PDA

View Full Version : IT National Issues Survey



Knestis
03-26-2004, 10:43 PM
I've put together an ad hoc survey asking for feedback on national-level issues relating to Improved Touring.

It is 12 questions long and should take only a few minutes to complete. I would appreciate it if you would do so, at...

http://www.zoomerang.com/recipient/survey-...?p=WEB2EVNWQJYJ (http://www.zoomerang.com/recipient/survey-intro.zgi?p=WEB2EVNWQJYJ)

Thanks in advance for your input!

Kirk

ITSRX7
03-27-2004, 12:18 AM
I am complete. Care to share your hypothesis? IT as a National class or is it something more?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Banzai240
03-27-2004, 12:47 AM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
I am complete.

Me too... Kirk... be sure to keep us up on the results... I'd be interested to see what people have to say...

DJ

Knestis
03-27-2004, 10:34 AM
There is no hypothesis - this is what we call an exploratory study. I just took some broad "national issues" that have been discussed and tried to itemize them, to break up wobbly constructs.

The survey is live for 10 days and I'll share the results when it's all done. Feel free to point others at the instrument, who might not see reference to it here.

Ciao.

K

ddewhurst
03-27-2004, 02:10 PM
To add a little something that fits with a survey.

How many individual IT cars are raced each year & how many races does each IT car do ?

Same question for each National class. Specifically the Production class.

& please don't anyone go into any long winded rants about IT is a Regional only class. Maybe if someone had some FACTS IT deserves a place at the National table. At the very least if someone had the FACTS maybe the SCCA would ask the question if the IT owners/drivers had a desire to have a National class. If my business was the manager of SCCA road racing I would know the FACTS of how many cars raced in each class at Regional & National each year.

I look forward to the survey exploratory study results.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Knestis
03-28-2004, 02:15 PM
If you have posted anything about this on other boards, please let me know where. I want to be able to follow up with results when the survey is done.

Thanks!

Kirk

ddewhurst
03-28-2004, 02:42 PM
Kirk, if your comment is towards my post the answer is I have posted the same info on other sites & there is ZERO response. IMHU the SCCA does not have a clue how many how many active cars exist in IT classes or Production classes. They do the cute stuff about average entries per Division for National classes but that is it.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

ITSRX7
03-28-2004, 04:06 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
IMHU the SCCA does not have a clue how many how many active cars exist in IT classes or Production classes. They do the cute stuff about average entries per Division for National classes but that is it.

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

So you think they fabricate those numbers? If you know that average entries per event, don't you then by definition, know how many cars participate?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

Knestis
03-28-2004, 04:30 PM
Sorry - I was talking about posting the link to the survey on other boards.

BTW, 97 responses to date...

K

gran racing
03-28-2004, 06:52 PM
Too bad the survey doesn't have an "impartial" answer. There were a few questions that I did't really have an opinion either way. But I do realize this is just an exploratory survey.

------------------
Dave Gran
NER #13 ITA
'87 Honda Prelude

miketrier
03-28-2004, 07:39 PM
The ONLY change I would really like to see is to allow IT cars to run in the corresponding Production class for the particular car by amending the rules governing things like passenger door glass etc. A fully prepared, legal IT car (with appropriate safety equipment such as fuel cell, fire bottle, 6 point cage) should be legal for Production, but not vice versa. I saw how making AS into a national class suddenly raised the bar for preparation and cost. We definitely don't need that for IT.

RSTPerformance
03-28-2004, 09:48 PM
I think that the production rules should be altered to allow IT fully prepped cars to be eligable as well without changing doors headlights and what not...

Raymond

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

ddewhurst
03-28-2004, 11:38 PM
***Posted by David***

***They do the cute stuff about average entries per Division for National classes but that is it.***


***Posted by Andy***

***So you think they fabricate those numbers? If you know that average entries per event, don't you then by definition, know how many cars participate?***

Andy, I am open to learning. I didn't say anyone fabricates anything. I said the SCCA does not know how many cars exist in Production. Please show/tell me the factual number of active Production cars that exist in the U.S. Then tell me the factual number of active IT cars that exist in the U.S.

No disrespect to anyone. Pretend I'm from the show me state. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

David

Knestis
03-28-2004, 11:43 PM
While it's pretty clear that the club racing office knows how many entries there are per race, that is a different thing than what I think David is talking about - the number of active cars in each class...

K

Geo
03-28-2004, 11:43 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Kirk, if your comment is towards my post the answer is I have posted the same info on other sites & there is ZERO response. IMHU the SCCA does not have a clue how many how many active cars exist in IT classes or Production classes. They do the cute stuff about average entries per Division for National classes but that is it.


They used to have this information, but the black helicopter crews absconded with it.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Geo
03-28-2004, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
There is no hypothesis

How about agenda?


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

JeffYoung
03-28-2004, 11:48 PM
George, I've seen those helicopters, and they are dark purple. Not black.

Kirk, good idea, as always. I took the survey: bottom line, I don't care if we go national or not, and don't think IT is a stepchild, at least not here in the SeDiv. But, if we did go national, I'd run the races.

ITSRX7
03-28-2004, 11:54 PM
David and Kirk,

What is the difference between an active car and an entry?

Just becasue *I* don't have the numbers, doesn't mean the SCCA doesn't. And if they DID, what would you do with that info?

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

lateapex911
03-29-2004, 12:41 AM
Well, I will throw this out...
(and i know it has a few issues to resolve)

I fail to see how and why we have a regional and national seperation. Do away with it, award points for all classes, and the top 24(?) in participation numbers go to The Runoffs. No matter what!

Institute that and watch all the guys with 2 car classes in GT and Prod stop defending their class and embrace combining classes and other efforts to revitalize their category.

But that's not why I'd do it. If you ask me, the current Runoffs is an embarassment.... a small bunch of old cars with huge differentials between 1st and 10th. No excuse for the small fields we see. If we want SCCA racing to be vital, we need good racing in out premier event, and frankly, most races at the Runoffs are a snooze.


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

Banzai240
03-29-2004, 12:55 AM
Originally posted by ITSRX7:
Just becasue *I* don't have the numbers, doesn't mean the SCCA doesn't. And if they DID, what would you do with that info?

Actually, we'll (the members) be finding out this season, because the BoD mandated the Regions to submit Regional results sometime late last season...



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

RSTPerformance
03-29-2004, 01:02 AM
My Question: What are participation rates in Nationals vs. Regionals and how many more participants would we actually have if we combined the two.

The reasons behind my question:

I agree that we should do away with national/ regional races. Instead I think that there should be a series much like the NAARC in our regioanl series here in the NE that qualifies you for the valvoline runnoffs. The only problem I see is that in some of the classes/ groups we would be over classified. If this is the case then we need to race to qualify and those that don't qualify for the race get there money back so there is no loss in trying to qualify (Much liek circle track). This will definetly make the classes more competitive and increase numbers. And if we have all fully subscribed races then the "event" surely made money so there isn't really a loss by returning some of the entry if they do not qualify to race. I also think that if we did do this keeping only certain race weekends eligable as points to get to the valvoline runnoffs we would keep the feilds lower on those other weekends so that the regional dates will still effectively be the same. In the end we just increase participation and we gain race dates as well!

Stephen

Knestis
03-29-2004, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by Geo:
How about agenda?

Geez - can't a guy be curious? Trust me guys - if I had an agenda on these issues, you would have heard about it. When have I ever NOT spoken up if I believed that something needed to be changed?

So here goes: This entire organization operates on the assumption that every member is going to fight selfishly for every personal advantage he or she can manage. This is a fundamental manifestation of "member-driven organization" and it is massively counterproductive.

The classification process expects that if I want to race a 1954 NSU Prinz, I'll request it. That there might be others out there with other year Prinzs who might want to play is never a consideration: The Comp Board worries only about a "yes" or "no" to my narrow little interest.

Similarly, I ask questions about what seem to be timely issues and people suggest that I have a secret agenda. And it didn't just happen here. Sheesh.

K

EDIT - Re: Andy's question, it is a very different thing to have 20 ITX drivers in a region, each of whom is entering six regionals a year; than it is to have 20-car fields every weekend made up of 40 different drivers, each of whom runs 3 races per season. The entries-per-event number would be identical but the difference suggests an different state of health and set of needs.

[This message has been edited by Knestis (edited March 29, 2004).]

ddewhurst
03-29-2004, 10:37 AM
Dam, I'll neeed to talk with Bennett & see if he secretly ordered those things painted purple.

Darin, this business that the BoD mandated the Regions to submit Regional results sometime late last season has been on the screen for the past couple years. If it happened there would be factual info available if they used the info. Then if they would mandate the same for National results we would know how many active cars exist in the U.S.

Per Andy's question: "What is the difference between an active car and an entry" If I entered & showed up at the track with my car & raced at 12 events during year 2003 I would call that an active car. If the car sat in the garage throughout year 2003 I would not call that an active car. If during year 2003 I entered 12 events & raced at each that would show up on the SCCA charts as 12 entries. When you look at the SCCA charts & see 12 entries or 700 entries how do you know how many cars are active per my description ? How do you look at the 700 entries & determine how many active cars there are in the U.S. ?

Always curious http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

ITSRX7
03-29-2004, 11:04 AM
David,

By your definition, active cars would be included in average car counts. Cars that COULD run but don't are neither active nor included in car counts.

Kirk's explanation is accurate - but it is only a data point heading toward a conclusion. I submit that if you run 3 races a year, your limited not by interest, but by funds or some other factor.

AB

------------------
Andy Bettencourt
06 ITS RX-7
FlatOut Motorsports
New England Region
www.flatout-motorsports.com (http://www.flatout-motorsports.com)

RSTPerformance
03-29-2004, 01:21 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
Per Andy's question: "What is the difference between an active car and an entry" If I entered & showed up at the track with my car & raced at 12 events during year 2003 I would call that an active car. If the car sat in the garage throughout year 2003 I would not call that an active car. If during year 2003 I entered 12 events & raced at each that would show up on the SCCA charts as 12 entries. When you look at the SCCA charts & see 12 entries or 700 entries how do you know how many cars are active per my description ? How do you look at the 700 entries & determine how many active cars there are in the U.S. ?

Always curious http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David



I might be missing something but this seems pretty easy to me. Why couldn't we just get together all the final season points from each region or "series" and then with that information you will be able to see how many different drivers and how many different cars participated in the year. I would be willing to put together a spread sheet for everyone if someone can list all the series that we have in the US. I'm sure I will be able to find all the results somehow I would just need a list af all the different regions we have in SCCA. It seems to me that this type of info is one of the reasons SCCA would have us keep points all year long.

Stephen

ddewhurst
03-29-2004, 02:40 PM
How come I am always sorry I start a topic off someones thread that goes no where. There is no question that with the Regions forwarding the info to Topeka for Regional & Nationals the SCCA could have any race car data they desired.

The point is the last time I questioned Topeka about this subject they did not know the information for National & or Regional cars.

My whole point is the same/similar to some other peoples point. Which classes pay the bills, which classes/cars enter more events. As an example who pays more money per year at Regional/National combined (Leaving out the Runoffs/ARRC) Production or IT ? (I understand IT is not National)

IMHJ this is not a question that one should be required to dig around for an answer. A couple clicks on the key board should provide an answer.

I quit http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

RSTPerformance
03-29-2004, 03:21 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:


IMHJ this is not a question that one should be required to dig around for an answer. A couple clicks on the key board should provide an answer.

I quit http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David



Thanks David that's what I thought.

Does anyone know anyone in Topeka that could get the total numbers. I am just curious about IT to see what types total number and how many differnt types of cars run in It. I Just think it would be neat information to total up and see. I think it would also be neat to see how it has changed over time.

Stephen

Marianne
03-29-2004, 03:37 PM
As a pointskeeper for NEDIV national races I can understand the confusion in this discussion. The information sent to Topeka is only related to number of entries at a particular race. For instance, in NEDIV we run 8 nationals in a year. For each race I count how many cars started in each particular class. As many of you have pointed out,
each national could have 10 drivers but are they the same 10 drivers at each event? That is not sent to Topeka – just the fact that it is 10 drivers. Now, I have the information available for NEDIV drivers (not drivers who are from SEDIV but came to visit a NEDIV track) on how many races each driver ran in a particular class for any race in a given year – this includes races the driver race down in SEDIV etc.. This is raw information so someone would need to do the calculations but it is available. The same holds true for the NARRC series in NEDIV. It just takes time to get the information you are looking for. I imagine any series that has detailed standing posted could be used to get the information you looking for. Cars that are shared would count as 2 or more cars and I don’t know of a way of tracking that. It isn’t hard to do just time consuming…

Marianne

planet6racing
03-29-2004, 03:41 PM
David:

Is that (what Marianne posted) the information you were driving for? Your post made little sense to me (and I'm sure others) hence the confusion on being able to answer your question...

It would be interesting to find out how many are entering as well as how many different people are entering.

------------------
Bill
Planet 6 Racing
bill (at) planet6racing (dot) com

gsbaker
03-29-2004, 04:02 PM
Originally posted by ddewhurst:
...IMHJ this is not a question that one should be required to dig around for an answer. A couple clicks on the key board should provide an answer.

I quit http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

David

Hang in there David, I sense an answer to the problem may be in the offing.

Apparently Topeka doesn't record data for individual entries, at least at the regional level. However, if the car and the driver for each race were passed on to Topeka (with results?), it would be relatively straightforward to cross reference this with membership data.

One would think Topeka would find this valuable for marketing/member service purposes alone. Making the information publicly available may be another matter.

I expect it will happen--in time.

Gregg

[Edit: spellign is good]

[This message has been edited by gsbaker (edited March 29, 2004).]

ddewhurst
03-29-2004, 06:01 PM
Ya know Bill@planet6racing it's like I said in my previous post. I quit................

There are X number of IT cars that were active (raced) during year 2003.

Screw the entries at an event because the entries do not tell a person nothing to do with the number of active IT/Production cars in the U.S.

Click, click, click do ya get the picture ?

Bill Miller, if your e-mail address is [email protected] you are sending a virus. I received an e-mail this a.m. that I didn't open & deleated because of a virus detected.

dickita15
03-29-2004, 06:30 PM
david
it should be possible to track drivers and how active they are but not cars. which car i drive is not anywhere in the results. i have three ita rx7' in my garage with logbooks but you can not tell from the info gathered by the regions which car i might have raced. the only place this is recorded in in the vehicle logbook. drivers however are recorded by member number in the results. i can tell you for the 15 or so NARRC races who entered what race. while we are sending results to topeka i do not know if there is actually a data base developed for these yet. regions send these in in different formats so everthing would probaly have to be hand entered.

it would be interesting data but i am not sure it is worth the cost of developing it
dick

Knestis
03-29-2004, 07:45 PM
149 responses so far. If you know of people out there who are not contributors to this board, let them know about the survey.

K

BTW - most of the current viruses spoof the
"from" field by swiping from the email address book on the infected computer. If you get an infected mail that appears to be from Bill M. - or anyone else - you got it from someone who has sent Bill a message, not actually from him.

Geo
03-29-2004, 11:08 PM
Originally posted by Knestis:
Geez - can't a guy be curious? Trust me guys - if I had an agenda on these issues, you would have heard about it. When have I ever NOT spoken up if I believed that something needed to be changed?

Gee Kirk, what's wrong? You've made a lot of assumptions in the past about the agenda of others. In fact, you do in this very message. I'm sure you have an agenda. I'm not assuming it's nefarious.


Originally posted by Knestis:
So here goes: This entire organization operates on the assumption that every member is going to fight selfishly for every personal advantage he or she can manage. This is a fundamental manifestation of "member-driven organization" and it is massively counterproductive.

I think you are making major assumptions. Don't speak for me, and don't speak for the ITAC. For that matter, don't speak for other members.

But even if it were true. What do you suggest? Socialized motorsports?


Originally posted by Knestis:
Similarly, I ask questions about what seem to be timely issues and people suggest that I have a secret agenda.

Please show me where I suggested you have a secret agenda. I just asked what your agenda was. Pretty straight-forward.


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

Knestis
03-29-2004, 11:56 PM
I can honestly say that I have NO agenda in this matter. Seriously. It is possible. I have opinions on the subject but as far as the purpose of this inquiry? Nada. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

Geo
03-30-2004, 01:04 AM
Originally posted by Knestis:
I can honestly say that I have NO agenda in this matter. Seriously. It is possible. I have opinions on the subject but as far as the purpose of this inquiry? Nada. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

Okie dokie. Just askin'. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif


------------------
George Roffe
Houston, TX
84 944 ITS car under construction
92 ITS Sentra SE-R occasionally borrowed
http://www.nissport.com

paulydee
03-30-2004, 01:58 PM
I took the survey and I too would have like a "not sure" kind of choice. I also wanted to second what Jake said about getting rid of the national/regional distinction.

------------------
Paul D'Angelo
73 ITS CENDIV
Indy Region
http://www.iridiumracing.com
http://www.iridiumracing.com/Header3.jpg

Knestis
03-31-2004, 01:25 PM
Response rate has slowed so I thought I give you an interim report on submissions to date (with 176 responses)...

76% Strongly Agree or Agree that the “Regional only” rule in the ITCS puts the Improved Touring classes in a position of lower status than National classes

91% Strongly Agree or Agree that the Improved Touring classes are currently treated with respect IN THEIR REGION, in terms of track time, scheduling, and other issues

58% Strongly Agree or Agree that the Improved Touring classes are currently treated with respect BY THE SCCA NATIONAL OFFICE, in terms of rules enforcement and other issues

67% Strongly Agree or Agree that owners of Improved Touring cars should be able to run them somewhere in the existing National Club Racing class structure

76% Strongly Agree or Agree that they would personally run National events if they were allowed to do so within the existing Club Racing class structure

64% Strongly Agree or Agree that the Improved Touring classes should be considered for National status under the existing participation requirements

81% Strongly Agree or Agree that they would personally run National events if their Improved Touring class achieved National status

82% Strongly Agree or Agree that the Improved Touring classes should have a “RunOffs” style national championship event, organized by the SCCA national office

76% Strongly Agree or Agree that they would personally work toward earning points to qualify for an Improved Touring national championship event

Preference for the location of an IT national championship event is weighted toward the central and eastern US - probably reflecting the geographic distribution of repondents.

If you haven't already participated, think about doing so. If you know of IT people who have not, you might encourage them to fill it out as well.

K

zracer22
03-31-2004, 03:46 PM
This survey is the equivelant of a survey of hungry people about food. The results would be much different if taken by all IT racers, including those that would rather spend time with their kids than on line filling out surveys. Let's face it, 90% of the racers aren't in the top 10% of the field, and would have no interest in higher entry fees, less track time and even a lesser chance of a good finish. The only way to get real results would be to hand out the the survey at registration, and require it to be completed and returned to a grid worker on false grid befor going on track.

Phat-S
03-31-2004, 07:09 PM
CC: honda-tech.com

Kirk, couple o' thoughts:

You can stop counting and close your poll, anything gathered after #176 is invalid since you have announced results.

I am not a statistician, I am a software developer that works with statistical data on pretty much a daily basis. We can rely on this data within a certain degree of signal to noise because the users are employees of the client. We could not open up this to the greater internet community and give that dataset back to the company/client with any accuracy because the users in that case are not guaranteed to be in their target group (employees). We don't really care how a 14 year old that got tired of surfing for porn responds to various retirement benefit options for a company that has noone under the age of 25 working.

This poll, whatever its intent, has no meaning aside from this is a valid dataset (up to #176) that represents survey responses to an open survey group pertaining to a non-open survey subject. Basically, there is no assurance that any one respondent aside from you (who said he was the first to take it) are even SCCA members. I think any accurate survey of this type - if it is to be ever posted/used/reported outside of your "I simply want to know" needs to have some filter criteria associated with it such that the dataset can be weighted and validated. I would be happy to help if you want, but would be a prick about the need for registration (profile) data and means of weighing responses based on profile criteria.

"Solo II for 2 years, not necessarily with the SCCA, currently in college, don't have the means to build a car, hope to by 2005 when I graduate" should have a different weighting to "Run 4 races per year in ITB and 3 in G-Production."

You can't create a survey on "the need for maternity care" as a healthcare plan option if you don't collect gender/plan dependent information. Well, you can, it just would not be of any practical use. Same basic principle happens here. If you cannot slice the data based on criteria, it has no inherent value other than this is how ALL people responded irrespective if they are familiar with the subject matter. The upside is, you now (currently) have a very interesting comparison dataset to compare valid survey responses against. For your survey to be actually representative, you will want to get survey responses from places other than the web unless you can force all users registering for events to answer this prior to entering the track at some kiosk at registration. If you can't, the survey is only a capture of "[criteria] participants that answer surveys on IT.com (or Honda-Tech.com) responded as follows." There really isn't a funnel to force all members to view and choose to respond (if you could, irrespective of them responding or not, its a much more accurate capture of all members), therefore you are banking that you get a valid sample of SCCA membership from here (and you won't unless I am off my nut - quite possible http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif). You actually might be able to sell the SCCA the marketing data however for those members that use the internet http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

This is not meant as an attack, just a couple of thoughts since you are posting results. Personally, I'd be very interested in how National class competitors would respond to IT becoming a National class.

------------------
Adam in Charlotte
#42 ITA CRX Si (http://www.ipsolve.com/RaceStuff)

lateapex911
03-31-2004, 08:59 PM
Originally posted by zracer22:
This survey is the equivelant of a survey of hungry people about food. The results would be much different if taken by all IT racers, including those that would rather spend time with their kids than on line filling out surveys.

I'll ignore the insinuation (as I did spend the whopping 45 seconds mouse clicking the survey), but who cares if the all the racers, who you imply don't really care, take the survey? If they don't care, I feel no need to validate thir response.


Let's face it, 90% of the racers aren't in the top 10% of the field, and would have no interest in higher entry fees, less track time and even a lesser chance of a good finish.

I absolutely disagree with your assumption that 90% having no interest. First, I finish outside the top 2 in a 20 car field all too regularly, and I do indeed care.
Secondly, where do you get your facts? Less track time? Lesser chance of a good finish?

No logic there. Please explain.

Keep in mind there are some with integrity who would rather finish well against solid competiton that win in an empty field.


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

Knestis
03-31-2004, 09:39 PM
You aren't being a problem at all, Adam - because you aren't telling me anything that I don't already know. You are, however, wrong about one thing: Posting the results to date don't do anything to hurt instrumental validity - because it already sucks like a four-horse shop vac. Those initials that Mr. Jefferson's university gave me are for a program in education policy and evaluation and I have enough instrument design and statistics understanding that I harbor absolutely NO illusions about the validity or reliability of the instrument or process.

When this idea first came up, my initial thought was that it was too much like work and that I should just ignore it. I gave it a few more minutes of noodle time and changed my mind figuring that Walt P. probably wouldn't let his expectations of quality stand in the way of stick welding someone's fence back together, and Bertil Roos wouldn't let a lack of parts balanced to a gnat's ass keep him from helping someone in need replace a water pump belt on a crappy old Chevy. This is a hobby for me - racing and talking about racing - and I figured that the value (the ONLY value) of this thing was in its ability to generate discourse.

If the SCCA wants to undertake a study to gather valid, reliable data it can do so. Heck, it could hire my unit to do so and we could do a good job of it but I wouldn't take 20 minutes to whip something out on Zoomerang. I suppose that someone might try to misrepresent the findings of this thing but I'm figuring that the opinion that I'll post when it poops out, regarding the issues that you bring up, should scuttle anything like that.

I hadn't thought about doing a comparison between this dataset and that of a valid sample of informants fitting an appropriate profile. That would indeed be interesting and probably wouldn't do anything to improve my belief of the quality of information gathered from or presented on the Internet. The fact that I play in this medium does NOT mean that I don't understand its limitations. I taught a university course a few years back that included a unit titled, "Thinking Critically About Internet Content."

I'll also post it here because frankly, anyone who looks at old posts on IT.com will know that I personally think that the idea of trying to restructure ANY rules to allow IT cars to run in an existing National class is a phenomenally bad idea. I'm completely satisfied with being permanently "regional," having done the National and "pro" thing years ago. (I did it badly but did it enough to know that there's nothing inherently magical about "moving up" in racing.)

I'm less negative about the idea of the IT classes being eligible for consideration as National classes but that's more about the current National classes being stupid to me than about IT being treated as a red-headed step child (with apologies to any red-headed stepchildren who might be reading this). Seems to me like we need to decide what the big picture rules are going to be (like minimum participation levels) and stick with them. The issues there align with my belief about what national competitors would say about IT becoming a National class: They would lobby like hell against it to protect their current interests, just like proponents of classes like H Production manage to wield enough power to keep it from dying the sad little death that it should.

I have nothing but good things to say about the regional events that I've attended and run in WDC, NCR, and Buccaneer regions. I've seen TransAm weekends that didn't go nearly as smoothly. We have multiple series options - SARRC, CCPS, ERC - reasonable entry fees, good track time, and nice people. Far from getting treated like taxed serfs supporting the National lords and ladies, I think.

I DO strongly agree that the club and the IT program would benefit from an SCCA national office initiative to do an ARRC-like thing for IT and the other regional-only classes. My preference would be to have THREE of them - one on each end of the country and one in the middle since it's so damn big - so people who wanted to could do a high profile gig at the end of the season, maybe earn a contingency award, and feel like stars for a couple of days.

There you go - for what it's (not) worth. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/smile.gif

K

zracer22
03-31-2004, 11:22 PM
Originally posted by lateapex911:
I absolutely disagree with your assumption that 90% having no interest. First, I finish outside the top 2 in a 20 car field all too regularly, and I do indeed care.
Secondly, where do you get your facts? Less track time? Lesser chance of a good finish?

No logic there. Please explain.



Where did I get my facts? Lighten up, I just picked a number out of thin air. Change it to 60% if it makes you feel better.

Less track time? Just add 50-100 IT cars to an already busy National weekend. Another group may be needed in some regions.

Lesser chance of a good finish? Wouldn't a middle of the pack IT car do even worse in big $$$ Prod racing. If you can't win in IT, how would you win in Prod with the same car?

The next time your at a regional, take a look around the paddock. You will see an obvious seperation between the big budget guys and the guys that are already pushing the ceiling of their race budgets.

Besides, if IT racers start running at Nationals, the regionals will really be hurt. next step in the progression would be to save your stuff for the Nationals, followed by not running the regionals at all. Without big IT fields, regionals would be dead in the water.

If you want to race in Prod, then make the changes or buy a new car and go race in Prod. Why should SCCA be different than any other venue.
"Hey, let me run my Indy Light in CART!"
"Hey, let me run my Craftsmen Truck in the Busch series!"
"Hey, let me put my oranges in the apple barrel!"
"Hey, let me run my IT car in Prod!"

It seems that everybody (generalization) wants it both ways. First you want CAs so your 30 (generalization) year old car remains competitive in IT, AND you want to compete with your 30 (generalization) year old car Prod.

This whole debate about IT going national has morphed into IT going Prod. IT already has enough issues to deal with, and now adding the IT/Prod hybrids into the mix will only make it worse.

Seriously, look beyond the initial thoughts of how cool, fun or whatever it would be to run in Prod, and look at the possible long term effects it would have on IT, Prod, the club, and you.

This wouldn't even be an issue had the SCCA managed IT well. Without the past 15 years of rules creep, IT cars would be lightyears apart from Prod cars. What used to be a huge gap is now just a thin blurred line between IT and Prod.

IPRESS
04-01-2004, 12:17 AM
Good luck on getting national recognition. I am all for you, even though I see a long hard fight for that "equality status". My Butt still burns occasionally from last years SM Class vs. The Comp / BOD fight! Old SCCA ways are very hard to change, but the more racers you have in your group the more influence you can use as a hammer.
Mac

Knestis
04-04-2004, 06:03 PM
Here's what the results showed, with 201 respondents submitting. There was one partial response - someone who did not complete the instrument.

Please note the comments above regarding the purpose of this survey and see the notes at the end of this post for additional limitations that must be kept in mind regarding any inferences made from these data. Also, while I'm only reporting the percentage that selected "Agree" or "Strongly Agree," this should not be interpreted as my endorsement of any particular point of view. You all can subtract from 100 to determine what percentage selected "Disagree" or "Strongly Disagree."

I've included comments in italics - methodological notes, low-level inferences about respondents' thinking, or my personal responses. If no mention is made otherwise, it can be safely assumed that the "Strongly" and less-strong options are somewhat evenly split.

75% Strongly Agree or Agree that the “Regional only” rule in the ITCS puts the Improved Touring classes in a position of lower status than National classes

A majority of respondents[1] agree that IT holds a "position of lower status" than National classes. In hindsight, this item is pretty weak since "status" is not operationalized - people may have differing interpretations of the word. It may also simply be a reflection of the culture of SCCA that regional classes are "lower status" than nationals: It would have required a couple of additional items to chase out the influence of regional status vs. that inherent to the category being IT. I should also have been more specific about "regional only" and "forever regional only" - the clause prohibiting IT from being considered for national status.

90% Strongly Agree or Agree that the Improved Touring classes are currently treated with respect IN THEIR REGION, in terms of track time, scheduling, and other issues

By any stretch of the imagination, this suggests that respondents are largely happy with the way they are treated at the regional level. It would have been a good idea to use the term "respect" in the first item so that, even if it was unclear what construct respondents had in mind when they responded, it would be the same for both items.

58% Strongly Agree or Agree that the Improved Touring classes are currently treated with respect BY THE SCCA NATIONAL OFFICE, in terms of rules enforcement and other issues

It might be noteworthy that, in addition to respondents being essentially split on this question, there were very few Strongly Agree (7%) and Strongly Disagree (8%) responses - folks were relatively abivalent on the issue. Note here that the four-option Likert scale didn't allow for a fence sitter position, instead forcing people to commit to one position or the other. The lack of strong positions on this question suggest that we would have received a large number of "Whatever" responses were that option available. It might also be that most members have little direct contact with SCCA national offices.

63% Strongly Agree or Agree that owners of Improved Touring cars should be able to run them somewhere in the existing National Club Racing class structure

The item should have been more specific in that the question that comes up in conversation is whether IT cars should be allowed to run AS IS in some current national class - typically LP Production. As odd as this sounds to me personally, the idea has some fans but the construct validity of this item is weak enough that it's hard to tell what respondents intended - run LP Prod or whatever without changing their car, have their existing car classified in Production if it isn't already, or...?? Thsi would require several items to chase out the separate issues.

74% Strongly Agree or Agree that they would personally run National events if they were allowed to do so within the existing Club Racing class structure

The same problems exist with this item. It would be interesting to find out from those who want to run their IT car in Nationals WHY they want to. I find that a little baffling but maybe it is about "status," however it was defined for item 1. Should also have had an "I don't have an IT car" response but that would have made it necessary to get WAY more scientific about the entire instrument.

63% Strongly Agree or Agree that the Improved Touring classes should be considered for National status under the existing participation requirements

This item stands on pretty solid theoretical ground since it's realtively hard to come up with alternate interpretations. The number doesn't surprise me but again, I'd be interested to know why. Personally, I just think that the same set of rules ought to be applied to all of the categories, in terms of participation levels and national eligibility - if the regional/national separation is going to continue. That said, I haven't heard any recent, well presented rationale for even making that distinction...

78% Strongly Agree or Agree that they would personally run National events if their Improved Touring class achieved National status

Again, a fairly solid question that might actually be informative if applied to a valid sample of SCCA member/IT entrants. Here, it suffers from the validity issues described below.

82% Strongly Agree or Agree that the Improved Touring classes should have a “RunOffs” style national championship event, organized by the SCCA national office

There were very few (6%) respondents marking "Strongly Disagree" on this item, suggesting that the move would be favorably received by this group. This doesn't take into consideration the practical issues involved in this type of event.

75% Strongly Agree or Agree that they would personally work toward earning points to qualify for an Improved Touring national championship event

It's interesting that fewer respondents would actually worry about qualifying for a RunOffs thing than think having one is a good idea, suggesting that some just want to see it happen. Regarding the location of said championship - and assuming that respondents figured there would be only one - the options shook out as follows:

West - 11% SA, 20% A, 38% D, 30%SD

East - 27% SA, 42% A, 19% D, 12% SD

Central - 24% SA, 49% A, 17% D, 10% SD

I'm glad I don't have to decide where to run it but the questions here would mirror those that used to swirl around having the National RubOffs in Atlanta.

[1] Respondents - as Adam alluded to above, there are issues with the validity of the sample in this survey. Because the respondents were not randomly selected from a specific target population, it is NOT appropriate to make from these data any inferences about "what SCCA members think" or "what changes IT drivers want." There is no way to know whether respondents are members of either group.

This is setting aside the question of "Whose opinion counts?" on this topic, which is a policy issue as well. I think this goes to the heart of Walt's concerns: Should only IT drivers make decisions about the direction of the category? Some would obviously believe so. How about all SCCA members? It's likely that most stakeholders would agree that non-members' opinions don't count but what about those who are patronizing "the competition?" Members of the pool of potential, pre-qualified SCCA members (e.g., HPDE or club track day participants)?

There are processes in place that ask for SCCA member input and historically, the number of people willing to write to comment on a proposed rule change are low. There are, in essence, surveys with somewhat fewer validity concerns conducted every time a proposed item is posted in FasTrack: If 201 people responded to any of those, it would be considered a landslide...

K

dickita15
04-04-2004, 06:38 PM
thanks kirk, it is thought provoking. it is good to see respondents think the regions treat IT with respect. i am curious in the number of folks who say that national treats them with respect would have been any lower before the last fastrack.
dick

ddewhurst
04-05-2004, 09:31 AM
Thanks to Kirk & ALL those involved. http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif

Have Fun http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif
David

Bill Miller
04-05-2004, 05:43 PM
Kirk,

Thanks for your efforts in constructing this, and in digesting the data.

------------------
MARRS #25 ITB Rabbit GTI (sold) | MARRS #25 HProd Rabbit
SCCA 279608

gsbaker
04-05-2004, 06:40 PM
Dittos. Good job Kirk.

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

Banzai240
04-05-2004, 10:10 PM
Yes... I know I Definately Appreciate you taking the time to do this Kirk! Thanks for putting in the effort... http://Forum.ImprovedTouring.com/it/wink.gif



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

Knestis
04-05-2004, 10:53 PM
Well, don't be afraid to discuss among yourselves - even if this won't be on the test Friday. I'm actually a little surprised at how luke-warm most of the commentary has been vis-a-vis these issues...

Kirk