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.

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 ???

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.

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.

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

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



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

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..