ITR, When???

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by tnord@Dec 3 2005, 10:18 AM
the low cost statement is rather irrelevant if you ask me.  please tell me how ITE fits into this. 

are you assuming that donor cars will always be expensive?  some of the cars that fit into the class are certainly expensive at the moment, but 5 years from now what will they be like?  just because donors might be to pricey to buy right now, it doesn't mean they will forever be that way.  even now, NA Z32 300ZX's can be had for 5 grand or less (i sold my old one for 6500 5 years ago), wrecked S2000's for less than 10 grand, a built S2000 for NASA H1 for 18,000 if i remember correctly, there's a former Grand-Am Integra Type R in GRM for $22 i believe, and other NASA H2 cars for far less.  remember that freshly built SM's can cost you 25-30 g's.

i don't think those of us who are proponents of the ITR class think the most growth will come from building new cars.  Get a couple PCA guys, BMWCCA guys, a couple NASA guys, and most importantly, have a place for current SCCA members with obsolete T2/T3 cars to race, and you've got a solid entry list.

[snapback]67271[/snapback]​

ITE is not an IT based class so don't trot out that old nag.

PCA guys are not interested in banging fenders with IT cars. I work for several of them they like the 13/13 rule.

Touring cars are not really gonna make up enough for quite some time and the NAZ32 and S2000 could be moved into ITS tomorrow with the correct restriction system.

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 3 2005, 05:18 PM
Ron, I will wait for your list. I am not sure we are as far apart as you think. I think you don't like to be challenged on your reasoning.  SO I do kick back at new classes that on paper have little chance of serious racing.

[snapback]67272[/snapback]​

They may not be far apart, I would imagine not since the cars on the spreadsheet now are all from eariler in the thread plus some others I've found.

As far as being challenged, that is fine. Naturally, I'm going to defend my position as would anyone else. I'm afraid that I perceived your interest in the "low cost highly populated" class as a non-logical fit with ITR. I construed your post about interest in that class as non-sequitur with ITR because I think it is safe to say that if ITR is above S in performance then it is probably going to cost more than S.

I completely agree with you on ITE - it isn't really a class, just a catch all to allow some folks some track time. In the SE it you "won" ITE it might mean you beat the other ITE racer that shows up, or, he didn't show.

R

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 10:53 AM
They may not be far apart, I would imagine not since the cars on the spreadsheet now are all from eariler in the thread plus some others I've found. 

As far as being challenged, that is fine. Naturally, I'm going to defend my position as would anyone else. I'm afraid that I perceived your interest in the "low cost highly populated" class as a non-logical fit with ITR.  I construed your post about interest in that class as non-sequitur with ITR because I think it is safe to say that if ITR is above S in performance then it is probably going to cost more than S. 

I completely agree with you on ITE - it isn't really a class, just a catch all to allow some folks some track time. In the SE it you "won" ITE it might mean you beat the other ITE racer that shows up, or, he didn't show.

R

[snapback]67274[/snapback]​

Something to consider when thinking the T2 folks will be coming over to ITR. Right now I have spent as much on wheels for one car as some good ITA cars cost. 18x10's are going to be the norm in a short time. How do you propose dealing with this issue. PCA folks are already running on these sizes for cars that would fit that envelope. How would you deal with that? I understand that ITR would be higher dollars and that's what I am saying. Why would anyone want to spend 60 to 80k tobuild a regional only car. Touring I agree will never be a big regional class because of the cost of purchaing and building them. Don't let IT get to big for its customer.

And Ron I will be very happy to start construction on your 2006 T2 Zcar if you are ready to start spending some silly money.

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 3 2005, 06:54 PM
18x10's are going to be the norm in a short time. How do you propose dealing with this issue. PCA folks are already running on these sizes for cars that would fit that envelope. How would you deal with that? 

[snapback]67277[/snapback]​

I don't know.

Jeff Young just called me and provided a lot of nice background history for me on IT. One thing I'm worried about and he and I discussed is what will happen to IT?

There are family sedans now, legal for IT classification, that have more hp stock than any ITS car. The current crop of interesting cars on the market are mostly turbocharged. AWD is common. Horsepower is up there. Current family sedans are at 260hp (Honda Accord). It is hard to buy something less than 200hp now days. Wheels are big, as you mentioned, but hp is big, and fortunately newer car designs have good brakes these days.

There are a lot of interesting cars out now that will be great race cars. G35, 350z, Infiniti Coupe (350z), WRX, STi, Evo, 330i, etc. but some of these cars have more power than current ITR candidates not to mention technology the SCCA doesn't embrace for obvious reasons.

But what about IT? What will happen to it if we can't, in five years or even now, class some of these newer cars? Drive around in increasingly older IT cars? I'll be over 40 then and I might be attracted to some of the cars, but I don't know about 30 somethings that don't identify with RX7s, Z cars, and the like.

You had a good point about ITA with SMs I didn't consider even though I've mentioned it myself. I think you are right that ITA will grow a lot as folks get out of SM and into something more controlled with respect to rules and costs.

R

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 12:22 PM
I don't know. 

Jeff Young just called me and provided a lot of nice background history for me on IT.  One thing I'm worried about and he and I discussed is what will happen to IT?

There are family sedans now, legal for IT classification, that have more hp stock than any ITS car. The current crop of interesting cars on the market are mostly turbocharged.  AWD is common.  Horsepower is up there.  Current family sedans are at 260hp (Honda Accord).  It is hard to buy something less than 200hp now days.  Wheels are big, as you mentioned, but hp is big, and fortunately newer car designs have good brakes these days. 

There are a lot of interesting cars out now that will be great race cars.  G35, 350z, Infiniti Coupe (350z), WRX, STi, Evo, 330i, etc. but some of these cars have more power than current ITR candidates not to mention technology the SCCA doesn't embrace for obvious reasons.

But what about IT? What will happen to it if we can't, in five years or even now, class some of these newer cars? Drive around in increasingly older IT cars? I'll be over 40 then and I might be attracted to some of the cars, but I don't know about 30 somethings that don't identify with RX7s, Z cars, and the like.

You had a good point about ITA with SMs I didn't consider even though I've mentioned it myself.  I think you are right that ITA will grow a lot as folks get out of SM and into something more controlled with respect to rules and costs.

R

[snapback]67279[/snapback]​

Ah but you open a new can O worms when you mention all those other cars. A lot of the Touring cars will be claspped out and used up by the time they finisht their job in nationals. But there are also a lot of cars being built that would be fine for IT. I can tell you that deal with the boosted cars under the touring rules is a nightmare already, ad IT allowances and the only people that will want them will be the guys buying them. I have always said that turbos and AWD need to be put in a class against each other.

As far as the next group of cars coming to IT it will be the Mini,the Mazda 3 and others like those. The Spec V Nissan, We nee to get in front of the engineered SIR for these cars and you could control the number of tweeners you have to deal with.

 

[Bill Miller]

Just got done watching the T2 race. Some really aggressive driving, but some amazing racing. I don't know how anyone could watch that and not get excited about it. Hemmingson's save after he got tapped, was one of the best ones I've ever seen.

Making a place for these guys to run, after their tenure in T2, seems to be a great idea. But from what I saw, I have to agree w/ Joe, these cars are going to be pretty used up by then. But that's not to say that someone won't build new ones!

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Dec 3 2005, 08:56 PM
Making a place for these guys to run, after their tenure in T2, seems to be a great idea.  But from what I saw, I have to agree w/ Joe, these cars are going to be pretty used up by then.  But that's not to say that someone won't build new ones!

[snapback]67286[/snapback]​

However, they can run in T2 for TEN YEARS... I'm not sure what the draw to IT would be, given the choice... These cars are already fairly "racey" in Touring trim, and they have the benefit of being a National class...

Perhaps in five years or so there may be people who want to race a 2005 Nissan 350Z in IT, but they'd likely be LESS restricted going to Touring even then...

We've made some strides, but I just don't see things changing THAT rapidly so as to allow things like 18" wheels, etc... like they do in Touring...

Also, if the new "production" class (D-Prod, Street Touring, whatever...) ever gets off the ground, it will be a natural draw for the cars in question... Heck, if I had an E36, that's where I'd even take it!

IF they implement the class correctly...

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Used-schmoozed. Who is going to put an IT effort together out of a SS car with the same motor, shocks and suspension? Nobody who wants to run at the front. These pieces will have to be new...hell, all of that and more are going into transforming our Miata from SM to ITA...and it was all new 12 months ago.

I, for one, will build an IT RX-8. SHould be plenty of ex-T2/R3 or GAC cars around.

AB

 

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 07:22 PM
I don't know. 


but some of these cars have more power than current ITR candidates not to mention technology the SCCA doesn't embrace for obvious reasons.

[snapback]67279[/snapback]​

One of the problems with our club right now, still run by a old british sports car mentality, lets hate horsepower, german cars, turbos, etc. Every 18 year old now wants a Evo or Sti, not a MG.

In this day and age no obvious reasons should exsist to prohibit modern cars and technology

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Fastfred92@Dec 5 2005, 08:53 AM
One of the problems with our club right now, still run by a old british sports car mentality, lets hate horsepower, german cars, turbos, etc. Every 18 year old now wants a Evo or Sti, not a MG.

In this day and age no obvious reasons should exsist to prohibit modern cars and technology

[snapback]67335[/snapback]​

Fred, Production classes maybe but your statment is far from the current truth. Give that stuff a rest. T2 has STI's and EVo's along with the SR4T neon. I don't know how much more current you want. The cars are now classed for 10 years and by then they will be clapped out or we will have other classes for them to fit. But crying the queen has control has no place in this issue.

 

[Banzai240]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 5 2005, 04:38 PM
But crying the queen has control has no place in this issue.

[snapback]67342[/snapback]​

Especially for IT! That's just a silly statement in general... outside of Production, that is...

 

[Fastfred92]

Originally posted by Banzai240@Dec 5 2005, 04:49 PM
outside of Production, that is... 

[snapback]67345[/snapback]​

I get it

God save the Queen

 

[irace1]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 5 2005, 04:38 PM
Fred, Production classes maybe but your statment is far from the current truth. Give that stuff a rest. T2 has STI's and EVo's along with the SR4T neon. I don't know how much more current you want. The cars are now classed for 10 years and by then they will be clapped out or we will have other classes for them to fit. But crying the queen has control has no place in this issue.

[snapback]67342[/snapback]​

You are making a joke right? That is why my clapped out? 13 year old E36 WC car has no where to run except in ITE with Vipers and Vettes and NASA. That is why NASA exists - they gave a home to a lot of displaced race cars - Honda Challenge, USTCC, GTS Challenge, etc., should I go on(?) Modern real race cars that have no competitive home in SCCA. ...and oh yeah, no National recognition for IT at all.

At least I can focus on the GTS Challenge in '06 and go to the NASA Nationals in September.

 

[zracre]

Originally posted by irace1@Dec 11 2005, 11:02 PM
You are making a joke right?  That is why my clapped out? 13 year old E36 WC car has no where to run except in ITE with Vipers and Vettes and NASA.  That is why NASA exists - they gave a home to a lot of displaced race cars - Honda Challenge, USTCC, GTS Challenge, etc., should I go on(?)  Modern real race cars that have no competitive home in SCCA.  ...and oh yeah, no National recognition for IT at all. 

At least I can focus on the GTS Challenge in '06 and go to the NASA Nationals in September.

[snapback]67906[/snapback]​

and race in the GTS challenge it is for you!!! IT is a stepping stone for many...many people in IT cant afford a clapped out 13 year old race car like your BMW...or could afford to feed it...completely not the IDEA of IT...If somebody wants to follow the ranks in NASA, good for them and go for it!! If someone wants to follow the ranks in SCCA they go T1, T2 etc and win a national championship. IT is a place to race inexpensive (relative to your budget) cars currently available and should remain that way. there is another thread on ITR that goes into detail as well. NASA is a good thing for people local to their races and have a "displaced" race car. IT is for anyone to race as long as they follow the rules...its what you make it.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by zracre@Dec 11 2005, 08:16 PM
and race in the GTS challenge it is for you!!! IT is a stepping stone for many...many people in IT cant afford a clapped out 13 year old race car like your BMW...or could afford to feed it...completely not the IDEA of IT...If somebody wants to follow the ranks in NASA, good for them and go for it!!   If someone wants to follow the ranks in SCCA they go T1, T2 etc and win a national championship.  IT is a place to race inexpensive (relative to your budget) cars currently available and should remain that way.  there is another thread on ITR that goes into detail as well.  NASA is a good thing for people local to their races and have a "displaced" race car.  IT is for anyone to race as long as they follow the rules...its what you make it.

[snapback]67910[/snapback]​

Thanks Evan you beat me to it.....I find it funny when people think they can use my words to paint me into a corner. CalClub Oregon Region and NW region all offer RS I took a big part in reshaping the rules just for the kind of cars you are talking about on a regional level. Oh and BTW This is what I drive....An old clapped out pro car.[attachmentid=222]
Oh and I do this cause I enjoy it...If I want a national championship I will build a 350z for T2 and win one. Have a nice day........and please try again.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by irace1@Dec 11 2005, 08:02 PM
You are making a joke right?  That is why my clapped out? 13 year old E36 WC car has no where to run except in ITE with Vipers and Vettes and NASA.  That is why NASA exists - they gave a home to a lot of displaced race cars - Honda Challenge, USTCC, GTS Challenge, etc., should I go on(?)  Modern real race cars that have no competitive home in SCCA.  ...and oh yeah, no National recognition for IT at all. 

At least I can focus on the GTS Challenge in '06 and go to the NASA Nationals in September.

[snapback]67906[/snapback]​

I understand perfectly. I'm purchasing a Z3 that's not classed currently in anything other than ITE, where I'll be outclassed by the same. I'll try to implement ITR locally. Are you interested in comming South? BTW, our current ITE runs fuel cells because they run with GT, this is another reason for me to work for ITR in Calclub as I don't want to replace my stock tank with a fuel cell.

James

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Dec 11 2005, 08:46 PM
I understand perfectly.  I'm purchasing a Z3 that's not classed currently in anything other than ITE, where I'll be outclassed by the same.  I'll try to implement ITR locally.  Are you interested in comming South?  BTW, our current ITE runs fuel cells because they run with GT, this is another reason for me to work for ITR in Calclub as I don't want to replace my stock tank with a fuel cell.

James

[snapback]67917[/snapback]​

Don't be shocked if you get a class with more speed that you don't end up with a rule requiring fuel cells in some or all cars....Back to one of the reasons SSGT became AS and AS got stiffer cage and fuel cell requirements....OOPs I promised Not to bring any more real facts to this thread...

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 11 2005, 08:53 PM
Don't be shocked if you get a class with more speed that you don't end up with a rule requiring fuel cells in some or all cars....Back to one of the reasons SSGT became AS and AS got stiffer cage and fuel cell requirements....OOPs I promised Not to bring any more real facts to this thread...

[snapback]67918[/snapback]​

The reason fuel cells were implemented was because ITE was combined with tube frame GT cars. The ruling was based on the tube frame car spearing the stock fuel tank. ITE was combine with GT beacuse the ITC/D guy's were nervous about running with 500hp vettes not 260hp Z3's.

James

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Dec 11 2005, 09:23 PM
The reason fuel cells were implemented was because ITE was combined with tube frame GT cars.  The ruling was based on the tube frame car spearing the stock fuel tank.  ITE was combine with GT beacuse the ITC/D guy's were nervous about running with 500hp vettes not 260hp Z3's. 

James

[snapback]67922[/snapback]​

Actually James I was consulted by one of your old RE's on this when I was working on the ITE stuff for this region. The fuel cell requirement in Calclub came when guys started building WCGT replicas except the were using SP type engines in them. your comp comittee was nervous about having car going those kinds of speeds on only IT safety stuff. I belive your ITE class also has an upgrade to its cage rules based on level of speed and prep also. There are no restrictions in SCCA about running radial Gas tank cars with Tube framed GT1 stuff. I could offer you an e-mail adress to the past RE I worked with on this if you need it.

 

[Z3_GoCar]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 11 2005, 09:31 PM
Actually James I was consulted by one of your old RE's on this when I was working on the ITE stuff for this region. The fuel cell requirement in Calclub came when guys started building WCGT replicas except the were using SP type engines in them. your comp comittee was nervous about having car going those kinds of speeds on only IT safety stuff. I belive your ITE class also has an upgrade to its cage rules based on level of speed and prep also.  There are no restrictions in SCCA about running radial Gas tank cars with Tube framed GT1 stuff. I could offer you an e-mail adress to the past RE I worked with on this if you need it.

[snapback]67923[/snapback]​

I know who you talked to. I recieved that info from the calclub message board at:
Calclub, raceneely 10/22/05

CBUZZ, Norris


    As you may remember Im quite intimate with the ITE Rules. The Comp Committee wrote the current version in 2000 when I was Chairman from 98'-03'. We worked closely with the 8 or 9 drivers of the class at the time. I also think today they could be altered to open it up......

  Uncle Joe is not the only one with concerns on spending and at the time we wrote the rules the climate was to at least try to keep costs down. Over / Under was mentioned by JW Hall as an option when the class grew or shrunk eventually in the future (as classes do) to appeal to the membership.

To clarify the Fuel Cell issue here is what happened. When CSCC invented ITE it was running in the ITA & ITS run group at times. Eventually the cars outgrew that group and we put them in with GT. When Colorado ( Now Topeka) got wind that the cars were in the GT group, "Patsy", I believe her name was, said, "Get Fuel Cells in the cars by the following year". We followed their directions to get sanctions through for our races. It was quite a task getting IT guys to actually be safe and run fuel cells but we got every driver to comply. Tech was begged not to turn away cars on inspection and to notate in the log books if they came back and raced in ITE to comply within 2 races. However W/C cars with logged races could run W/O Fuel Cells.

The Theory behind Fuel Celling a car that is in a GT group was/is quite simple. 70% of GT cars are homemade Tube structures and not Factory "Tub" Cars with built in Crush Zones like the entire IT group is comprised of. I realize that WC cars all have very safe gas tanks from the factory blah blah blah, but, ITE has cars older than 5 years running in it unlike W/C. These older cars do not have the upgraded engineering that the newer cars do.

Example:  A side impact between Porterfields GT-1 car and an average ITE car would produce a much different impact and ensuing fire than any two 3 series BMW's in a side impact. A GT car may be fiberglass on the outside but underneath it looks like a porcupine with many points of attachment. Colorado had it right then and in my opinion it should stand today.

If ITE ran only with ITE cars then thats fine but it does not down here in CSCC.The fact that the Honda Cup cars are allowed to run in the GT group with no Fuel Cells does not mean it's a good idea, it only means that someone is very very stupid and not manning their ruling position correctly or paying close attention.

Tom Neely

This is where I found my information.

James