ITE

For any discussions and suggestions about the PHA series supps

Re: ITE

Postby dspgti » Tue Jan 27, 2009 8:53 pm

Maybe you are not up to speed yet, but you are getting there. Are you asking a question or stating a position? :?

I'm sorry Steve if you thimk I am picking on you. In fact, I am right behind all of you who challenge the "Status Quo". I can only hope that my aggitation sparks an attitude to get involved and ask the questions, "Just because we did it that way in the past, why do we have to keep doing it like that?"

Thank goodness we have some new blood to carry on,
Dave Y
dspgti
Novice
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Reading, PA/ Hammonton, NJ

Re: ITE

Postby mrevilracing » Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:18 pm

Picking on me??? LOL! I'm not so shy that I'd be offended ya know.

I stated some facts: ITE is a class in the PHA series(Each hill has an ITE class with a record). Forced induction CAN run in ITE just not in IT and ITE is a class that the regions can set their own rules if they wish(As per an SCCA email). PHA doesn't set rules...the regions do and it's up to them to be consistent for this series...so I will assume the regions all have set their own supps and they all jive, yes?

While this may be a side bar to the ITE discussion, I think it's important to note how the rules actually get set up. I think I have it correct. If not, someone is more than welcome to correct me.

As far as ITE is concerned, maybe follow all the IT rules until it gets to engines/trans/differential. All free within the specific manufacturer.
RIP Joe, my friend.

Must go faster!!!!
http://www.trueblueracingparts.com
User avatar
mrevilracing
Novice
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:24 pm
Location: Perkiomenville, PA

Re: ITE

Postby dspgti » Tue Jan 27, 2009 9:46 pm

Steve, this is 2009! Everything starts over.

Some class records may get retired. Some classes may expire.

Maybe, some of us will show up in a thread like Ron Mann tries to carry on. Others will be lost or forgotten.

Choose your goals wisely.

Dave Y
dspgti
Novice
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Reading, PA/ Hammonton, NJ

Re: ITE

Postby mrevilracing » Tue Jan 27, 2009 10:40 pm

I'm sorry, I'm dense. It's 2009 and everything starts over? Are we about to re-write all the rules? These events aren't national events so why start changing everything? We started with trophies: Well, that's the regions issue to deal with. If they don't want to give them out or they want to combine classes for trophy reasons, then so be it. We went to 'too many classes'. Well, some folks build cars for a specific class. Now we're here in ITE. Why not make ITE the SM of IT? Of course, all cars in ITE have to conform to the IT safety specs.
RIP Joe, my friend.

Must go faster!!!!
http://www.trueblueracingparts.com
User avatar
mrevilracing
Novice
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:24 pm
Location: Perkiomenville, PA

Re: ITE

Postby dspgti » Wed Jan 28, 2009 9:48 am

I don't look at it as re-writting the rules. It's more like writting rules because they don't exisit or don't apply to our current standards.

I know you will be at the PHA meeting. Bring your ideas or state them here to get advanced criticism.

Dave Y
dspgti
Novice
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Reading, PA/ Hammonton, NJ

Re: ITE

Postby jerdeitzel » Wed Jan 28, 2009 10:16 pm

This is a race series from the islands. ITE type racing. :D http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BxC9zCGmgys.

Boy if this is where racecars go after they are not allowed to race anywhere. Looks like fun.
#88 SM
Mitsubishi evo 8
jerdeitzel
Novice
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: ITE

Postby jerdeitzel » Thu Jan 29, 2009 10:38 pm

Well looks like i can make a Speed world challenge touring car! http://www.world-challenge.com/news/story.php?ID=1175

Now i have no idea what that means. I've never read the world challenge rules.
#88 SM
Mitsubishi evo 8
jerdeitzel
Novice
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: ITE

Postby Matt Rowe » Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:05 pm

mrevilracing wrote:Why not make ITE the SM of IT? Of course, all cars in ITE have to conform to the IT safety specs.


Because what you envision for ITE has nothing to do with IT. As someone who runs an IT car I find it annoying that someone else wants to use the class name but change everything in the preparation rules and confuse the classification process.
~Matt Rowe
User avatar
Matt Rowe
Site Admin
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Enfield, CT

Re: ITE

Postby mrevilracing » Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:27 pm

Personally, what I envision for ITE is what SCCA says:

If you are talking about ITE, that is a regional only class that varies from region to region, and they can make whatever rules they want as long as the cars meet the safety specs of the IT category.


That is as per John Bauer at SCCA. Since I couldn't find ITE anywhere in the rule book, I emailed them and asked where forced induction fits in IT.
If you are talking about IT in the rule book….there is no forced induction cars classified.
After that statement, the above statement was made. While SM is a pretty much open class with respect to engine, tranny, rear and brakes, with some minor restrictions. ITE is a more open class as long as they meet or exceed the safety specs of the IT catagory. The region can set the rules and change at will.
RIP Joe, my friend.

Must go faster!!!!
http://www.trueblueracingparts.com
User avatar
mrevilracing
Novice
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:24 pm
Location: Perkiomenville, PA

Re: ITE

Postby dspgti » Fri Jan 30, 2009 11:55 pm

So Steve, what is your vision of ITE? How would you describe the class? What kind of grouping should we be looking at and what level of safety regs should they go by?
We should all keep in mind that if we can't resolve this issue before the start of our season we should officially adapt the NESCCA rules as they are currently listed unless they make some kind of change. (it's 4 weeks now and I haven't gotten a reply)

Dave Y
dspgti
Novice
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Reading, PA/ Hammonton, NJ

Re: ITE

Postby mrevilracing » Sat Jan 31, 2009 12:22 am

Since this is ITE relating to the PHA, the regions should get together and make a decision as to what is acceptable. The SCCA says the regions can make whatever rules they want, it can be an open class. Who has an ITE classed car that is prep'd to the limit of the last set of rules to be followed??? Maybe use those rules and make some adjustments. But it's not up to me to make that determination.
RIP Joe, my friend.

Must go faster!!!!
http://www.trueblueracingparts.com
User avatar
mrevilracing
Novice
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:24 pm
Location: Perkiomenville, PA

Re: ITE

Postby Matt Rowe » Sat Jan 31, 2009 3:45 am

mrevilracing wrote:Personally, what I envision for ITE is what SCCA says:

If you are talking about ITE, that is a regional only class that varies from region to region, and they can make whatever rules they want as long as the cars meet the safety specs of the IT category.


That is as per John Bauer at SCCA. Since I couldn't find ITE anywhere in the rule book, I emailed them and asked where forced induction fits in IT.
If you are talking about IT in the rule book….there is no forced induction cars classified.
After that statement, the above statement was made. While SM is a pretty much open class with respect to engine, tranny, rear and brakes, with some minor restrictions. ITE is a more open class as long as they meet or exceed the safety specs of the IT catagory. The region can set the rules and change at will.


With all due respect to John, that is a technical interpretation and could be just as easily accommodated by substituting XYZ for ITE. Maybe I am not making my point clearly enough or maybe no one cares, but the issue I have is basically one of branding. The "real" IT classes represent a solid brand that is very well known throughout amateur road racing. When you say I have an IT car people have a pretty good idea of what that means. Unfortunately, the biggest source of misinformation about the class is usually due to people that create ITE cars with drastically different preparation differences. The effect is to confuse racers and spectators (read as potential racers).

To put it another way. Decide what you want the rules to be and then compare them to IT. If they aren't the same rules than pick a new name. There is nothing magical about the letters ITE and in fact you will likely make it easier for people to understand the allowances and make the class more user friendly if newbies aren't confused by trying to interpret the differences between IT"X" and ITE.

Hopefully someone will have a clear proposal for any regional classes PHA would like to accept before the season starts. Otherwise my direction (as the divisional program manager) to the registrars is to be sure that they have defined rules for every class that they offer.
~Matt Rowe
User avatar
Matt Rowe
Site Admin
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Enfield, CT

Re: ITE

Postby dspgti » Sat Jan 31, 2009 9:40 am

I couldn't agree with you more Matt. Heck, the regions can't even agree what ITE stands for. One says IT Enduro, another says IT Everthing. :? (not that the letter E has to stand for anything) It just adds to the confusion and the fact that not many people in TT understand it is proof that it needs to be cleaned up, whatever we call it.

Dave Y
dspgti
Novice
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Reading, PA/ Hammonton, NJ

Re: ITE

Postby jerdeitzel » Sat Jan 31, 2009 10:40 am

Matt, It makes alot more sense to me now where your coming from. I personally don't care what you call it either, as long we let cars use the IT safety.(now if special uses the IT safety rules for street type cars then we are all done here). I think that is the only reason there is an ITE class. ITE really should be retired if this is the feeling most other people have.
#88 SM
Mitsubishi evo 8
jerdeitzel
Novice
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: ITE

Postby mrevilracing » Sat Jan 31, 2009 1:07 pm

Matt, I do understand what you're saying. Same can be said about the SP classes. ASP thru FSP, folks expect to see a car prepared to a certain degree. Things go haywire in SM. I think that is where ITE picks up. These are IT cars prepared in excess of IT rules. But I do agree there may be a need for increase in the safety requirements.

http://sccaforums.com/search/SearchResu ... q=ITE&s=51 There is quite the discussion going on here. Lots of posts from 2001and up. All saying ITE is an unlimited class except for cars must be production based(have a VIN), run on DOT's, no nitrous, and have IT level safety. So it's a discussion that's been going on for a long time. Obviously, the SCCA never addressed it fully.

Now ITE becomes a class to be defined by the regions. There are the basic rules to follow and away-we-go.

Maybe we need to go back to Mark's original statement and run from there:
I actually think we should have ITE as a catch all for non-tube chassis cars beyond the rules of SM. Such as NASA's American Iron and AIX classes, as well as Jer's car. The way the rules are now if you show up in a mustang with an aftermarket k-member you are in S3.
RIP Joe, my friend.

Must go faster!!!!
http://www.trueblueracingparts.com
User avatar
mrevilracing
Novice
 
Posts: 1091
Joined: Sat Jun 16, 2007 3:24 pm
Location: Perkiomenville, PA

Re: ITE

Postby dspgti » Thu Feb 12, 2009 10:19 am

DUPLICATE POSTING for those not redaing both threads

Rule #1 Don't throw away old GCR's.
Rule #2 Regions do not go back and update their rules to coincide with the GCR every year.
Rule #3 Don't believe everything you hear from National.

The Oregon ITE rules primarily address World Challenge cars. That is now covered under Super Touring.

In 2007, SCCA first wrote rules under Prepared (B and D) to cover World Challenge and others in the GCR. In fact they are almost Identical to the new Super Touring rules including the allowance of IT cars.

In the 2007 GCR 9.1.4.P SAFTEY it states roll cages in DP and BP must comply with 9.4.6 which is the Production spec.

That paragraph was removed from the 2008 GCR. My guess is that at the time, the Production Roll cage requirements would not be allowed in "IT". "IT" has since started allowing some additional tubes that are required in Prod. but optional in "IT".

Now in 2009 (Prepared is replaced by ST/ O&U) , they failed to clarify or specify a cage spec for Super Touring. That's problem #1.
#2 is what I see as a loop hole. If they say IT cage, what about TT rules. At this time TT doesn't require a full cage in IT. The last thing we want to see is a car prepared to ST allowances with just a roll bar.

The reason I like the NESCCA ITE rule is it mentions all other race series preparation. I take that to mean series outside SCCA like the NASA Factory Five Challenge etc. Could be an opening there as long as we are talking the FFC full spec and log books.

Keep those cards and letters coming,
Dave Y
dspgti
Novice
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Reading, PA/ Hammonton, NJ

Previous

Return to Supplementary Regulations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest