In rule 18.4.A, IP classifications:

- Remove IP4 class.
- Remove IPA class.
- Remove provision for Spec Miata cars to race in IP3 class.

My reasoning:

There were only 2 IPA entries and 1 IP4 entry in all of last year - these classes are dead.  IPA cars can run in IP1 with no modifications, and IP4 cars can run in IP3 with no modifications.

Spec Miatas have their own class as of last year, and it is in the same run group as IP3.  The SM racing in IP3 provision is no longer necessary.

There are Miata's  that don't meet SM rules, and the cost to make them legal aren't in all racers budgets. Also, I would like to build an IP3  Miata next year and have my other Miata's run in SM.
my goal is to have as many of my cars running to take over the championship next season. I wanna be just like curt when I grow up! haha....

Good ideas!

Jordy Isaak wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2011 at 8:26am:

In rule 18.4.A, IP classifications: - Remove IP4 class. - Remove IPA class. - Remove provision for Spec Miata cars to race in IP3 class. .

First two are great ideas

But allow a SM 1.8L to remain in IP3 if so desired.  Correct me if Im wrong but I was lead to believe the 1.8 SM has a restrictor to bring it down to the 1.6 miata? Is this correct?
The 1.6 Miata would already fit in the IP3 class.
I would guess its just easyier to leave that rule alone for awhile.

trackrat wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2011 at 10:02am:

my goal is to have as many of my cars running to take over the championship next season. I wanna be just like curt when I grow up! haha....

And if you get nice uniforms you may even win best looking pit crew  ;D

trackrat wrote on Oct 22^nd, 2011 at 10:02am:

There are Miata's  that don't meet SM rules, and the cost to make them legal aren't in all racers budgets. Also, I would like to build an IP3  Miata next year and have my other Miata's run in SM. my goal is to have as many of my cars running to take over the championship next season. I wanna be just like curt when I grow up! haha....

Tracey, under the current rules you have the following options with a Miata:

1.6L built to Spec Miata rules can be run in IP3 or SM
1.8L built to Spec Miata rules can be run in IP3 or SM
1.6L built to IP rules can be run in IP3
1.8L built to IP rules can be run in IP2

With the rule change, you would have the following options:

1.6L built to Spec Miata rules can be run in IP3 or SM
1.8L built to Spec Miata rules can be run in IP2 or SM
1.6L built to IP rules can be run in IP3
1.8L built to IP rules can be run in IP2

So the only difference is that a 1.8L Miata would no longer be able to race in IP3 when built to Spec Miata rules.  Seeing how such a car is not competitive in IP3 anyway and already has a class for it in the same run group, I don't think that's a big loss.

If the general consensus is against changing this particular rule I'm fine with backing out of it.  But I do feel that it's a rule that really doesn't have a place in the book, now that we have a separate SM class.

Dont Now how this applies to me, :o  Other than i helped Norm S Bring the Miatas to IP3     Jordy is correct with his breakdown,SInce there is a SM Class in CW2 . Seems like they have a home ,,,  But for what ever the reason is,,  You have a choice,, Throw out the rule and 1600 SMs still have a IP3 Option. This would not allow the 1800 restricted SMs in IP3.  Remove the restrictor and its an IP2 car  CW1,,  I agree  that IP4/IPA are Dead Classes. Kind of agree with Criss leave the 1800SM rule alone for rite now. I dont think we will ever win the best pic crew trophy...LOL Dont have that one in our sites ,  

Ok, since most reaction to the SM rule change is negative, I'll drop that.  I will propose that IP4 and IPA be dropped at the CACC meeting.

I guess as the only participant to bring an IP4 car to an event this season I'm not going to win a vote if you guys are dead set against it. The reason why myself and if I remember K.R. proposed this class, was to give all the under powered IP3 cars a place to be competitive. Lets face it, a 1500cc (max displacement) and either carbed or single port F.I. will never be competitive with 1600 cc, multi port F.I. or certainly VTEC so that's why the class was created. If nobody is subscribing to the class then I guess the democratic process can judge whether or not the class deserves to survive but as the one participant who sees the benefit of the class's existence (and the fact that it doesn't actually cost anything to keep it alive) I will be voting to keep it alive. I hope that eventually or when others actually discover that their car would work in this class rather than doing an engine swap to make it work in IP3 (you know who you are !) we will see bigger fields but at least until then I can continue to run this car in it's competitive class and not have to park a completely adequate race car for a lack of a decent CACC class. I don't want to have to run just ICSCC weekends as the only alternative.

Paul

Paul ,,  Good comments , This is good to here from IP4 entrants and your rite, dosnt cost anything to keep the class alive ..  There has been an IP4 Car that has converted to Si trim and now runs in IP3 , discussion on this matter is good and to here from the IP4 entries as what we should do, Iam not voting to remove any Possible IP4 entries . This is the place to find out what we should do  and how to vote. If there are IP4 competitors lets here from you. How many Ip4 cars do we still have? ,  

My 1500S (ex-Wong, ex-Doodson) has been in hiding since 2009. Logbook shows 4 entries in 2007, 1 in 2008, 1 in 2009. Wayne (McKinnon?) ran a red CRX in IP4 also, but car graduated to GTL? I recall a theory that former Honda/Michelin (and similar) cars may show up for a 1500 class, after the proposal of a spec Civic class didn't take off? I will run my car at some point next year, I have a job now!

Dave Adams    

Wayne did run his CRX in IP4 a couple times.  It was, frankly, illegal for the class.  He had bigger carbs on it, and I think a hot cam as well, plus the interior was gutted in excess of what is legal for IP.  He only ran IP4 because he was so far away from being competitive in the GT class that it was built for, and nobody was there in IP4 to care about whether he was legal or not.

I do understand the argument behind the creation of the class.  But when not even a dozen race entries happen over the course of 3 years, we have to consider that perhaps that theoretical pool of cars that would compete is in practice not very deep.

The Si CRX and Civic have dropped enough in price that for any person contemplating a new build or buying an existing car, IP3 is essentially the same cost and offers *far* better racing.

Personally, I'd rather see fewer classes with more cars in them than more classes with the cars spread about so thinly that no real competition happens.

"Personally, I'd rather see fewer classes with more cars in them than more classes with the cars spread about so thinly that no real competition happens"

Well, that's the first comment I agree with. It seems like every sanctioning body has fallen into the same trap of creating new classes every year while the pool of competitors has remained stagnate. Years ago when the classes were fewer and grids bigger, most drivers were happy that they had someone somewhere in the pack to race with. Now it appears that if someone isn't in a position to win they want to create a new class. There are plenty of classes to find a place to race. If you happen to make a bad choice of vehicle to run then too bad. Lesson learned. The rules are public and clear. Do your homework and pick a car that would be competitive.

No argument from me. Certain SCCA forums are dominated with car count discussions, though with more at stake. If nobody orders it, take it off the menu. I can't complain with my 1.2 entries per year and I don't think I even renewed my club membership this year! If an IP3 CRX/GSR is the standard entry level then that's the answer, though I'd like to know what keeping the class (and IPA) actually costs the club. Wayne and I did share a laugh over his "IP4" setup.

Dave

What I'd like to see is a return to hey days of motorsports when it wasn't so politically incorrect to burn off non-renewable resources without concern for our future. That isn't going to happen is it ? The IP4 class was created just a few years before our most recent global recession and as evidenced by dave's own participation numbers in the last few years I think it's unwise to be eliminating classes that might give more potential participants an opportunity to enter or re-enter motorsports activities with cars that at one time were competent and possibly competitive. Just because time has passed shouldn't mean the elimination of cars that once filled our grids. If they won't let them in a vintage grid now are they just supposed to wait till then ? Sure many have found a better mousetrap with which they can vie for championships in a faster class, but what about the guys that have ressurrected an old Honda/Michelin car or something that fits the IP4 class because that is all they can afford or want to compete in ? It might be that those participants who have less disposable income that want to race cars like that are the first to be affected by an economy that doesn't allow for such frivolities like motorsports. Do you want to turn them away now by eliminating a class (which still as far as I know doesn't actually cost anything to keep alive until somebody actually pays an entry fee to run in that class thereby paying for his own $12 plastic trophy, no offense to the trophy people !) or leave open the possibility that they may return one day once their situation improves and they have a place to be competitive with similar cars in their class ? Yeah I know that sometimes it seems we are creating a class for every whiner that wants to win a trophy but in this instance I feel that these type of participants aren't here for the trophy but just the opportunity to get out in their car whatever it may be and measure themselves and their cars against something that is somewhat equal and not going to blow them away because he doesn't have VTEC or whatever. Even SCCA has softened their stance on participation levels for national status classes in the hopes that they don't lose any participants because that class no longer has national status and although we locally, have nowhere near the numbers of competitors to deal with, I think it is unwise to affect the possibility of more participants coming racing in the years to come by eliminating a place/class where those potential participants will have a chance to compete.

Back to you,

Paul  

Paul's rationale is very well presented. I'd agree with him that we shouldn't just dump IP-4. As he says, it's not costing CACC a lot of money if no one enters. A couple of lines in the rulebook is about it.

Mike

As I understand it, Paul's arguments are:

- There are potential entries for IP4, and if IP4 doesn't exist they will not enter IP3

- There is no cost to keeping IP4 around, regardless of how few entries it has

- IP4 is a place for people that just want to show up and drive for the cheapest price possible

I would respond with this:

- These potential entries haven't shown up in the 5-ish years that IP4 has existed.  If they haven't shown up by now, I'm inclined to believe that they don't actually exist.

- There actually is a cost to keeping a class with such a low participation rate around.  We lose overall entries when drivers try the class once or twice, realize that there's nobody to race against and don't come back.  The dwindling entry count in the logbook of Cory's old 1500S, for example.  I'd rather new drivers get into a well subscribed class and enjoy the racing enough to get hooked instead of entering an empty class and leaving after a few races wondering where the fun is.

- If a driver just wants to enjoy being on the track, they can just as easily enter their car in IP3 and drive at exactly the same pace as they would in IP4.  We are not losing any drivers over this.  If they want to be competitive, spend the extra $500 to start with an Si and do IP3.  It's only the cost of one race weekend...

And one last thing.  Paul is the strongest supporter of IP4.  He has an IP4 car.  He's been racing in IP3 all year.  Keith helped get the class in the books.  When he races closed wheel, he races in IP3.

If the strongest supporters of a class choose not to race in it, I think that speaks volumes about the viability of said class.

Jordy,
I can see you are not going to be convinced but at least get some facts straight.

I do own an IP4 car which I built specifically because of the class , I ran it in class this year and will continue to campaign it in IP4 while it has a class to run it in. I will not run it in IP3 and have not before in the past. So you are wrong and I want that clarified.

I do own an IP3 car and it gets entered into IP3 and GTU when we (Scott Rattray and I) bring it to the track.

I cannot comment on why Keith runs his car in IP3, I know one car he runs in that run group is not IP4 eligible and maybe at this time he does not have a car that is IP4 legal.

"dave" has an IP4 car, Wayne McKinnon has a car that with the removal of dual carbs and hot cam would be more welcome in IP4 than he needs to be in GTL.
There were a couple of more out there so we do know exist.

The other reason for this class was to encourage the much cheaper than $500 difference non Si models to be developed into race cars. There is already starting to be a lack of suitable Si's and eventually the non Si models can  be an alternative as long as they don't have to race against the faster models. SCCA and ICSCC have recognized this with the specific classes why do you want to push them to those events and away from CACC's ?

Here's my bottom line, eliminate the class and lose me as a competitor. Big deal you might say, he's just one guy, but I will assure you, I will not enter that car in IP3 but possibly wait until a ICSCC weekend and spend my racing dollars with them and not CACC, How does that not hurt CACC ? Are there others out there like me ? I can't say for sure if there are and how many, but you will definitely not find out if you eliminate the class.

I'm not going to suggest to anyone starting out that they shouldn't try to find a car that might be competitive in IP3 but there are a few IP4 cars out there that we do know of and they will be the ones immediately and directly affected by your decision. Hopefully for your sake and CACC's as well they will capitulate and run their grossly uncompetitive cars in IP3 and keep your class numbers healthy but maybe they will retire from that class and search out an organization that wasn't so insensitive to their needs and desires to have a class that was suited for them.

Again, let the rebuttals be heard,

Paul

Sorry Paul, miscommunication here.  I meant that although you have an IP4 car, you also have an IP3 car which you drive much more often.

I was not trying to say that you ran your IP4 car in IP3.

We'll have to agree to disagree on how much 1 race entry counts as running a car for the year.  We'll also have to agree to disagree on the cost and availability on potential IP3 cars.  From what I can tell, the cost of getting a CRX Si chassis is less than the cost of putting a roll cage in it, which seems pretty cheap to me.

And again, there seems to be a miscommunication as to my intent.  I'm not out to personally attack you.  However, the reality of the class (1 entry last year) does not match up with what you're saying about it (untapped pool of competitors).  That is all I'm trying to say.

And really, if you lose IP4 you'll stop racing your Integra in IP3?  Really?

Nope. Won't stop IP3 racing but seeing as I mostly share the IP3 car on specific weekends, those weekends that I do not need to share it I would just as likely run the IP4 car. Seeing as I am a die hard CACC supporter I would more than likely try to sell the IP4 car if you nix the class. Just makes it hard to sell a car that only has a dedicated class for it 2 or 3 weekends a year at Mission.

Keep IP4. Drop IPA. IPA was promoted by a number of people who have moved on to other classes or have not raced in recent years. Their reason for proposing the class was that they did not want to run their 20 or so year old American cars against a Porsche 928. That Porsche does not run very often either. IPA cars are still IP1.
Spec Miatas have their own class. They do not score points in IP3. Run groups are in the hands of the organizer and not really part of the CACC rules. If a person wants to prepare a Miata to IP rules then that is where they would be classed. Spec Miata is really restrictive as to what is allowed to be modified. IP rules are much more open.
Remember that no matter what car you want to race it may not be the best car with which to win.

How about :

1. Dump IPA

2. PUT IP4 on a one year probation where there must be at least 3 different cars show up throughout the 2012 year at any time.

If we cant get 3 different cars to any of the 5 or 6 races then those cars will be classed in IP3, and IP4 will be gone for 2013.

If there is only one car running in IP4 and that guy is running in that class  because he can not be competitive in IP3, well then clearly he is not being competitive running against himself either?

If I may chime in my 2 cents worth........

As the current IP4 record holder  ;),  I say get rid of the class so my name can forever remain in stone!  :P

Kidding aside, I absolutely enjoyed my handful of races I did in IP4 in 2010.  Why?  For one, I couldn't care less who was passing me, as I was out to improve on my skills, get some seat time,  and learn some rules and meet some people.  The class in that regard is a tremendous success.  The car was my old street car.  Literally put a bolt-in cage in, and drove back and forth to the track (I still do that with the IP3 car).

Why did I change classes?  In all honesty, being the only one out there was great if/when I was passing a few IP3 cars, but at the end of the day, I was still  on my own.  Running in IP3 this year has been a huge learning curve all over again, as it is a busy, competitive, challenging and above all -- exciting class.  

Would IP4 work?  Absolutely, but as everyone knows, getting people to the track is hard enough, let alone getting them to put their Cx/Dx Honda on the track.  The aftermarket support is heavily geared to the Si models, hence the popularity amongst the tuner crowd.

What we need is for someone to build 12 or 14 cars (Yes, you Curt) and bring them all to the track just like the old Proformance Corollas.  Flip a coin, take your pick of cars and off you go.  

If the class doesn't hurt or cost anyone/anything by remaining on the books for another year, lets leave it.

My opinion only,

Jason Nash

Chris, it's been 4 years since we've had more than 1 car on the track at a time in IP4 (last time was October 2007).  Do we really need another year to know the numbers aren't there?

By way of comparison, how many years did we run two (and sometimes one) Formula Vee. Now look at the participation.

Eliminating classes isn't necessarily the answer (though I'd agree we should get rid of the AS class due to lack of interest. Encouraging folks to participate in the classes that are there is. IP-4 may have insignificant entries at the moment but that doesn't mean it's dead.

Also, any class we eliminate could be recognized again if there's sufficient interest.

Looks like the Conference guys have simplified everything.
I notice this concept is now used in motorcycle racing and even boat racing.

http://www.race-st.com/

Interesting, but I think this belongs in the IPE discussion thread.

Well seeing as my name has been mentioned on a couple of occasions (and not in a derogatory manner!) I feel obliged to add my opinion.
I am pleased to see Jason's comments because it was his (or people in his situation) involvement in lapping days and a couple of other cars that I knew of which could easily be made into racecars that prompted me to suggest the IP4 class. His migration from lapping to IP4 to IP3 is a classic example of what I had imagined. Dave/Doodson's old car (which I sold to Dood!) was another example and if Wayne had asked me I would have told him to run IP4 (legally) instead of spending a lot of money (for fuel cell and carbs and cam etc.) to run GTL where he is totally uncompetitive. I wonder if we might not have seen more of him this year if he had made the IP4 choice?
I think Paul/Dave/Jason have all shown that there is still a place for the class. Incidentally it was never my intention to run in IP4 I just thought it would be good as an entry level class.
I currently have a stock1986 CRX (almost rust free) and an almost complete 'bolt in' roll cage. If someone would like to start racing next year I'll sell them the car, the cage and a set of wheels (with better tires than Doodson started with) for $1200. Such a car would not be embarrassed in IP4 and it is a little cheaper than any IP3 car that I have seen  ;).

Not to hijack, but on the topic of rule changes, from what I've seen the conference guys seem to have the correct formula, with regards to to vehicle groupings being based on power to weight and not strictly engine displacement. On the flip side, the sccbc weekend scheduling is superior than ICSCC, in my humble opinion.
As for IP4, if it doesn't cost a bundle to keep active, keep it. The time will come when the newer econoboxes will start to show up, and if the engine displacement rule will still be around, they wont have a class to run in as many are in the 1500 cc range. Maybe a comparison of what the yearly costs of maintaining the class vs. the cost of restarting it down the road should be considered.

John

IP4 is currently restricted to OEM throttle body fuel injection, so you are never going to see any cars newer than what's already out there under the current rules.  Also under the current rules there's no provision for carbed cars, so you may want to consider holding off with the '86 CRX or getting the rules changed to make it legal, Keith :-).

I'll just point out again that there hasn't been any actual racing in IP4 since 2007, which was the last time that there was actually more than one car on the track in class.

There seems to have been an omission in the printing of the IP4 rules as we had intended to include any OEM carb-ed car with a displacement of 1500cc or less AS WELL as a OEM T.B. F.I. equipped vehicles. In fact it's my recollection that except for one competitor who ditched IP4 to move to IP3 after an engine swap that the only other competitors in that class have been carb-ed cars.(just my recollection though) I know we had made the class inclusive of those cars specifically because that was what was (and is) running at the time.  

The rule as written:

"IP4 - vehicles with engine displacement up to 1500 cc and OEM Throttle Body injection"

Seems to me that this specifically allows throttle body injected cars that are under 1500cc.

Despite what is written (and what was intended )how do you account for all the IP4 cars that have by your reckoning participated "illegally" because we/they didn't have T.B. F.I. but instead run the OEM carb ???

My point is that you should change the wording of the rule to match the intent so that idiots like me don't get confused as to what can race in the class.

And I would say that nobody noticed that there were illegal cars in IP4 because nobody cared.  If the class gets more cars like you're saying it will, people will start caring and then that sloppily written rule will bite hard.

As Paul stated the class was meant to include single carbed cars (CRX,Civic,Tercel,Mazdas,Hyundai etc.) but the CACC secretary (I believe it was Sheree Wall at that time) got it wrong. This was pointed out to her, but it never got fixed. I'm sure the minutes of the meeting will confirm what I proposed ::). Being the person that suggested the class, I know how it should have read and as Paul was at the meeting and remembers what was proposed then it should only be a technicality to get it fixed.
Jordy, sorry for the confusion, see you at the meeting.

If we choose to keep IP4 as a Championship Class in CACC , We also will then need to change the wording of the Rule.
IP4 Engine Disp, up to 1500cc ,
This then will allow all makes and models prepared to the IP rules to compete ,,,
This also brings up an New Problem
If there was only one IP4 Competitor, According to how the Club Championship is Determined , You could win your class championship in CACC and the club championship never competing against anyone. 9 points times 10 events = 90 points, 3 ICSCC events in another poorly attended class G or H production=27 points , For a total of 117 points, SCCBC club championship for 2011 was 115 points , and was strongly contested
The race Regs 14-1 does not break down a min car count in class to determin a Champion
The SCCBC Club Championship is the same

CW had 117 competitors
This directly effects 117 competitors
we all need to take a look at the BIG picture
We also should consider changing the race regs rule 14.1
Min of 3 cars in class to determin a champion
Changing this rule will aslo effect   SR and FL
This IP issue brings up so many problems




 

The SCCBC may need to look at the rules for the various club championships. Ask the executive about this.
I am hoping that someone has submitted a written proposal  for the changes to the CACC rules.
CACC and SCCBC championships are two different things.
Why not just adopt the SCCA Northwest region IT rules? We could grandfather the existing cars for one season. The major differences are the brake upgrades allowed in IP. Canadian market only cars, if there are any would have to be a side issue. This could fix a few issues with IP and maybe help with some of the GTS preparation rules.

Jim,
Not necessarily a bad idea, one problem though is that SCCA IT eligibility is very specific to allow only certain vehicles. It was one of the driving reasons for not completely adopting the IT rules before. The rules in IP allow for any NA production vehicle to be eligible so long as they meet the displacement, weight and prep rules.
And unfortunately the way the the GTS rules are currently written, an IT prepped car is still not acceptable i.e.: needs fuel cell, window clips, fuel system etc, etc.

Lorenzo, I proposed adopting SCCA IT rules a few years back and it was voted down by a large margin.  If somebody were to propose adopting SCCA IT rules this year, I would be in favour.  None of the existing competitive IP cars would become uncompetitive under the rule change, and a *ton* of cars that aren't competitive in IP would become competitive.

I think if we went this route we would have to add in the ITE class that's been proposed, because a few of our IP1 cars don't fall into an IT class.

If I remember correctly, every car that's currently raced at Mission in IP is placed competitively in an IT class, with the exception of a few of the IP1 cars.  They wouldn't be racing against anybody that they weren't racing against before the change, so I don't think they would mind.

If there's interest, I can go through the starting grids from the last few years and show who would go where, but off the top of my head:

ITE:

1x Corvette Z06
1x 330is (might be in ITR, is the one that races at Mission a '01-'06 non-ZHP model?)

Total car count: 2, plus any other entrants that take advantage of the new class.  Marc?

ITR:

2x Integra Type-R
1x S2000
1x 325is
1x E30 M3

Total car count: 5

ITS:

4x '92 Integra GS-R
1x Del Sol VTEC

Total car count: 5

ITA:

Basically every IP3 car that isn't a GS-R or Del Sol VTEC

Total car count: 6+

ITB/ITC:

IP4 cars

Well, if it makes sense and the membership can be convinced then give it a whirl.

Jordy Isaak wrote on Nov 3^rd, 2011 at 5:17am:

Lorenzo, I proposed adopting SCCA IT rules a few years back and it was voted down by a large margin.  If somebody were to propose adopting SCCA IT rules this year, I would be in favour.  None of the existing competitive IP cars would become uncompetitive under the rule change, and a *ton* of cars that aren't competitive in IP would become competitive. I think if we went this route we would have to add in the ITE class that's been proposed, because a few of our IP1 cars don't fall into an IT class. If I remember correctly, every car that's currently raced at Mission in IP is placed competitively in an IT class, with the exception of a few of the IP1 cars.  They wouldn't be racing against anybody that they weren't racing against before the change, so I don't think they would mind. If there's interest, I can go through the starting grids from the last few years and show who would go where, but off the top of my head: ITE: 1x Corvette Z06 1x 330is (might be in ITR, is the one that races at Mission a '01-'06 non-ZHP model?) Total car count: 2, plus any other entrants that take advantage of the new class.  Marc? ITR: 2x Integra Type-R 1x S2000 1x 325is 1x E30 M3 Total car count: 5 ITS: 4x '92 Integra GS-R 1x Del Sol VTEC Total car count: 5 ITA: Basically every IP3 car that isn't a GS-R or Del Sol VTEC Total car count: 6+ ITB/ITC: IP4 cars

+1 for this idea. Is there anyway a member can cast a, absentee vote? Living in the interior+conflicting schedule.

Jordy,  Iam not totally opposed to adopting the Scca IT Rules.
There are some cars with the grandfathered IP rulues , who run big brakes,  smaller wheel sizes,  battery placement,body trim.IT Rules would effect these cars, If The car is not classified within the SCCA Rule book it would not be eligible .  This would break up the IP3 Grid into 2 parts ITA/ITS ,  I have one of each car and would not be effected,I think we have to accept one or the other, not a mix of both rule books.

How many cars with big brakes etc are we talking about? Creating an IPE class based on the Scca Nwr ITE rules would let everybody keep running and allow newly built cars not listed in the IT rules compete..

I did a bit of research on what cars currently run and where they would go if we switched to SCCA IT + ITE classes.  It's a pretty big tangent so I've started a new thread.

Curt, you make good points.  I've tried to address them in the new thread.