ITR, When???

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Bill Miller@Nov 29 2005, 03:06 PM
Ron,

Don't resign yourself to it being 'a long way off'.  I believe Andy said he would put a formal request in, to have it added for the '07 season.  That's only a year away, and a lot of work will need to be done to make it happen.  We all know how quickly the SCCA reacts to anything (unless of course, you have a 40+ y/o British Prod car  )

[snapback]66927[/snapback]​

Agreed. I've written two requests on ITR myself and have encouraged others to do the same. I suppose I think of it as a long way off given all that I have to do this coming year in racing, but I'm sure in "SCCA Time" it is basically minutes away!

And I thought it was just me that "felt" a slant in the SCCA toward Prod and Brit cars. I just didn't say one since I've got a Brit car, but man, seems that if it is British, old as hell, only 10 people in 100 can ID it correctly, then the SCCA is all over it.

I watched the Prod runoffs on Speed Channel Sunday afternoon. Think it was G, can't remember. Wife came in, said what the hell is that, a bunch of jalopies racing around the track, is that what you do? Well, sort of......which is why we need ITR!!!!!!

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by lateapex911@Nov 28 2005, 06:47 PM
I am inclined to agree...a good driver either deals with his cars weaknesses, by adjusting for them in either a mechanical way or with a different technique, ie: braking earlier, or...

Jake, Unfortunately this is not case most of the time. As drivers we all tend to oversdrive the brakes most of the time. Usinf the good driver argument to sell an ida doesn't float. You drive an RX7 so I know you know what limited brakes mean. I also know that in your car if your not breaking a rotor from time to time your not going as fast as the car can

Going in, the specs will be there...if a driver makes the choice to outdrive the capabilities of his car, then he will be spending time with the principal.

We both know this is not the case and has by itself ruined some realy good race cars over the years.

This is  car racing...real man stuff...we should NOT "dumb it down" by not allowing (by refusing to class) people to race interesting, character filled,....although imperfect cars. And we SHOULD hold them to high driving standards...but that's fodder for another thread...

[snapback]66886[/snapback]​

Jake, this issue is not all cars are gonna make good racecars. Just because somebody may want to race a specific car does not mean the rest of the club should sacrifice their own weekends so junk box B can have a place to blowup engines and burn up brake ect.

Ron I didn't mean to call you selfish. I was trying to say that way of thinking is selfish. Good racing is a class where cars get things done in a similar way. poor racing is when they are so different that body contact becomes part of every weekend. Some cars need a higher level of prep than IT can offer. I have spent loads of time in F-body cars over the years. I would love to race the old trans-am I still have out behind my shop. There just aren't enough people with the same interest and the cars are just too heavy to get it done without large than factory brakes. As afr as the TR8 goes at the value of that car I doubt very seriously I would be willing to push that car to the limits of anything so arguing that you can keep brakes under it is not a good one. RUnning the brakes off a 1000 dollar F-body or mustang is going to be far less offensive to the wallet than trying to find a donor for a true TR8.

 

[Marcus Miller]

Originally posted by x-ring@Nov 28 2005, 08:17 AM
Bill, I bet he meant $16K, and that's about what I've heard too.

BTW, what is the ITBHC?  I'm guessing it the Improved Touring B Hubberbucket Committee?  :119:  :119:

[snapback]66813[/snapback]​

Thanks Ty- that was it.


Marcus

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Nov 30 2005, 02:53 PM
. There just aren't enough people with the same interest and the cars are just too heavy to get it done without large than factory brakes. As afr as the TR8 goes at the value of that car I doubt very seriously I would be willing to push that car to the limits of anything so arguing that you can keep brakes under it is not a good one. RUnning the brakes off a 1000 dollar F-body or mustang is going to be far less offensive to the wallet than trying to find a donor for a true TR8.

[snapback]67038[/snapback]​

Joe, I think you are mis-informed about TR8s and might have some ideas about ITR that sort of differ from most racers I know.

The TR8 is not an expensive car. True TR8 donors are not hard to find, in fact, right now there is one sitting outside the gas station on the NW corner of the Merck company site in West Point. It runs, they want $5k. These are fairly uncommon cars, but our local British repair shop, Flying Circus, has a shell out back and $500 will take it home for you - all intact, just no motor, top, or tranny. It is a TR8s, not a TR7.

Besides, a TR8 is an ITS car and compared to the BMWs in ITS, and other cars, is actually quite cheap. Notwithstanding the fact we're talking about ITR, and in ITR none of the cars will be as cheap as a TR8. Other ITS cars? S2000s, you might score one in the $8k - $16k range, depending on wrecked or not. BMW Z3s? Maybe in the $6k to $15k range, depending on wreckage. 911s? 928s? Supras? ITR is not going to be a cheap class due to the nature of the cars that people want to race in it. If ITR isn't for you, then that is okay since ITS, ITA, ITB, and ITC exist.

As far as the TR8 keeping brakes underneath it, just because you aren't willing to push the car doesn't mean I or Jeff isn't willing to drive the wheels off of it. It is a race car and is 100% disposable. Jeff drives the damn thing as hard as he possibly can and the brakes still stay on the car. We've worked hard to make the brakes last on the car and getting that to happen involved a lot of trial, error (mostly!), and development (what it was when it was all done). It weighs what it weighs, its brakes are puny, and, they do last - at least last well enough not to cause the dire problems you predict.

Ron

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 1 2005, 08:35 AM
Joe, I think you are mis-informed about TR8s and might have some ideas about ITR that sort of differ from most racers I know. 

The TR8 is not an expensive car.  True TR8 donors are not hard to find, in fact, right now there is one sitting outside the gas station on the NW corner of the Merck company site in West Point.  It runs, they want $5k.  These are fairly uncommon cars, but our local British repair shop, Flying Circus, has a shell out back and $500 will take it home for you - all intact, just no motor, top, or tranny.  It is a TR8s, not a TR7. 

Besides, a TR8 is an ITS car and compared to the BMWs in ITS, and other cars, is actually quite cheap.  Notwithstanding the fact we're talking about ITR, and in ITR none of the cars will be as cheap as a TR8.  Other ITS cars?  S2000s, you might score one in the $8k - $16k range, depending on wrecked or not.  BMW Z3s? Maybe in the $6k to $15k range, depending on wreckage.  911s?  928s?  Supras?  ITR is not going to be a cheap class due to the nature of the cars that people want to race in it.  If ITR isn't for you, then that is okay since ITS, ITA, ITB, and ITC exist.

As far as the TR8 keeping brakes underneath it, just because you aren't willing to push the car doesn't mean I or Jeff isn't willing to drive the wheels off of it.  It is a race car and is 100% disposable.  Jeff drives the damn thing as hard as he possibly can and the brakes still stay on the car.  We've worked hard to make the brakes last on the car and getting that to happen involved a lot of trial, error (mostly!), and development (what it was when it was all done).  It weighs what it weighs, its brakes are puny, and, they do last - at least last well enough not to cause the dire problems you predict.

Ron

[snapback]67109[/snapback]​

Ron, I don't have a lot of time this morning to get into this. I have no idea how long you or Jeff have been racing so I am working fom little information here. Little background on me. Automotive tech since 1981 raced bikes from the time a I was old enough to get on them. Worked in British/Euro shop for more years than I care to mention. I have owned and operated a racing prep business for 12 years now. I must have enough background to get it when it comes to cars. WHile the TR8 may not be rare in the collecter world, parts are not the same as a 20 dollar fender for a rabbit. I have driven everything from a ITC datsun to a GT1 Camaro and I'll tell you that unless somebody else is paying all the bills and doing all the work you drive them different. I know the brakes on a TR8 well enough to know if you aren't going through them every other weekend you aren't driving the car to the max it can be driven. (sorry not trying to be rude) F-bodies and old mustangs make good DE cars but don't make good IT level racecars. Please note SSA ,ITGT, ITSS and all the classes that have been tried before for these kinda of cars no longer exist. Since getting new classes started nationally is a difficult task with very limited chance of success I would hate to see the effort wasted on cars that have already failed the task more than once.

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 1 2005, 04:55 PM
Ron, I don't have a lot of time this morning to get into this. I have no idea how long you or Jeff have been racing so I am working fom little information here. Little background on me. Automotive tech since 1981 raced bikes from the time a I was old enough to get on them. Worked in British/Euro shop for more years than I care to mention. I have owned and operated a racing prep business for 12 years now. I must have enough background to get it when it comes to cars. WHile the TR8 may not be rare in the collecter world, parts are not the same as a 20 dollar fender for a rabbit. I have driven everything from a ITC datsun to a GT1 Camaro and I'll tell you that unless somebody else is paying all the bills and doing all the work you drive them different. I  know the brakes on a TR8 well enough to know if you aren't going through them every other weekend you aren't driving the car to the max it can be driven. (sorry not trying to be rude) F-bodies and old mustangs make good DE cars but don't make good IT level racecars. Please note SSA ,ITGT, ITSS and all the classes that have been tried before for these kinda of cars no longer exist. Since getting new classes started nationally is a difficult task with very limited chance of success I would hate to see the effort wasted on cars that have already failed the task more than once.

[snapback]67116[/snapback]​

Joe, if you have a look at my posts you'll figure out I've not been racing long. I'm brand new here, the FNG. Says so under Hell Frozen Over. You'll also find that I like to do things that others don't do. How many others around here are missing enough marbles to build a Jensen Healey?

Like I said earlier, I respect your opinion due to experience but disagree with you, and as stated earlier, I don't believe that either of us will be able to present 100% solid data to prove our opinions.

I might be wrong (don't have old GCRs lying about, I'm new), but I don't think SSA, ITGT, and ITSS classed late model (94 and up) Mustangs with large discs upfront and discs all around, but instead classed the old Fox bodies and old F bodies, both of which are marginal at best.

As far as the TR8 goes, I don't think I mentioned how often or when the brakes must be replaced, just that they will last a race, driven hard and placing well, without wrecking other cars on the track. They need a lot of attention, for sure, but it is possible. Bring your ITS car out and race with it this year and see.

In any event, ITR is a class that will take shape over the coming year and there are a lot of bigger fish to fry beyond "should pony cars be in ITR". I think the class will not be to your liking at all because a lot of the cars that people want to race in ITR are heavy, have more power than ITS cars, and are going to be very hard on brakes. But, I suppose it'll be up to the entrants in ITR if they want to play that game or not. It is simply up to the SCCA/ITAC to make the playground available if there is enough interest.

I have to say, despite disagreeing I enjoy the interaction over IT racing. You, and everyone else on the board are a great group of people and I like the fact so many people are passionate about their racing and care to make sure the racing keeps on keeping on.

Best,
Ron

 

[Matt Rowe]

Ron,

While the 94 era mustangs may not have been tried before in IT, I do know people running the current generation in T2 can't keep brakes on the thing to last through a race. In particualr the guy (multiple SSC national champion) I talked to was replacing CALIPERS multiple times in multiple race weekends. Also, AS is just spent the last year approving a major change to the brake packages allowed specifically because all the cars were having to spend major money constantly replacing stock components. You'll forgive some of us for doubting their brakes if the latest and greatest model can't even hack it in a supposedly lower stress class and let's not even talk about AS.

But you are right that pony cars are a small part of the ITR concept. I'm still not convinced that any of the cars on the table will meet the "low-cost" concept of IT. I would think the best thing to do at this stage is to work with the ITAC to put together a performance envelope for the class, and then start a formal listing of planned cars including:

Stock HP
Predicted HP
Stock Weight
Target class weight
Production #'s (IT cars are supposed to be readily available)
Typical current market price for a donor (just to prove the class won't cost $80,000 to build a car)

 

[tnord]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Dec 2 2005, 12:55 PM

But you are right that pony cars are a small part of the ITR concept. I'm still not convinced that any of the cars on the table will meet the "low-cost" concept of IT. I would think the best thing to do at this stage is to work with the ITAC to put together a performance envelope for the class, and then start a formal listing of planned cars including:

Stock HP
Predicted HP
Stock Weight
Target class weight
Production #'s (IT cars are supposed to be readily available)
Typical current market price for a donor (just to prove the class won't cost $80,000 to build a car)

[snapback]67210[/snapback]​

i was talking with an ITA driver about this very issue, the following was my response:

ITA friend Jim:
When it comes to IT, the phrase "given the money" is the key. IT is built on the concept of minimal expense. Even though cars that compete in Production, SS and Touring will eventually become too old to race in those categories doesn't mean they'll be affordable to race in IT. As it is, some of the ITS cars (ignore ITE for the moment) like the E36 bmw's are pushing the bounds of reasonable expense for the IT class.

I don't have a problem creating a class for the older nationals cars to compete, but I don't think IT is the place to make it happen.

Me:
(8:21 AM 11/29/2005) tnord: well, remember i come from the land of 30,000 dollar miata's that in the first year of the class could be built for about $7000. so perhaps i'm a bit jaded on what cars 'should' cost to build. and don't think that that same 30,000 can't just as easily be spent on an ITA car. complete turn-key newly built E36 ITS cars i've heard of costing upwards of 80,000. i'm sure you could spend that on some cars that i think would fit well into ITR (all the BMW's and porsche's).
the point is for any given class you can spend any amount of money you please for the most part. racing is however affordable as the class the driver chooses to participate in. ITC/ITB/ITA/ITS/SM/FV/F500 and probably a couple other classes would surely be cheaper to race in than the proposed ITR, but nobody is forcing anyone's hand.

these T2/T3 cars really need a place to go on a regional basis, as i really don't think topeka will create yet another (remember SM was just added) national class after their eligibility is used up.

i know it may not fit into the purpose and intent of IT racing as focused on minimal expenditures, but it really doesn't matter. SM's purpose and intent reads:

"The Spec Miata (SM) class is intended to provide the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suitable for racing competition. It is intended to encourage low cost, entry level, production car based competition."

man are we a long way from that. bottom line is that i likely won't race in ITR for a good number of years, but i think it would be good for the club, so i'm all for it.

 

[Bill Miller]

Even though cars that compete in Production, SS and Touring will eventually become too old to race in those categories

Now THAT is funny!!!!

 

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by tnord@Dec 2 2005, 02:47 PM
bottom line is that i likely won't race in ITR for a good number of years, but i think it would be good for the club, so i'm all for it.

[snapback]67219[/snapback]​

Is it really good for the club if everyone says it's a great concept that I may race in a good number of years? The idea is to get new people involved and if the class is too expensive how many new people are willing to spend $80k to try racing? The reality is for that kind of investment you are likely going to draw far more people who already race existing classes. Which isn't really good for the club.

 

[Andy Bettencourt]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Dec 2 2005, 03:31 PM
Is it really good for the club if everyone says it's a great concept that I may race in a good number of years? The idea is to get new people involved and if the class is too expensive how many new people are willing to spend $80k to try racing? The reality is for that kind of investment you are likely going to draw far more people who already race existing classes. Which isn't really good for the club.

[snapback]67228[/snapback]​

Let's stop using $80K. That is rediculous.

This may not pull 20-somethings to IT but it will pull baby-booming PCA and BMWCCA members over that don't need to change much on thier cars to start running with SCCA...

 

[Matt Rowe]

Originally posted by Andy Bettencourt@Dec 2 2005, 04:44 PM
Let's stop using $80K.  That is rediculous.

This may not pull 20-somethings to IT but it will pull baby-booming PCA and BMWCCA members over that don't need to change much on thier cars to start running with SCCA...

[snapback]67229[/snapback]​

Andy, 5 years ago most people said $50K and more for an ITS car was out of the question.

And I'm not convinced the PCA guys are willing to run SCCA races when there is a greater fear of wadding up the car getting caught in someone else's mistake. Also, trying to pull in 50 and 60 year olds doesn't contribute to the long term future of the club as much as finding better ways to appeal to the 30 and 40 something crowd. Really, we want to make everyone feel welcome, but should we really create a class that is geared towards such an high end budget? If a new class is going to be created it should be done with enough due diligence to make sure that it has a chance to survive.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Dec 2 2005, 05:16 PM
Andy, 5 years ago most people said $50K and more for an ITS car was out of the question.

And I'm not convinced the PCA guys are willing to run SCCA races when there is a greater fear of wadding up the car getting caught in someone else's mistake. Also, trying to pull in 50 and 60 year olds doesn't contribute to the long term future of the club as much as finding better ways to appeal to the 30 and 40 something crowd. Really, we want to make everyone feel welcome, but should we really create a class that is geared towards such an high end budget? If a new class is going to be created it should be done with enough due diligence to make sure that it has a chance to survive.

[snapback]67238[/snapback]​

Matt, now your stalking the right area. See I see an IT class similar to Kirks ITs concept as a way to draw a new crowd to IT racing. Keep the suspension and engine concepts but have the wheel and aero rules reflect a bit of today. Make it a 2.0 to 3.5 liter class and use new/old technology to control competition. Weight and engineered single inlet restrictors no motec's. This concept will grow way faster than a new class for more 20 year old big engined tanks.
Classes are limted please don't waste them.

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 3 2005, 02:59 AM
Matt, now your stalking the right area. See I see an IT class similar to Kirks ITs concept as a way to draw a new crowd to IT racing. Keep the suspension and engine concepts but have the wheel and aero rules reflect a bit of today. Make it a 2.0 to 3.5 liter class and use new/old technology to control competition.  Weight and engineered single inlet restrictors no motec's. This concept will grow way faster than a new class for more 20 year old big engined tanks.
Classes are limted please don't waste them.

[snapback]67244[/snapback]​

I can defintely see where that sort of class could possibly grow, but it won't be an ITR type class. Maybe a new thread needs to be started on such a thing.

I'm still compling data in a spreadsheet for the ITR class using all the potential cars listed here and am gettings weights, etc. for a proposal. I like the idea of this "new" class that is similar to Kirk's etc., but ITR it ain't.

R

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 07:35 AM
I can defintely see where that sort of class could possibly grow, but it won't be an ITR type class. Maybe a new thread needs to be started on such a thing.

I'm still compling data in a spreadsheet for the ITR class using all the potential cars listed here and am gettings weights, etc. for a proposal.  I like the idea of this "new" class that is similar to Kirk's etc., but ITR it ain't.

R

[snapback]67258[/snapback]​

Well Ron, Maybe I missed it. What do you see as an ITR class?

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Matt Rowe@Dec 3 2005, 12:16 AM
Really, we want to make everyone feel welcome, but should we really create a class that is geared towards such an high end budget?

[snapback]67238[/snapback]​

Joe, the reason I wrote that is this statement that Matt made above that you agreed with. I think everyone was in agreement ITR would be more expensive than ITS because of the nature of the cars being classed. Priced a naturally asprirated late model Supra (I'm also compliing average prices on my spreadsheet for cost of donors)? Z3? Integra RSX-R? S2000?

The cars, by their "late model" nature or desirability are more expensive than the current crop of S cars. At least, that is what it looks like from where I am standing.

It seems to reason that a class above S, that offers potentially more performance than S, using "newer" cars than S, is going to cost more then ITS. And, as such, would not fit with Matt's statement.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 09:18 AM
Joe, the reason I wrote that is this statement that Matt made above that you agreed with.  I think everyone was in agreement ITR would be more expensive than ITS because of the nature of the cars being classed. Priced a naturally asprirated late model Supra (I'm also compliing average prices on my spreadsheet for cost of donors)? Z3? Integra RSX-R? S2000?

The cars, by their "late model" nature or desirability are more expensive than the current crop of S cars. At least, that is what it looks like from where I am standing.

It seems to reason that a class above S, that offers potentially more performance than S, using "newer" cars than S, is going to cost more then ITS. And, as such, would not fit with Matt's statement.

[snapback]67267[/snapback]​

Ron since you are doing the lef work I recommend you consider the following as part of your research:
17.1.4. IMPROVED TOURING CATEGORY
These specifications are part of the SCCA General Competition Rules (GCR)
and all automobiles shall conform with GCR Section 17., Automobiles.
A. PURPOSE
Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with
the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications,
suitable for racing competition. To that end, cars will be models, as offered
for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer’s
specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules.


This is why IT has always maintained good numbers. One only needs to look at the one expensive model that by itself did not fit this statement cost ITS numbers all over the country. I am all for a new class I just would rather see a class that will hit big numbers rather than pockets of cars around the country. If you believe the desire to race the V/8 carsw you are looking at are there then bring the ITR concept to your region and see what happens.

I also am not sure how to take you new avatar.

 

[Ron Earp]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 3 2005, 04:34 PM
If you believe the desire to race the V/8 carsw you are looking at are there then bring the ITR concept to your region and see what happens.

I also am not sure how to take you new avatar.

[snapback]67268[/snapback]​

Joe, as I've said I think on two posts - "ITR has a long way to go and has bigger fish to fry than are pony (read V8) cars included or not." Personally, I do not think at this time we must have V8s to have an ITR class. I've mentioned it'd be nice, but that is the end of it and I won't bring it up again. ITR can exist without V8s.

This thread is about ITR - a class ABOVE ITS in performance. It will cost more than ITS. No way around it, it will be a more expensive IT class than ITS, period.

ITC = $
ITB = $ to $$
ITA = $$ to $$$
ITS = $$$ to $$$$
ITR = $$$$ at least

I hear what you are saying about a "class for the masses" and a low cost class. But if you consider ITS expensive now then ITR will not be a cheaper class. If your intent is to develop a class along these lines then I suggest you start a new thread about that.

I know what the CGR says about IT racing and intent. I also know what the GCR says about SM too. Both are intended for low cost cars with limited modifications. But low cost is all relative and dependant on a huge number of factors, so much so that IMHO, including such a statement is next to useless. Dang sure didn't help SM and didn't do much to reign in S. And, incidentally, ITR might be a nice place for the BMW to play if that is the "one expensive model" you cite.

If ITR is to have performance above ITS but not cost more than ITS, then what sorts of cars are you going to populate ITR with?

R

 

[tnord]

Originally posted by Joe Harlan@Dec 3 2005, 11:34 AM
Ron since you are doing the lef work I recommend you consider the following as part of your research:
17.1.4. IMPROVED TOURING CATEGORY
These specifications are part of the SCCA General Competition Rules (GCR)
and all automobiles shall conform with GCR Section 17., Automobiles.
A. PURPOSE
Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with
the opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications,
suitable for racing competition. To that end, cars will be models, as offered
for sale in the United States. They will be prepared to manufacturer’s
specifications except for modifications permitted by these rules.
This is why IT has always maintained good numbers. One only needs to look at the one expensive model that by itself did not fit this statement cost ITS numbers all over the country. I am all for a new class I just would rather see a class that will hit big numbers rather than pockets of cars around the country. If you believe the desire to race the V/8 carsw you are looking at are there then bring the ITR concept to your region and see what happens.

I also am not sure how to take you new avatar.

[snapback]67268[/snapback]​

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.

 

[Joe Harlan]

Originally posted by rlearp@Dec 3 2005, 10:06 AM
Joe, as I've said I think on two posts - "ITR has a long way to go and has bigger fish to fry than are pony (read V8) cars included or not." Personally, I do not think at this time we must have V8s to have an ITR class. I've mentioned it'd be nice, but that is the end of it and I won't bring it up again. ITR can exist without V8s.

This thread is about ITR - a class ABOVE ITS in performance. It will cost more than ITS.  No way around it, it will be a more expensive IT class than ITS, period.

ITC = $
ITB = $ to $$
ITA = $$ to $$$
ITS = $$$ to $$$$
ITR = $$$$ at least

I hear what you are saying about a "class for the masses" and a low cost class. But if you consider ITS expensive now then ITR will not be a cheaper class.  If your intent is to develop a class along these lines then I suggest you start a new thread about that. 

I know what the CGR says about IT racing and intent. I also know what the GCR says about SM too. Both are intended for low cost cars with limited modifications. But low cost is all relative and dependant on a huge number of factors, so much so that IMHO, including such a statement is next to useless. Dang sure didn't help SM and didn't do much to reign in S. And, incidentally, ITR might be a nice place for the BMW to play if that is the "one expensive model" you cite.

If ITR is to have performance above ITS but not cost more than ITS, then what sorts of cars are you going to populate ITR with?

R

[snapback]67269[/snapback]​

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. IT must maintain the entry level approach or it will die the same death prod and others have before it. I said 3 years ago that SM would be right where it is today and you will start to see the decline soon. The adhoc did the right thing and will catch those cars falling out of SM into IT and help that will help the numbers for ITA. If I have offended you that was not my intent my passion is racing cars not parading them and unfortunately every new class we make dilutes the level of competition in this club. SO I do kick back at new classes that on paper have little chance of serious racing.