What makes IT, IT and Production, Production
- Thread starter turboICE
- Start date
Bill Miller
New member
Great write-up Kirk! 
Based on discussions ranging from many years ago to a few years ago, this was the vision, in terms of preparation levels:
Showroom Stock ---> Improved Touring ---> Production ---> GT
In other words, someone could theoritically start with an SS car, modify it to IT, modify it further to Prod, then go all out and run it in GT. Each change involved an escallating range of modifications (and costs). Of course not ever car is allowed in each of the various groups, but that's for another discussion. another consideration was that ONLY Production (and I think GT) stipulate that the cars are to be modified to be competitive. In other words, Prod cars that have no chance to run in the front should be allowed some car specific mods to make them more competitive. IT cars, per the rule book, do not have this allowance. To take this a step further, as a Prod car owner, I should be able to petition the CRB to allow me X - let's say bigger throttle body. I should not be able to do so as an IT car owner, because no where in the rules does it stipulate the cars are to be equally competitive within their classes.
So....SS = no modifications, no guarantee your car selection will be competitive, supposedly little mechanical work or knowledge required. Prod = many modifications, and this includes a range of car/model specific mods for competitiveness (is that a word???), mechanical and at least some fabrication skills required to be competitive. GT = few rules for an almost anything goes mentality. Mechanical and fabrication skills or the money to pay someone with these talents is crucial to even build a car, much less to be competitive.
Where does this leave IT (and to some degree, limited prep Prod)? The car should be close to stock, but the discussions when this class first became a reality centered on "bolt on" modifications, removal of many unnecessary items (such as gutting the interior), and adding most (not all) safety items required in Production.
What is rules creep really? I think it's two things: one is the desire to be able to add things to YOUR SPECIFIC car to make you and your car more compeitive. This is mandated in the PCS for the car, not the ITCS, a tough pill to swallow for many. Therefore many request something they want but for everyone, not just themselves. Another factor is the desire to make the car easier, or cheaper, to work on. Some things will make the car last longer - maybe all cars, maybe just some models of car. Some things are easier to source - again, it depends on the car. For example a bolt on part might be available to make camber changes quick and easy on a Honda (just an example!), but impossible to find on a Jensen Healey. So the Jensen Healey driver, figuring the Honda driver will have an advantage, either requests a rules change (for all cars of course), or fabricates his own part. The VW driver sees this, and although parts might be available for his car, they are outrageously expensive, or maybe difficult to find, or maybe he thinks he can do it better, so he fabricates something similar to the J-H car. In a few years, it seems to be a de-facto modification that is allowed by the rules because so many have now done it.
Now we are back to the original question, what is IT? Should it be based on readily available bolt on parts? If so, what about the cars that don't have this option available to them? Should the rules allow them to fabricate something, and this mod be on the spec line? If so, that's Production-like. So should the change be given to everyone? If so, that's rules creep.
Showroom Stock ---> Improved Touring ---> Production ---> GT
In other words, someone could theoritically start with an SS car, modify it to IT, modify it further to Prod, then go all out and run it in GT. Each change involved an escallating range of modifications (and costs). Of course not ever car is allowed in each of the various groups, but that's for another discussion. another consideration was that ONLY Production (and I think GT) stipulate that the cars are to be modified to be competitive. In other words, Prod cars that have no chance to run in the front should be allowed some car specific mods to make them more competitive. IT cars, per the rule book, do not have this allowance. To take this a step further, as a Prod car owner, I should be able to petition the CRB to allow me X - let's say bigger throttle body. I should not be able to do so as an IT car owner, because no where in the rules does it stipulate the cars are to be equally competitive within their classes.
So....SS = no modifications, no guarantee your car selection will be competitive, supposedly little mechanical work or knowledge required. Prod = many modifications, and this includes a range of car/model specific mods for competitiveness (is that a word???), mechanical and at least some fabrication skills required to be competitive. GT = few rules for an almost anything goes mentality. Mechanical and fabrication skills or the money to pay someone with these talents is crucial to even build a car, much less to be competitive.
Where does this leave IT (and to some degree, limited prep Prod)? The car should be close to stock, but the discussions when this class first became a reality centered on "bolt on" modifications, removal of many unnecessary items (such as gutting the interior), and adding most (not all) safety items required in Production.
What is rules creep really? I think it's two things: one is the desire to be able to add things to YOUR SPECIFIC car to make you and your car more compeitive. This is mandated in the PCS for the car, not the ITCS, a tough pill to swallow for many. Therefore many request something they want but for everyone, not just themselves. Another factor is the desire to make the car easier, or cheaper, to work on. Some things will make the car last longer - maybe all cars, maybe just some models of car. Some things are easier to source - again, it depends on the car. For example a bolt on part might be available to make camber changes quick and easy on a Honda (just an example!), but impossible to find on a Jensen Healey. So the Jensen Healey driver, figuring the Honda driver will have an advantage, either requests a rules change (for all cars of course), or fabricates his own part. The VW driver sees this, and although parts might be available for his car, they are outrageously expensive, or maybe difficult to find, or maybe he thinks he can do it better, so he fabricates something similar to the J-H car. In a few years, it seems to be a de-facto modification that is allowed by the rules because so many have now done it.
Now we are back to the original question, what is IT? Should it be based on readily available bolt on parts? If so, what about the cars that don't have this option available to them? Should the rules allow them to fabricate something, and this mod be on the spec line? If so, that's Production-like. So should the change be given to everyone? If so, that's rules creep.
Bill Miller
New member
Pretty good write-up Chris (is this catching?), but I have to offer a slight correction. SS cars are eligible for comp. adjustments, in the form of weight.
Greg Gauper
New member
And restrictor plates (as in the case of the Z4's and Mini's)....
Andy Bettencourt
Super Moderator
...and upon initial classification in the form of 'trunk kits'.
AB
While the CRB may adjust for competition potential, it is not mandated. The difference is the Production (and GT) rules DO call for adjustments based on the car's potential, the SS and IT books do not (GT has the same basic wording as Production):
"cars will be classified in Production classes based on their competitive potential in modified form. The Club may alter or adjust specifications and permit or restrict certain components to equate competitive potential."
By stated rules, I think this is one of the biggest differences between IT and Production. The other differences involve philosopy and/or intent. As these are typically not written, it tends to go back to discussions involving history and opinion. Obviously written rules are a bit easier to quantify.
"cars will be classified in Production classes based on their competitive potential in modified form. The Club may alter or adjust specifications and permit or restrict certain components to equate competitive potential."
By stated rules, I think this is one of the biggest differences between IT and Production. The other differences involve philosopy and/or intent. As these are typically not written, it tends to go back to discussions involving history and opinion. Obviously written rules are a bit easier to quantify.
Bill Miller
New member
Actually Andy, I think they did away w/ trunk kits a year or two ago. Existing cars that had them, could still run them, but they haven't been allowed on new classifications in, I believe, the last 2-3 years.
RacerBill
New member
Joe: Here's one. I remember following Peter Pulver from his shop in Millerton, NY to Line Rock. He regularly drove his Lotus on the street to the track, with a license plate held on with coat hanger swinging from the roll cage!
Edit: Sorry for the hijack, could not resist.
Having been around SCCA in the 60's, I remember quite a number of cars that were tweeked (if you can call running a V8 in a MGA tweeking!). Those cars were classed in 'Modified' classes - the precurser to 'Sports Racing'.
Production seems to have migrated to somewhere between SS and Modified. By the way, my Shelby Dodge can be run in four classes - ITA, F Prod (LP), E Prod (full prep) or GT3. But I'll bet that there are not many other cars in the same boat. However, it gives me almosst unlimited options on how fast fo I want to go, how much money I want to spend, and what I want to do to the car.
That being said, I think that we all agree that the difference between IT and Prod can be summed up in one word - engineering. That's just my opinion. Some others might suggest 'technology', but I think engineering is a better fit. I didn't use 'preparation' since there are many IT cars that have gone thru massive amounts of preparation. And that I find one of the really appealing aspects of IT - you can put whatever level of preparation you want into your car, and go and have fun.
I have read in recent threads, and I agree that rules must be written extremely clear, as concise as possible, and with great thought to the overall effect they have on IT, as opposed to individual cars. I see the conflict between being able to react to changing situations, attitudes, etc quickly and being resonsible to the whole group of drivers, car owners, etc.
The current ITAC is doing an admirable job.
I do think that we have to realize that the technology of cars has and will continue to change. New cars will need to be added to the list of raceable cars. Young folks are modifying their street cars more that what we allow in it today. In order to conitinue, we must be proactive in developing rules that will allow new racers to join our ranks. And still allow existing cars to run (not necessarily competitive). Will this be hard? Yes. Is it impossible? No. But, as one A. Lincoln once said "You Can't please all of the people all of the time"
Back to IT vs Prod. My suspension is bone stock, not even poly bushing. I don't like the idea of putting in threaded shocks/sturts, but once I have acwuired the skill to know how to adjust them, I will probably put them in. On the issue of SB's, I wish there was a way to make everyone happy here, but I would go along with the interpretation that they might be legal but should not be, if for no other reason than to make the LP suspension the equivilent of IT. Please, this is not meant to insult or anger anyone, just my opinion, and if it helps someone make up thier minds on the subject, one way or another, it's worth it.
OK, I'm done for a while.
Edwin Robinson
New member
Hi Ed-
It's an excellent point! - Something that I'm sure the SCCA rulemaking dept has been dealing with. I think we've seen some of these concerns addressed in the SOLO categories ( and perhaps the Club Racing categories as well ) recently. However, by and large, the program has been pretty concise about what is allowed. Personally, I think that SCCA has ( for better or worse ) the largest number of classes and venues available. I don't think anyone here is advocating MORE classes.
However, we continually discuss how certain changes may be beneficial for the club in its' entirety. Albeit sometimes with rather slow response- I think that those (most important) issues are implemented.
You have to remember- sometimes old habits die hard- and this can certainly be the case here.
As far as National status- I think that's long overdue...but that's just my opinion...
~E.
P.S. - You're not in Kansas anymore!
Bill Miller
New member
Not to hijack it any further, but my Rabbit can run in:
ITB or ITC, depending on year
HP 1.6 limited-prep
GP 1.6 full prep OR 1.8 8v limited prep
FP 1.8 8v full prep
GT3 1.8 8v
GTL 1.6 8v
dickita15
New member
Not to pick on you Edwin but I don’t want that premise left out there. There is no SCCA rulemaking department. There are members and committee of members. The Topeka staff administers the club. We have the ITAC, appointed knowledgeable volunteers; half who are willing to post here and all I believe all read this stuff. We have the CRB, more involved members, most of who track the important discussions here. We have the BOD, elected members from about the country.
IT.com is the town square where ideas are aired, some great, some crazy, but it us, the members that start things not the “rulemaking department”.
Renaultfool
New member
I agree with the list posted by Knestis near the start of this thread. That defines IT compared to Production.
It seems to me that we get into the most trouble with things we want to "put on" our cars. I don't think we should have a problem with things we can "take off" (remove) from our cars. We could get rid of that stupid bottle that way.
Anyway, anything added to the car should be spelled out in the rules. And the rules should be short and clearly written.
We also must consider the advance of technology in the engine controls department. Each year there are more exotic engine management systems coming out on new cars and this is the area of our greatest challange.
Are SBs new ideas? Heck no, I had SBs on the inner end of of the lower suspension arms on my (IMSA) Pinto in 1976, when I bought it used, and it had been that way since 1972! The IMSA rules for the Radial Series at that time were very much like the IT rules.
I don't use them now because I cannot legally install them and I am too cheap to buy them. They were cheap back then.
Carl
It seems to me that we get into the most trouble with things we want to "put on" our cars. I don't think we should have a problem with things we can "take off" (remove) from our cars. We could get rid of that stupid bottle that way.
Anyway, anything added to the car should be spelled out in the rules. And the rules should be short and clearly written.
We also must consider the advance of technology in the engine controls department. Each year there are more exotic engine management systems coming out on new cars and this is the area of our greatest challange.
Are SBs new ideas? Heck no, I had SBs on the inner end of of the lower suspension arms on my (IMSA) Pinto in 1976, when I bought it used, and it had been that way since 1972! The IMSA rules for the Radial Series at that time were very much like the IT rules.
I don't use them now because I cannot legally install them and I am too cheap to buy them. They were cheap back then.
Carl
This statement needs some examination, I think. I obviously don't know anything about the specific car to which you refer but the IMSA RS rules, even when the series was new in the early '70s, were more like stock car rules of the time, than they would be like even current IT rules - let alone the original IT ruleset (e.g., hand-built, gen-u-ine race cars).
The cages were comprehensive, welded into the chassis in multiple places. Dashboards were removed and replaced with simple sheet panels. Fenders were trimmed, yanked, bulged, or flared. Brake systems were WAY not stock, with dual master cylinders and racing pedal assemblies. Bumpers could be removed. Stuff was cut off of the chassis if it wasn't required to hang an engine or gearbox from.
Engines were high-compression beasties with aftermarket cams, shooting for the 250-300hp range on roller rockers, aftermarket rods, and aftermarket valves. Some models had alternate heads or other major components allowed. Little rear-drive, 4- and 6-cylinder cars ran gearboxes swiped from their V8 cousins, bolted in with custom bellhousings. The later FWD cars used straight-cut gearbox internals and the Renaults used the Gordini crossflow hemi head, for Pete's sake.
I submit that it is not a fair representation of the spherical bearing's place in IT history, to cite their use on IMSA RS cars - even early ones. The IMSA sedans of all generations, from the first RS cars to the International Sedans and LuK clutch series generation, were "real" racing cars, where IT cars have arguably not had their mission statement much revised since the category was born.
K
Z3_GoCar
New member
Originally posted by turboICE@Jan 9 2006, 12:41 PM
I see this approximate comment alot regarding rule changes or interpretations:
~ We don't want to creep towards becoming production. ~
And I have to say in the context it is frequently used in (sometimes for any change in the rules at all) I really think it is misused or I simply have no idea what they are saying.
I think my view is that the difference is production involves substantial internal engine development and substantial chasis modification.
So while I would agree that any rule allowing additional work on the long block or the attached carb/FI beyond the current rules and allowances (even though I requested an alternate distributer/oil pump gear) would be indicative of creeping towards production - I disagree that improving aspects outside the long block (such as wiring, MAF and ECU if allowed) would be improper for IT and moving towards Prod.
Regarding the chasis while I would agree that permitting alternate or modification to suspension arms, additional chasis reinforcement, seam welding, and other types of structural fabrications would be creeping towards production - I disagree that improving the connecting or wear components (such as short shifters including linkage, any type of suspension joint connection) would be improper for IT and moving towards Prod.
I'd would like this thread to focus on what makes IT, IT and Prod, Prod - so as to focus thoughts on when a rule is creeping toward Prod for real, rather than just being creepy in general.
I guess I am just tired of the "IT is not Prod" crowd throwing it out for any discussed rule or for interpretting a rule fairly but beneficially to the building of an IT car.
[snapback]70478[/snapback]
Here's my take on Prod vs IT.....
In Prod a Z3 weighs 200lbs less than a Miata....
I could start with any chassis and not just a 4 cylinder....
I'd have to run 15 inch rims with slicks.....
and I'd have to remove the windshield and posts.....
In IT I need a 4 cylinder Z3 to start with.....
My Z3 with very limited parts avalibility weighs 400 lbs more than a Miata...
I can't run 15 inch rims, only 16's that no one makes....
Why not run prod?? how about the cost of tires alone. The much higher level of prep required... with more options much more needs to be performed to be competitive... much more chassis development is required on an as yet under developed chassis. If one wants to learn how to drive to their limits, IMHO IT fits the bill better.
James