PDA

View Full Version : On the nature of rules and racing



Scooter
02-02-2004, 07:10 PM
------------
Come race with us in Xsanctiong_bodyX. You can run whatever size wheels you want, and you can convert to a Mass Air Sensor. Starting in 2004, all of our classes will be based on power to weight ratios. You can run a jet engine* if you want.
------------

So I see a lot of people complaining about the complexity of the rules and regs in the SCCA. Especially compared with other, newer, sanctioning bodies. (This is fine, of course, people can have their opinions about whatever they want.) However, it seems to me that what happens a lot of the time is that sanctioning bodies want to start racing with a wide-open, run what ya brung kind of style. Which is really cool for a little while. Nobody's car is really prepared to the extent of whatever few rules there are, and everybody is just out there having a good time. Great. (Probably like the SCCA in the early 60's?) Then what happens is that someone with a little extra money to spend, and a little more time on their hands builds something that dominates the class and everyone agress that whatever "that" is, it should be outlawed immediately. This leads to more and more rules as time passes, that everyone mostly agrees are in everyone's best interest.

Then the next thing ya know, you have a mature rules set that actually tries very hard to make racing fair for everyone. This is where the SCCA is now. (The good sign of this, btw, is when there starts to be 100 classes of racing in a day.)

Import drag racing started up just like that. Few rules or classes, just kids off the street goofing off. Cool. Now everyone has to have helmets and everything.

So, all I'm saying is that I'd really rather build a car to a very solid, if very complicated rules set, than to one that is not mature, and will undoubtedly change very quickly and expensively. Many, many hours have been spent trying to make good rules in our club, and I appreciate that. That's why I'm an SCCA guy. And I'm not even old.

*Original post did not say 'jet engine.' It said, 'feeblefetzer.' No, wait. '100mpg carburetor.'

Turfer
02-02-2004, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Scooter:
------------
I see a lot of people complaining about the complexity of the rules and regs in the SCCA. Especially compared with other, newer, sanctioning bodies.

Just curious. Any "other, newer" sanctioning bodies in the NW that you are being less than specific about? Or is this post directed, in general, at the "other" national for profit sanctioning body?

Rick

Knestis
02-02-2004, 07:55 PM
To be fair, Rick, he COULD be talking about the Conference RS rules - even if I don't think that he is.

I'm in the unique position of having been at the table - literally, over pizza and beer - when the RS rules were originally drafted for NW Region. The most recent angst re: rotary equivalents and back seats(?) is a natural progression in this game.

The same dynamic is at work as the NASA Honda Challenge prepares to run its first season as a "national" category. Or it could be the PCA appropriation of the ITE rules in NW Region, if you want an example within SCCA...

K

Scooter
02-02-2004, 08:07 PM
I'm really just talking about the nature of rules in general. I'm not trying to point fingers at anyone. I think that almost all sanctioning bodies have this happen. The only exception being contests that never get very popular, or rules that are copied directly from a mature sanctioning body.

I think that the SCCA and the NHRA are examples of sanctioning bodies that sort of successfully managed the transition from wide-open to restricted classes. For instance, in the NHRA there are classes where you drag race someone to beat them, but you can't go faster than some set time. What the hell is that? Well, it's a popular class...

I can think of 5 or 6 younger sanctioning bodies right now off the top of my head that might fit the description. And I'm not really trying to discourage them, I just think that if people understand what's really going on, they might be more willing to put up with a bunch of rules that we know work. (Generally speaking, of course.)

Also along those lines, I think that one of the most important things the SCCA can do in IT is guard against rules creep. You should always be able to drive your IT car on the street. For one thing, you HAVE to have an entry-level street car kind of class. HAVE to. For another, if the rules keep changing, and the class keeps getting more expensive, then you're just like the young sanctioning bodies, and people will eventually leave and go race where the rules are *stricter.* (Like spec Miata!)

Scooter
02-02-2004, 08:18 PM
-------
I'm in the unique position of having been at the table - literally, over pizza and beer - when the RS rules were originally drafted for NW Region.
-------

Wow, really? Are both you guys from NWR? I thought I was the only one from around here who read this stuff!

My first car, that I bought from Dave Gaylord, ran in RS as a secondary class. I think that there is always room for a class that's really open, rules-wise.

Knestis
02-02-2004, 08:56 PM
I lived in Seattle until four years ago when I came to the east coast to go to graduate school. I ran regionals and Conference races in a variety of stuff back in the late '80s and early '90s, before co-driving in rally cars for a bunch of years. I actually got in a rally car about the time Rick got out...

K

Turfer
02-02-2004, 09:19 PM
Originally posted by Scooter:
-------
Wow, really? Are both you guys from NWR? I thought I was the only one from around here who read this stuff!


Kirk was originally but now he resides on the "other" coast. I like to lurk around mostly.

I agree your feelings regarding the stability of rules, especially regardign safety. I often wonder if our high insurance rates reflect the local dirt/paved short tracks having an incredibly low regard for basic safety equipment and an incident rate that I perceive to much higher than RR.

Conference RS rules??? That could be thread hijack type talk. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

Rick

zracer22
02-03-2004, 11:52 AM
Here's my $0.02 since Scooter started this thread by referencing one of my posts in another thread. http://forums.improvedtouring.com/it/Forum...TML/000610.html (http://forums.improvedtouring.com/it/Forum2/HTML/000610.html)

Here are the reasons behind our (GTS Challenge) run what ya brung rules.

1. Many racers enjoy making their cars faster but most rules won't allow it.

2. It works. GTS Challenge has managed to take cars from 40+ different classes in several different clubs and put them into 5 very competitive GTS classes.

3. How can you cheat with "run what ya brung" rules? All it takes is a set of scales and a n occassional dyno run to 100% police the rules.

4. Do I even have to list all the stupid rules in SCCA that no longer apply under our rules? (passenger door glass, no more then 8 point cage, 13 and 14" wheels, etc...)

"Then the next thing ya know, you have a mature rules set that actually tries very hard to make racing fair for everyone. This is where the SCCA is now." That was meant as a joke, right?

"So, all I'm saying is that I'd really rather build a car to a very solid, if very complicated rules set, than to one that is not mature, and will undoubtedly change very quickly and expensively." On what factual evidence do you base that statement? Our open end rules give everyone the chance to win in class. Those who aren't competitive will be those that decided not to alter their car so that they can still run in PCA, BMWCCA or SCCA. Or they can't drive.

Knestis
02-03-2004, 12:23 PM
Whether it's desirable or not, "factual evidence" is neither necessary nor available, where it comes to supporting the thesis advanced in the original post: Historical evidence supports it but, in fairness, only time will tell if the same thing will happen to the GTS Challenge.

I would argue that, despite evidence to the contrary, the DESIRE to make the IT rules fair and enforcable is indeed behind the muddle that we're currently in. The fact that the system "tries hard to make racing fair for everyone" has led to a process grounded in the assumption that any member can ask for something, and that any change that DOES take place is incremental: The GCR and ITCS grow and morph literally line by line, without any strategic planning.

A brand new concept like GTS has the luxury of being the brainchild of a few like-minded individuals (or even a czar) and reflect NOTHING but strategic planning. The rules set doesn't have to reflect the narrow desires of a lot of members - a great place to be in but not one that has to accommodate tactical changes...

Out of curiousity, are there any rules tweaks planned for Year 2 of the GTS Challenge?

K

JohnRW
02-03-2004, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by zracer22:
Our open end rules give everyone the chance to win in class. Those who aren't competitive will be those that decided not to alter their car so that they can still run in PCA, BMWCCA or SCCA.

Just like drag racing - the guy with the biggest wallet wins.

zracer22
02-03-2004, 02:04 PM
Originally posted by JohnRW:
Just like drag racing - the guy with the biggest wallet wins.



Not exactly. The big wallet will buy you more HP or lighter parts, which will continue to move you to another class until you finally reach GTSU. GTSU is the class that has Porsche GT3 Cup cars, BMW B-C Mods, etc and everyone there has a big wallet. Classes GTS1-4 have weight/power restrictions that will keep cars competitive.

Peter Olivola
02-03-2004, 02:41 PM
How long before someone cares enough to figure out the best combination of power to weight ratio, frontal area/drag, etc., and you're reduced to a single car winning everything? Followed by new rules to try to equalize all the disadvantaged cars. Thus proving the point.


Originally posted by zracer22:
Not exactly. The big wallet will buy you more HP or lighter parts, which will continue to move you to another class until you finally reach GTSU. GTSU is the class that has Porsche GT3 Cup cars, BMW B-C Mods, etc and everyone there has a big wallet. Classes GTS1-4 have weight/power restrictions that will keep cars competitive.

Dyno
02-03-2004, 02:45 PM
What if I showed up with, say, an SCCA GT3 or 4 tube frame car with coilovers, big brakes, and slicks, and bolted some lead to the floor. Would I race against showroom stock Honda Accords?

Would a shifter kart be in the same class, assuming similar power-to-weight ratio?

zracer22
02-03-2004, 02:57 PM
Originally posted by Peter Olivola:
How long before someone cares enough to figure out the best combination of power to weight ratio, frontal area/drag, etc., and you're reduced to a single car winning everything? Followed by new rules to try to equalize all the disadvantaged cars. Thus proving the point.


This isn't pro racing. No body will be putting their car in a wind tunnel. No set of rules can ever totally cancel big wallet factor. But what our rules prevents is the problem that plagues IT racing, where an E36 with minimal prep can kick the crap out of a 944 or E30 prepped to the max. You can spend all day thinking of exceptions to the rule, but the truth is, that 99.9% of the cars that race are not exceptions to the rule. In GTS Challenge, there is no "car to beat". Instead our focus is on driver and car tuning skills.

zracer22
02-03-2004, 03:03 PM
Originally posted by Dyno:
What if I showed up with, say, an SCCA GT3 or 4 tube frame car with coilovers, big brakes, and slicks, and bolted some lead to the floor. Would I race against showroom stock Honda Accords? Good question..... We have in our rules, that slicks are an automatic class bump. It's up to the entrant to choose. BTW, no Hondas allowed. German makes only, Audi, BMW, Mercedes, and Porsche. This also eliminates another variable; FWD.


Originally posted by Dyno:

Would a shifter kart be in the same class, assuming similar power-to-weight ratio?

Stupid question.....All cars must meet NASA/SCCA safety regulations.

Knestis
02-03-2004, 03:10 PM
Sorry - again, are the GTS Challenge rules for 2004 the same as last year?

K

JohnRW
02-03-2004, 03:20 PM
Originally posted by zracer22:
Those who aren't competitive will be those that decided not to alter their car so that they can still run in PCA, BMWCCA or SCCA.

If you want to be competitive, you must prep your car to GTS limits, which will probably knock you out of ITnormal and dump you in ITE or SP if you want to race SCCA. Similar impact on the other sanctioning bodies. How is that a positive ? Much of the criticism of IT is that the prep levels don't match those of other series, so those affected people either: 1. Can't build the cars they would like to build or 2. End up in a class where they aren't competitive if they do make those mods. GTS is, is seems, in the same boat. The logic, if not circular, is at least an oblate spheroid.


Originally posted by zracer22:
In GTS Challenge, there is no "car to beat". Instead our focus is on driver and car tuning skills.

Strong disagreement here. Unless everybody is driving Miatas or SRF's, and cars are classed solely by weight and hp, then there CERTAINLY will be a "killer car" in each class.

I just don't see how this is any different that what we have in IT today, albeit in a larval stage.

Edit: Not just being gratuitously argumentative here...in the last year I've raced with SCCA, SCCA Pro, EMRA, NASA and Midwest Council.

[This message has been edited by JohnRW (edited February 03, 2004).]

zracer22
02-03-2004, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Sorry - again, are the GTS Challenge rules for 2004 the same as last year?

K

Kirk, No. We are putting the final touches to them and then they will be posted on the website. Last year we just classed cars according to their Club (PCA or BMW) classes. Our goal was to see if there was enough interest in series like GTS Challenge. And there was.

zracer22
02-03-2004, 03:37 PM
Originally posted by JohnRW:
[B]
I just don't see how this is any different that what we have in IT today, albeit in a larval stage.
B]

In SCCA IT, the CRXsi made the 1st gen Rx7 obsolete, the E36 325i made the E30, 944 and others obsolete.

This can't happen in our rules. An E30 would only be in class with an E36 if there was an appropriate weight difference to account for the huge HP difference.

If anyone dominates in GTS, you can bet that the human factor will have much more to do with it than the mechanical factors.

You'll never enter a GTS race, look at the entry sheet and say "looks like I'm racing for 7th this weekend", because six E36 BMWs are listed. (extreme, but you get the point)

example:
http://www.wdcr-scca.org/results/results.c...ndex.htm?030202 (http://www.wdcr-scca.org/results/results.cgi/results/index.htm?030202)




[This message has been edited by zracer22 (edited February 03, 2004).]

Knestis
02-03-2004, 04:53 PM
I liked the simplicity of just translating the NASA/PCA/BMWCCA/SCCA rules straight to the GTS classes. It looks like you're going to a straight weight/power formula - what was the thinking behind that?

I still wish that VWs were fancy enough for the series. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

Peter Olivola
02-03-2004, 05:12 PM
As long as you don't ever want to develop this into a national championship program you might be able to dodge the bullet for some time. I don't think your faith in the immutability of the premise is justified, but good luck to you.


Originally posted by zracer22:
This isn't pro racing. No body will be putting their car in a wind tunnel. No set of rules can ever totally cancel big wallet factor. But what our rules prevents is the problem that plagues IT racing, where an E36 with minimal prep can kick the crap out of a 944 or E30 prepped to the max. You can spend all day thinking of exceptions to the rule, but the truth is, that 99.9% of the cars that race are not exceptions to the rule. In GTS Challenge, there is no "car to beat". Instead our focus is on driver and car tuning skills.

zracer22
02-03-2004, 05:15 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I liked the simplicity of just translating the NASA/PCA/BMWCCA/SCCA rules straight to the GTS classes. It looks like you're going to a straight weight/power formula - what was the thinking behind that?


PCA Stock and BMW CCA Stock rules mandate that interiors, A/C, etc... remain intact. This is a huge wieght disadvantage for those cars. BMW CCA Prepared rules are similar to IT rules, but they are allowed cams and bigger wheels. An ITS 944 would be a GT car in PCA. Basically, between SCCA and PCA or SCCA and BMWCCA you could have 3-4 very different configs of the same car. For whatever reason, people prep their cars to various levels. A BMWCCA KS (stock) E30 325i is SCCA ITS legal but could never be competitive against an ITS E30, while an ITS E30 would run in BMWCCA KP(Prepared) with no chance at being competitve with a fully prepped KP E30. Looking at those examples, what is the biggest variable? Answer: The weight to power ratio! By classing according to weight to power ratio, we are saying that you can run your PCA Stock 944 in GTS1, or you can unbolt a couple hundred pounds and run in GTS2.
Our rules don't guarantee that you will be competitive, but they certainly make it possible.


Originally posted by Knestis:

I still wish that VWs were fancy enough for the series. http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

You never know!!!!

zracer22
02-03-2004, 05:29 PM
Originally posted by Peter Olivola:
As long as you don't ever want to develop this into a national championship program you might be able to dodge the bullet for some time.
We have no idea how this may or may not evolve. Right now, GTS Challenge is just a place to come and get a ton of track time and a good price, have a chance to finish on the podium, have fun and meet new people. The BMWCCA guys love racing against the Porsche guys and vice versa.

Who knows, you guys may be right and this could flop. But we won't know until we try.



Originally posted by Peter Olivola:
I don't think your faith in the immutability of the premise is justified

This made me think of one of my favorite lines from Blazin' Saddles when Slim Pickens says to Harvey Korman, "You use yer tongue purtier than a 20 doller whore!"

gsbaker
02-03-2004, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Scooter:
...For instance, in the NHRA there are classes where you drag race someone to beat them, but you can't go faster than some set time. What the hell is that?

It's Bracket Racing, and it's a hoot! I did some when I was in college, but there were no classes then.

It's drive what ya brung, with random pairings of competitors. When you sign in you must claim an ET, but if your real ET is more than 0.10 seconds faster you are eliminated. The tree is set to launch the two cars with a delay corresponding to the difference between the claimed ETs.

The best race I saw was some old geezer in a 1962 Chevy II (4 cylinder, automatic) matched up against a "rail." The rail had to wait nearly 13 seconds for the green. The geezer won.

Great fun.

------------------
Gregg Baker, P.E.
Isaac, LLC
http://www.isaacdirect.com

zracer22
02-03-2004, 06:05 PM
Back in the 80s I lived on the Maryland Eastern Shore. I had a neighbor that would race is everyday chevy pickup at the dragstrip in Delmar, Delaware. His truck was a 1979 1/2 ton with an auto transmission that he used evryday in his constuction business. He'd take out his tools and go racing. Most weeks he would come home with a trophy. There was nothing funnier than watching his side of the tree go green 10 seconds before the other side.

JohnRW
02-03-2004, 06:21 PM
Roadracing 'bracket racing' has been done before - look up the 'Canada G.T. Challenge Cup' series. Usually shared the track facility with them at the Mosport SCCA Nat'l, in the past. Series passed into oblivion in 2002.

Very cool series. Rule book was about 2 pages long - go faster than a certain time and you get kicked up a class, IIRC. Wild stuff showed up - old Trans-Am cars, new Ultima (GTP look-alikes), turbo VW bugs, Porsche GT1's (think 'big snorkle on the roof'...), etc. - http://www.theracesite.com/index.cfm?paget...rm_article=3410 (http://www.theracesite.com/index.cfm?pagetype=2&form_article=3410)

Guess what ? The guys with the biggest wallets won.

I do wish GTS luck. That said, and racers being racers, it won't be long before there will be pressures on rules and 'equalization'. All of which will sound like all of the whining that the internet offers, in spades.

zracer22
02-03-2004, 07:51 PM
I don't quite see how GTS challenge rules have anything in common with "bracket racing". No body is given a head start based on their performance potential. Instead, we are equalizing performance potential by using the two great performance attributes; weight and HP.
Many very successful race series are based on power to weight ratios.
NASCAR, IRL, Grand AM DP, and others all have minimum weights and HP limiting rules. BMW CCA and PCA have always based their classes on power to weight ratios. (with a few exceptions)

Peter Olivola
02-03-2004, 07:53 PM
The alternative wouldn't be tolerated, but I think you get the picture.


Originally posted by zracer22:
This made me think of one of my favorite lines from Blazin' Saddles when Slim Pickens says to Harvey Korman, "You use yer tongue purtier than a 20 doller whore!"

Scooter
02-03-2004, 07:59 PM
Originally posted by zracer22:
Here's my $0.02 since Scooter started this thread by referencing one of my posts in another thread.

I really wasn't trying to pick on the GTS Challenge series. (Although it is a case in point.) And plus, like I said, at the beginning of the series it's a lot of fun with fewer rules. A series with BMWs, Porsches and Audis and practically unlimited modifications doesn't really sound very budget-conscious, but I know very few actual poor people racing anyway.



"Then the next thing ya know, you have a mature rules set that actually tries very hard to make racing fair for everyone. This is where the SCCA is now." That was meant as a joke, right?

No, not really. That's what the comp board tries to do. That's their whole job. It's just frustrating because they're trying not to move the bar on us every 5 minutes. We expect that they should see the light on everything we think of, and implement it immediately. This is neither possible nor responsible.

The whole idea of weight adjustments for IT cars is an example of a seemingly simple idea that is, I think, pretty complicated. It seems like you could just adjust the weights of the E36 BMWs to make them a little slower since they're usually killing everyone in ITS. But then everyone wants their car adjusted, too. And the original intent of the rules was that you take a stock car's weight and subtract a little for taking out the interior and whatever, (plus a little magic that I don't understand) and that's the race weight of the car. The weight was supposed to be based on the stock car, not on whether or not it would run within .5 seconds of every other car in it's class.

So then in order to change the rules to make people happy, you have to change the philosophy of weight. Now it's supposed to make every (!) car competitive. But that ITC Rabbit is like 25 years old. We have to make that competitive with the CRXs? What about the guy who wants to run his Chrysler TC by Maserati? Should it's weight be 1500lbs?

Point is, yes, they try very hard to make the rules fair. It's hard.

(My solution, btw, is another class between ITS and ITA, and adjustable weights, but only within a certain limit of the original factory weight of the car.)

Scooter
02-03-2004, 08:12 PM
Originally posted by zracer22:
I don't quite see how GTS challenge rules have anything in common with "bracket racing".

My point was that the reason there is bracket racing, is because of extreme rules maturity in drag racing. There are a lot of classes of bracket racers now, and even semi-pro E.T. racers where people race against each other but are limited to a certain E.T. Like an 8.5 or whatever. A very limiting, but popular, rules set.

There is always some new series that starts up, (like Pro Modified) but it always ends up the same way. I personally believe it's an immutable law of the rules of competition. It's the nature of people and competitiveness.

racer_tim
02-03-2004, 08:57 PM
There is bracket racing in SCCA. It's called SRF and SM.

True bracket racing would be very difficult in a road racing environment, but I have seen it work in Solo 1's.




------------------
Tim Linerud
San Francisco Region SCCA
#95 GP Wabbit (Bent)
http://linerud.myvnc.com/racing/index.html

lateapex911
02-04-2004, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by Scooter:
....... But then everyone wants their car adjusted, too. And the original intent of the rules was that you take a stock car's weight and subtract a little for taking out the interior and whatever, (plus a little magic that I don't understand) and that's the race weight of the car. The weight was supposed to be based on the stock car, not on whether or not it would run within .5 seconds of every other car in it's class.

So then in order to change the rules to make people happy, you have to change the philosophy of weight. Now it's supposed to make every (!) car competitive. But that ITC Rabbit is like 25 years old. We have to make that competitive with the CRXs? What about the guy who wants to run his Chrysler TC by Maserati? Should it's weight be 1500lbs?

Point is, yes, they try very hard to make the rules fair. It's hard.


(My solution, btw, is another class between ITS and ITA, and adjustable weights, but only within a certain limit of the original factory weight of the car.)

Scooter, you make an excellent case, and really, your commentary is one I agree with wholeheartedly.

The SCCA has a much tougher battle than NASA, as they are servicing an audience that wants to run cars that represent a much broader technological base.

The GTS challenge is trying to work with a very limited sample, and then divideds them into greater divisions, but they will still run into the overdog/underdog situation, and the wallet will surely be a major factor. I wonder, this whole power to weight ratio thing...how will they police inventive racers who have switchable power curves? The old secret switch that cuts out 30 hp? And don't tell me it can't be done, or it won't be done! It can and will.

Anyway, I do disagree slightly with your thoughts on the philosophy of the initial weight set. You said "plus a little majic that I don't understand", and I think that hits the nail on the head. I think the CRB has tried to create an equal playing field, but they are hampered by a lack of a crystal ball, as there are just too many intangibles to accurately predict actual performance on a multitude of tracks. In the begining, IT was created, along with other reasons, to give retiring SS cars a place to race. The classification of those cars was easier, as their on track perforance was a known. That case is the exception today, as the class has become very popular and the bulk of cars never saw SS duty.

I don't think the basic philosophy has changed, but that time has changed the situation, and a safety net is being installed to give the CRB an opportunity to remedy obvious issues.

I do not think that anyone invlved in the PCA concept has any desire or intention of creating a scenario where all models will have an equal chance, or even one where all models will be treated fairly. That's just impossible considering the scope involved here. But I do think that there is a desire to right some obvious wrongs, and while there will never be a completely equal playing field, the scales will end up being more balanced.

And given the scope and complexity of the situation, thats all we can ask for.



------------------
Jake Gulick
CarriageHouse Motorsports
ITA 57 RX-7
New England Region
[email protected]

Knestis
02-04-2004, 09:12 AM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
...I do not think that anyone invlved in the PCA concept has any desire or intention of creating a scenario where all models will have an equal chance, or even one where all models will be treated fairly.

This is treading on thin topical ice but, while I agree with you, Jake about their desires, the actual substance of a rule change in this respect will be rooted in what is allowed to "trigger" the PCA process. The very first time that a member is allowed - formally or through back channels - to request, nudge, initiate, suggest, hint, beg, buy, or steal PCA consideration for his or her car, the barn door is open and there is NO way that all of the horses will be saved.

I'll watch the progress of the GTS Challenge - and all of the others - with interest. I too wonder how the dyno process will work, particularly since it ups the cost of tech inspections both in time and direct expense. If that challenge is effectively met, it might become a useful model.

Further, people need to get it through their heads that there is only one policy option that will act to directly limit costs in a racing class - a claim rule. That has even less of a chance of flying in a PCA/BMWCCA setting than it would in a SCCA/NASA paddock, that is to say less than zero.

Any other rule can only encourage or discourage specific spending behaviors, by limiting the return on investment but over, and over, and over, and over, racers have proven that they will spend everything that they have available - and often more - for even marginal gains. Or no gains.

K

cherokee
02-04-2004, 02:18 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
The very first time that a member is allowed - formally or through back channels - to request, nudge, initiate, suggest, hint, beg, buy, or steal PCA consideration for his or her car, the barn door is open and there is NO way that all of the horses will be saved.



I agree with this....and with the current system you know it will happen. Getting something changed for a car should require a VAST number of people to sign off on it. Not just people in official offices of the club but everyone from corner workers to drivers to timing and scoring....from various parts of the country.

Tom Donnelly
02-04-2004, 02:19 PM
"This isn't pro racing. No body will be putting their car in a wind tunnel"

I have to agree about the mature rules issue.
Money does buy development and raises the bar.

Don't for one minute think that someone hasn't already put an IT car in a wind tunnel.

And not just an ITS car either. When you have teams willing to spend $20k plus on engine development/dyno time and the same or more on shock development, wind tunnel time is just p$%%ing in the wind comparatively.

Tom

[This message has been edited by Tom Donnelly (edited February 04, 2004).]

zracer22
02-04-2004, 02:42 PM
You guys are missing the point. Sure, you can cheat on the dyno, but who cares. Our intention isn't to stop cheaters, we have better things to do with our time. Rules aren't written for those that cheat, they are written for those that follow them. There will always be cheaters in all of racing.

You all have put way too much thought into this. And since when has everyone been so happy with the way SCCA IT cars are classes? GTS rules are designed to take care of the obvious flaws in IT and to be PCA and BMWCCA friendly.

Your making the same mistake that we did when we first started GTS. We looked at it strictly with the SCCA IT state of mind. After 2 or 3 GTS events, we quickly realized that we needed to get over our SCCA issues and focus on the 95% of our entrants that come from BMWCCA and PCA.

There has been lots of wordy opinions and theories in this thread, but how many of them are based on practical, personal experience. "_______ will happen", how do you know? These predictions are based solely on assumptions.

GTS Challenge is %100 racer administrated. EVERY GTS entrant is encouraged to gives us their opinions and suggestions, and they do. Every change or rule that we make is backed by racer input. That's what makes us successful. Just as the lack of such interaction is hurting the SCCA right now.

Banzai240
02-04-2004, 02:47 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
Getting something changed for a car should require a VAST number of people to sign off on it. Not just people in official offices of the club but everyone from corner workers to drivers to timing and scoring....from various parts of the country.

WHAT???!!! http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/eek.gif http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/confused.gif

You have GOT to be kidding!??? Yah, I want them to go to timing and scoring and ask the wife of the guy who works in turn 4, neither of which has ever turned a wheel in a race car themselves, but love racing as a sport so they volunteered, to be even remotely involved in making decisions concerning the performance of MY car...

Now that I've put it into my own words... I'm even more convinced that you HAD to be kidding around and couldn't have POSSIBLY been serious...



------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

RSTPerformance
02-04-2004, 03:03 PM
zracer22

My .02 cents...

No FWD is very disappointing as that eliminates a lot of German cars including mine.

There are no races scheduled in the Northeast http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif

Love the idea of the GTS challenge... seems very cool although I think it is a slight bit misleading. I think your advertising says that you (a customer) will be competitive because we will put you in a class with equal HP and weight cars. You leave out the most important part of Road Racing, which is suspension.

I would argue that only a fully prepped racecar would win in each of your classes. My entire life I have grown up with the knowledge that HP is a small part of the equation. The most important part is the handling of the car. A full prepped GT or Prod car will certainly handle much better than an IT or SS car, thus weight and HP is basically irrelevant. I feel that weight and HP is only a factor if there is an equality of suspension tuning. In our SCCA IT Audi’s on a 1-½ mile road course we have gained about 1-2 seconds a lap (at a stretch) with engine tuning from stock, and we have realistically gained 6-8 seconds a lap with suspension tuning.

Raymond Blethen


------------------
http://rstperformance.bizland.com/rstsignature.jpg
RST Performance Racing
www.rstperformance.com (http://www.rstperformance.com)
1st and 2nd 2003 ITB NARRC Championship
1st and 6th 2003 ITB NERRC Championship
3rd 2003 ITB ARRC Sprint Race
4th 2003 ITB ARRC Endoro
1st 2003 AS NERRC and NARRC Championships

cherokee
02-04-2004, 03:35 PM
Yea...I drove off the cliff to over illustrate my point. Too much power in one persons hands is always a bad thing, and if that person can get his wishes approved by leaning on just a few people thats no better.

zracer22
02-04-2004, 03:50 PM
Originally posted by RSTPerformance:
zracer22

My .02 cents...

No FWD is very disappointing as that eliminates a lot of German cars including mine.

There are no races scheduled in the Northeast http://Forums.ImprovedTouring.com/it/frown.gif

Love the idea of the GTS challenge... seems very cool although I think it is a slight bit misleading. I think your advertising says that you (a customer) will be competitive because we will put you in a class with equal HP and weight cars. You leave out the most important part of Road Racing, which is suspension.

I would argue that only a fully prepped racecar would win in each of your classes.


Yes, your right. But it's because the entrant chooses to run a stock suspension, not because the rules say he must.

Mortheast NASA only has a DE program, but racing is in their future. Beaverun or Summit would be the closest for you.

FWD is allowed, as long as it's on an Audi, BMW, Porsche or Mercedes. We haven't had any FWD cars in GTS yet, but we do have an AWD A4 1.8T
The VW issue is still being discussed, and they may be added in the future.

Turfer
02-04-2004, 04:03 PM
Originally posted by zracer22:
You guys are missing the point. Sure, you can cheat on the dyno, but who cares. Our intention isn't to stop cheaters, we have better things to do with our time. Rules aren't written for those that cheat, they are written for those that follow them.

Is this the back side barn door????

Rick

OTLimit
02-04-2004, 04:10 PM
On getting things changed, and perspective....

Sometimes the benevolent dictatorships work just fine. Isn't WERA (motorcycle) run that way? If it is up to one person to keep the ship afloat, they aren't too likely to rock it very hard or very often.



------------------
Lesley Albin
Over The Limit Racing
Blazen Golden Retrievers

Banzai240
02-04-2004, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by cherokee:
Too much power in one persons hands is always a bad thing, and if that person can get his wishes approved by leaning on just a few people thats no better.

You have to understand how the process works to understand why this point doesn't make any sense.

In IT, for example, your request get discussed by the ITAC and "advice" is given to the CRB. The CRB then discusses and a recommendation is sent to the BoD. The BoD then discusses and gives the final approval/disapproval... There are certainly more than enough people involved in the process.

I think that the fears of any single person having that much influence over these decisions are blown out of proportion. There may have been a couple of isolated incidents in the past, but the only reason they perpetuate is because there hasn't been a valid mechnism to fix the problem.

PCAs are one method to try to remedy that. Not perfect, but better than the one shot to get it right that we have now...


------------------
Darin E. Jordan
SCCA #273080, OR/NW Regions
Renton, WA
ITS '97 240SX
http://home.comcast.net/~djjordan/Web/DJ_AV1.jpg

cherokee
02-04-2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by Banzai240:

In IT, for example, your request get discussed by the ITAC and "advice" is given to the CRB. The CRB then discusses and a recommendation is sent to the BoD. The BoD then discusses and gives the final approval/disapproval...


This is all well and good but would think that if the ITAC represents the IT community then they should be making the final decisions. They are the people that are the most intrested and run with the cars in question. The CRB and the Bod should make recommendations to the ITAC. The CRB and the BoD should advise the different groups on what should be done. Moving SS cars into IT groups when the time comes or adding a new class for example, But the final word should be from the people that are running the cars in question. That way we will be less likely to end up with a Z4 in ITB....if you get my drift.