 5 2005, 04:24 AM
I just do NOT think that there is any chance of making the kind of meaningful change necessary to do this, simply by tacking another IT class on top of what - and with the same rules as - we currently have for the category. Further, mucking up the existing IT classes to allow a new one to be created just doesn't seem to be a good idea.
Maybe it's OK for me to say, "Not this plan, thanks" and not have someone get a pout on, thinking that I just want to send them to NASA.

K

[snapback]67315[/snapback]​

I'm a little bit to old for the School Boy Pout. And besides, you are the one that has the "No" .... not "Maybe" attitude with your statement that I commented on.

So, I have a can do attitude except for kissing some _ _ _ Yours included.

R

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by hotshoe
K

... So I guess I need to take my 98 BMW Z3 and run it in another club. Since it doesn't fit in the SCCA.

[snapback]67300[/snapback]​

Based on presentation I would be ok with that.

I would like to see this car classed but it would not be the end of the world if it wasn't I don't believe the interest in these will be so great that they need large priority put on them. I do believe this is a car that with an SIR would fit into ITS and I would push for that except you don't seem like a person that would be willing to wait and work for it....BMW club maybe willing to let you have your way...enjoy

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Kirk,

What if you took the Turbo and AWD cars out of the equation? They really represent a small % of the classification. I don't see any issues in keeping the turbo/AWD issue at bay...besides, I am not convinced they are the right thing for Touring anyway...should the STi have won so soon in it's development?

Hmmmm.

AB

 

[tnord]

I'm in favor of a class that includes newer and faster cars than are currently in ITS. i'm in favor of a class that would encourage current T cars to convert, and a level of prep somewhere between T and Prod.

i think that's the basic idea most of us agree upon. you guys who are smarter than me decide on the turbo/awd, v8, cage, fuel cell, and all other issues that i really have no place voicing my opinion on.

call it ITR, ST, MT, RT, whatever form of alphabet soup you want, but i think the level of prep should be limited to as close to IT as possible.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 4 2005, 11:07 PM
Kirk,

What if you took the Turbo and AWD cars out of the equation?  They really represent a small % of the classification.  I don't see any issues in keeping the turbo/AWD issue at bay...besides, I am not convinced they are the right thing for Touring anyway...should the STi have won so soon in it's development?Hmmmm.

AB

[snapback]67322[/snapback]​

Nope.....and it still ticks me off....... So Andy what is your position on the use of SIR's?

 

[Bill Miller]

Maybe one of the things that's muddying the waters here, is that it seems we've got a couple of agendas that are getting merged into one. The first one I see, is providing a place, w/in the structure of IT, to be able to race cars that are outside the performance envelope of ITS. The second one I see is to provide a place to race Touiring cars, once they're no longer eligible in Touring.

These things can be, but don't necessarily have to be one in the same. While I think we can probably use SIR technology in IT, do we really want to group cars that have 75-100 hp differentials, in the same class? For this to work, it would seem like you're going to be slowing down a bunch of T2 cars.

A lot of this would probably become a lot clearer, if we had any kind of idea about what kind of strategic direction Club Racing was headed in. I guess we'll never see this strategic plan that we've heard about for the past few years.

Maybe the solution is the creation of a new category, Regional Touring. Or better yet, you just change the rules to allow Touring cars to run forever in Regionals. I still think we need a class in IT for cars that make between 250 - 300 hp, but maybe we shouldn't necessarily talk aobut that class as a place for ex-T2/3 cars (that's not to say that some won't fit).

 

[Knestis]

Sheesh. I was given exactly two choices in the poll - "yes" and "no" - and asked to pick one. Given the proposal as suggested, I didn't have "maybe." Do I think that the ideas discussed to date address issues necessary to...

*Class cars above the performance envelope of ITS
*Class "newer" cars and make attempts to accommodate T2 and T3 cars
*Generally be a step above ITS costs in terms of basic car costs and running costs

No. Do I think there are a bunch of new cars out there, currently not in a "real" class, that deserve a place to race? Yes. Even BMWs? Not even "maybe" - Yes.

Joe said it earlier: Classes are too valuable to not expect a new one to solve more than one problem for the Club.

K

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 5 2005, 01:54 PM
Sheesh. I was given exactly two choices in the poll - "yes" and "no" - and asked to pick one. Given the proposal as suggested, I didn't have "maybe." Do I think that the ideas discussed to date address issues necessary to...
No. Do I think there are a bunch of new cars out there, currently not in a "real" class, that deserve a place to race? Yes. Even BMWs? Not even "maybe" - Yes.

Joe said it earlier: Classes are too valuable to not expect a new one to solve more than one problem for the Club.

K

[snapback]67330[/snapback]​

The proposal I'm drafting right now will not include AWD and forced induction cars. The reason I do not plan to include them is that I think "ITR", or whatever it is, will take 5x as long to draft and plan if these cars are included. And then not pass through the ITAC or the CRB. I base this on the short time I've been on the IT forum and the amount of flak a turbo or AWD car receives - I just don't think there would be a way to satisfy everyone.

So, I plan to put what T2 and T3 cars I can into the ITR that I am drafting because there are PLENTLY of cars that are elligable for ITR that would draw interest to the class without worrying about forced induction and AWD cars. I think having 25-40 cars listed on the spec sheet will be possible, but not 100% sure yet.

Personally, I am starting to think to class forced induction and AWD cars one is going to have to go outside of IT to get it done, a new class/system. I'm not saying they couldn't fit in ITR (or whatever you want to call it under the IT system), it just to me seems really unlikely given how difficult the discussion even simply classing some higer performance, but otherwise perfectly normal, cars in IT is becoming.

Ron

 

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan+Dec 5 2005, 05:53 AM-->

<!--QuoteBegin-hotshoe

K

... So I guess I need to take my 98 BMW Z3 and run it in another club. Since it doesn't fit in the SCCA.

[snapback]67300[/snapback]​

Based on presentation I would be ok with that.

I would like to see this car classed but it would not be the end of the world if it wasn't I don't believe the interest in these will be so great that they need large priority put on them. I do believe this is a car that with an SIR would fit into ITS and I would push for that except you don't seem like a person that would be willing to wait and work for it....

[snapback]67321[/snapback]​

[/b]

...Based on what presentation? Did you read my other posts? I'm willing to help the club for the benefit of the whole. But whenever you get treated like you are insignificant then it makes you wonder, how do you make a change? I would like to see an Improved Touring Class developed for cars that are to fast for ITS. But with all the whining going on here with the pessimist crusade the chances seem pretty bleak. Tunnel vision seems to be a common problem around here.

...This to me has been a short fall for quite a few years. Do we see any 90 thru 98 300ZXs in IT ? Or how about the 3rd gen RX7? And the list goes on. The reason we see declining numbers in IT is because we do not have enough cars classified. If you drive an aging 1st gen RX7 (also able to run vintage) or an antique "Z" car then you are right at home. But prospective members have a hard time relating to cars they don't even remember.

... Don't let the fog on your glasses, nor the pre conceived notion that everything is alright fool you. The club has been needing to do something for the past five years.

... All I want to do is inspire and help. My attitude is poor only with those that are resting on their past accomplishments. We all need to help. A suggestion to try something else is always better than just saying NO.

... So what about your presentation? I hope that a non member of the SCCA that has a car (like I mentioned) doesn't get discouraged by reading that. They need to know that some of us care. And they shouldn't have to "work" for it. We should INVITE them with something of interest to THEM! Not just US.

........Rick.........

 

[racer_tim]

Bill, our ITE class is designed as a catch all for cars that don't fit into ITS-ITC, but we aslo have "Super Production" where anything goes, as long as you can make sound. We have Porsche 930 twin turbo's and wild Corvette's in that class.

We also have an ITX group which is a "dual entry" class, that if you have 2 drivers that want to run the car, one can race in our Group 5 (Regular ITS, ITA, ITB, ITC, small bore proction) and the other driver runs in Group 1 (RX7, ITX, ITE, T2, T3, SSB, SSC)

If your the same driver and you want to run in both classes, the 2nd entry is at a reduced fee. Additional track time for less $$$$$.