ITR Class Poll

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 8 2005, 08:24 PM
...Plus it is not such a bad car. It is just classed wrong.... get it
..... Need I say more?

[snapback]67679[/snapback]​

Haha...All that from a car you have never raced and a set of rules you have never read....

OK I am done I will send my ideas and thoughts to the correct place instead of a question that will never provide a real set of facts.


Ya'all have fun

 

[Hotshoe]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 9 2005, 03:39 AM
Haha...All that from a car you have never raced and a set of rules you have never read....

[snapback]67680[/snapback]​

Joe,

... I'm not quite sure why you persist. You have been given facts.

... I have not run my BMW much this year because I wanted to run my SM some so I could run in a few National races this coming year. Plus, given all the other events that I entered (0ver 30), I didn't have time.

... So I guess if you don't drive your car a lot then you don't know Jack?

... But if you work on one you do......

... What do we do when the 10 years is up? Park it? I hope not.

... Hope we do have fun.......

 

[Fastfred92]

Man its late and you guys are HARSH ! Ron, proceed with this, maybe SE could do something on a trial basis??? I just hope that we move into the 21st century in IT, we just got 15" frecking inch wheels when they are becoming obsolete in the real world. By the time IT gets 17" or 18" you need to buy tires from the time machine. I know turbo / supercharged or AWD is a tough sale but I hope some future provisions could be made...


Joe, send some of that rain from the northwest over to the southeast, we could use it

 

[lateapex911]

Some random, just got home from work reactions and thoughts....

> I hear Joe, he's being realistic...how many cars will REALLY show up?? And I think I know Ron, and he will be responsible for a few that WILL show up. And I think Rick does what he says he will...

So thats ...um....3?

> The comment about the BMWCCA and PCA guys is VERY interesting. I did see some crossover E36s at the ARRC. In this area (the NE), the BMW (i think) and Porsche (definately) club series have limited number of events, so I can see that there would be guys who would love to race more. Again, regional differences could be drastic.

> And again, the money issue is a non starter in my book, I am always surprised about how much money people are willing to throw away racing. And not just in the build of the car, but in the recurring expenses. A new set of tires every event is pretty common. I think if the class is tempting that the money will be spent.

It is, however, up to us to see that there are diminishing returns whenever possible in the rules writing and car classification areas.

> I am a little concerned about the potential "overuse" of the SIR technology. I like to think of it as a way to "trim" the class...but I wouldn't like to see it try to make cars fit in ways that would affect the cars personality and character. And remember, one of the strengths that gets mentioned every time the E36 is mentioned is it's torque.....and choking a car down so it "fits" a class with an SIR won't affect that, so the car might still not be a good "fit". That said, there are probably certain cars that COULD be made to work in ITS with a SIR, but some that couldn't.

> And while I mentioned earlier that refusals to class cars were happening more and more frequently, I guess my point wasn't that it concerned (only?) four models, but that we HATE to refuse classifications for cool cars, LOL. Especially if those cars could go race elsewhere.

 

[Banzai240]

300ZX @ 245hp...

I'd say with a proper SIR to limit the output to 245hp, some adders for the additional torque of the bigger V6 and the excellent brakes (not that they would make much of a difference at this weight...)...

3250lbs or so for ITS... I could see that working... The torque makes me nervous, but otherwise, I think it would work...


As for the rest of this... You guys need to all get a grip...

We've made some of the BIGGEST updates/changes to the IT Infrastructure in the past two years than have EVER been made since it's inception...

We've fixed rules, made additional allowances, completely altered the way cars are classified (for the better, I might add...)... put cars in the CORRECT classes at reasonable weights... and have fixed MANY of the issues that people were having with the IT classes....

NOW, I hear talk of IT "needing" to embrace 18" wheels or Turbos or AWD, etc...

Sounds a lot like working off of people's fear to me...

Look, let's get real here... The SCCA over the course of a SINGLE season, has already implemented a National level T3/4 program... They didn't do it for something that "would" be needed 10 years down the line... they had a need today, and they did it...

The point being that if, and when there is a need, there is usually a solution not far behind...

While it may seem like it would be cool and trendy, etc., for IT to open things up... there is a basic class here that has always WORKED, JUST THE WAY IT IS... We've worked VERY hard to try to preserve that, while still making updates that would bolster the class, WITHOUT killing it's concept...

In fact, many of the adjustments we've proposed, and that the CRB is hopefully going to approve this next week, will correct some things that were seen by some as "killing" the competitiveness of certain classes... Let's call it getting rid of the "car of the month" club...

I'm the first person to stand up and say that the SCCA NEEDS... MUST HAVE... a "World Challenge" style class in it's structure to accomodate the new trends... I envision it as something that might use rules similiar to the WC rules of the late 90's or early 2000/2001 or so... A little more than IT prep on the motors, Limited prep on the suspensions... spec sized brake packages, wings, Plus sized wheels, wider widths, stock trannies, and maybe even wings... IT on steroids, if you will...

I DON'T, however, think that we need to start talking about making IT this class... NOT any more than I think that it should be called "D-Production", etc... It's NOT IT, and it's NOT Production... It's entirely new...

And, in fact (much more a "fact" than some of the claims I'm reading here...), this class is in the works by a focus committee, or at least was the last I heard... which was about a month ago...

THIS is the place where many of these cars are going to end up... I'm guessing that even the ITS E36 would prefer to be in a class like this, what with all the Turner stuff available and all the money these guys like to spend...

The bottom line is that IT as a structure WORKS... JUST AS IT IS... We have more excitement about this class now than it's seen in 20 years... (and yes, I was around then... barely... ) We have cars classed that are as recent as 2000, and more on the way... Overall, this is a very exciting time to be in IT...

So, think really hard about some of these speculations you are making here... We can all envision what "might" happen if we implement this or that, but history has a funny way of showing us what will happen in the future, and like ITGT turning into AS... so would likely be the way of ITR and "Club Challenge"... etc...

At some point, the "potential" for some of these cars will exceed their equipment, and you'll have to make a decision as to whether or not to allow things that would otherwise be considered very un-IT-Like... That's the point where you no longer are maintaining the "spirit" of the IT philosophy, and that is the point where you should realize that a new direction... a new class structure, might be in order...

If I wasn't so busy working with IT, I'd volunteer to take over the Club Challenge/D-Prod class implementation task myself, because no one wants to see that happen, and happen CORRECTLY, more than me...

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Banzai240+Dec 8 2005, 11:39 PM-->

300ZX @ 245hp...

I'd say with a proper SIR to limit the output to 245hp, some adders for the additional torque of the bigger V6 and the excellent brakes (not that they would make much of a difference at this weight...)...

3250lbs or so for ITS...  I could see that working...  The torque makes me nervous, but otherwise, I think it would work...[/b]

So what does the Torque to weight number do here? Seriously curious I am thinking of making an offer on that car that Andy posted.

<!--QuoteBegin-Banzai240@Dec 8 2005, 11:39 PM
If I wasn't so busy working with IT, I'd volunteer to take over the Club Challenge/D-Prod class implementation task myself, because no one wants to see that happen, and happen CORRECTLY, more than me...

[snapback]67686[/snapback]​

Well maybe one person considering my car is already built.....

 

[Bill Miller]

Darin,

The problem is, a place for ex-T2/T3 cars won't be needed "10 years down the road". In fact, you've got cars comming out of T2/T3 now, that have no place to race. Just because T3 was just created, doesn't mean that all the T3 cars will get to run there for the next 10 years. I've said this before, when a car is classed in SS, the IT classification should be done at the same time. The same could be said for T2/T3, were there a place to put them in IT.

I agree, what you and the rest of the ITAC have done for IT, is a major improvement (no pun intended) for the category. I for one, think it was a major shot in the arm, and in a way, I'm somewhat sorry that I sold my IT car (and may buy another one). But having to choke a 300zx to 245 hp _and_ spec it @ 3250#, is a pretty strong case for having a class above ITS. Assuming that the target performance ratio for ITS is 15#/hp (loosely based on 3000#/200hp), what would an appropriate ITR performance ratio be? Is 12#/hp enough (3000#/250)? Should it be 11#/hp (300#/~275hp)? Hell, should it be 10:1?? Pick a target, and start looking at what cars fit. If the wieghts are reasonable, that would seem to drive the ratio. I just don't see limiting the hp _and_ having the car way significantly on the North side of 3000# as making much sense, just to stuff the car into ITS.

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 9 2005, 12:03 PM
But having to choke a 300zx to 245 hp _and_ spec it @ 3250#, is a pretty strong case for having a class above ITS.  ...  I just don't see limiting the hp _and_ having the car way significantly on the North side of 3000# as making much sense, just to stuff the car into ITS.

[snapback]67691[/snapback]​

BUT... That's EXACTLY what has to be done to the E36 to make it fit ITS... and no one but the E36 driver's seem to have a problem with that...

Let's not forget either, that the 300ZX makes 225hp stock, so you aren't "choking it down"... you are limiting it's POTENTIAL improvement... AND, getting it to 3000lbs might not be possible with IT prep... (might be, I really don't know, but the thing is a pig to start with...) @3000lbs, the car is definately a class above...

Please don't mis-understand... I'm actually one of the supporters of a class above (ITR is NOT my favorite name for it, however... doesn't flow logically for me... since "R" comes before "S"... I'm in favor of ITU, because it sounds more like GTU, which sounds way KOOLER and "U" is after "S" )...

...but we have to be careful because at some point the potential of these cars will exceed their ability to remain save "with limited modifications" currently allowed in IT. And... we are quickly talking about stomping all over the other stated "Intent" of IT, which states that "This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, INEXPENSIVE cars to be eligible." In fact, you might as well read the entire "Intent" section, because much of what has been discussed about this stomps all over the entire paragraph...

So, when someone suggests cars like the 300ZX, which are basically plentiful and realitively inexpensive to buy these days... then sure... it's worth considering...

Some of the other cars mentioned, however, don't fit the stated Intent of the class, so you have to ask yourself 'is it my desire to change the Intent of IT?'??? THAT is what would have to be done to fit some of these cars you guys are mentioning.....

A Mustang V8 for example... It's IT Potential would exceed it's ability to safely race, because the brakes are crap on these cars... Camaros/Firebirds are the same way... History has shown this, and we now no longer have "ITGT", but "AS" instead, and look how much different that class is now... There are a BUNCH of Mustangs in T2, and you are right... they don't have many options on "where to go"... Same goes for several other cars...

But again, as you guys have discussed, you quickly get out of an IT philosophy when you start imagining grouping these cars into a class, because you now are talking about 17 and 18" wheels, all kinds of various tire/wheel widths (we've already had an issue with the Z3, because it's Touring tire/wheel combo was bigger than the allowed IT combo, so these guys have to buy all new wheels when making the transition...)...

Do we open IT up? Do we open it up just for the new class level? Do you allow things in "ITR" that you don't allow in the other IT classes??? Is it still "IT" when you do that???

When you put together the data, and really look at what you'd have to do to make this work, I think you start getting into areas that are very "un-ITish" in nature, and there is a stong group of members who like IT just the way it is (and for that matter, a pretty good populous that likes it the way it WAS...)

In discussing this with the CRB a few months ago (yes guys... this ISN'T an original idea that you've just now come up with )... it quickly became obvious that many...MANY of these cars from Touring, etc., would fit, and in fact, be targeted towards, a new type of class, like the "Club Challenge" class I've mentioned previously... A class with a more modern concept of what "Improving" a "Touring" car means. Not sure we need two interpretations of that...

I need to get to work, but I'll stop for now with this... The ITAC is continuing to discuss this option, and will continue to do so. We are committed, however, with preserving the Intent and the Integrity of Improved Touring. I'm not sure as a group, any recommendations that would require altering the Intent of IT would be approved, so to do this (make an ITR class), would require that the cars that go there would have to fit the stated Intent of IT.

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 9 2005, 08:55 AM
BUT... That's EXACTLY what has to be done to the E36 to make it fit ITS...  and no one but the E36 driver's seem to have a problem with that...

Let's not forget either, that the 300ZX makes 225hp stock, so you aren't "choking it down"... you are limiting it's POTENTIAL improvement...  AND, getting it to 3000lbs might not be possible with IT prep... (might be, I really don't know, but the thing is a pig to start with...)  @3000lbs, the car is definately a class above...

Please don't mis-understand... I'm actually one of the supporters of a class above (ITR is NOT my favorite name for it, however...  doesn't flow logically for me... since "R" comes before "S"...  I'm in favor of ITU, because it sounds more like GTU, which sounds way KOOLER and "U" is after "S"  )...

...but we have to be careful because at some point the potential of these cars will exceed their ability to remain save "with limited modifications" currently allowed in IT.  And...  we are quickly talking about stomping all over the other stated "Intent" of IT, which states that "This class is intended to allow a variety of popular, INEXPENSIVE cars to be eligible."  In fact, you might as well read the entire "Intent" section, because much of what has been discussed about this stomps all over the entire paragraph...

So, when someone suggests cars like the 300ZX, which are basically plentiful and realitively inexpensive to buy these days... then sure... it's worth considering...

Some of the other cars mentioned, however, don't fit the stated Intent of the class, so you have to ask yourself 'is it my desire to change the Intent of IT?'???  THAT is what would have to be done to fit some of these cars you guys are mentioning.....

A Mustang V8 for example... It's IT Potential would exceed it's ability to safely race, because the brakes are crap on these cars...  Camaros/Firebirds are the same way...  History has shown this, and we now no longer have "ITGT", but "AS" instead, and look how much different that class is now...  There are a BUNCH of Mustangs in T2, and you are right... they don't have many options on "where to go"...    Same goes for several other cars...

But again, as you guys have discussed, you quickly get out of an IT philosophy when you start imagining grouping these cars into a class, because you now are talking about 17 and 18" wheels, all kinds of various tire/wheel widths (we've already had an issue with the Z3, because it's Touring tire/wheel combo was bigger than the allowed IT combo, so these guys have to buy all new wheels when making the transition...)...

Do we open IT up?  Do we open it up just for the new class level?  Do you allow things in "ITR" that you don't allow in the other IT classes???  Is it still "IT" when you do that???

When you put together the data, and really look at what you'd have to do to make this work, I think you start getting into areas that are very "un-ITish" in nature, and there is a stong group of members who like IT just the way it is (and for that matter, a pretty good populous that likes it the way it WAS...)

In discussing this with the CRB a few months ago (yes guys... this ISN'T an original idea that you've just now come up with )... it quickly became obvious that many...MANY of these cars from Touring, etc., would fit, and in fact, be targeted towards, a new type of class, like the "Club Challenge" class I've mentioned previously...  A class with a more modern concept of what "Improving" a "Touring" car means.  Not sure we need two interpretations of that...

I need to get to work, but I'll stop for now with this...  The ITAC is continuing to discuss this option, and will continue to do so.  We are committed, however, with preserving the Intent and the Integrity of Improved Touring.  I'm not sure as a group, any recommendations that would require altering the Intent of IT would be approved, so to do this (make an ITR class), would require that the cars that go there would have to fit the stated Intent of IT.

[snapback]67697[/snapback]​

Darin,

What the hell are you doing up so early??? And why are you reading this site at 5AM???

Your comments about the E36 325 are just more support that it doesn't belong in ITS. If you go w/ an 11:1 or 12:1 performance ratio for ITR, then the E36 comes in at ~2475# - 2700# (assuming 225hp). I imagine that car would be a hoot to drive at 2700#, and I don't know if it can get to 2475# w/ IT prep!

WHEN (not IF) a class above ITS is created, it has to be done in such a manner as to not create the same situation that existed in ITS 2-3 years ago. You don't want to have such a wide range of performance that would not have anyone interested in building 1/2 - 2/3 of the cars. It may not be possible to fit them all in just one class. This would seem to be the case, if you've already got two seperate Touring classes that you're looking to as a source of cars.

I don't really have a problem w/ the ITR name. I could see the following structure for IT in 5 years:

ITGT - 9:1 or 10:1 performance ratio
ITR - ~12:1 performance ratio
ITS - 15:1 performance ratio (I think that's what it is now)
ITA - whatever it is now
ITB - ditto
ITC (I hope) - ditto

BTW, your 'alphabetical logic' doesn't really apply. GTO was faster than GTU.


As far as the Mustang brakes go, they seem to be adequate for T2 (I know there will be plenty of Mustang drivers that will probably dispute this ). But maybe, just maybe, IT can take a page from the Prod book (don't shoot me, just hear me out). What I mean by that is, look at the whole limited-prep concept. The theory is, you can class higher output cars in the same class as lower output cars, by limiting what the higher output cars can do. Why wouldn't the same concept work in IT? I know that things are already pretty limited there, but I think it might work. As a staw man, how about taking the Touring rules, and letting people gut the interiors and put a header/no-cat exhaust on, nothing more, and see where they would fall in IT?

And you're right Darin, the idea of expanding IT isn't new. I remember talking about a need to increase the granularity level a couple of years ago, when Kirk first floated the IT2 concept. My point was, it didn't really matter where the new class went, just that we needed more buckets to put the cars in. You have to admit, we're well on our way to that now. The current classes have been pretty well realigned, and all we need is another bucket at the top.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 9 2005, 06:40 AM
Darin,


Your comments about the E36 325 are just more support that it doesn't belong in ITS. 

[snapback]67701[/snapback]​

But Bill is it really about running the car in a free mode or is it about the quality of the race? I know for most of my customers they race IT because of the closeness of the racing not necessarily the speed of the cars. I have said to many people over the years that the most fun I have ever had racing was in an ITC Datsun. Not becasue of the speed but really because of the race. If these cars could be limited to a number then the racing could be close. The E36 with a minor restrictor fits the ITS model just fine and if you opened up the performance to a class above mayactually hurt the level of participation from those cars. I believe what makes those cars popular (in some cases) is that they are currently easy to drive and prep to a front running level in te current class. That allows to average driver a better shot at the front. Anyway many good idea's

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 9 2005, 09:57 AM
But Bill is it really about running the car in a free mode or is it about the quality of the race? I know for most of my customers they race IT because of the closeness of the racing not necessarily the speed of the cars.  I have said to many people over the years that the most fun I have ever had racing was in an ITC Datsun. Not becasue of the speed but really because of the race. If these cars could be limited to a number then the racing could be close. The E36 with a minor restrictor fits the ITS model just fine and if you opened up the performance to a class above mayactually hurt the level of participation from those cars. I believe what makes those cars popular (in some cases) is that they are currently easy to drive and prep to a front running level in te current class. That allows to average driver a better shot at the front. Anyway many good idea's

[snapback]67704[/snapback]​

Joe,

I'm not sure if you're talking about the current restrictor or not. If you are, I'm not sure how you can say that the car fits in ITS w/ that restrictor. The conversation here, over the past several months, seem to indicate the opposite. And just look at what you said. You've got less than max-prepped cars, w/ avg. drivers, running at the front. This is in front of other good drivers w/ top-prepped cars. The only thing that is going to hurt the participation levels of the E36 cars, is people not racing them because they're no longer ringers. You want to run at the front, you better bring your A game. That means both the driver and the car. Who was that guy that came here a short while back? He was running a junk-yard motor w/ minimal prep (no header, etc. IIRC), and he was winning races. Not an insult, but I doubt he's the next Mark Donahue. Move the cars up a class, cut the weight to 2700# (or there abouts), and put similar cars in the class. Oh, and there's a reason that there's good competition at the pointy end of the performance spectrum, class-wise, it's because people want to go fast. Ask most drivers out there, given the choice close racing in ITC vs. close racing in ITS, what would they choose, budgets notwithstanding?

Oh, and what are you doing up so early?

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller+Dec 9 2005, 01:40 PM-->

BTW, your 'alphabetical logic' doesn't really apply.  GTO was faster than GTU. 

[/b]

We'll save GTO for the big V8 cars! ITU - IT-Upper End...


<!--QuoteBegin-Bill Miller@Dec 9 2005, 01:40 PM
But maybe, just maybe, IT can take a page from the Prod book (don't shoot me, just hear me out).  What I mean by that is, look at the whole limited-prep concept.  The theory is, you can class higher output cars in the same class as lower output cars, by limiting what the higher output cars can do.  Why wouldn't the same concept work in IT?

[snapback]67701[/snapback]​

(to self... take a DEEP BREATH... count to 10... one... two... three... ten)

My basic reason is this... it would NO LONGER BE IT if we did that...

And, by the way... make NO mistake... It's Production that took some pages from the IT book to make "Limited Prep" happen... (i.e.: "IT prepped cyl heads"... IT suspension prep..., etc...) And now they are taking things full circle and DORKING that all up so they are back where they started... (i.e.: creating models that never existed... mixing prep... LP motors with Full-Prep suspension... YUK!)

I'm of the opinion that IT doesn't need to take anything from Prod... we're doing fine all on our own...

If we create an IT class above ITS, then it needs to be in the IT-Philosophy. If you start making additional allowances, they you no longer have an IT class...

I think we can accomodate things like larger wheels/tires, but I don't see us making brake allowances, etc... That's just beyond the scope of this class...

I'm curious about something else... WHY would you favor special allowances to limit potential, over simply applying an SIR to the car and limiting output that way??? The SIR is MUCH cheaper to implement, and is MUCH easier to adjust/revert/etc. than special cam allowances, or brake allowances, etc...

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 9 2005, 07:40 AM
Joe,

I'm not sure if you're talking about the current restrictor or not.  If you are, I'm not sure how you can say that the car fits in ITS w/ that restrictor.  The conversation here, over the past several months, seem to indicate the opposite.  And just look at what you said.  You've got less than max-prepped cars, w/ avg. drivers, running at the front.  This is in front of other good drivers w/ top-prepped cars.  The only thing that is going to hurt the participation levels of the E36 cars, is people not racing them because they're no longer ringers.  You want to run at the front, you better bring your A game.  That means both the driver and the car.  Who was that guy that came here a short while back?  He was running a junk-yard motor w/ minimal prep (no header, etc. IIRC), and he was winning races.  Not an insult, but I doubt he's the next Mark Donahue.  Move the cars up a class, cut the weight to 2700# (or there abouts), and put similar cars in the class.  Oh, and there's a reason that there's good competition at the pointy end of the performance spectrum, class-wise, it's because people want to go fast.  Ask most drivers out there, given the choice close racing in ITC vs. close racing in ITS, what would they choose, budgets notwithstanding?

Oh, and what are you doing up so early?

[snapback]67712[/snapback]​

5 hrs of sleep is all we need on the west coast. As to the restrictor your right I am not talking about what we are currently using. I also agree we a re all speed junkies. I said the most fun racing. The reality from a raw speed deal my 125 shifter is probably the biggest thrill of all. But since most of us have given budgets to work with. I think you find that people want competition...SM and T2 are good examples of this. I look at the proposal and again have to say IF we only get 1 more class added and the cars that will be coming are T2 and T3 cars. Right now in T2 you need 350 to 450 hp to be at the front. The cars we are talking about for IT* are in the 230 to 290 range unrestricted. So it looks like you will be restricting something in 5 years to fir them into the next level. Why not look at minor restrictions to fit these Big Tweeners into our existin class limit performance(which limits cost and prep levels) allow a few more of the average into the top side of the middle rather than the bottom side of the class. I really see that looking down the road the cars that may come are gonna be real factory hotrods and need to be handled in a different way. Restrictors can work and W/P indexs can work. T2 is proof of that. 6.0 liter LS2 engine competeing against 2.5 liter turbos shows it can work. The funny thing is the 2.5 liter is the one that needs restricted right now.

 

[Knestis]

Note that the T3 Mustangs can update brakes, and all Touring Mustangs are allowed brake duct kits.

I'm trying to get more up-to-date with the T rules...

K

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 9 2005, 09:37 AM
Note that the T3 Mustangs can update brakes, and all Touring Mustangs are allowed brake duct kits.

I'm trying to get more up-to-date with the T rules...

K

[snapback]67731[/snapback]​

You Know K, The more I look the T classes the more I am not sure they fit the IT structure any way. These cars are classed and adjusted on the thing you hate the most. "ONTRACK PERFORMANCE" How else could you explain a 4.6 liter mustang in T3?

At first my thought were T3 and other more current models into ITS. ITR could be made up of mostly newer 3.5 liter and up stuff. Problem with that is you can't just classify a touring car into its IT classed based on where it is classed in touring. I can't see a 4.6 liter Mustang with IT mods being put into ITS but I could see a Z4 and a few others with proper restrictors being moved there.

I know that people aren't big on restrictors but when IT was born we didn't have FI as the major source if engine management. A single inlet restrictor could be the best way to balance new tech stuff with old tech stuff with out a complete redo of the IT philosophy.

Oh and welcome to the touring rules.....All we ask is that you enjoy the koolaide before you read to much into them...

 

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 9 2005, 12:55 PM
In discussing this with the CRB a few months ago (yes guys... this ISN'T an original idea that you've just now come up with )... it quickly became obvious that many...MANY of these cars from Touring, etc., would fit, and in fact, be targeted towards, a new type of class, like the "Club Challenge" class I've mentioned previously...  A class with a more modern concept of what "Improving" a "Touring" car means.  Not sure we need two interpretations of that...

[snapback]67697[/snapback]​

Darin,

Keep us posted with any news you hear about "D prod" or "Club Challenge" as it seems like it would be a big hit with plenty of possible cars from GAmCup and WC etc. NASA has a similar class with their touring cars and it seems to do well, especially on the left coast. I still feel we need a class above ITS but maybe Club Challenge is the answer to the really high tech stuff i.e. turbos 4wd Audis etc... I still think we could find enough 300zx, S2000, 328i, Z3 guys to fill a class above S

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 9 2005, 05:36 PM
I still think we could find enough 300zx, S2000, 328i, Z3 guys to fill a class above S

[snapback]67736[/snapback]​

I don't disagree... and don't think that it would be unreasonable to do so... I just think that some here need to be more realistic of the scope the class would have...

Stay tuned...

 

[Bill Miller]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 9 2005, 10:54 AM
We'll save GTO for the big V8 cars!  ITU - IT-Upper End... 
(to self...  take a DEEP BREATH... count to 10... one... two... three... ten)

My basic reason is this... it would NO LONGER BE IT if we did that... 

And, by the way... make NO mistake... It's Production that took some pages from the IT book to make "Limited Prep" happen...  (i.e.: "IT prepped cyl heads"... IT suspension prep..., etc...)  And now they are taking things full circle and DORKING that all up so they are back where they started... (i.e.: creating models that never existed... mixing prep... LP motors with Full-Prep suspension... YUK!)

I'm of the opinion that IT doesn't need to take anything from Prod... we're doing fine all on our own...

If we create an IT class above ITS, then it needs to be in the IT-Philosophy.  If you start making additional allowances, they you no longer have an IT class...

I think we can accomodate things like larger wheels/tires, but I don't see us making brake allowances, etc...  That's just beyond the scope of this class...

I'm curious about something else...  WHY would you favor special allowances to limit potential, over simply applying an SIR to the car and limiting output that way???  The SIR is MUCH cheaper to implement, and is MUCH easier to adjust/revert/etc. than special cam allowances, or brake allowances, etc...

[snapback]67716[/snapback]​

And just how would it no longer be IT? Just because all the cars don't prep to the same level? How's that any different than throwing a SIR at them? As far as Prod limited-prep, the only nod to IT was the cylinder head prep. There's nothing remotely close to IT about l-p Prod suspension prep. And are the allowances you're talking about the ones that are listed in the TCS? I'll admit that I haven't read through all the spec lines, but are those exceptions pretty much limited to inlet restrictors and trunk kits? I don't recall seeing anything where there's a special cam allowance. I also don't see where I supported special allowances.

 

[Knestis]

I will undoubtedly be VERY sorry that I said this at some point in the future but perhaps the place for this new Class X IS INDEED within the LP Production framework?

Gawd - I feel icky just thinking that.

Think about it: If we are talking about jacking things all over the place, why not REALLY jack it up? How much fun would that e36 be in LP Prod form? Would the additional cost be a disincentive for someone already commiting to that kind of car?

K

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 9 2005, 12:26 PM
I will undoubtedly be VERY sorry that I said this at some point in the future but perhaps the place for this new Class X IS INDEED within the LP Production framework?

Gawd - I feel icky just thinking that.

Think about it: If we are talking about jacking things all over the place, why not REALLY jack it up? How much fun would that e36 be in LP Prod form? Would the additional cost be a disincentive for someone already commiting to that kind of car?

K

[snapback]67744[/snapback]​

It's funny but it really looks the the scope of a rules set can only really handle about 3 to 4 sets of classes before they run into issues keeping the philosophy and control the same all the way through.


Bill yes SIR's would be a change in philosophy for IT but it would be the smallest change and would reflect the technologhy of today much better. Most of not all new cars that could be classed into IT have a single throttle body controling air flow for the EFI. This makes for one pretty easy and common place to adjust new cars into the class. The issue we face now is there is no way to speed up cars like a 510,240,early rabbits ect. without seriously blowing the philosophy of the class by giving compression, cams, ect. These are clearly big deals.