ITX regs?

colin_koehler said:
So far 6 drivers have scored points in ITX but I think Conatore, Noriko, Mike Delamare and Colangelo are all going to be added to that list as the year progresses. So that would make 10 "regulars" in ITX, in it's first year... not bad!
Click to expand...
You're still below your required 2.5 cars/race average that you must meet for the points to count toward a championship and to automatically become a "regular" class for next year, though: 2 at the first race, 2 at the second, 4 at the third, and 0 at the fourth for an average of 2.
 
If you are looking for a long term second run group for "IT" based cars, maybe consider creating a unique set of rules for ICSCC with some more forgiving parameters of car prep with a focus on HP's and weight to make it competitive. This might open the class up to cars that are outside the IT prep.

tyler
 
To be frank as 'the other Eric' said SPM is doable but mainly useful for keeping up my training in watching my mirrors for when we run the THill 25. Not a chance I would be competitive in the class given that other cars include Eric Krause's turbo 968, etc. Basically would be racing against Pro3's but that is their main run group and I can't justify screwing up their points battles just so I can have some fun.

So for now I'll stick to 1 entry. Hopefully in the near future that will change as our regional 944 group is rapidly gaining numbers and that might translate into us running as 944 Cup and not solely ITS. There were 11 944's at the Memorial Day SCCA race at Pacific, and 12 this past weekend at Rose Cup, with more under construction as we speak.
 
Just to absolutely thread-jack the ITX conversation, I have to ask: What's the power/weight ratio in your 944 Cup car? If you have 12.5lbs/HP or less, you'd have in-class competition in ST (even though we go down to 10lb/HP) and I suspect your car meets ST rules in every other regard. You probably wouldn't always run it as a second class (G4 being right next to G5 on the schedule so often), but it'd be do-able. Heck, you might end up preferring ST to ITS, for all I know.
 
To address Tyler, Eric and Scott Haynes,

Come run ITX, you are allowed!

Upon further review of the rules. It appears that one cannot protest in a provisional class and with that being the case I definitely invite you guys to come run ITX. Even if your car is not ITA/B/C but it is running similar times why not enter ITX and see if you like running with that group of folks? If you do like ITX and all you have to do is one simple modification to be IT legal (like putting a dash in Tyler's car) then there you go. If it turns out that several ITS (or other similar speed cars that are not currently included in the ITX specs) like running in ITX for their second run group then at the end of the year we can submit a separate rule to include ITS cars in ITX. Another option to submit a rule as well to allow H4 prepped cars into ITX as well.

The point is inclusion and that's what's great about our conference. You can submit rules and we vote on them to improve our experience at the track.
 
colin_koehler said:
Upon further review of the rules. It appears that one cannot protest in a provisional class
Click to expand...
Not true. According to 1301.A:
All new classes put forward for consideration must be delivered to ICSCC Headquarters by November 1 to be considered at the Fall Board Meeting. All classes considered shall be accompanied by a set of class rules and an affidavit signed by at least 5 licensed drivers intending to run the class. New classes will compete under the rules submitted and approved at the Fall Meeting and maintained by the Race Steward. Protesting will be allowed.
Click to expand...
(emphasis mine)
 
So much for trying before buying. Oh well. To include H4/ITS and other various exceptions we will have to do it via rule submitting/voting. Let's talk more about it at the track because only a very small portion of our community actually views these boards.... which is a shame.
 
Of course, there's nothing to keep you from coming to some sort of "gentleman's agreement" amongst yourselves to NOT protest any of those "illegal" cars that want to "try before they buy." They risk getting protested by someone outside the class, but that's probably not very likely.
 
Well, my 44 Cup car as it sits is probably around 19:1. That's using 140rwhp at 2675 lbs. In our most liberal ITS legal setup you could get down to maybe 18:1. Mr Hilton or Mr Krause would destroy my car in ST, as would any E36.

If I did decide to race ST I have an alternative plan that does not involve a 944 but would stay within the Porsche marque. Though I don't think my wife is willing to give up the car just yet ;) But 44's are cheap to run and our class is growing so now is not the time to throw in the towel.

The best comparison would be this: Greg Fordahl holds the lap record in a 44 Cup car at PIR with the chicane and at Pacific. The PIR record was set this past Sunday at Rose Cup and is 1:30.299. He set the Pacific lap record in May 08 at 1:39.719. That should fall this year but the spring SCCA races had major rain so it held for now. Greg is a stellar driver and his car is prepped to the max of ITS regs.

Those times do not seem out of line with what an ITA car is capable of in similarly skilled hands. It should be noted that it is not my intent to argue about this. Rules are rules and I was simply looking to verify eligibility specifically for ITX. I just have a great time racing against some of my friends that DO run in qualified classes in Group 5 and have had some great battles in the past. Having another venue to do that would be great, that is all.
 
I would welcome a rule change proposal to make ITX a clearing house for ITS, ITA, ITB, ITC, SSB, and SSC.

I'll honor a gentleman's agreement to not protest in ITX. Anyone else? Bring your toys, lets play.

R
 
Does Conference have a rule about presenting a car that is knowingly not legal for a class? From being a past steward/race chair (from my karting days) I have to ask. We had a rule that's main purpose was to stop karts from interfering with points chases. I would love to come play but I don't want to cause waves in my first races. :p I would look
for myself but I can't seem to get home today...
 
Last edited:
Scott, the "gentleman" agreement would to allow cars that don't fit in ITX to come play in ITX so the assumption while you're on track would bet that you're essentially in ITX thus you wouldn't be interfering at all.

I'll honor the gentleman's agreement as well.
 
ITS is not likely to be included as those cars are WAY out of spec for the average speeds in Group 2. Truth be told, a well prepped ITA car should probably be at the top edge of the speed envelope for Group 2 anyway. Conference is a member driven organization though, so you have every right to propose a rule change if you are a licensed Conference driver. Whip out your rulebook, look up the rule change procedure, go to the forms section of this forum, download a proper rule change proposal format, and we will all vote on it at the end of the year. Keep in mind the ICSCC Executive Board has the right to veto rules passed by the membership if they think an unsafe, unfair, or deterimental condition for Conference will result. My concern would be that a well prepared ITS car would be several seconds faster than anything that has traditionally run in Group 2 before. There have been lots of compromises over time but one of the ways classes are broken up is by balancing the number of cars on track with the overall speed differential between the fastest and the slowest in an attempt to make the groups as safe as possible while still trying to be as inclusive as possible.

ITX numbers just from the results sheets look to be around 8 entries for 4 races. That is an average of 2.0 entries per race. New classes need to achieve 2.5 entries per race to be elgible as a championship class the following year. Might be a good time to get that average up.

The ITX class creation kind of signals a slight change in the idea behind second entries. It has always been a bit of an "unwritten rule" that a racer should build a car to be competitive under a specific ruleset for a specific class. The second class they entered was seen as more of an opportunity for more track time with the understanding that they were probably underprepared compared to those who built their car specifically for the faster class. In this particular case, I have a suspicion that it was more about wanting to be competitive in two classes and move from being among the slowest in Group 1 to being among the fastest in Group 2. On the other hand, from a safety and numbers standpoint it definitely makes sense to get those cars out of a very crowded class (thanks for the entries Pro-3!) and get a few more 1:40+ cars out of a group with sub 1:30 cars (at Pacific as an example) . In the end, I am always in favor of getting more entries so I have no problem with trying to entice second entries by arranging classes that would be more enjoyable for them to race in.

Taken logically - if what you really want is more time on track in competitive classes then lets eliminate half of the classes, have everyone build to those rulesets, then run three groups twice a weekend instead of six groups once. I think what you will find is that the number of racers who regularly run two race groups is smaller than you think and most who don't aren't going to want to pay double to race twice as much.

Just my two cents. Conference is what it's drivers want it to be. Make sure you get in there and help shape it into what you want.
 
Last edited:
rick_bostrom said:
Taken logically - if what you really want is more time on track in competitive classes then lets eliminate half of the classes, have everyone build to those rulesets, then run three groups twice a weekend instead of six groups once. I think what you will find is that the number of racers who regularly run two race groups is smaller than you think and most who don't aren't going to want to pay double to race twice as much.
Click to expand...

That doesn't sound like logic, it sounds like a continuum fallacy.

Entering 2 groups isn't twice as expensive, FYI.
 
Last edited:
A petition from me would more likely be to allow 944 Cup as a standalone class spec ala Pro3 and SM, and not to join ITX as ITS prep. ITS is more restrictive than national 944 Cup standards anyway, but we run in that locally as that is what was available to us until now. We are at critical mass and have no issue getting minimal number of entries per race to meet regulations for a new class.

To me the bigger issue is that Groups 1, 2, and 5 are so full as it is. That is where the groups with most participation naturally fit performance-wise and so any expansion of similar cars is going to cause issues. 56 cars in a group at PIR borders on chaos and can easily throw off class points battles. Hard to justify throwing more cars into that. But it is something that Conference will have to rectify if new members are coming mainly in those run groups. You either have to turn away entries, or revise run groups to balance things out. Strong growth is a good thing but it comes with some pains as well.

I understand the hesitancy to allow the full ITS roster to run ITX. 944's are not competitive against the theoretical top ITS cars. We'll take a baby step at Spokane next month when we cross over from SCCA and run Group 5 and a special Friday night 944 Challenge race. Then again at the end of July at Pacific... I guarantee we will have a strong showing in Group 5 ITS and the special 'German Touring Car' race group. Hopefully this will lead to increased 944 Cup participation with ICSCC in the future.

Anyway, sorry to sidetrack the ITX discussion so much... it was not my original intention. I personally enjoy racing with Conference and hope to see it grow in whatever way possible.
 
schwank said:
To me the bigger issue is that Groups 1, 2, and 5 are so full as it is. That is where the groups with most participation naturally fit performance-wise and so any expansion of similar cars is going to cause issues. 56 cars in a group at PIR borders on chaos and can easily throw off class points battles. Hard to justify throwing more cars into that. But it is something that Conference will have to rectify if new members are coming mainly in those run groups. You either have to turn away entries, or revise run groups to balance things out. Strong growth is a good thing but it comes with some pains as well.
Click to expand...

I believe that group 1 and group 5 are larger than group 2. By moving cars out of group 1 into group 2 it should help balance things out. I also understand the complication of including ITS into ITX and I'm sure the San Fran region SCCA understood this as well when they adopted ITX and thus why it doesn't include ITS. I still thing the conversation should continue about finding the right balance between classes, cars and groups.
 
I are not very entelijent. I don't know what continuum fallacy is.

I do, on the other had, sign the contracts for the rental of Pacific Raceways and review the budget every month for the purposes of holding IRDC races ........ FYI.

My point was that if you want to race in two groups a week-end and be front line competitive in both, maybe everyone else would like that opportunity as well. Problem is that no matter how you shift, change, recombine, and revise - somebody ends up uncompetitive, or loses their class, or is just unhappy. You have a class that is your primary class - and you have every reason to be competitive in it. The major reason for a switch to ITX as a secondary class? Hmmm ... lets see what that might be. Weather is the same. Date is the same. Cornerworkers are the same. Track is the same. Car is the same. What does that leave? You like being at the fast end of the pack better than at the slow end? Bingo! You are a racer - of course you like first better than last, heck - you like first better than second! Only problem with that is everything is interrelated. It's great for you to move to the front of the Group, but that means somebody just moved back. Maybe they liked their group better when they were going for the group win instead of you? Maybe the slowest among them feel about as happy watching their mirrors for you as you did in Group 1. Maybe they like having more cars in their group, or somebody to chase? Heck - it could be any of those. There are probably as many answers as people you ask. One thing is true if you look at the health of Conference as a whole - you have to be very careful about making individuals or subgroups happy if it makes the majority unhappy. Almost everything we do, regardless of how well intentioned it might have been is virtually guaranteed to make SOMEBODY unhappy.

Look at it this way: We could have a lot more wheel to wheel racing and less paperwork if we made four groups. Group 1/Over 4 liters. Group 2/Between 2.5 and 4 liters. Group 3/Under 2.5 liters. Group 4/ Open wheel and sports racers. No need for scales, rulebooks, cheating. And with the stroke of a pen you just turned all but four people a week-end into non-race winners which gets to the heart of the problem. It would never fly because a decent percentage of the folks racing in Conference are looking to modify their class to fit their car to be competitive rather than modifying their car to fit their class to be competitive. No one should take that as an insult - I have tried and am still trying to do it myself! If any REAL fully prepared cars show up in the classes I race in, I would be waving to them more than once a race as they lapped me! Do I want to start a class that limits outright horsepower for car like mine? Sure, but only because I have less than everybody I race with. Hmmmmm, lets see - 10K to motor up and go kick some ass or bring them right back to me with this here rules proposal. Let me think about that .....

Oh - and Schwank - Us ground pounders don't complain much about the Pro-3 cars filling up Group 1. It's because racing in big groups is FUN. We've worked out a pretty good mutual respect between fast and slow in that group and we make a lot of passes without many incidents. Working traffic at speed is what racing is all about - I highly recommend it. C'mon out and race with us - the more the merrier.
 
Rick, don't misconstrue my posts. I am the only 44 Cup guy that DOES race with Conference with any regularity in the last couple of years. I am trying to bring more into the fold and it is finally going to go down.

I do also enjoy racing in big groups as the average ITS field is 2 cars, maybe 3. My competition is always Miatas and E30's running in other classes, hence me being here talking about ITX. And it certainly gives me practice for the widely varied fields when we run the THill 6/25 Hour race in December. Still you cannot deny that adding 10 more cars to Group 5 fields would make things very busy. But certainly you will never be bored! It is just something we have to deal with as it comes along.

I think many of us are on the same page frankly... forums just don't make it easy to tell as we all discuss the minutiae. Not as easy as 5 guys around a table with beers in hand! Cheers!
 
Mmmmm beeeeer. I'm having one right now. TGIF and a work from home day.

I just want someplace I can run "with" other cars. I don't care at all if I win. Being a big guy in a kart taught me to happy I somebody to swap spots with even of they are in a slower kart. :redface: I picked the wrong car and can live with that.

I have been deeply involved with putting on races and know that not everybody can be satisfied. That doesn't mean I won't try to get my way. Racers are selfish by nature or we would give up the lead to let others enjoy it.

Just please wave with all fingers as you go by me in group 1. :p
 
Eric, if you thought you could could show up with 8+ 944 Cup cars every race, I for one would absolutely vote for that as a new ICSCC class. If you could get 15 or so every race, it'd be one of the biggest classes in Conference. Just sayin'.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top