Quite a few years ago - the competitors asked to change the classification of cars. The reason was because we had a very successful MP series ending it's life cycle and Professional Spec series cars - Players Camaros/Firebirds, Rothman's Porsche Turbo cup cars and the Honda Michelin Challenge Series cars had no classifications to allow them to race. The 2nd reason was to concentrate the number of classes and to encourage a more competitive competition amongst similar lap time cars. A rules committee was created and it was decided 3 GT (race cars - stripe down production cars or purpose built race with tube frames and fuel cells, etc - some wanted to be eligible for SCCA races and potential SCCA runoff eligibility) and classes for cars that could basically be driven to the track -- the Improved Touring Classes. - IT
3 classes - in IT and 3 in GT - a total of 6 classes
It became apparent there were a few odd ball cars that did not fit into the 6 desired classes and Sue Wilson/Timing and scoring needed a symbol or class to hang a label....the GTS class and the ITGT class were created only for timing and scoring purposes. We all agreed no trophies and no recognition for these odd ball non-conforming classes. As we all know these classes are now recognised and trophies are awarded.
Is it time to reduce the classes once again???.....see a more one on one competition. We all watched the GT race on Sept 13 - Only 4 classes....great racing....excellent competition.
Can we design a classification system that once again is competitive.....Presently the ITGT class sees cars running 1:25 lap times or 1:38 lap times....If some one brought out a street legal Porsche GT3 or a new Corvette ZRI with proper safety gear - they would be in ITGT at a possible 1:17 to 1:19 times.
Is it possible to create a new set of classifications with a mixture of GT cars and IT with similar laps times?
Better competition - a "little closer" to comparing apples to apples ....
If the ITGT and the GTS were not growing so much faster than the other classes this potential change would not be necessary.
Let's have some discussion.
The AGM is 2 weeks away.
What direction do you want the classifications to go in?
Cheers
Gary
how would it affect the current cars around?
Myself I have a project in the works for winter that would only fall in GTS.
It would be very unfortunate to loose cars V.S growing road racing as much as possible.
Gord Leach
Regina Saskatchewan
How about having ITGT 1, ITGT 2 and ITGT 3 and the same for GTS. I think there is more than enough cars and interest to make this happen. I cannot take credit for this idea it was superdave's I've just beat him to the computer.
Domo, Gary is suggesting trying to reduce the number of classes - I'm sure we could all go out there and run in a class by ourselves but there is no fun in that. You might find someone to play with but the end result is that they are not in the same class so why put the effort out. I find that I race harder when it counts - but then I don't like being a "Moving Pylon" out there, and we have all encountered those!
Gord!
That's what is frustrating. Why are competitors building cars to not fit in a class? It seems many are building only to fit into a class that was created to catch the fallout ...ITGT and GTS were a timing and scoring label not really a class...where a ZRI will compete against a Kia....we all know who the winner is or should be.
If we're building cars to complete a lap at specific time, then lets create classes where lap times determine your class; not who can throw the greatest amount of money or technology or creativeness at a class that has no limits....or put GTS and ITGT together.....that maybe a better fit....all the non-class cars run together....
We see GT3 cars running similar times to a ITGT or an ITI car then why not have them compete for the same "red ribbon" at the end of day.
If you exceed your class's time by 2.0 or 2.5% you're bumped to the next class.....
The reason for the IT class was to support a 20 year old collection of cars....it's time to move forward.
Quote from: Tachyon on September 29, 2009, 04:01:51 PM
Gord!
That's what is frustrating. Why are competitors building cars to not fit in a class?
Freedom of Espression........I guess.
Myself I'm buiding something unique that has no "proper" home unless it had 6-700lbs of lead thrown at it.(GT Rules of factoring)
Think of all the open wheel classes, FV FF,FC,FL(catch all)
My opinion is we need a catch all however it applies.
Eliminating classes/entrants isn't a good idea.
Gord
"Is it time to reduce the classes once again???.....see a more one on one competition. We all watched the GT race on Sept 13 - Only 4 classes....great racing....excellent competition."
I watched the GT race from group 3, when all the other cars in my IT2 class were in group 4. The winners of the four groups were, at least to a certain extent, random. My car is prepped to the highest level I can afford, for two reasons: I am a professional automotive technician and shop owner, and I have a pretty good idea of how stuff works, and secondly, and probably more important, I have a 600 km tow to get to the nearest racetrack to my home. I am not going to show up with an underprepped car that does not have a chance of winning.
My reward for this level of prep and effort is a championship. Were we to base the groups off a random grouping based on raw lap times, the winner of each group would be partly based on how many cars happened to show up that day. You would have a race driver rewarded for lucky guesses?
I do not have an answer for your ITGT question, but does it really require an answer? It costs a couple of extra spots on the database, and a couple more trophies at the end of the year. Options include SCCA, which has has ITR and ITS. NASA uses a type of prep point system to move cars up the ladder.
IT 1-2-3 are ok as is. Choose the right car for your track and prep it to the limit of the rules and you will be competitive.
As to Gords frankenstein-like creatures, trust me , you ain't gonna stop him. ITGT is the perfect home for him, cause I am not sure if he's ever opened a rule book, let alone read one. ;<)
Another thought as to the IT field would be to modify the current IT1-3 rules to open the classes back up to allow some cars back in that are now in IT-GT. This may be more of a nightmare but would allow the class sizes to grow more. It would definietly be a policing nightmare but we self police anyway. The ITCS would then have to be updated accordingly.
Really those of us in IT-GT, Chose to be there, we made modifications to our cars knowin full well we would be in ITGT and would or would not be competitive.
As far as GTS goes we need a place for unlimted cars to go.
SuperDave
Obviously, I have to say something, as I usually mouth off about everything.
My point is that people should read the rule book, and build cars that fit the rules, and that we, the organizers, should not be making up classes for people who don't read the rules. The rules are the same for everyone, so there can't be any realistic complaint that anyone is being left out. Racing is a rule based process.
I am in a very restrictive class, a "spec" class, with very limited, and specific mods allowed. Yes, there are a lot of things I could do to the car to make it go faster, but, as it is, we all follow the rules...for the most part, and we have a lot of fun racing in a good sized class, while learning the little tiny, incremental things that are legal, and that we can do.
I agree that we need to limit the number of classes, I agree that the four classes in the GT race are fairly cool, but I don't think we need to get rid of any classes yet, and certainly don't need any new ones.
If you want to go into ITGT, or GTS, fine, but you are in a very broadbased group, and it'll probably cost $$$ to win.
Meanwhile, back at the cheap end of the stick, CC cars are simple to prepare, and as you have all seen, we are going faster every year, with very little added cost.
More food for thought!
There are a number of reasons why this subject should be talked about.
Over the last couple of years we have all seen great races amongst drivers. You know the ones where they are bumper to bumper, freight train group of cars with some swapping positions every single lap. This is what spectators like me love to watch and to live vicariously witnessing the exceptional skill sets of these competitors. Great stuff!
However, there were a few times this year where something very different stood out. Those four to 6 car freight trains lap after lap were with cars from 4 different classes....So why are they racing so hard? Just being racers?...competitive people? Fine!
However, a very respected driver came up to me and asked...."What's with %^&*( no name here), he was being so aggressive and taking huge risks to pass me when we're not even in the same class. " He could have caused both of us to lose Class championship points and the championship."
He went on to say it's fun to mix it up....but they started to taker greater risks....."what is the point when we're not in the same class! I'm racing at 110% and taking huge calculated risks against my class competitors and these 3 other non-class competitors are threatening our survival. What's the point"
Point taken from this long time, very respected driver!
Later in the summer this very topic was brought to my attention a number of times.
This year we saw far more bumper to bumper racing amongst competitors, most often in different classes. Just look over the results and lap times.
The question is ---- How do we create a fair and equitable system? Where you are really racing with a fellow class mate??
This doesn't address the issue at hand so please forgive the hijack of this thread. Open wheel is now the biggest class on the grid. We had 13 cars and, if everyone would have come out, we would have been at 18. You want to have fun? You want to race closely? Spend less than $15,000 and you get a race ready rocket that will propel you around the track at 1:20 or less.
Now back to your regularly scheduled program.
Quote from: shross on September 30, 2009, 10:12:48 AM
Spend less than $15,000 and you get a race ready rocket that will propel you around the track at 1:20 or less.
Kind like this?
http://www.motorsportmarshalling.on.ca/wcma/index.php?topic=202.msg836;topicseen#msg836
Gord
So I guess I have to ask why would we recognize ITGT and GTS as a trophy class?
Seems to me the whole point was to allow a place where people could race their nonconforming cars without any sanctioned prize or recognition. If we continue to dilute the rules why would anyone follow them (ie structured classes)?
I don't like the idea of grouping based on time, but I raced in a class where the cars were very close in terms of lap times (GT3) and I had an absolute ball racing this year. That being said Stu G (ITGT) got caught in the mix a few times racing with us, as did Lance H. and Gary C. and guess what I had a blast racing with them too.
I think the GT and IT rules are well defined and fairly ubiquitous across organizations (ICSCC, SCCA, PCA, BMWCCA, NASA etc) I would propose the following:
Adhere to the IT and GT classes. Apply a weight or class factor for nonconformist which would mean that if for whatever reason I don't conform to my class I need to carry more weight as a penalty or get bumped into the next class. My car is barely competitive in GT3 why would I want to add more weight or go into GT2?
Coming from Vintage while it is fun, it can also be extremely frustrating racing against cars that are so (Momentum VS HP) different yet run similar lap times. In vintage it is OK but I think it is fundamentally wrong to have a 1.9litre BMW racing against a 500HP challenger, just because the times are similar, same rules would apply in GT. The problem is also exacerbated at Race City as it is such a HP course. As an example many of the GT3 cars run competitive lap times against the ITGT and GT2 cars, but rest assured we would get passed every lap on the straight by those same cars.
I would be open to loosening the rules to allow more cars in, but then, many of us would end up with cars that were either ineligible at places like Spokane or uncompetitive in Calgary. Either way it will suck.
The yardstick needs to be consistent and given the fact that there will be a time (in the future) when most of us will have to travel to Spokane or Mission to race I think we should focus on getting more legitimate cars in the GT and IT ranks.
Rant OUt
Anthony
1969 BMW 2002
Just a quick comment on why cars race so hard against other cars not in their class.
It is quite simple actually. If there is a CC car a couple of cars ahead of me, and an IT2 car between me and the CC car, I am going to do anything I can to get by the IT2 car, so I can get after the CC car, and improve my position. Likewise, If I am ahead of a CC car, and there is a car in a different class ahead of me, I want to get by, and stick that moving pylon between me and the CC car behind me. This to me is all part of the skill set, and the tremendous enjoyment I get from racing.
Also, some of the best racing I have had is when, for whatever reason, I have been at the back of the field, and have had the opportunity to pass 15 - 16 cars, as I fought through the pack to catch up with the CC cars....what a lot of fun !!!!!
Let's also remember, most of the time, it's not the car, it's the driver. A well driven CC car is sometimes way faster than some of the more powerful, and better set-up higher classes.....down to the driver.
This whole class issue has come up before, and I have to say that I thought this year went well....if it ain't broke, don't fix it.
The AGM is 2 weeks away. That is the time to make changes for the next year. I agree with you 100%....If it ain't broke don't fix it. However, a few have said it needs to be replaced or repaired for the classes are long in the tooth.
My focus is safety and as long as the cars in any class meet or exceed the safety standards then competitors can compete with who ever.
With respect to the classification if the vast majority wishes the classifications to remain the way they are then so be it. From my perspective, if there are 20 cars in ITGT or 20 cars in GTS in 2010 then those that were questioning the existence or lack of rules for these classes in 2009 and they do not speak up before the AGM they really should not comment on the lack of classification rules during the 2010 season.
The only element is the overall WCMA Champion could be someone who is not in a competitive car because they bought an off the rack 2010 street legal Corvette or Viper that can now 1:17s at Race City in ITGT. No one in any other classes would have a chance to be overall champion.
The ideal scenario ( almost impossible) is to have an equal number of cars in each class, therefore every class champion could have a shot at First, second or third overall.
These next two weeks and the AGM are your soap box. WCMA has placed "soap box" for addressing any concerns about car classifications.
If no one steps up to the soap box, then let the classifications stand as they are.
There has been a suggestion that, overall Provincial and WCMA Regional Champions may only be eligible if they are competing in a definitive classes not a catch up class. Therefore the CC champion, IT1, IT2, IT3 or GTI, GT2 and GT3 champions would be eligible for the Overall Championships.
At the moment we're only talking about the 'TIN TOP" cars. The open wheel cars may wish to clarify their classifications.
Where racers are really racing apples to apples.
The SOAP BOX is open!
Two things.
Look at some of the big Series, like ALMS. They have several classes, and some of the lower class cars are a bit faster than the slower higher class cars. They are all on the track at the same time, and face the same issues with traffic as we do.
The other quick point is that the WCMA Overall Champion has been a CC car for many of the past 8 or so years. No major HP, or $$$ there !
This season's Overall Champion I believe is a Neon.
Overall Champion requires consistency, attendance, and travel. One thing I have seen over the years is that the faster the car, the more HP it has, the less track time it gets due to failures of some of the more complicated systems. If you want to race in EVERY race of the season, in Calgary, Edmonton, and maybe one weekend of travel, you need to start over thirty green flags.
I don't have fears of the Overall Championship being bought with just speed/HP/$$$.
Quote from: 10cc on September 29, 2009, 11:18:06 PM
Obviously, I have to say something, as I usually mouth off about everything.
Really hard to argue with that!
I can understand the need for racers to "tune" their cars to go faster. Their is such a large amount of high ouput engines available from japanese or foreign markets it is hard not to resist an easy increase in power. it is unfortunate that these new tuner cars are not classified seperatly. perhaps a big bore ITGT class and a small displacement ITGT class? I believe this "tuner class" of cars will more common.
-On another note. I beleive the rules state the ITGT class is a temporary class, The racer is encouraged to move into a proper GT class after a year or so.
-I do not think we should split classes by lap time. What will happen at different tracks? the splits may make sense at race city but may not at other tracks. it happens at the GT race every year. cars from same class somehow get split into different groups, one ends up at the back of a group the other at the front. Not really fair .
-
Classes should be calculated by potential of the vehicle tuned to its max. as the current GT rules do. anyone that prepares a car that is not maximised should not expect to win.
See all at the AGM
Gary
Really as i see it it really isn't a matter of winning anything in IT-GT. We chose to modify our cars and that where we ended up. It really comes down to wcma wanting to even the cars out so we are racing with cars in class and closer lap time.
Those of us in IT-GT kinda got there by accident as the car progressed and modifcations we had done they sort of just ended up there.
As far as moving up to the GT classes i personally don't want to, as the car i have now will never beat or be able to compete against a tube frame car. If i did i think i'd build a different car.
I chose my car and was not guaranteed it would be competetive, so i am not concerned with winning.
edit:Had another thought in regards to racing, If I were to move up to the gt classes i would have no one to race against IN CLASS. In IT-GT there should be 4-5 like lap timed cars for me to race against if i moved to GT3 which is where my car would class i'd have maybe 2 more like 1 in class that the car would be competive with.
However i still do believe in the safety end of IT-GT and speeds the cars are now capable of in the class. Perhaps we need a speed/lap time rule. If you exceed this you need a fuel cell and extra bars or whatever else wcma dicatates. Or as stated a weight penalty or move up to GT classes.
Edit: Gord below brings up another thought (below) we already have a class of cars that controls it's own destiny rules regs tires etc etc.. CC challenge cars. Why not let the ITGT people decide what they want to do with there class as we allow CC to do.
Several thoughts come to mind and to make it clear I am not attacking anyone if it does come across that way.
First in regards to racing extremely hard with cars from other classes...while I understand some strategy to using them as a chicane if you are interfering with their race in their class for your gain how is this fair or fun. Racing is racing but some common sense should be applied as to class structure and who is racing who. It's one thing for 2 cars who are near the front of their class in a race to use this strategy but what about ones who are mid pack or with no real chance of getting back to the front of their pack? Is it right to now deprive a competitor from another class the chance to regain their class for a chance at points in their race? Not in all cases but sometimes I think some racers forget that all racers have a right to racing room on the race track. If someone tries to make a clean pass on a car from another class and is instead cut off and forced off the track then that is not using your position as an advantage, it is being unsportsmanlike. If a car that is not in your class and is nowhere near their pack makes a suicide pass on you while you have position in your class and takes you or both of you out of contention then how is this fun or fair? And like Gary pointed out if a car from a different class is running competitively with another classed car consistently then why are they not in the same class to begin with?
I am not knocking CC class at all as they have been one of the larger classes at the track for some time. As Brooke stated, they have a specific set of rules to follow, a spec class. Guess what though, so is IT. In fact IT may be even more spec and "stock". Where the problem comes in is who oversees the rules? If one car is illegal then how is it dealt with? This happens in any class regardless of the rules including CC. The bigger the class the easier to enforce rules as it can be more obvious when a car is illegal, or at least if everyone suspects a car is illegal the class can approach the individual before taking official actions. When it is a smaller class then it is usually one individual confronting another and gets awkward, going to the officials requires proof and protest fees which many times isn?t worth it as you still have to race wit this individual in the future except they are now mad. As far as CC class isn't this kind of a class where the cars don't fit into any other normal class except CC? They don't fit into IT due to their engine modifications...Why not reduce the number of classes and make them fit into an existing class such as IT or GT? With little mods they would fit into IT. If a CC car was to go run in BC or the USA where would their cars fit? Is this any different than an ITGT car?
As for ITGT cars one concern that Gary pointed out is safety...why are we allowing as car to be built specifically for ITGT that may be significantly faster than many GT cars but with less safety prep? The initial intent was for someone who showed up with a car from a different region or series a place to also race instead of sending them home. Instead of saying that because of several mods that a Solo 1 or hill climb car or ice race car has but doesn't have the adequate fuel cell or such for GT that they must go home this would allow them to stay and race...but be encouraged if they keep coming back to the track to conform their car to either GT or IT rules. If one now takes their car that isn't prepped safely enough for GT but too modified for IT and runs at GT or faster speeds without the safety prep of GT and gets in accident....well wouldn't it make more sense fro them to either detune and run IT rules or step up and go GT? As for GTS?I am mixed here because they do have the adequate safety prep in order to be GT however as it has been pointed out why are these individuals building specific GTS cars and not building them for GT recognized classes? If there is a valid reason should we change rules? Should we follow rules closer from other regions? Forgive my lack of knowledge about specific rules in GT as there may be a valid reason and I think it also important to consider that prep rules should be made fairly consistent for different regions to encourage travel, not necessarily just within WCMA.
One thing to think of here folks is Race City is not a permanent venue. They have made leaps and bounds and it looks like have won for another 5yrs...assuming that the city cooperates with the new lease agreement and such...even then though lets look at the big picture and ask where are we going to be racing in the near future? In response to that what class are you going to race in at different track? Doesn?t it make sense to have a car that you could trailer down to Pacific Raceways or Portland or Spokane? Hell even just going to Mission to race for a weekend? If one showed up with their CC, ITGT or similar cars is there a place for you to race? If we are left without a track in our own background where do we play until another location is created? Maybe we should be making our rules similar to other regions to not only encourage them to come play with us but so we can also go to their playgrounds and play in a similar fashion.
These issues have been brought up in the past at AGM?s and one thing I encourage is to keep an open mind and not dwell in the past. This sport as it rules and cars are ever changing and if it is going to maintain to be safe and competitive then things must also change from time to time. At one time there was IP and MP rules, now there is not?maybe it?s time to change some more things once again?
Just to be clear here, I believe we are talking about racing. Now, if there is a car in front of me, and I am faster than that car, I am going to pass that car regardless of class, my position in my class, his position in his class, or any other factor. If he is slowing me down, I am going to do whatever to get by. The season championships are based on accumulated points. Races such as KoR are not even class based.
Some of the issues being discussed here are not so much related to the car, as to the driver. Clearly, a driver in a faster class, who is slower than other drivers in any class, should show responsibility, and allow racing room for faster cars, regardless of class. This does not always happen. That said, it is not my responsibility to let a car in a faster class stay ahead of me just because he is in a faster class.
I believe we have a duty to make all of the current rules clear to all drivers, and to have the rules adherred to and enforced, rather than change the rules.
CC rules have remained virtually unchanged for a decade, other than a couple of minor changes for safety, and engine longevity, and tire changes due to manufacturer changes. If I want to race elsewhere, I'll deal with that issue myself, when and if it happens, and in fact it means about 2 hours of work.
I agree with what you have said Brooke,
I am definitely not saying that as a faster car you should pass or if you come up on a slower car you shouldn't pass. But if you decide to dice it up with a similar car be cognizant as to what race they may be running as well. If you are 10th in your class and you a in a pack with someone who is first in class and decide to race hard with them, cause them to crash or go off course and lose their first in class then that is not cool. At the same time it is racing and I am not saying don't race but do use some common sense. This doesn't mean that if someone is racing with you you should just pull over and let them by only to be held up again or compromise your position...but it does mean if someone makes a clean pass that if you are not in their class maybe there are times you shouldn't force the issue and make a clean pass. If you attempt to make a clean pass and someone doesn't respect your right to racing room to the extent that you cannot get safely by them at any time then it can be frustrating, especially if you are faster and if you get by will likely not see that competitor again. What can result from drivers who are little less sportsman like is that a car that won't respect their right to racing room usually at some point gets punted or hit to get them out of the way instead of everyone respecting all racers rights to racing room. Again though the issue comes into play that if some of the more similar classes were restructured then some of these scenarios we are talking about would be a non issue because now the two competitors are in fact racing each other instead of trying to catch up to their class.
And yes this doesn't apply to our KOR series...
As for car classing issues, I respect your decision as to the fact you will deal with it then, that is fair...just floating the bug about the whens, and whether they should be considered right now to benefit everyone...CC class really isn't the issue, but the issue is why is ITGT growing so fast when i was intended as a temporary class for those who were to show up and not really fit anywhere but are not prepped with enough safety equipment to go GT. We have an alarming number of ITGT cars that should be either encouraged to install all the safety equipment that GT car has or find some other form of class structuring to eliminate this issue.
The idea is to consolidate classes to have more competitors in each class so that we have better quality racing with less bickering or issues.
What ideas do people have?
Why do those of you who build ITGT cars build them for a non-trophy class? What would you guys like to see.
But the problem is that it is now a trophy class and as a result has been legitimized.
If you have catch all classes people will automatically gravitate to them as it is easiest to build to the class with the loosest rules.
My idea is not to have the ITGT and GTS but rather impose a class penalty or a substantial weight penalty and keep the classes to a minimum. Furthermore, at this point many of the ITGT cars are as fast as the GT cars so why would it be acceptable to run with a lesser degree of safety equipment or preparation?
Anthony
Here's another way to look at this or approach it. What made our cars IT-GT in the first place.
I'll Use mine as an example Originally an IT2 car.
Brakes-converted to rear disc, upgraded fronts. Re-plumbed to allow adjustable proportioning.
One class upward move according to current IT spec.
Battery-Different size relocated slightly. One class upward move according to current it Spec.
Electronics- Slightly updated engine electronics.
Engine- Different than originally came with car in north america. Displacement increase of 80cc hp increase of
approx 45hp-60hp. ITGT because of different than original or available in North America
I chose to make these modifications because i wanted to and fortunately there was a home/class for me to race in here. My car does fit into several SCCA classes
So here's my thought what about merging the old MP-modified productions rules and the current IT rules.
I'd love to see what others had done to make them IT-GT and see if there is room to either back date and find a home.
My understanding MP rules allowed as much engine mod/swap as you wanted while still allowing stockish fuel/engine management etc.... all based on a GT type HP/weight calculation.
I know that adopting some of this may allow some of the existing IT cars to do minor mods IE battery size change/movement or MAF to MAP sesnor changes to get rid of out of date engine managment that has proven unreliable for there particular car.
Anyway just more food for thought or fuel for the fire
lets stay on topic, this is about proper classification of cars, correct?
i am wondering how IT cars are classified, i could not find a formula in the rules the specify what fits where. other than the big master list. what if your car is not on that list. I can think of some cars this year that dont seem to be in the correct class. does this explain why some dont feel their car is competitive and they modify the car?
perhaps if there is a formula to use there may be no need for a ITGT class at all.
using weight to power ratios? anyhow some more to consider.
Gary
Ultimately, the discussion is about classing. We have created the "catch" classes of IT-GT and GTS for cars that show up that don't necessarily fit into a clear definition of IT or GT prep. Gord G suggests that we define our classes more closely with other venues. I agree but realize that most of us play in Calgary and have over the years made our cars fit into what we have here. We can and always will accomodate others that don't necessarily fit our "rules" by dropping them into a catch class. Is it possible that Mission, Spokane, Seattle and others might do the same? If one showed up at Mission (for example) to run for a weekend, would they really be turned away because the car did not fit into a class perfectly? I'm hoping not and will investigate further. In the meantime, racing is all about getting out there and cranking up the adrenaline. We don't race for the money - we race to have fun and talk about it later. I only made 2 events this year - Yes I would be happier to make more racs and be in the points and all, yet I still got out and had fun. Lets not forget why we are there - if we have to change our vehicles to fit in somewhere else then we will do that when we have to - for now we have Race City (for 5 more years - fingers crossed!) !!
Jon Wright
I agree about staying on topic...sorry if it was lead astray...
As for the IT formula it is basically a calculation of potential power for a given vehicle and then a minimum weight is applied and these numbers are basically inline with how the SCCA IT rules are written up. The only issue is that IT in the states has such a huge turn out that there is even more classes then IT1-3. This is were I think we have a fault as with limited car turn out already it is hard to fit all the cars into just 3 classes and be competitive. This is what we need is some formula to be an equalizer, be it weight, displacement, or a combination of other factors.
The problem with SuperDave's example is that he wants to tinker with his car to win and that is fine. Some of us who are tight on money and want to race a relatively stock car are at a disadvantage in these cases. For example:
Quote from: Super70DaveI'll Use mine as an example Originally an IT2 car.
Brakes-converted to rear disc, upgraded fronts. Re-plumbed to allow adjustable proportioning.
One class upward move according to current IT spec.
Battery-Different size relocated slightly. One class upward move according to current it Spec.
Electronics- Slightly updated engine electronics.
Engine- Different than originally came with car in north america. Displacement increase of 80cc hp increase of
approx 45hp-60hp. ITGT because of different than original or available in North America
Dave ran the rear discs it IT2, technically not legal but also not a huge performance improvement, not really a big deal. I still have rear drum on my car and while not illegal to do the upgrade on my car I don't see a huge improvement for the dollar to do it, so I have left mine stock for my year.
Battery size...if everyone is running the factory size vehicle and falling within min weight what is the big deal of upgrading to a different size battery, why do it? There can be performance increases but not if you exceed min weight, stay stock then
Different electronics? You can already modify the ecm within IT rules, sensors can be tricked as well as long as the electronics aren't altered from factory (ie, replacing a MAP sensor with a MAF sensor if it wasn't there from the factory). Most ECM's can be tinkered with for some HP gains and be legal still. There are some examples of cars that this is harder then others but there are always areas on all cars that some cars are just better.
Engine...different then what came in North America. That was the same as the motor that he was running in IT2 also...differnt engine again that is even more HP. This is no different however then someone who is running a Camaro with a 305 and says hey I want a 350 now. It wasn't there from the factory so it isn't legal in IT without jumping classes. Dave chose to put a different engine in with 60-70hp more and therefore goes up a class....
I have no problem with Dave and have fun racing with him, he has made the decision to go upclasses in pursuit of something...it is this something that is obviously enticing ITGT drivers to stay in ITGT so what is it? Can we continue doing it and stay within safety guidelines? This is what I think we need to define and how to do it without sacrificing those who want to stay in stock like classes.
There are 2 questions here...first to those like Dave, please keep responding as I think we need to know why you have modified your cars and don't want to just run in cost efficient IT. If it is the modification aspect or the speed or the ??? We need to understand why this class is growing as it is.
The second is how do we allow cars to get quicker yet not meet the safety requirements of cars already this quick, ie GT cars. My concern is the reason ITGT is growing so quickly is this basic reason, you can build your car to go as quickly as a GT car but not need to invest the $$$ for the safety aspects that GT requires. Is this acceptable or not? Maybe but when do the speeds and safety aspects outweight the required safety equipment?
The way I have always seen it is racing can be expensive, it can also be reasonable and it depends what you want out of it. If your ultimate goal is to be the fastest then yes it will take time and money, if your goal is to come out and race for the fun and experience it can be for much less. There will always be those who are faster due to more money being thrown at the car but those who have a well sorted car with less money can be equally as competitive and have just as much fun. We need to have classes for those who want to run more inexpensive cars (and don't like CC even if there is nothing wrong with the class) with lesser budgets and still have fun. It would be like going drag racing with a close to stock car and being put in class with the super modified alcohol funny cars...not much competition.
What is the solution? There has to be one...classes for mildly modified cars? classes for more modified? All out GT what are the dividing lines and why did you choose the class you did? Let us know.
For me IT is simple due to the rules, allows me to race on a budget and lets me race the kind of car I want to...what are reasons for some of you in other classes? Maybe this will help with this discussion?
Good points Jon, I don't disagree...
How about this for a reactionary idea.
Go back to the original concept, ITGT and GTS as catch-all classes with no awards.
Allow cars to run in either class for the current year, but they must move up or down for the next year.
ITGT either goes to IT1 or GT4 / GT3, and GTS goes to GT1 / GT2 / GT3
I'm not saying it should be this way.....just a thought.
We have a number of BMW's and Honda's running in ITGT, where the reasons are a bit arcane. Perhaps we should look at rule changes that would allow those cars to slot into IT categories. At least one of the BMW's is ITGT because the rules say that car is. Is that sensible, or was it just expedient when the rules were re-written over time? Coleman's car is ITGT as a result of repairs he did following collisions, along with small brake changes (if I remember right). With the Honda's a variety of changes have put several of those cars in ITGT. In the US, the NASA (SCCA too?) regs have come up with a way to classify modified, engine swapped Honda's into just a few classes within the Honda Challenge series. Would it not be possible to look at how to incorporate some of those concepts into our own regulations and specs for IT1 and 2?
It seems to me we ought to be able to make some rule changes that shift a number of cars out of ITGT and back into IT classes. Some cars are too unique to be able to move them out of GTS or ITGT, such as Al's Porsche 944 with the Chevy V8. But if we could shift a good number back into the other classes by some rule change it seems like a pretty good idea, from the point of view of setting up more competitive class racing.
how about this.
currently there is only one IT3 car on the grid and i feel it is incorrectly classed . when i bought the white corolla that Dave M now has it had IT3 class on it. because the car came from BC. Their rules are different? why?
The current goal was to clarify classes and to reduce classes for timing/scoring.
suggestion; move all cars down a class, IT2 cars now are IT3, IT1 cars are now IT2. etc.
now get rid if the ITGT class.
we can use some formula or prep point system for modified cars to move up one class.
cars that start in the IT1 class are not allowed any mods as they are already fast enough . if they must modify they can go to GT classes and add the extra safety equip that concerns the current group of fast cars.
Again I think a formula to better classify the cars is also needed, similar to the GT displacement and weight calculations.
Gary
Gary actually has a pretty decent idea here...Many peoples reason for going to ITGT was they wanted some modification but were unable to and stay in IT, maybe allowing IT1 to be the fast class and only allow limited mods with a weight formula is a good idea...this would also allow for the new breed of fast cars from the factory to have a place to play...
Should we maybe look at the CACC rules to get an idea how they class as they do seem to work.
NASA does have the Honda Challenge, SCCA not so much. Honda Challenge is kinda like CC class with a few classes within the series, they also have their own track time separate from non-Honda's so the concept likely wouldn't work too well if all cars were factored in, but good thought.
From the CACC rule book:
18 IMPROVED PRODUCTION
18.1 Definition
Improved Production is intended to provide a place for newer models of vehicles to race
with minimal preparation other than the installation of standard safety equipment. In
addition the cars shall conform to commonly recognized preparation rules to allow
participation in events governed by other sanctioning bodies.
18.2 Rule Compliance
A. All vehicles must comply with the relevant regulations contained within this
CACC rulebook, as well as any applicable regulations that may be in the
current competition year ASN Sporting Code.
B. Regulations for the preparation of cars competing in this class shall be those
published for the current competition year by the Sports Car Club of
America for Improved Touring IT category in the GCR?s. The regulations
shall not include the addendums published in FastTrack during the current
competition year.
C. When a conflict exists between the CACC and SCCA rules the CACC
requirements shall be considered the requirement.
D. Production cars will normally be only those cars that are series produced for
North America in quantities of at least 2000 per model sold.
E. Competitors shall have available at all times, a copy of the manufacturer?s
workshop manual and/or official specifications for the vehicle entered.
F. The onus is at all times upon the competitor to ensure the eligibility of their
car. On the other hand a protest against a car, that is for example, based on
the absence of a valve cap or a cigar lighter, will be deemed vexatious.
G. Under unusual circumstances, it may be reasonable to permit a competitor to
deviate from an official specification provided such variance would clearly
be of no consequence to either the safety or performance of the affected
vehicle. Permission may only be granted by the Chief Steward in
consultation with the chief Scrutineer. All variances must be noted in the
vehicle logbook and designated ?permanent? or ?temporary?.
18.4 Classification
A. Improved Production will be divided into five classes as follows:
IP4 - vehicles with engine displacement up to 1500 cc and OEM Throttle Body
injection
IP3 - vehicles with engine displacement up to 1750 cc. Also, any ?Spec Miata?
as defined by SCCA.
IP2 - vehicles with engine displacement of 1751 cc to 2750 cc
IP1 - vehicles with engine displacement of 2751 cc and up
IPA ? North American built autos of the following models:
- Ford Mustangs & Capris 1979-1993
- GM Camaros & Firebirds 1982-1992
- Ford Taurus & Merkur 1979-1992 (SHO V6)
- Chevrolet Cavalier 1985-1988 (Z24 V6)
- Ford Thunderbird (Turbo) 1986-1988
All IPA events will participate in the same run group as IP1.
All naturally aspirated Wankel engines will run in IP2.
All forced induction vehicles will run in IP1.
B. Vehicle minimum weight will be the curb weight published by the manufacturer
for that make and model, less an allowance of 100 pounds. Weights will be taken
as raced, including driver, and without replenishment of fluids. Ballasting of cars
is permitted provided that the location and mounting constraints shall conform to
SCCA GCR regulations for Improved Touring.
All the rules can be found here:
CACC Race Regs (http://www.caccautosport.org/pdf/2009RaceRegs.pdf)
18.6 Permitted Modifications
A. In addition to the modifications provided for in the SCCA Improved Touring
preparation rules the following are also permitted for CACC IP only events:
1. The vehicle?s original brakes may be only be modified as follows:
i. Brake calipers, rotors, hubs and hoses are unrestricted, provided that the
brake components are attached at the manufacturer?s original mounting
points and that no modifications to the original mounting points are made.
Brake rotors may only be of a ferrous material.
ii. Brake linings may be replaced by any other of unrestricted origin.
iii. Any brake cooling method may be used. No modifications to the original
bodywork are permitted, except that bumper grilles may be removed and
existing openings may be utilized.
iv. Any brake proportioning valve may be used.
2. Shock absorbers may be replaced provided they attach to the original mounting
points. The number & type (e.g. tube, lever, etc) of shock absorbers shall remain
the same as stock.
3. Wheels may be replaced with others of unrestricted origin providing the
requirements for body clearance are met. Wheel size is limited to a maximum
increase or decrease in diameter of 2? from original equipment.
4. Turbochargers that are fitted as original equipment may be modified by
replacement of the compressor and/or turbine housings and/or wheels, but the
centre bearing housing may not be substituted. Superchargers may be modified
by the substitution of drive pulleys and/or belts, but the internal components and
the housings may not be modified or replaced.
Appears these are the only modifications that can can be completed.
Basically their rules are very close to our IT rules with a little different classing...maybe this could work better for us as well except it doesn't really allow for some of the mods people have done to be in ITGT. This would alleviate the BMW M3, Integra Type R, Corvette ZR1 type issues however...
As if I haven't posted enough reference material...here is a link for the SCCA IT rules which ours are created from to allow for fewer classes...
SCCA IT Rules (http://cms.scca.com/documents/Club%20Rules/09%20GCR/ITCS.pdf)
As if I haven't posted enough reference material...
Gord, go back to work.
Gary
I'm still on holidays for another 3 days...then 2 weeks of work, then 6 months off playing daddy day care! So get used to it! ( :) :) :))
The only problem with doing that is we still don't have a place for the turbo/supercharged cars out there.
Ie: Brando Choy's civic or perhaps the NSX-R decides to run IT-GT-when it's running (Sorry Kev)
I personally built my car with the hope that it would be recognized as a japanese version or european version of the car, and fit into IT1 eventually so i'm in if we slot everyone back a class or adjust hp/weights accordingly.
We need a really simple solution that makes timing and scoring easy and still promotes close racing.
I agree that we may need to conform more with the rest of the world.
It looks like many SCCA regions have a catch all ITE category for what you are talking about Dave, kinda similar to our ITGT...
CaliforniaSCCA ITE Rules (http://www.calclub.com/html/html2/rules/NewRules/2004ITE_Improved_Touring_E_Rules.pdf)
Thanks gord. You really have more time than us.
However the still key goal was to keep the class sizes small for timing and scoring. SO were back to what to do.
Is there a way to start a POLL on this forum. Put all the ideas and start a POLL
You'll notice Gord, that SCCA runs 5 groups at least of IT. We only have 4 - go figure!
The only reason I posted IT rules from SCCA was so we could see how our rules were structured similarly, with the exception that due to our car counts we made less classes. The same issue does apply with CACC rules even though they are slightly different again. I agree that they don't meet all our needs and that is why fresh ideas could be a good thing. I still think however that there needs to be some similarity to encourage cross region travel with less classing head aches. This doesn't mean we have to conform 100%just enough that minimal changes would be needed.
Keep the ideas coming and they can be discussed at the AGM
If we take the approach of the IPA or ITE....Really this is just another IT-GT with a different name. I think we need a place for the IT-GT cars. The question about classing comes down to safety as much as anything. Personally, I feel any car that can put in consistent laps below a predetermined time should have the same safety requirements as a GT car. IE fuel cell. This as much safety for the driver of the ITGT car as the others around them. And if the ITGT car is below the same preset lap time, maybe they should be classed into the GT side of things. Whether this happens or not, I will still be having some great races with these same ITGT folks....
In the idea of creating fewer classes, I think time slots could work. We would have a number of issues to work through. I also think this will lead to more non traditional class conforming cars. Unable to fit into a class if one decides to travel outside of WCMA juristiction. Realistically, we wouldn't be racing against any new cars. I would still be racing against the same competitors....but this will also lead to some cars split to different classes that are now in same class. The only real downside to time slots would be trying to overtake a car in the corners that can pull 20 car lengths on you down the front straight. Both cars run lap times within 1 second....Just things to think about.
How would we handle someone that comes out, and for some reason that weekend they are in the zone, achieve results they have never seen before, and then the next time they come out they are back to where they were before??
I know I have been talking in circles, but I see this as more of an information - idea topic.
Cheers...Enjoy the snow this weekend
My car is currently an ITGT car because of its engine swap. Before I started racing I tried to turn my car into its european and japanese cousin. So I could provide a factory manual for the car with the correct engine, it just might not be in english. So if my car could be considered a 93 civic SIR instead of what it used to be a 93 civic Si and put back into IT1 or IT2 I would do it in a heartbeat. So my point is some of us have cars that are mirror images of european or japanese cars and I think it would be great if we could add these cars to IT even though they are not offered in this country.
Quote from: Al36rx7 on October 02, 2009, 05:10:58 PM
If we take the approach of the IPA or ITE....Really this is just another IT-GT with a different name. I think we need a place for the IT-GT cars. The question about classing comes down to safety as much as anything. Personally, I feel any car that can put in consistent laps below a predetermined time should have the same safety requirements as a GT car. IE fuel cell. This as much safety for the driver of the ITGT car as the others around them. And if the ITGT car is below the same preset lap time, maybe they should be classed into the GT side of things. Whether this happens or not, I will still be having some great races with these same ITGT folks....
In the idea of creating fewer classes, I think time slots could work. We would have a number of issues to work through. I also think this will lead to more non traditional class conforming cars. Unable to fit into a class if one decides to travel outside of WCMA juristiction. Realistically, we wouldn't be racing against any new cars. I would still be racing against the same competitors....but this will also lead to some cars split to different classes that are now in same class. The only real downside to time slots would be trying to overtake a car in the corners that can pull 20 car lengths on you down the front straight. Both cars run lap times within 1 second....Just things to think about.
How would we handle someone that comes out, and for some reason that weekend they are in the zone, achieve results they have never seen before, and then the next time they come out they are back to where they were before??
I know I have been talking in circles, but I see this as more of an information - idea topic.
Cheers...Enjoy the snow this weekend
Let me be the first to suggest that Mr. Brown's car get moved to GT2 to make some more room for ITGT cars in GT3 :)
Anthony
I agree that adding ITE or ITP is not the answer as it just creates the same issue...what is the answer though? I do like the possible idea of there being a certain time bracket where if an ITGT car goes under it then they get moved to GT or told to detune...
I guess one thing to consider is that when people build a car they usually find the class they want to run and then build a car to suit it...not the other way around. If a car has been built for a certain class and then the rules change that can also cause some frustration...
Let me be the first to suggest that Mr. Brown's car get moved to GT2 to make some more room for ITGT cars in GT3 :)
Anthony
[/quote]
Off Topic!? so someone finally brings out a proper GT3 car and you want to move it up a class? he fits the class properly.
Gary
In regards to building a car to the class they want to run in.
I built my car as an IT2 car as one i loved the car and two because the class was full of talented drivers i wanted to race against.
Last year i ran IT2 it was boring for me as the people i usually raced against were no longer there ie GORD and JON. Or didn't come to all the races. The 2007 season i was consistently .5-1.0sec ahead of the next IT2 car.
I was mostly frustated at being in the middle of the CC race all the time and balancing racing for fun and not screwing up the CC race as much as possible.
I now hope to test my skill against another group of talented people in IT-GT or whatever it becomes.
There are 4 or 5 ITGT cars that are running times that are similar to GT3, and as fast as some GT2
There are also some ITGT cars that are not as fast as CC cars ( I only mention this because..well you know! )
There was only one IT1 that ran all the Calgary weekends, and one other IT1 car that ran two weekends.
Seems to me that moving some of the ITGT cars back into IT1, somehow...., and possibly moving some of the faster ones to GT......giving sufficient time for reconfiguration, might be an easy solution.
Then, as I mentioned before, make ITGT the catch-all it was meant to be, and after a season of racing in ITGT, the car must be reclassified.
Fair enough reason for going to ITGT Dave. If some of the people who build ITGT cars instead built their cars for legit classes such as IT2 then there would be more competition in the IT classes. This year there was very good competition in IT2 with all the guys coming from Sask and out east...Still very good point Dave as to why we should rethink ITGT and where to put cars such as yours....The build a car to a class was not directed at you Dave...there are others who specifically build their cars for ITGT from the get go without having run the car in a regular class.
Brookes comment is exactly what my concern is...where is the limit of when and ITGT car should buck up and move on to GT with the proper safety equipment for the speeds that are occurring.
I have a suggestion, based upon my different experiences at Calgary and Gimli. (Lets not forget this discussion involves two race tracks) My Neon can win at Calgary because of the long straight. Chris Brown came to the last race there, and I had him covered by a fairly good margin-and Chris is no slouch. I go to Gimli, and unless he has a nap, I can't touch him.
Heres my idea- I'll kick in 50 bucks, we get a million other people to match it, and build 3 racetracks of different configurations across the prairies. Different cars work better on different tracks. Who's in?
Seriously, I think there are probably some cars, Dave Gardiners being one of them, that could probably be justified in IT1 instead of ITGT. If the engine swap is the only change, and its a known quantity- a typical stock Japanese market engine, for instance, I think running that car through the math would probably place it in IT1. The science on the BMW's that populate ITGT right now might end up being the SCCA ITR class. If its too weird, kick it to GT.
LOL! I like it Jim...
Now on a serious note. I am not opposed to the IT1 move...but how do we put it into rules so that other situations don't happen that are not IT type situations...Gary's idea of the everyone move down a class and then save IT1 for slight mods and ITGT for those tha should be GT but can't commit that weekend may be the best idea? What about the actual wording however?
what about if you made the rule that you can only bolt the engine swap in, no cutting or welding in new brackets allowed. Or if you swap the engine you must provide an original service manual even if its in another language.
I usually try to stay out of these communications as I am not a competitor but I need to say this - Gary Leadbetter was correct, the original ITGT and GTS and FL classes were all created for timing and lap scoring.
Over the years WCMA has recognized certain classes and not others. For example, WCMA does not recognize the Formula Atlantic class but WCMA created the FL class for legal Formula Atlantics to run under this umbrella. WCMA stopped recognizing the Player's Limited / GM Motorsport class of cars but allowed them to run under the ITGT umbrella. WCMA does not recognize the LeMans or NASCAR cars but they can run under the ITGT or GTS umbrella as they are a legal class somewhere in the world.
Originally these classes were created so cars that were LEGAL elsewhere could run with us. All cars were supposed to meet the criteria of a specific class anywhere around the world, just WCMA did not recognize them as a class for trophy awards. These classes were not created as a catch-all class for those who wanted to build what they wanted - the cars had to be LEGAL somewhere around the world.
Sue Wilson
Chief Timing & Lap Scoring
Alberta Race Car Association
Allowing Japanese and European Specs in a North American series will be unfair to racers with vehicles produced only in the NA markets. A 2200# Civic with 160 HP is not going to be challenged by a 1000# heavier (or more in my case) car with 200 - 225 HP. Darrell's BMW in Euro spec surely has at least another 50 HP, maybe more. Maybe the classes should be based on a power/weight ratio instead of potential lap times. I don't want or can afford to put a bunch of money into my car to make it competitive in a GT class. I've been running IT with both the Honda and Mustang as they were a relatively affordable and competitive class when run legally. If IT-GT and GTS were created to allow these non-conforming cars to run then, that is maybe where they should be. Make the classes as they were (no trophies or recognition) and promote either an upward or downward move to GT or IT if out playing regularly. Jim mentioned how "running the numbers" would put Dave's Civic solidly into IT1. Does this mean that Dominic's , Lance's and Gary C's cars all also fit in too? Great for them as it increases the car counts and therefore the points potential. Not so great for some others - and I know I'm one of them. My options for competitiveness then is to cheat (not an option), buy a different car (again), or find somewhere else to play where my car fits in with no or minor mods and is competitive. None of those are what I want to do. Kelly and I enjoy our weekends racing with all of you and hope that we still can for the next 5 years. It is not going to be much fun if I'm just going to spin my wheels and turn laps for the sake of turning laps.
Just my thoughts on a tough discussion!
Jon #45 Mustang (and Honda)
Quote from: Domo on October 04, 2009, 08:57:51 PM
what about if you made the rule that you can only bolt the engine swap in, no cutting or welding in new brackets allowed. Or if you swap the engine you must provide an original service manual even if its in another language.
I like this, add it to my list on the poll thread. in addition add that the swapped motor must be stock , even if from somewhere else in the world.
Gary
And around we go again.
We need IT-GT and GTS so we have a place for cars that don't race with us on a regular basis.
So is the issue safety ie too fast, not enough safety stuff. Or a timing and scoring issue.
Should it be recognized for points and championship
Really most of the IT guys don't want to run GT as the cost goes up ie slicks fuel cell can't compete against a tube frame.
So can we come to a concession as to some of the points on the table
We need a simple solution for the year to come i'm hoping for a baby step and not sweeping change for all the classes. Simple is better try it see how it works and see what happens.
I propose keep the classes the way they are and institue a prep points/weight penalty system for ITGT to address the speed safety issue. Keep it a recognized class but use the points/penalty system to encourage move up move down conforming. A comittee of the ITGT drivers can then be organized to address issues that arise within. The WCMA stewards can then address cars that come of concern on a case by case basis.
Added mine and Domo's idea to the poll and reset the voting.
Just to add to the argument, I always wondered why the GT guys didn't switch to DOT tires for the ARCA/NASCC races and run ITGT and go back to slicks for the WCMA races. With the # of ITGT cars and it being a recognized class you coulda won a ARCA/NASCC championship.
So perhaps we should add a rule to eliminate this possibilty.
I think both Sue and Anthonu K have hit the nail on the head...why has ITGT and GTS become a points/trophy class? Originally it was created as a catch all class but was not going to be recognized for trophies or points...
Maybe this is what needs to happen again, allow the class but recommend competitors find a proper place to call their own class and not recognize the classes for trophies or points...this may alleviate most of the problems we are talking about...
Gary's/Domo's idea has merit except one problem...does this include aftermarket mounts or brackets that can be bought rather than fabricated?
The rules really legitimize the ITGT
"This class is intended to allow a variety of inexpensive cars to be eligible;however those determined by WCMA to be outside these parameters will be classed as ITGT"
The rules are litered/full of reasons ITGT is a good idea. ITGT does have rules I counted 17 times specifically in the improved touring rules that make a car ITGT.
The ITCS-Improved Touring Category Specifications list specificly categories cars to run in the class.
So how can it or how was it ever an unrecognized class.
The original comittee made it so in writing the rules. Really it does allow a home for any car no matter how or why you built the car.
Devils Advocate
Hmmm...
We do seem to be going around in circles.
I know that ITGT and GTS WERE meant as catch-all classes, and they WERE NOT award classes. That much is fact
How and when they changed, I don't remember...I also forget the name of what it's called when you don't remember stuff.
Gord's recent post pretty much says what I have said twice at least here.
Go back to the original intent of the classes, which is to accomodate cars that show up and do not fit into our class structure.
Allow them suffcient time, ie: a season...to sort the car into an existing class.
Somehow have people STOP purpose building cars for ITGT and GTS.
That part is really rather simple, as the cars don't put themselves together, the builder does it, so if the builder of the car simply follows the existing rules, and builds a car that fits in an existing class....voila, we have no more problem.
And if you want to go faster....drive better. If you are compelled to go faster by spending more money, move up a class in the existing structure.
Racing is a rules based deal, everywhere, and if you want to race, you follow the rules. I know how hard that is for some people, but that's how things are.
Thoughts from an old fart
The old fart is not mistaken,
ITGT and GTS were not trophy classes when they were first created. If we return it that way it will simplify things...
However there are a few areas that would create an issue...what about someone showing up with a Corvette Z06 or Ford GT o some of the newer wonder cars. A Z06 in stock trim driven by a competent driver can turn 1:20's...what do we do regarding the safety aspect of these such cars as they become more affordable?
As well the rules do state that vehicles must be of North American production run and there must have been X number in production so that kind of rules out Euro and JDM spec cars right from the get go...what do we do if someone wants to race a RHD skyline or something similar? Or do we turn them away based on the fact that it was not a North American sold vehicle?
****EDIT***
I have not been able to find in the rules yet where non North American Production Cars are not allowed...but I am certain I have read it before?
From SCCA rules:
9.1.3. IMPROVED TOURING CATEGORY
A. PURPOSE
Improved Touring classes are intended to provide the membership with the
opportunity to compete in low cost cars with limited modifications, suit-
able 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.
I was sure that at one time our rules had a similar section but Said North America instead of United States
Do we really want to turn away cars because we don't have a place for them to race. That seems counter productive.
That's what the class is for.
So we have people purpose building cars for the class? I didn't I'm not sure anyone in the class actually built it for the class we just ended up there.
OK so now from the last couple posts i see the problem as IT-GT guys don't want to run GT specs for cost reasons and competive reasons so were back to making a recognized home for them.
Ie more classes or even a separate scoring system within the class for IT-GT competitors, ie two scoring rates 140 to 130 cars and 120-130 cars. Without creating another class.
Modify the IT-GT rules to make the car make the safety requirments by the next year as directed by the WCMA steward on a case by case basis.
Really this has all been said in other posts and no consensus yet? I think everytime someone posts something i think of another idea.
Hey Anthony...I will move to GT2 if you bring that beemer along too!! LOL...
Anyway...now that I am unfortunately back in Calgary (sunny California was much better). I agree. We don't have the huge car counts to be able to turn people away. What would happen if we alienate and loose 1/2 of the ITGT class? I don't think this is an option. We need their entry fees to help pay the bills.
Current IT rules are based on the SCCA rules. I believe we made a minor update to the WCMA rules this spring, so there is a possibility the WCMA rules are slightly behind, but this will be isolated cases. Most of the SCCA regions have added an ITE class. However, SCCA does not recognize this under the national SCCA rules. The ITE is left up to the various regions under SCCA whether they want to add a faster class that their ITS, which basically is our IT1.
Personally, I think we need the ITGT class, but the GTS class should fit into GT1 to GT5. Work through the formulas and place the car in the appropriate class. Obviously there is the necessary safety equipment in place already. If we have a V8 powered RX7...big deal...run the numbers and place it in the correct class. And if some of the these cars want to run ITGT, but are running lap times comparable to the average GT3 then they should be required to have the same safety stuff as the GT guys.
So...My vote is keep ITGT, but add safety equipment based on a preset lap time. Force the GTS folks to fit into a GT class. (Sorry..) I feel this is an easy change.
I would be happy with Allen's idea as I agree we don't want to turn cars away but we do need to encourage the safety aspect....I also don't disagree with the GTS comment...
Now what about the original GTS/ ITGT classes not being trophy classes? How does this become policed? All the cars in ITGT are so varying in times...how can one be compared to another for points? A car running sub 1:26's is hardly competitive with a car running 1:29's or low low 1:30's...if the slower cars want to be competitive to the faster ones they need to modify and then they also become closer to the time issue for safety...
WOW!! What a lot of comments. Made for great reading.
As Gary noted in one of his notes, we had a car in IT3 that should have been with IT2. The vehicle was competitive with IT2 all weekend. I sure had a great time racing.
My two cents.
I would like to do some features to increase safety, the big one being a fuel cell. I raced for five years on the oval and we HAD to have a fuel cell in the race car. The idea of having a stock gas tank for racing, to me, just isn't very safe. I have read the rules and if I am correct, putting the fuel cell in makes me move up a class. (maybe I'm wrong) But if I want to increase safety, I have to move up.
I have a blast racing with guys & gals in my class and want to stay there.
More food for thought.
David
#46
As I understand it....Adding a fuel cell does not require anyone to change a class. If the memory is correct, it says adding a fuel cell is encouraged.
Wow! Lots of interest in this subject ....any conclusions.....AGM is fast approaching
I recently had one person contact me about competing with a Porsche GT3 - street -- what class should that go in? IT1
What if it was a Race Prepared GT3 cup car....where should it go....GT2
Different class than the street GT3 - ?
A month ago I had someone ask about their 2 year old ZRI Corvette - street - IT1?
Question:
Leave the rules as they are or alter them?
Is GTS and ITGT stand alone classes to build towards?
Gary
Speaking of the Porsche GT3 in GT2 I was always curious about this. According to the regs it should land in Gt1 or am I missing something?
GT-1 2551 cc to 6000 cc 0.53 lb/cc
GT-2 2051 cc to 2550 cc 0.90 lb/cc
GT-3 1551 cc to 2050 cc 1.05 lb/cc
GT-4 1190 cc to 1550 cc 1.10 lb/cc
GT-5 Up to 1190 cc 1.20 lb/cc
As of today's rules it should run .....GT1 if it's a GT car or run GTS. It should never have been in GT2 -- 3600 cc...it was identified but no competitor challenge it at the time.....only volunteers at timing and scoring.....
If it can make the IP classification.....IT1 ot ITGT??
I believe SCCA has classed the car in stock form as GT2. I would have to go through their latest regs to confirm.
Yup...SCCA classes the GT3 Cup car in GT2.....Provided it is prepared as per GT3 Cup Specifications (Min weight is 2730lbs) In the odd case / request I think we should review to see if and how SCCA has classed a particular vehicle.
Quote from: Al36rx7In the odd case / request I think we should review to see if and how SCCA has classed a particular vehicle.
This is my opinion as well...both for IT and GT...and as has also been said previously we don't want to turn cars away either...
Not much activity here. everyone thinking still?
here is more of my thoughts;
As I see it we have a few objectives;
-reduce classes.
-closer competition.
- where to place odd cars( cars that dont fit current IT classes)
-safety of TOO FAST ITGT CARS.
-where to place modified ( engine modified) cars
- award ITGT and GTS cars or not.
I think the CASC rules is a place to start. because the IT classes use engine size to divide the classes at least we have a method of placing a car that is not listed it the current listing.
As discussion has gone on I see that we still need the ITGT class and the GTS class.
reposting class suggestion: with additions.
I like the casc classes . i think we can add a modification list to it.
like this;
keep classes as listed,
ITGT= highly modified.( for lack of better term)
IT1=2751cc and up
IT2=1751 cc to 2750cc.
IT3=up to 1750cc
keep the existing CASC permitted modification and add these,
suggest limit of one modification. ie engine swap= one mod.
wcma permitted modifications;( one only)
- engine swap , reclassify as per displacement
-engine with vvt or vtec, move up a class, original equip or not.
- factory forced induction, fit in IT1 only.
- wankle , non turbo. IT2 only
-internal mods( regular engine) camshaft(s) and cam gears only. no other internal mods. move up a class
-final drive, whatever fits in stock housing.
-aftermarket forced induction=ITGT only
other restrictions;
- no itb conversions. allowed if stock on that engine.
- stand alone ecu? ( not sure about this one) I think not allowed.
possible allow piggyback ecu?
- no close ratio gearboxes( aftermarket)
weight of cars. as per published weights
cars with engine mods add 150 lbs
- no change in number of cylinders
- no change of manufacturer, eg no chevy v8 nissan 240
If a car stiil does not fit it can be put into GTS.
comments? weight not enough,too much?
I like to limit to one mod as IT class it still suposed to be a streetable type class.
More suggestions;
-cars in IT1 or ITGT have one year after building car to install fuel cell and any other safty items as per GT rules.
-to keep competition closer the competition director should have the authortity to move a car up a class or to mandate addtional weight to a car
-If we adopt these changes I think awards/ trophy should be possible for all classes.
Gary86
One question Gary,
Do you mean CACC or CASC rules? I haven't gone through the CASC rles so I will have to just in case but I don't think they even have a class called IT, I think it is GT or Open GT...
For the most part I like your ideas...some fine tuning and they could work decently...
Quote from: CRXsi on October 13, 2009, 07:01:11 AM
One question Gary,
Do you mean CACC or CASC rules? I haven't gone through the CASC rles so I will have to just in case but I don't think they even have a class called IT, I think it is GT or Open GT...
For the most part I like your ideas...some fine tuning and they could work decently...
I will have to check where i got those from, maybe I just did a typo. It may be the CACC.
I'll check.
Gary86
Confirmed. Yes ideas stolen from CACC rules.
Gary86
i'm a total newb to this and have a couple questions regarding how the classes are formed. Just for reference i'm planning on taking the race school in the spring with the third gen camaro i've built for the street and just doing solo1 this year because the modifications i have on it would put me in a GT class and its not a GT capable car.
Over next winter i want to put together an IT class car because GT is so far beyond out of my budget. Now here's where i'm getting a bit confused, i read through the rules and it gives a very specific list of cars for each class. People in this thread keep mentioning how a new vet would get classed into ITGT?? I was hoping there would be an IT class where newer bmw's, mustangs, and 4th gen camaros (mainly but select whatever other cars fit into the class) are classed together as i would be very interested in putting together a stock engined 4th gen camaro.
Based on the car list this appears to be what ITGT was, but based on comments about newer cars coming into ITGT how exactly does this work?
To answer your question...we're not sure yet. There has a been a committee formed to deal with this exact issue and get IT on track with some of the newer cars while not increasing the number of cars.
Having said that...based on the list of modifications you have listed in the Solo section your car will likely still have to fit into ITGT but we should have a plan worked out for IT by February so at this time it is not certain exactly.
ahh now i get where the confusion comes from. I also understand why some people are suggesting another class.
Realistically my car breaks half a dozen major rules for IT. While my engine mods are minor enough it probably wouldnt be a huge issue, if i can get away with racing that in ITGT (tubular front end, and full engine mods, minor in hp as they may be) then why not bring a 400 hp car out.
I understand that there isn't enough of a turnout to be turning people away (for the most part) but what's the point in even competing against other cars if anyone can bring anything?? For as much as my little voice counts, and this is completely to serve my own interest, i think it would be very cool to see the cars listed in the rule book under ITGT as a proper class. I always loved watching the newer "Trans am" racing, and it would be awesome to have a stock spec class where f-bodies, mustangs and bmw's can duke it out.
Friendlyfoe - I think it is important to understand that we run all classes concurrently so the IT cars race with the GT cars. Because of this you will always have a car to race with often not in your class. Because of this I don't really think the classification matters that much and I would error on the side of caution and build to GT. I was confused by some of your comments (ie your car is GT but is not Gt capable? )
To me it is simple...if you run the cars together and they are capable of similar times (ie ITGT vs GT2 or 3) why would we allow cars to be built to different safety specs?
how many cars generally show up to a race event?
The car i have would get classed as GT because of some of the mods done to it, however is no where near a GT capable car to be running with full on GT spec corvettes, porsches etc.
I didnt realize the IT and GT run together, would have thought that all the IT cars would run apart from all the GT cars.
For me the fun in racing other cars is racing other cars in the same class, if i'm just going to bring a half assed GT car i might as well just be there on solo 1 days by myself (which i do plan on doing).
i am 10 years away from being in a financial situation to build a full on GT car, by GT spec rules were talking the cars you see in LeMans racing.
This is why i was *hoping* there would be a class that is literally exactly the vehicles listed in ITGT. I would love to race against other bmw's and mustangs that with similar mod's that should all be running similar lap times. The whole point in club racing in my eyes is to be competitive against the other cars in your class, not just having who ever to race against. That way its ya i was the fastest car in my class, otherwise its just running around in circles for the hell of it. If that was the case i'd just do solo1.
I agree with most of your viewpoints about racing...It ain't fun if your car is not competitive or if there is no competition in your class. You can race any Joe schmoe out there but if he isn't in your class it isn't the same.
As for car counts it can depend but there can be 40 cars or more taking green flag at times.
As for GT being LeMans type cars...yes and no. There are tube frame cars out there but most people in our situations don't have that kind of money and run cars a little more affordable. There are several older Corolla's and RX7's running in GT classes that work very well there. Unfortunately your car would fit GT1 in GT and there is some pretty big competition and $$$ in that class. There is a good chance you may be able to fit ITGT for at least a year to decide what to do. Another option is to buy a fully prepped race car that fits into one of the other classes and is still street legal. Many can be had for around $5000.
Either way wait untill the new IT rules are finalized as there will likely still be an ITGT just not sure what the structure will be yet.
Personally I would rather run around in circles with others than by myself. I have been out there like Gord just spinning my wheels and yes it is boring. But you have to race to see if you (and the car) are competitive. You can have just as much fun racing with someone not in your class as one in. You will probably find that the challenges of dealing with all classes running at the same time and being out there with 40+ other cars is far greater at honing your skills than continually practicing the "perfect line" by yourself.
Bring your car out as it is - see if it fits and change/modify as required - but just get out there! As all of us adrenaline junkies out there will agree - despite how we may not agree on other things - the driving IS the challenge!
Jon
One comment regarding the tubular front end...If it is a mod that has been done to the vehicle,(ie. tubular from firewall forward)...this may start to go beyond the ITGT basis. everything else sounds like it should be a ITGT .
As Gord said, there is some change possibly happening to ITGT in the very near future....Stay tuned.
i thought engine modifications werent allowed in any IT class past headers?
it's definitely not a legal IT car, and not close to being a GT1 car, but i may come and race just for the hell of it. I'll be staying tuned.
Not sure who the committee members are, but if this suggestion could be passed along it would be appreciated: If the IT rules were opened up slightly the #15 neon would fit back into IT-2 where I feel it realisticly should run. When I jumped from IT-2 to IT-GT it was because I installed a turbo engine... obvious re-class and I knew what I was doing... season goes by stuff breaks big cloud of smoke at gimli and I'm back to running the IT-2 motor in it, but the car still isin't IT-2 as I've taken the glass out of the passenger door and have a cosmetic body kit on it.
IMO as long as a car fits the class by mechanicals, weight, and is still recognizable as its original model its still and IT car. Could a guy get stupid and gain a second or two with a REALLY trick body kit (although he still needs it 5 inches off the ground) maybe... but I tell you putting on some not quite stock side skirts beats the HELL out of fixing dented and corroded rockers any day.
-Noel Mcavena-
FF1600 #79
IT-GT #15
IT-2 #55
Makes good sense to me Noel.
In CC, we allow plastic panels etc, as long as stock body shape in maintained, but I think what you are talking about seems OK.
The plan is to make it easier to race, not harder, but at the same time, maintain serious safety considerations. One of the main issues with ITGT is that some of the cars in the class are running GT2 times, without the GT type safety mods.
The intention is not to exclude cars but to include them, just in the right place.