Longevity of ITC???

toddgreene

toddgreene

New member
I'm just getting started.
ITC seems to be a great beginning class .(slower, safer and less expensive).
However, it seems that the cars are aging and there are fewer choices to replce them.

How much longer do you veterans think ITC or ITB will continue?
I'm already thinking of ITA, ITS or SM for the near future.
I think SM may be around for a while.

Thanks,

Todd
 
I'm personally intrigued by both the VW Beetle and the Mazda Protege in ITC. I think you'll see more and more cars dropped in there.

Year ago ITS was "the" class to be in. Last few years it's been A. ITB is making serious inroads into popularity now, and I expect ITC to be "the" place to be within 5-7 years....
 
I wish I shared Greg's view of ITCs future. I have run ITC since the mid 90s and have watched the fields fall from 48 cars to 12 last year in the MARRS series. 4-5 depending on the weekend were cars I brought to the table. Even with the new cars classed I don't see them as cars a lot of people want to race. I also think people go where the competition is . A is the place and B is on an upswing.

It saddens me greatly to see the class I love decline. I have no intention of selling my ITC civic or converting it to a prod car. I have plenty of other tubs for that if I decide to do it . I will keep the car and race it from time to time and maybe take it to things like the ITFest. Who knows, maybe my daughter will race it someday . `
 
I do not expect to see ITC dropped as a class anytime soon but see nothing to indicate that there will be more cars running. In fact I had two different ITC drivers tell me that if the VIN rule happens they would probably move their existing C car to B. While I like the VIN rule change this was a consequence that I did not anticipate.
 
ITC in florida is very strong compared with other regions/areas.I bet we average 6-8 cars per event,even more for certain races.And it's very competitive.The new VIN rule might even help ITC with somw people droping down from B.(CRX/CIVIC drivers).

I think the economy plays a bigger role in ITC than some other class"s like SM,ITA/S,I feel we are more "budget" racers than most.I know for me I will not be racing as much this year as i did last year.

Tim
 
Greg Amy said:
I'm personally intrigued by both the VW Beetle and the Mazda Protege in ITC. I think you'll see more and more cars dropped in there.
Click to expand...

I've thought about the Beetle for the future. I don't know how competitive it would be. It would be a great novelty car to have. Kinda ironic that the Beetle would be the heaviest car in it's class...

Todd
 
dickita15 said:
I do not expect to see ITC dropped as a class anytime soon but see nothing to indicate that there will be more cars running. In fact I had two different ITC drivers tell me that if the VIN rule happens they would probably move their existing C car to B. While I like the VIN rule change this was a consequence that I did not anticipate.
Click to expand...

I raced ITC for 5 years. Had a blast. I have decided to move to ITA and am currently in the middle of the build. I moved because of two reasons,

1.) competition. Now don't get me wrong, the last couple years in ITC we have had up to 4 cars fighting for the lead and I have had a blast. Those people that I raced with I would gladly race again (and I'm sure I will), but not all those people always showed up. When they didn't there were 2 people sorta going at it and if you dropped back at all you were soloing it. I felt ITA (in our region) was the next logical step for me.

2.) Speed. Now I'm not saying ITA is "fast", but when you've spent all your time with ~80hp, ITA is FAST :p I want to actually accelerate (even a little) going up hill. Go a little faster than 105mph, you know, all those "illusions" of racing.

3.) I know I said two, but the third reason is kinda BS. I came upon a motor. That's what started all of this. Honestly.

4.) Again, not a reason, but the true reason I can do this. My wife is letting me and I can't think her enough. LOL :happy204:

Now, I have stripped my ITC tub of all the "good" stuff and put them on my ITA car. I still have the ITC tub just waiting. What is it waiting for? Who knows. I'm thinkin' that if the VIN goes away, ITB Enduro may be in it's future. People say the VIN rule may kill ITC, I don't think so. I think it might bring life back. Build your VW, build your Honda, learn in ITC. When you've done some learnin', spend a couple thousand, drop an ITB drive line in, and go race in B.
 
If the VIN rule 'kills' ITC, then the market has spoken. In other words, it will have died from the inside-out. The cars get re-used, drivers who change become more interested.

If it dies, it will die a natural death, I can't see it getting killed until there are just none around.
 
It's all about the competition. ITA has a lot of entrants simply because ITA has a lot of entrants. ITB is gaining popularity and increasing entries simply because it's gaining popularity and increasing entries.

It's really that simple.

I've given significant thought many times to buying a "low-budget" (read: low cost) ITC car and going play. In fact, I pretty much decided mid-2007 that I was looking for a new challenge, and ITC was one of those sandboxes I was giving significant thought to playing in. If this ITS opportunity with Jeremy had not come up, I suspect I would have spent my Christmas vacation searching classifieds for theft-damaged New Beetles...

Look at Janoska's CRX...$3k!!! Holy kee-rist, man, it's all I can do to keep from going online and transferring me some home equity line of credit for that jewel of a bargain! Hell, at that price I'd simply add it to the team mix and not make it my "only" race car... And, while it may sound arrogant, if I were to do so - and were to convince just one or two of us to join me - I have no doubt that interest in ITC would increase significantly. (Billiel, it's still a Honda and it costs less than what I've spent since we started this project...how about it, partner...?)

"ITB is the new ITA" and ITC ain't that far behind. Like ITA was a few years ago, ITC is ripe for the picken'. All it takes is one or two good consistent high-vis entrants to make it happen.

Food for thought. - GA
 
Spoken from a guy on the ITAC's point of view...
It's pretty darn hard (compared to ITA, say) to classify cars people want to race in ITC.

For most people, theres the "money should equal speed" mantra as the underlying concept. Some more experienced guys choose a certain aspect of racing that they like. Scott Giles likes the demands placed on ITC (and now, ITB) drivers that punish heavily for a .5 MPH loss of momentum. Others, like Greg Amy look to carve a winning angle, and the car and class are mere tools in that process. But for most, if it costs X, C is OK. But if it costs X+, then they want ITB speed. And if it costs X++, then ITA is the place they want to be.

It's the basic DNA in most racers: Go as fast as your budget allows.

So..back to classifying cars. The New Beetle landed in C because it was felt it couldn't make weight in ITB. We've seen not one built that I' am aware of because:

1- It's an expensive buy in for a class that is chock full of available built and competitive cars for sale at much cheaper dollars. (See "Basic DNA" above)
2- It aint light. Some question if it can win.
3- Some think its rather gehy......
4- Others just don't feel it's "cool" enough...

Now insert other cars into the equation...what fits? Low power cars...like Kias, etc. Run them by the four line items above, and see how they play out.

Simple fact of the matter is that as a society, American racers have moved away from light, slow, hang on to your momentum sedans.
 
lateapex911 said:
It's pretty darn hard...to classify cars people want to race in ITC.
Click to expand...
Which is why I was a bigger proponent of the existing "let the cars filter downwards a class as they get relatively slower" rather than create a faster class up top (ITR). By creating a system of fixed performance brackets/goalposts we have guaranteed that as modern cars' relative performance increases, we - by design - obsolete both classes and cars rather than just cars.

Right now, instead of filtering slower B cars down to C and slower A cars down to B (and so forth) we're being forced to shoe-horn cars into C by making them big-ole piggies 'cause no one makes cars that fit the true basis of those goalposts. If the class "dies from within" (a bit of a misnomer) as Andy describes it's likely we'll end up in the same place regardless: four total classes. The only thing that changed was the names... That's not really "from within" because instead of orphaning C cars we could have added the fast cars (current ITR cars) to S, then slower S cars to A and so forth to where ITC was fortified by the B filter-downers...Six of one, half-dozen of another, I suppose, but the "fixed performance bracket classes" guarantees both the fastest and slowest potential vehicles will be excluded from competition (the faster from outright banning, the slower from lack of any potential competitiveness).

Eventually, since we have fixed goalposts - and assuming cars' relative performances continue to increase in the future - the same thing should be expected to happen to ITB when we add ITX (Extreme) at the top, then to A when we add ITUX (Ultra Extreme) after that, ad nausea...

But, again, I don't see ITC as dead quite yet. If the ITAC keeps up the ideal of adding cars to that mix, even through they're heavy ones, the potential for success exists. - GA
 
I went with ITB because of the car I knew how to work on was competitive. From what I see in our area is that B increased a little, A got even stronger with some new drivers and a few permanent conversions from SM.

in our area ITC is waning a little, I dont get invovled int he drama behind it. Some are going to A, I dont know what class the rest are going to.

I have seen ITB growing, and I know a few that plan to return this season. I have a potential renter of our B car during the season races so I will have my hands full and I am not sure early on how many B races I will make.
 
Last edited:
Greg Amy said:
Which is why I was a bigger proponent of the existing "let the cars filter downwards a class as they get relatively slower" rather than create a faster class up top (ITR). By creating a system of fixed performance brackets/goalposts we have guaranteed that as modern cars' relative performance increases, we - by design - obsolete both classes and cars rather than just cars.

Right now, instead of filtering slower B cars down to C and slower A cars down to B (and so forth) we're being forced to shoe-horn cars into C by making them big-ole piggies 'cause no one makes cars that fit the true basis of those goalposts. If the class "dies from within" (a bit of a misnomer) as Andy describes it's likely we'll end up in the same place regardless: four total classes. The only thing that changed was the names... That's not really "from within" because instead of orphaning C cars we could have added the fast cars (current ITR cars) to S, then slower S cars to A and so forth to where ITC was fortified by the B filter-downers...Six of one, half-dozen of another, I suppose, but the "fixed performance bracket classes" guarantees both the fastest and slowest potential vehicles will be excluded from competition (the faster from outright banning, the slower from lack of any potential competitiveness).

Eventually, since we have fixed goalposts - and assuming cars' relative performances continue to increase in the future - the same thing should be expected to happen to ITB when we add ITX (Extreme) at the top, then to A when we add ITUX (Ultra Extreme) after that, ad nausea...

But, again, I don't see ITC as dead quite yet. If the ITAC keeps up the ideal of adding cars to that mix, even through they're heavy ones, the potential for success exists. - GA
Click to expand...

How do you filter 'slow' B cars into C without obsoleting the C cars?

If you want to add weight to the B cars to make them fit into C, then you end up with the same type of pigs. Lipstick on them yes, but still a pig. Don't you have to have a bracket to shoot at?

I fail to see how the design of the brakets are obsoleteting anything. Speed, availability and desire to run cars of these types/speeds is what is pressing on entries.

I just don't understand what you are saying. How does this all work if you don't want to obsolete the C cars? I am sure your idea has merit, but I don't get how it would work.
 
Last edited:
It looks like six of one, half dozen of another to me.

Either you have R/S/A/B/C with C basically dead.

Or you make R cars S cars, move S to A, A to B, and B cars to C at lower weights.

No real substantive difference that I see, more just nomenclature than anything else, other than determining the appropriate weights for B cars moving to C.

I don't want to be doomsayer, and I'm certainly influenced by what I see here in NC/SC/GA race land, but I don't see any new C cars being built. I see C withering away from lack of competition, and I see B doing okay.

A is odd here. For some reason, in this area, there aren't a whole lot of A cars. Most of our IT fields are populated by ITS and IT7, which is unusually strong, here.

I know A is strong in the NEDiv. Is C strong anywhere? Florida maybe??
 
It's really that simple.
Click to expand...

The irony of some of these threads is we sometimes prevent ITC from becoming popular again. There are not many cars racing there now, so we (myself included) suggest another class. Based on Greg's theory which I agree with, it makes it tougher to grow.

I think some people also have an attitude that they don't want to be in the slowest class thinking the higher the class, the better the driver. That's not true, but a perception many new people have.
 
Andy Bettencourt said:
How do you filter 'slow' B cars into C without obsoleting the C cars?
Click to expand...

You don't. Read again what I wrote:
By creating a system of fixed performance brackets/goalposts we have guaranteed that as modern cars' relative performance increases, we - by design - obsolete both classes and cars rather than just cars.
​
The difference is that while you can't affect the performance value of the individual older cars, you could keep the ITC moniker alive by filtering the cars down. You've (plural) chosen not to.

You (plural) have chosen - explicitly or purely by chance - that you'd rather manage cars' relative performance within a fixed performance bracket envelope of classes rather than actively managing the cars' fixed relative performance within a floating system of classes. In other words, you'd prefer to manage the absolute performance of classes rather than the relative performance of cars.

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with this; in fact I understand how it would much easier on you (plural) and creates a general standardized benchmark for all. However, you should recognize that you may have - again, either explicitly or by unintended consequences - actively obsoleted classes (starting with ITC) within those performance brackets. This is not a function of "death from within" but rather a result of your (plural) choices of design.

In the end, should ITC "die" you're back where you started, with four classes, and a system designed to actively obsolete slower cars as the performance envelope of new cars increases. Eventually, you will be forced to create more classes up top to accommodate this increased performance envelope, and as the slower cars decrease in availability and interest you are implicitly deleting those classes.

GA
 
Dave, that is definitely true, or was for me. I came in thinking S was the "best" IT class with teh "best" cars and the "best" drivers simple because it was the by the numbers fastest. Clearly not the case. Not sure how you correct that though for new guys; it is as someone mentioned perhaps a natural race tendency.
 
That's the issue. If you simply slide in B cars into C, at "doable" weights, you are going to make the current crop of C cars mostly obsolete -- so smae result as if you kept classes static and added "faster" classes.

Neither approach addresses the real problem here. Right now, the "C" performance envelope is what? 70 to 90 stock hp and weight of 2000 to 2400 lbs?

There just aren't many cars out there with those specs. So either you repopulate with new cars, or old B cars, at very high weights, or you completely change the peformance parameters such that C really isn't C anymore.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top