ITE

For any discussions and suggestions about the PHA series supps

Re: ITE

Postby dspgti » Sat Jan 10, 2009 9:35 am

Jeremy, I thought I'd add a little to your search for rules. The following is copied from the NESSCA (North East Division, that's us) site. The Division, I believe, can set certain rules but the Region can still make some changes, However, again due to Series Championships, all Regions must comply with the Series rules which is usually the Division Rules. (Am I making sense? :oops: )

First of all, it resolves the Pro Rally problem, except the note on having a Pro Rally Rule book.

What it does do is make it a little more difficult for someone to declare themself in the ITE class. Note the requirements of the series rule book and specifications. I don't believe any of our techs or officials would require such a thing, but if a competitor would challenge or protest, you had better have it or get disqualified.

Super Production is still a regional class. It does not get over ridden by Super Touring since SP is a tube frame legal class. Still our Specials class allows for them so I hope we can avoid that hassle.

Here is the link if you want to follow up.
http://www.nescca.com/nescca%5Fmain/regclassrules.html

Improved Touring Enduro (Class designation - ITE)

The purpose of the ITE class is to allow vehicles from other professional race series, Pro-Rally, Showroom Stock (those not otherwise eligible for IT or SS) and equivalent marque club classes to compete at a regional level. No guarantee of competitiveness or equality is expressed or implied.

To that end, the ITE rules and guidelines are that ALL VEHICLES MUST:

- Meet (at minimum) current Improved Touring safety specifications.

- Run DOT approved street radials; tire brand is free. However, wheel and tire specifications must be per the original series rules. Original series (except Pro-Rally) must have run exclusively on DOT tires.

- Compete in their declared series specification, except for tire brand & modifications, to meet SCCA safety specs.

- Display current SCCA Club Racing decals; all other sanctioning bodies’ identification must be removed or covered.

- Posses an SCCA (only) vehicle logbook and roll cage number.

- Meet the current SCCA sound requirements.

ALL COMPETITORS MUST conform to current SCCA General Competition Rules.

ALL ENTRANTS MUST have in their possession, and available to tech personnel or the Chief Steward, the “Series Rulebooks and specification sheets” (IMSA Rulebook, SCCA Pro-Racing rulebook, Pro-Rally rulebook, etc.) and an official manufacturer’s shop manual(s) to authenticate the vehicle in its state/condition of preparation.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Super Production

Please refer to GCR 9.1.11

The Northeast Division divides the class based upon engine displacement.

SPU denotes any Super Production class cars with an engine displacement of 2000 cc or lower.

SPO denotes any Super Production class car with an engine displacement higher than 2000 cc.


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

Re: ITE

Postby Mark Aubele » Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:08 am

Steve Tumolo wrote:Wait a minute, ITE is a Roadracing class. As was stated before it is a catch all for roadracing. Why try to butcher it just so street cars fit? There is already "catch all" classes for hillclimbs. We don't want to match up roadrace cars with "weak" records in the same class as autocross cars now do we? I thought we were already through that?


FWIW, there is already a street car running in ITE, although I'm not sure why. C6 Z06, at Giants and weatherly last year he was in ITE, so I assumed that street cars were already allowed in ITE.
'14 Mustang ESP #53
Mark Aubele
Novice
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:22 am
Location: Trafford, Pa

Re: ITE

Postby Matt Rowe » Sat Jan 10, 2009 11:26 am

Mark,

I believe we have had cars running in ITE because PHA hasn't defined what the rules are for ITE. That makes it very easy for someone to enter in the class and impossible for anyone to demonstrate why they are not eligible. That has been my concern with ITE.

My suggestion would be to continue figuring out what gap in classing we are trying to fill and then be sure to define a class that bridges that gap. In my mind that does not necessarily mean we need to call the class ITE. We could "retire" the ITE class in favor of a new (properly defined) catch all class for not quite street cars (SM) and not quite all out tube frame cars (Specials). I would just hate to see us define a class that is stuck with records set by a vehicle that no longer meets the class rules.
~Matt Rowe
User avatar
Matt Rowe
Site Admin
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Enfield, CT

Re: ITE

Postby Mark Aubele » Sat Jan 10, 2009 12:14 pm

Matt Rowe wrote:Mark,

I believe we have had cars running in ITE because PHA hasn't defined what the rules are for ITE. That makes it very easy for someone to enter in the class and impossible for anyone to demonstrate why they are not eligible. That has been my concern with ITE.

My suggestion would be to continue figuring out what gap in classing we are trying to fill and then be sure to define a class that bridges that gap. In my mind that does not necessarily mean we need to call the class ITE. We could "retire" the ITE class in favor of a new (properly defined) catch all class for not quite street cars (SM) and not quite all out tube frame cars (Specials). I would just hate to see us define a class that is stuck with records set by a vehicle that no longer meets the class rules.


Agreed.
'14 Mustang ESP #53
Mark Aubele
Novice
 
Posts: 227
Joined: Wed Jul 26, 2006 12:22 am
Location: Trafford, Pa

Re: ITE

Postby dspgti » Sun Jan 11, 2009 9:36 am

Matt, are you saying that TT doesn't have to automatically include Regional CR classes? ITE has had a distinct set of rules, we have just never implimented them. If we retire the class, where does Bill Miller run his Audi S4? He meets the letter of the class rules to a tee. He has run SCCA Regional races in ITE.
How would we accomodate him anywhere else? He would qualify for Super Touring.

Actually, if the class specification was adopted, it is hard to get into having to have the correct documentaion, and easy to challenge (Vare iss yur papuz? pronounced in your best fake German accent).

What we ought to find out is, Will NESCCA and any of the particpating regions retire ITE in leu of Super Touring this year or any time in the future? Maybe you know the answer or have heard something on that already?

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

Re: ITE

Postby Matt Rowe » Sun Jan 11, 2009 10:31 am

First, no, regional club racing classes do not have to be adopted. Secondly, ITE is not fully defined because we have never specified which version of the ITE rules we use. As Jeremy's research shows ITE is vastly different from one region to the next.

My intention is not to exclude anyone so if a certain set of ITE rules makes sense and fills a gap then let's specify the rules and move forward. If a different set of rules makes more sense and still gives everyone a place to play than let's adopt those rules, retire ITE and move on. But to say Bill Miller's car meets the letter of the class is impossible when no one can really say what the PHA ITE class rules are.
~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 » Sun Jan 11, 2009 11:26 am

I was trying to "ASSUME" (yes, the definition fits) that we should have been using the NESCCA rules.

If Jeremy is still researching this, perhaps he can shed some light on whether any of the 7 or 8 different regional club race series that goes on in the North East Division uses anything else but the NESCCA rule?

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

Re: ITE

Postby dspgti » Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:13 pm

Now I understand! The TT rules say "all classes listed in the CURRENT GCR (both National and Regional) must be accomodated." Since ITE and Super Production (SPO/U) have been removed from the GCR, TT does not need to include them.

It took me a while but I caught on.

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

Re: ITE

Postby Matt Rowe » Sun Jan 11, 2009 12:59 pm

Careful Dave, the rules specifically say the classes must be accommodated, but that they can be consolidated with other classes. There is no rule that says we must offer a specific class just because one person shows up with the car. What it means is that if someone shows up with a car prepared to the rules for a GCR class we have to let them run. The idea is to make sure that Time Trials events are no more restrictive in safety or other preparations means than the GCR.
~Matt Rowe
User avatar
Matt Rowe
Site Admin
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Enfield, CT

Re: ITE

Postby jerdeitzel » Sun Jan 11, 2009 1:49 pm

Dave, i'll check on all the northeast area rules. I was planning on trying to get a list of most regions around the country's rules.

Matt, are your saying, that we can consolidate any class that has only 1 person in it? Or just any class that we feel dosn't need to be there? I'm confused as to what your saying with that. I understand we have the right to consolidate but i havn't seen it done much in classes where only 1 person shows up. Are you talking about a bumping system for classes? (which i like the idea)

I'm still on the side of making an ITE class that allows just about anything non-tube frame. This will increase the probability that nobody will ever run the new STO/U classes. Which i think works for us.
#88 SM
Mitsubishi evo 8
jerdeitzel
Novice
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: ITE

Postby Matt Rowe » Sun Jan 11, 2009 6:03 pm

Jeremy, what I am saying is that we have the option of defining the series such that a STO car would be allowed to run but they would be placed in special 2. That meets the rulebook obligation to allow them to compete but does not require us to allow a class for a single competitor. Now, we have not been using those options, but that doesn't mean we can't if people would truly prefer to reduce the number of classes.
~Matt Rowe
User avatar
Matt Rowe
Site Admin
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sat Mar 20, 2004 7:52 pm
Location: Enfield, CT

Re: ITE

Postby jerdeitzel » Tue Jan 13, 2009 10:52 pm

Okay here are some of the regional ITE class rules. They vary but it seems they are all pretty much open to a class if you ask them to allow it.

Southwest div.
http://www.sowdivscca.org/rules.aspx

Southern pacific
http://www.calclub.com/html/html2/rules ... es_rev.pdf

southeast.
http://www.sedivracing.org/2008SEDivReg ... sFinal.pdf

greatlakes.
???????? can't find anything on that site.

central
??????? another who the heck kno's where are the rules are on that site.

northern pacific.
http://www.nwr-scca.org/Race/supps/2008 ... _Rules.pdf

This is another hard one but it seems form looking that all the regions are following the same rules. Altho they are not on the northern pacific site there are a few regions here that have just written there own ITE rules. Seems alot is allowed.

rocky mtn
http://www.coloradoscca.org/documents/R ... es2008.pdf
two classes for ITE? Interesting, but not sure i like that. Pretty much open again tho.

northeast.
http://www.nescca.com/nescca_main/regclassrules.html
It seem's here the only issue is the wording about a profesional series. Whereas most other seem to allow any club racing series to compete.



So what do we have here. Well its kinda mind numbing but. Seem's to me we are pretty much on target with a good majority that to allow any class from any club racing organization to compete in ITE is not a bad idea. And i'd go as far as to say that allowing mostly anything non-tube frame is not a bad idea. (there are plenty of regions doing that)
#88 SM
Mitsubishi evo 8
jerdeitzel
Novice
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: ITE

Postby dspgti » Wed Jan 14, 2009 9:29 am

Excellent work Jeremy. I have to let this stuff settle in my brain a little and hear what others have to say before making an opinion.

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

Re: ITE

Postby jerdeitzel » Mon Jan 19, 2009 10:23 pm

Well, as you may have seen, there are prospects out there asking questions about classes. How many of you are against a open ITE or new (mid level unlimited class)? I just need to gauge people's thoughts here.
#88 SM
Mitsubishi evo 8
jerdeitzel
Novice
 
Posts: 430
Joined: Wed Feb 07, 2007 6:43 pm
Location: Pittsburgh

Re: ITE

Postby Matt Rowe » Tue Jan 20, 2009 1:42 am

I am against calling this IT anything. I have long thought ITE is misleading as the rules have nothing to do with improved touring's rules. It does appear we have a gap to fill in the classes available but I would suggest one of the Prepared classes is a better starting point.
~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 » Tue Jan 20, 2009 10:23 pm

Matt Rowe wrote:I am against calling this IT anything. I have long thought ITE is misleading as the rules have nothing to do with improved touring's rules. It does appear we have a gap to fill in the classes available but I would suggest one of the Prepared classes is a better starting point.


Could you explain what you mean by PREPARED classes?
dspgti
Novice
 
Posts: 1360
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 9:35 pm
Location: Reading, PA/ Hammonton, NJ

Re: ITE

Postby Matt Rowe » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:09 pm

Sure, BP and DP were the new club racing classes defined 2 (?) years ago. As much as I dislike the name due to the confusion with solo I think the rules would be a good starting point, certainly better than invoking improved touring. They were based on the premise at least of being a place for former world challenge cars to play. Still a basically streetable looking car but allowances for heavy suspension mods, engine work, substitution of stock components for "race" parts. Generally you could make the argument this is anything up to replacing the chassis with a tube frame.
~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 » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:22 pm

Yup, I see them in the 2007 GCR but what has that to do with now?

Does'nt exist in 2009. Now what?

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

Re: ITE

Postby Rich Sweigart » Tue Jan 20, 2009 11:58 pm

Dave,

As SCCA the world turns, I think B and D Prepared have evolved into Super Touring O and Super Touring U classes.

Rich
Rich Sweigart
Rich Sweigart
Novice
 
Posts: 390
Joined: Sun Mar 21, 2004 12:20 pm
Location: Quakertown, PA

Re: ITE

Postby dspgti » Wed Jan 21, 2009 12:18 am

What do think? Am I getting better here or what? I deleted 4 previous postings before I sent them. :oops:

Maybe I'd better let it go untill tomorrow when I might be in a better frame of mind.

OH! never mind, I'm off to the Rolex 24 in Daytona. I'll let the rest of you digest the information provided. :?

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

PreviousNext

Return to Supplementary Regulations

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest