ITR, When???

Originally posted by Jay_Taylor@Nov 26 2005, 05:18 PM
Sounds like the Mustang 5.0 would be a good fit, also maybe the 305 camaro..just for some Ford Vs Chevy stuff.
BTW I think the 86 guys should be allowed to convert to later model injection..
just cause i got an 86 5.0 and would build it for this class:)

BTW how hard would it be to get Fi cars classed here and Fi AWD cars..
I think the Subaru and EVO might like to play..
[snapback]66696[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
86s should be on the same spec line as 87-93, so, you could update. Will also be imporant for 88s that retained speed density too.

Definitely class the 305 Camaro, but the problem is (for the racer, not the rules) availability. Most all Firechickens and Camaros you saw on the street were 350 4 Autos, about 90% of the time. But, the 305 did a lot of duty as listed here:

http://www.thirdgen.org/newdesign/tech/techdb.shtml

Just not it huge numbers since GM dealers went to 350s Autos too much.

Subarus and EVOs are going to a problem in SCCA land due to turbos and no way to monitor what people do with them. Might be easier to get AWDs in R without turbos, then work on turbo cars for the future.

R
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 26 2005, 10:30 AM
That's kinda what this thread is all about, isn't it?

I don't think IT needs rejuvination as a whole.  S and A are solid.  B is decent.  C is all but dead in most areas with pockets of life.

A class above S is a great place for T2 and T3 cars coming out of SS.  It could add to Regional car counts as there isn't much SS racing.  I will float the idea to the CRB OFFICIALLY on Monday night, show them Darin's work to date - and get an approval to move forward with a proposal in 2006 for addition in 2007.

I think it can be done.

AB
[snapback]66689[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

absolutely that's what this thread is about, i was just trying to keep the discussion moving forward, as i think the potential of the idea is too good to let die.

i agree that A and S are doing well (in large part to the changes over the last 2 years), and also agree that B and C are dying out in part due to the age of the cars. it's logical that at some point the same will happen to A, so in order to keep the whole idea of IT going strong a newer class needs to be implemented. i'm sure you don't need me to tell you this though. :unsure:

thank you for all your efforts on the ITAC and SMAC, i think you're doing a fantastic job. please keep us informed on this issue. :023:
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 26 2005, 03:30 PM
That's kinda what this thread is all about, isn't it?

I don't think IT needs rejuvination as a whole.  S and A are solid.  B is decent.  C is all but dead in most areas with pockets of life.

A class above S is a great place for T2 and T3 cars coming out of SS.  It could add to Regional car counts as there isn't much SS racing.  I will float the idea to the CRB OFFICIALLY on Monday night, show them Darin's work to date - and get an approval to move forward with a proposal in 2006 for addition in 2007.

I think it can be done.

AB
[snapback]66689[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
Andy,
For someone in your position to say that a particular class is all but dead is an insult to those of us who build and enjoy racing in that class. Basing your comments on what you've seen or heard only demonstrates your need to broaden you base of information.
 
I would say that Andy might have been a tad overstated, but, ITC is weaker in car counts, from what I can see, than I would like.

I don't consider it dead, but......I wish it were stronger.

(The ARRC race was great, and in the NE we have about 3-6 car ITC fields normally)
 
Originally posted by charrbq@Nov 26 2005, 03:04 PM
Andy,
  For someone in your position to say that a particular class is all but dead is an insult to those of us who build and enjoy racing in that class.  Basing your comments on what you've seen or heard only demonstrates your need to broaden you base of information.
[snapback]66704[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Chris,

I am glad you got defensive. It shows your passion. But not many people share that passion with you. Car counts in ITC are only a fraction of what they are in the rest of the category. The issue is that there isn't much we can do to revive it. Very few cars can be placed INTO ITC - and certainly none without earth-shattering controversy.

I am pretty sure that I could provide you with ITC subsciption numbers that, if it were a National class, would get it booted from National competition due to lack of entrants. Let's use your own Division for example. ITC had less than 1 car start per race this year (.46). You ran unopposed in 2 races and had only 1 challenger in 1 race. The other 8+ races saw no ITC cars. In 2004, 7 of the 9 races had no ITC cars and the other 2 had only 1. We do need to infuse something into ITC, but how? What do you suggest?

Don't take it as an insult - take it as a fact that something must be done soon...or, as some have suggested via letters, combine ITB and ITC with weight changes to make room for a class above ITS - IF the CRB doesn't want to add a class. Some even call ITB and ITC the VINTAGE classes of IT - ones for old, outdated cars where the structure never changes...heck, if the donor cars and parts supply would never dry up, I would call that a success! :023:

The ITAC has the same love for ITC as it does for any of the classes. We have just started getting letters requesting special allowances for cars based on lack of availability of stock replacement parts - and the issue only will continue to grow.

Help me understand where I can tap into this pool of information I am missing for ITC. You must find most of your ITC competition from outside your Region but I can't find it. Maybe we can all learn how to develop and foster the class in our own Regions. If we act locally, we can effect globally. I am willing to help, because the class needs it.

AB
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 26 2005, 08:27 AM
Ron,

Excellent info.  Would you combine any of those on a spec line in order to make building easy?  Geez, they could almost all go on the same line...that would allow nice, easy engine swaps as well as give everyone disc brakes...

225hp stock...would make for a good 2850lb racecar...racing against a 3000lb E36 M3 and a 3050lb RX-8...would they come out?

AB
[snapback]66688[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

and 189hp stock would come in where? 2600-2700lbs?

James
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 26 2005, 09:34 PM
No other info given - it would be more like 2400...

AB
[snapback]66713[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Funny, the E-36 325i has 189hp and it was recommended at 2,700lbs in post #2
 
Originally posted by robits325is@Nov 26 2005, 11:22 PM
Funny, the E-36 325i has 189hp and it was recommended at 2,700lbs in post #2
[snapback]66717[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
Boy, you guys just don't let up, huh? You should have that restrictor plate surgically removed from your...

I qualified my hypothetical in post 100. I'll let you look for it.

This is all pie in the sky. I didn't want to start comparing cars unless I had a constant performance target - so I made one up and published it. :bash_1_:

Fitting cars with over 50 stock hp difference is going to result in vastly different weights.

AB
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 26 2005, 09:31 PM

Fitting cars with over 50 stock hp difference is going to result in vastly different weights.

AB
[snapback]66719[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
And some very interesting racing
 
Andy,
First, you assume that my region/division is SOWDIV...it is not. I changed it to SEDIV last year for just the reason you stated...competition. SOWDIV has become a hotbead for SM. True, ITC isn't strong there, but it used to be. For that matter, IT used to be strong, but no longer is. The mass of entries go to SRF and SM. At one time, I lead a campaign among the stewards and the racing regions to give IT restricted regionals so that the entries and income for the regions would increase. The group has now fallen flat due to the march to SM. Next year will probably be the last for two day regionals as SM goes national.
For me, any race I go to, outside of a one-off, is a six hr tow...minimum. It's not just ITC, but all IT classes are stronger elsewhere than in SOWDIV. If I were to use your numbers to figure the strength of IT in general as national classes, based on one division's participation, then it wouldn't remain national. In fact, probably the only classes remaining national would be SM, SRF, and maybe a couple of others. Please don't use a portion of the information to validify the whole arguement.
Since you chose to use national racing as an example, the same had been said for HP a few years ago, but it now flurishes. GT5 was weakening due to costs, and it was merged with GT4 to strengthen it. Instead it put the final sword between the shoulder blades for the class. If you want to destroy ITC, as you have declared it dying, then combine it with ITB...that should do the job.
Please don't compare IT participation to national racing, that's not the entent of our leadership. And please don't declare a class as dying. I'm sure if you raced in the class, you wouldn't have written what you did.
 
Chris. no offence but you are a little defensive here. You must admit that participation in ITC is lower than than the other IT classes. One of the reasons IT racing is so cool is lots of competition.
I would think that compared to other IT classes one would have to admit that ITC has some problems. Do you have a suggested solution or do you think the lower car counts are not a problem.
 
Chris,

My point is that ITC numbers are low, very low across the country save for a few hot pockets. That is essentially what I wrote in my first post that got you upset.

I don't run Nationals - only Regionals - for now.

It seems you have been part of some sort of solution in the past and I congratulate you for it. As far as saying what I said about ITC, it wouldn't change if I ran ITC...but then again I wouldn't run in a class with nobody else to drive against. In SeDiv, you may have a lot of competition (couldn't find you on MYLAPS) in ITC, but that is the exception, not the rule.

Nobody is trying to kill ITC, it's a Nationwide observation that car counts are dangerously low.

AB
 
Andy,

A Division that only puts on 9-11 Regional races? I don't think the issue is w/ ITC cars, but w/ cars in general. I'll have to go count, but how many Regionals are there in the NEDiv or the SEDiv? I think the MARRS series alone, had 10 races this years (granted, 2 were out of Region, and one was out of Division).

I've said this before, and I'll say it again, the amount of ITC-eligible cars (that anyone would be interested in racing), that have been produced in the last 20 years, are few and far between. Look what you guys had to do to get a 'new' car in ITC. You had to saddle a 2.0 8v x-flow FWD car w/ a boat-load of weight.

The entire performance envelope of available cars has gone up, on a pretty consistent basis. The fact that we're even discussing ITR pretty much comfirms that. Look at the candidate cars being suggested, most are <20 years old.

ITC may not have high participation numbers throughout the country, but there sure do seem to be quite a few up and down the East coast. Go look at the ARRC '05 forum, people were speculating that the ITC race was going to be one of, if not the best race going. And while it may not have enough numbers, currently, to maintain National status (were it so classified), that's something that's not germane to the discussion at hand. To pull that out makes it look like you're reaching for justification of your comments.

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I agree w/ Chris, ITAC members shouldn't be talking about 'dying' [sic] IT classes. If anything, they should be talking about how to revitalize them.
 
Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 27 2005, 09:02 AM
Andy,

I'm not trying to pick a fight, but I agree w/ Chris, ITAC members shouldn't be talking about 'dying' [sic] IT classes.  If anything, they should be talking about how to revitalize them.
[snapback]66736[/snapback]​
Click to expand...
Don't you have to identify something as dying before you feel the need to revitalize it? Seriously.

Bill,

What is with the big uproar about the FACT that ITC has dangerously low car counts? I would love to revitalize ITC - we have tried with the NB...I stated in my above post that we would welcome suggestions...I would also bet that there are more people interested in building someting for the new IT® than there are running ITC NOW. What do we do if the CRB doesn't want to add a whole new class?

I just don't see this as a personal attack, just as a thing we need to deal with. I haven't seen ANY suggestions from anyone. If the squeeky wheels don't thnk there is a problem, so be it...just make sure we are all looking at the whole playground, not just our own sandbox.

AB
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 27 2005, 02:15 PM
Don't you have to identify something as dying before you feel the need to revitalize it?  Seriously.

Bill,

What is with the big uproar about the FACT that ITC has dangerously low car counts?  I would love to revitalize ITC - we have tried with the NB
[snapback]66737[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

At the risk of getting flamed, ITC is a dwindling class I think. I know a couple of ITC drivers in the SE and respect them, a couple post here. But I think they realize that interest in the C cars is dropping off even though C in the SE is one of the strongest C classes in the country.

I think that adding an ITR class will further reduce interest in C, but maybe that is the way it should be? New cars need to be classed to keep IT viable for the future. When that happens there will be a natural interest in the new classes. And, a "hand me down" affect will start when folks from S sell to move to R, A to S, B to A, etc. since the cars will be less expensive due to demand and preceived interest/value.

I would think that some C drivers will wish to move up to a faster class in some cases, although I'm sure some folks will choose to remain where they are.

Just looks like to me that over time C could become so small that combining it with B would be a good move. Not sure if that is even viable since I have not looked at C/B cars and performance. But, if C really gets low on car counts with the introduction of an ITR class it wouldn't make sense to continue the series for one or two racers.
 
I "think" that IT is very strong in the Northeast. That being said, ITC counts are very low compared to the others. I think combing B and C is a great idea. I'm not sure you would be able to take off enough weight to get them in line with the ITB cars however. What else could be done to get them in line??

Of course, there is a ITC Honda up here that can kick the crap out of 3/4 of the ITB field with his car as is!! :023:

The point I was trying to make with the Mustangs is they are cheap to buy, large after market support and very attractive to the younger crowd (and to some of us older guys!!)

Yup, make ITBC and ITR. :lol:
 
Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Nov 26 2005, 03:30 PM
That's kinda what this thread is all about, isn't it?
A class above S is a great place for T2 and T3 cars coming out of SS.  It could add to Regional car counts as there isn't much SS racing.  I will float the idea to the CRB OFFICIALLY on Monday night, show them Darin's work to date - and get an approval to move forward with a proposal in 2006 for addition in 2007.

I think it can be done.

AB
[snapback]66689[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Andy,

...I for one applaud your efforts. I enjoy club racing and feel good about the future of Improved Touring. Without people like you and Jake challenging us and asking us, no one would be provoked to participate.

...Sometimes things get said that ruffle a few feathers. But we should always consider the source. You can ruffle my feathers anytime Andy because I know that trust goes further than any word took out of context. We have butted heads and You have proven yourself to me and a lot of others.

....Please .... Keep up the good work.... :happy204:
 
Originally posted by Hotshoe@Nov 27 2005, 02:12 PM
Andy,

...I for one applaud your efforts. I enjoy club racing and feel good about the future of Improved Touring. Without people like you and Jake challenging us and asking us, no one would be provoked to participate.

...Sometimes things get said that ruffle a few feathers. But we should always consider the source. You can ruffle my feathers anytime Andy because I know that trust goes further than any word took out of context. We have butted heads and You have proven yourself to me and a lot of others.

....Please .... Keep up the good work....  :happy204:
[snapback]66750[/snapback]​
Click to expand...

Much appreciated Rick. Now I just need to endear myself to you enough to get the formula for that RED paint you have... :D
 
After extensive research, it has been determined that the combination of ITB/ITC classes could be achieved favorably provided the current B cars ran 5" rims, 100lbs. ballast, and a mother-in-law in the rear seat.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top