ITR, When???

Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Dec 11 2005, 09:48 PM
I know who you talked to. I recieved that info from the calclub message board at:
Calclub, raceneely 10/22/05
This is where I found my information.

James
[snapback]67926[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
Again James we are both right it's just a new twist on a problem I helped with several years ago. If you look at the old rules set, peobably last year you will see that fuel cells were needed in certain car competing in ITE. Thise cars were built beyond what was considered IT safety specs....Just like AS wound up and for my money I will bet if and when ITR gets hammered out it will have fuel cells and different cage rules for some cars.
 
Alright so back to the topic, what can I do to make ITR happen at least in my region? What should I use for a power to weight model? How are ITS/A/B/C set up in this respect? What kind of adders get added in? I don't expect it to be an exact formula but rather some general kind-of-sort-of-touchy-feely kind of range. How do you determine motor potential with IT prep? How do you arrive at wieghts? Does anyone have a spread sheet they'd like to share? Or should I make one myself from the current GCR's?

James
 
Originally posted by Z3_GoCar@Dec 12 2005, 02:07 AM
Alright so back to the topic, what can I do to make ITR happen at least in my region?  What should I use for a power to weight model?  How are ITS/A/B/C set up in this respect?  What kind of adders get added in?  I don't expect it to be an exact formula but rather some general kind-of-sort-of-touchy-feely kind of range.  How do you determine motor potential with IT prep?  How do you arrive at wieghts?  Does anyone have a spread sheet they'd like to share?  Or should I make one myself from the current GCR's?

James
[snapback]67932[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Hi James,

Jeff, I, and a couple of others in the SE are working on a spreadsheet right now that we hope to have done Jan 1st. We're also going to try and use it locally to have a regional ITR because we've got enough interest at the local level. Once done, we'll share it, or, we'll pass it around so you can add cars to it. None of us are front drivers so adding all the various VTEC, Type R, alphabet soup for Hondas/Nissans/ etc. is not our bag but the cars have to be there. I'm just not the man for those cars.

Don't waste your time trying to develop a mathematical model from current data. I tried to do the same about 6-8 months ago using S data but it doesn't fit a very nice model. Model on hp/weight and you'll find a lot of cars our all over the map giving your multiterm curve an R squared value of far less than 0.95. In general I remember a lot of 0.8s and a curve that ran through a lot of points but was useless at prediction. Once the ITAC/CRB makes the weight adjustments for a lot of cars I bet it'll work a little better, but due to so many variables involved I don't think it'll ever model that well.

Nice to see someone else willing to work to maybe do a regional class and get ITU started at that level. I am still going to submit the proposal to the ITAC but I'm not sure I expect a whole lot out of it. Some are still concerned about AWD/forced induction cars and our proposal does nothing with them. I can see where the SCCA needs to think about them or do something with them, but putting them in IT would be a struggle and I chose to avoid the issue.

Ron
 
I would respectfully suggest that everyone hold off on Regional versions of ITR. It will ultimately end up harming it's chances of getting added as a class.

What happens is that a few Regions will adopt it, but some others will tweak it. Then you will IT7, Spec 7 and RX-7's prepared to ITA rules...

Let's see what we can do first. If it falls flat on it's face and has no hope, then go for it...but a little patience could go a long way here.

AB
 
Andy said what I was thinking as I worked my way down from the top of this new page. Take that good advice.

However, the symbolic interactionist in me notes that the language he uses illustrates that he understands that regions will indeed push incrementally beyond the "off-the-shelf" IT ruleset. This amounts to more recognition that the "policy damping" effect of a big, hard-to-steer organization is valuable in combating rules creep.

I'll bet you a fiver that any regional effort at IT(whatever) could NOT happen without the IT ruleset being bent - or broken outright. IF, however, you could actually make this class happen at a regional level without busting the mold - and NCR SCCA would be a place that is saturated enough with racers, TT'ers, and HPDE folks that it MIGHT - it would in fact be another way of making it work nationally.

Change ONE rule though, and it's DOA.

K
 
Originally posted by Knestis@Dec 12 2005, 09:55 AM

Change ONE rule though, and it's DOA.

K
[snapback]67943[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I understand what both of your are saying and I think you both offer good advice and are correct. But, I'll say - I do not plan on changing a single thing which is why AWD and forced induction were left out. It is to be an IT class, with IT rules, simply using a few other cars that will on average have more horsepower than S, and on average, be a little heavier than S.

The goal is to create a class that will, on average, be a little faster around the track but just like C/B and A/S do, have a little overlap. That is, the fastest A cars are overlapping S times somewhat, and the same will be here, in that the fastest S cars will overlap in this class as well.

Not a single rule will be changed and I don't think it needs to be. There are plenty of fantastic cars that can be inducted into IT but simply fall outside of current class structure. And, some in IT we can move (BMW 325, 80s Supra which is classed at an incredible weight) into ITR.

Ron
 
Ron,

I wish it were as simple as you might think. You will NEED a process with defined parameters. You will need a list of cars that are eligible.

What weights are you going to allow people to run? How are you going to tell people their 350Z (or insert car here) doesn't fit your new class if you can't define it within reason? What width wheels are you going to allow? What if you allow 9" and the CRB wants 8" in a year? 10"? 7"?

What if you allow V8 POny's and the CRB says no when it takes defines it's parameters...???

I think the best thing to do is start a web page ala IT2 and get the groundswell moving. If you want to head up the grassroots effort to push it for 2007, I suggest that being a conduit to the ITAC would be a good idea.

Having seen some of this before, there will be some very unhappy people when the rubber hits the road if a splintered effort is undertaken.

AB
 
Andy and Kirk have absolutely nailed this one. If ITR is driven from the Regional level up, it will definately not make it. Hell, look at what it took to get a single set of SM rules implemented (and we've still ended up w/ SSM). The temptation to dork it up will be high, not to mention that the "Hey, it's something that the people in our Region want" mentality will be hard to fight. For ITR (or whatever the hell it ends up being called) to have any chance at being an extension of IT, it needs to be implemented from the top down, as a strategic initiative.
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 12 2005, 10:22 AM
Ron,

I wish it were as simple as you might think.  You will NEED a process with defined parameters.  You will need a list of cars that are eligible.
[snapback]67949[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

I suppose ignorance is a good thing sometimes. If I weren't ignorant of how hard this is going to be or what little chance it has of happening, then I might stop now.

I'll just simply do the best I can with the car data, try to do a good job estimating weights and power, and at first iteration try to come up with something reasonable. I don't have experience that a lot here have, but I'm not an idiot and neither are the others helping. A scientist, a lawyer, and a car shop owner all drew up a plan for ITU.......

Anyhow, I'm humble and if the plan goes X distance, and the CRB says "throw that out" well, I'm not so damn hardheaded that I'd say no. I'd say throw that out and let's get on the road to making this thing work. 80% of what you ask for is better than 0% of what you ask for.

I'll be a conduit for the ITAC, where do I sign up. Is that anything like a lightning rod?

Ron
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 12 2005, 12:42 PM
I would respectfully suggest that everyone hold off on Regional versions of ITR.

Let's see what we can do first.  If it falls flat on it's face and has no hope, then go for it...but a little patience could go a long way here.

AB
[snapback]67938[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Andy,

...Is there anything we can do? Like sending in letters asking to class some of the cars that will not fit in ITS because they are to fast. In hopes it might reinforce the fact that there are people out here that have an interest in racing these cars in IT.

... Just a suggestion

... Rick
 
Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 12 2005, 08:39 AM
I suppose ignorance is a good thing sometimes. If I weren't ignorant of how hard this is going to be or what little chance it has of happening, then I might stop now.
Click to expand...

Don't stop, just understand that if you can't undo something, it could hurt - real bad. One example is a rule that someone builds to (that costs them real $$$) in your Region and they end up having to throw it out. There are real decisions that have to be made here that will require you to draw a line in the sand (wheels, weights, car eligibility).

Anyhow, I'm humble and if the plan goes X distance, and the CRB says "throw that out" well, I'm not so damn hardheaded that I'd say no. I'd say throw that out and let's get on the road to making this thing work.  80% of what you ask for is better than 0% of what you ask for.
Click to expand...

See above. It's not you I am worried about...it's the locals that drink the cool-aid, spend good money for it and then find out that flavor is no longer available when/if the SCCA opens it's own bar.

I'll be a conduit for the ITAC, where do I sign up. Is that anything like a lightning rod?
Click to expand...

You are wise beyond your years Grasshopper.

AB
 
Originally posted by Hotshoe@Dec 12 2005, 08:43 AM
Andy,

...Is there anything we can do? Like sending in letters asking to class some of the cars that will not fit in ITS because they are to fast. In hopes it might reinforce the fact that there are people out here that have an interest in racing these cars in IT.

... Just a suggestion

... Rick
[snapback]67958[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Absolutely Rick. There are a few types of letters I think would carry weight.

1. "I have a XXX and would like to build it for IT. Currently, I realize it is outside the paramters if ITS but should a class above materialize, I would be in."

2. "I think a class above ITS is needed for the growth and overall health of IT as a category (individual explanation as to why would be great)"

Or a combination of the two...I think the CRB needs to know there will be cars and drivers ready to build/buy when/if it hits. It will also be important to know where these people are coming from - if it Rob's Peter to pay Paul...not soooo great but for a guy like you who is outside of the GCR now (in IT7), it would be a success IMHO.

Any letters with just a request - and no idea/reasoning/benefit are of little use.

AB
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 12 2005, 02:55 PM

...I think the CRB needs to know

AB
[snapback]67963[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Andy,

... For those of us that are to sorry to find it, or don't know where to look, could you give us the address for the CRB?

... Thanks..... Rick
 
Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 12 2005, 09:06 AM
I understand what both of your are saying and I think you both offer good advice and are correct. But, I'll say - I do not plan on changing a single thing  ...
Click to expand...

Quick test:

As NCR ITR program chair, you are approached by the chapter president of BMWCCA who assures you that there are 20 well-heeled M3 owners with cars built and ready to commit to running ITR the first year of its existence. However, they would like to be able to run in BMWCCA Prepared specs, and are even willing to take a 200# weight handicap, over that prescribed by your planning, to do so. Remembering that they are all rich, what is your immediate reaction?

:D

K

EDIT - I had to check. These would be e36 M3's running in I Prepared.
 
...and the RE has told you that the class won't be allowed in a run group until 20 drivers have signed a letter of intent to run? :o

K
 
Again, no. The intent I envision behind ITR is that it is IT for newer, faster cars. Bringing in cars from BMWCCA and PCA is just something that I hope happens. I HOPE that a BMWCCA guy -- who presently looks at the ITCS and only sees what, four or five BMWs (and low performance ones at that) classified -- finally has a place to run his M3 or M Coupe or 330 or 6 series IF he is willing to play within IT's rules. Same with Porsches.
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 12 2005, 02:55 PM
  There are a few types of letters I think would carry weight.

1.  "I have a XXX and would like to build it for IT.  Currently, I realize it is outside the paramters if ITS but should a class above materialize, I would be in."

2.  "I think a class above ITS is needed for the growth and overall health of IT as a category (individual explanation as to why would be great)"

Or a combination of the two...I think the CRB needs to know there will be cars and drivers ready to build/buy when/if it hits.  It will also be important to know where these people are coming from - if it Rob's Peter to pay Paul...not soooo great but for a guy like you who is outside of the GCR now (in IT7), it would be a success IMHO.

Any letters with just a request - and no idea/reasoning/benefit are of little use.

AB
[snapback]67963[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Thanks Andy,

... And these letters can be sent to: [email protected]
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top