ITGT and GTS classes -Is it time for a change

[10cc]

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/$$$.

[Icedawg]

Obviously, I have to say something, as I usually mouth off about everything.

Really hard to argue with that!

[gary]

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

[Super70Dave]

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.

[CRXsi]

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?

[10cc]

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.

[CRXsi]

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.

[vintagebmw]

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

[Super70Dave]

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

[gary]

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

[irmechanic]

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

[CRXsi]

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:

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

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?

[CRXsi]

Good points Jon, I don't disagree...

[10cc]

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.

[Icedawg]

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.