Food for thought about modifying the It rules -

[Tachyon]

Over the summer numerous people have contacted me asked many questions of the IT class.  Especially about ITGT -- which was never suppose to be a class...it was to be timing & scoring logistic element until the competitor could fit their car into an IT or a GT class....so the story goes on....ITGT is suddenly the class to be in....we will talk about that at the AGM...

Suggestion I just received

I just recieved a well thought out suggestion for modifying the IT classes..... The writer also has a well prepared spread sheet....I am unable to attached an  Excel spread sheet with an example.  If you'd like a copy of the excel spread sheet for an IT  example ( all cars are not classified - example only) please email me at tachyon@shaw.ca and I will forward a copy before the WCMA AGM -  At the Race work shop rules and classification will be a topic....See you there. Cheers Gary


The attached sheet shows some ideas for modifying the existing IT tech rules as to their application to classifying engine sizes and min vehicle weights.  I have mentioned this in the past, so thought I would forward prior to the AGM on Saturday.  I haven't seen an agenda for the meeting, but perhaps we should have a breakout session for all the IT guys to discuss.  I am happy to bring my laptop with this sheet (assuming there is a projector) so that all can see and play with it.

My thoughts are based on trying to derive a weight classification formula that keeps minimum weights more in line with a vehicles showroom stock weight – which is probably a reasonable objective for all the IT classes.  If a person wants to go crazy with weight reduction, the GT classes are a better place for that.
The existing formula has minimum weights that are very low for ITGT as compared to either showroom weights or those that can be realistically reached. (eg  E30 M3 with 2.3 "stock" engine, but other mods that make it ITGT can weigh as little as 2007 #)

Idea 1 Tab
Mirrors the existing concept of a weight factor, just revises the factors.
Continues to use 180 # for driver
Continues to use additional 100 # for ITGT
Not a perfect correlation, but closer than the existing

Idea 2 Tab
After hours of fiddling with the Idea 1 factors, I could still find numerous "unfair" weight advantages.
Decided to investigate the heavy and light vehicle extremes in each class.
Used the basic formula of    Min Weight = Engine Class Size * Class Factor + Extra Weight
By using the 2 weight extremes for each class and 2 min weights, I backed into Class Factors and the Extra Weight
Note that the Idea 2 factors and weights are counter-intuitive.  The weight factors are larger for the faster classes and the Extra weight is smaller.
This idea seems to get much closer to what each vehicle should really weigh.  Of course with all formulas, there will be some vehicle that is not quite right.

Excel stuff:
Blue cells are data, black are calculated.
Existing data has background yellow, proposed has background brown.
Some of the columns are collapsed to reduce screen clutter - Just click the + sign to toggle between view and collapse.
Some of the data is conditional formatted to bold if it is not a default value (eg. VTEC, turbo, non 1.0 factors, etc)

This sheet just contains 2 of "my" ideas, so obviously needs to be studied and/or modified by others.  I believe that the existing formula needs changing though, to better reflect minimum weights that more closely represent the original vehicle weight.  Any and all ideas are more than welcome.  I have only entered a few of the vehicles that I am aware of.  The sheet would need to be populated for the other vehicles.  This is relatively easily done.  You can play with any of the 3 rows on each tab for Vehicle X by entering whatever data you like.

Let me know what you think.

Thanks

[giantkiller]

This is very well thought out. I like the concept. I also think we should look at this option.

In ICSCC (International Conference of Sport Car Clubs) there is a new class called Sport Touring which was created to address this exact issue. From their website www.race-st.com

"The class was created to provide a venue for the growing number of fast IT style cars who did not have a proper class in Conference (ICSCC)"

-The class is based on a Weight/HP ratio and the target (with driver and is 10:1)
-Cars add or subtract ballast to level the playing field
-DOT Tires
-Certified dyno sheet required

A full listing of the rules can be found here:

http://sporttouring.atspace.com/SportTouringRules.pdf

This has made for some pretty exciting racing at Conference races and in my mind is a great way to approach the cars that don't fit. While I think the formula and argument presented above should be looked at I also think we should look at what other regions (especially ones adjacent to us) are doing and adopt if possible - as it makes for more opportunities to race elsewhere ...as well as attract others to our region.

Have fun at the meeting...I will be racing at the 12 Hours of the Cascades...despite the rumours racing is NOT over yet

[Spec Volcanic]

A lot is missed in both the current rules and the suggestion in the speadsheet...
Displacement based wieght does NOT work for IT like it does for GT.
In IT there is very little one can Change.
The current rules and the suggestion,

Do not consider things like
Suspension Type (Solid beam or IRS)
Drivetrain layout, (FWD RWD)
Advances in Engine tech (2010 2.0L Honda vs 1998 2.0L nissan)

In GT I can change all of them so displacement is ok.
In IT I can not so the rules need to account for that.

Why not use the SCCA class GT1-3 and GTL, the STO, STU (to replace ITGT) and IT...
Maybe we have to grandfather a couple of Items ie Cage, or we have to permitted some to be cut out of a IT car the SCCA did not but it's now and the rules will be updated for us.

Yes we will have 1 more class 10 compaired to 9 but that should not be a big issue.

[Spec Volcanic]

sorry 2 more class 11 vs 9

[Tachyon]

See attached spreadsheet

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Streetwise guy]

Since I've already typed it:

First, let me explain that I do not like the new classing, although I was willing to accept it for cars that had not already been classed and weighted by the SCCA.  I think basing the classing of an IT car on engine alone is a woefully inadequate assessment of the potential of that car.  The engine computations, as far as I can tell, have been cribbed from the GT rules.  In a GT car, if its too heavy, or has undersized brakes, or has strut front suspension, or bad geometry, or a beam rear axle, or has front wheel drive, it is the fault of the fabricator.  These factors are almost completely out of the control of the IT builder, and solutions are generally a compromise.

I see no reason to abandon the experience gleaned from thousands of cars classed by SCCA.  If we must choose to be independent, then a scale of weight breaks/penalties for the design flaw/benefits must be included.

Personal examples:  My twincam Neon would be allowed to lose 70 pounds, while a single cam would have to gain 130.  My car is 18 hp up, and has another 7-800 rpm.  I would have to compete against a 2.5 liter rear drive E36 BMW in my FWD 2.0 liter Dodge.  I know from personal experience a well set up Civic or CRX can beat me- easily at Gimli, but  at Race City as well.  They are now IT3 cars.  I pity the IT3 drivers in anything other than a Honda.  In the interest of full disclosure, the rule does work if an R/T Neon single cam motor is installed in the early body- same horsepower as the twincam, so a car that would be sent to ITGT can fit in IT2, just at the higher weight.


Now, to continue:

Why are we reworking the classing of cars, when the problem some see is that some IT cars are too fast for the safety rules?  I built a car to the letter of the rules, and now will become uncompetitive in the class I will be assigned to, since I now have to catch a high end German rear wheel drive cars in my American front wheel drive economy car.  I, personally, have been rendered uncompetitive.  I do not like following the rules, building a class leading car, and then being rendered uncompetitive by an unneccesary class change.

I am truly sorry I can't make the AGM this year.  I hope common sense prevails, and a program to deal with the problem cars is created, as opposed to spending endless hours creating an entirely new class system.  If a car is too fast for the safety equipment required, make that car upgrade its safety equipment.  If someone has built his car to go to ITGT, then he is not concerned with points.  He just wants to go faster.  That is fine.  If someone has changed to another stock engine that wasn't available here, add weight based on HP and the book weight, or move the car up a class.

I reiterate: Please don't punish the people who followed the rules. 

Now I'm going to bed, and will either be back next year with my car, or will spend next years race budget building a 2.4 liter to try to catch the back of the pack.

[Spec Volcanic]

Jim,
I believe we found a great solution for ITGT, and IT type cars over IT1 and in IT1.

But for IT2, next year will be the same, maybe a very little closer, but nowhere close enough.
With us using the new displacement based class IT Class and the US ITCS for Weights, which have Cars is IT2 it 4 different classes. we will never get something that work right.

With ITGT will be close to fixed next year and will be separated for the IT1-3 and the new ITO (over) larger displacement IT cars.
My hope is that this will better allow us to look as IT, without be caught with what will that do to ITGT (which is a very different animal)

I still work like to see the scca rules for IT, or our old rule... plus the displacement classing system for new cars. but that's not happening this year.

You should still run next year, I would bet you can still win... Plus I'm hoping with a little more work and I can start bring in the fight to you in the only other car truely the same class as you.