M'kay - so think out of the box...

[Knestis]

There's been suggestions that ITR is the "wrong direction" for the category so I thought it would be interesting to think about what other directions IT - or something spiritually its equivalent - might look like. This isn't such an odd quesiton for a reformed NERD to ask, since I've resigned myself to the fact that we can't stop "progress," and in a decade IT grids will look like current LP fields...

I will however get off my chest right up front that I don't believe that there's any way to legislate decreased costs, short of a claimer class (or engines or other major components). That said, there might be ways to passively encourage affordability:

** Proactively list some new ITB and ITC cars - we actually tried to start a movement to get some new blood into the classes that are most affordable. Dave G. (I think) suggested that it is tough for newbies, whom we should be courting like crazy, to understand or undertake the listing process. I couldn't agree more. The Hondas are a great addition to ITB and I'd love to see more options.

** My favorite new idea is "Pro ITA" or "Tiny Touring Cars" - take the EXACT SAME IT RULES, and apply them to cars that fit the ITA envelope but are NOT old enough to be eligible for club IT. Create semi-pro divisional series (pl.), running with WCT/GT and other events, and let the allure of big-time, pro racing siphon off some of the cream that otherwise might define the top of the spending continuum. Those cars would then become ineligible for the pro series, and available for club racing, when they hit the established age threshold.

** What else?

K

[tnord]

i haven't heard the grumblings about the new class being too expensive (of course it is now, but what about 7yrs out?), maybe i need to poke around the site some more.

i suppose you could start to alter the way the rules are written for IT with the new class. start to reign in things like not allowing an aftermarket header, no .40 over pistons, or some of the other power adders that just make the cars faster and more expensive to run. you could move it more towards touring rules but keep the allowances for weight reduction (if not add more) to reduce stress on consumables. something like touring rules + gut the car + intake + springs/swaybars and leave it at that. kinda along the lines of the SM ruleset :o where there's more allowed than SS/Touring, but not as much as is currently in IT.

i personally like IT the way it is, but it's just an idea.

[dickita15]

I support ITR but the concept of cheaper racing is always a worthy discussion.

Maybe the biggest single thing that could be done to save money is a tire rule. I there was a way to put a class of cars on a hard tire it would save $$.

I know some Solo classes have a treadwear limit.

[Eagle7]

Maybe the biggest single thing that could be done to save money is a tire rule. I there was a way to put a class of cars on a hard tire it would save $$.
[/b]
:happy204:

[zracre]

The biggest problem with trying to make it cheaper is that it gets more expensive in the long run! Look at SM...If you make it so only the people that have this xxx 8K rebuild or this 5K ECU, it will take the newbies out and separate the field even more. SM was great when it was regional but when it turned Nat, it got rediculous! Id say leave ITR the way it is and lets see how many come to play! You are not going to keep costs down in ITR...that is the point. Maybe make the only alteration in ITR rules with the year eligibility and if the car is an obvious overdog it will get an SIR...If you start out the class like this maybe it wont snowball into something that is more of a headache.

[tnord]

like i said, i prefer the IT ruleset stay the way it is. but kirk said to come up with some new ideas.....


the 7k SM motor build is EASILY avoidable if they would just allow B&B like in IT. there are some rules in SM that do actually contain costs to a certain degree. OEM header rule limits build, tuning, and development costs, and same with the lack of a .40 over piston rule.

and then there's that whole spherical bushing/bearing issue..... :dead_horse:

[JeffW]

NASA may be onto something with Performance Touring. But policing the a la carte point system to classify your car looks like a nightmare for the Tech guys. But having several classes available where one can be reasonably competitive with others is attractive. Once a particular car was developed and proven to be the dominant car in its class, I'm sure that some cars were retired. Look at the starting grids. Only a select few models and makes show up while many more 'has beens' sit in garages waiting for the current IT car to be reclassed more competitively, or while they collect their pennies to convert to Production or something else.

I don't know how the NASA car counts have been since the introduction of PT, but it sure looks like a place for currently misclassed IT cars.

The disclaimer in the ITCS about giving someone a place to run his car was the shortcut away from fixing a problem. One of the biggest clues to this problem was the formation of IT7, which might be considered IT'A' Light.

Wasn't Saturn all the rage awhile back? Where are they now? Will Neons be the new Honda killer?

Take the current lineup of ITS, ITA, ITB and ITC cars, sprinkle in some KIA's, Mitsubishi's and Hyundai's, fill in some of the gaps (Toyota Tercel's, BMW Z3 w/2.5 or 2.8, Mazda 626, etc.) and divide them into more classes with closer competition. But keep the IT rules and do not allow the a la carte classification system.

The intriguing thing about the NASA PT points system is that you get to chose your modifications, and hence, your class. As you add modifications (and points) and approach the next class you may be stuck with questions of "header vs. R&P?". Knowing that if you do both you could be at the bottom of the next competition bracket, which could lead to another $3K in mods to be competitive. It will be interesting to see the preferred combinations of mods that people settle on in each PT class.

Spec tire is worth considering.

Jeff

[tnord]

without getting into it....

NO! spec tire is NOT worth considering.

[JLawton]

Wasn't Saturn all the rage awhile back? Where are they now? [/b]

I'm right here!! :023:





I would be willing to look at a spec tire. The tire budget to be competitive is a good chunk of the yearly spend.

I also think we should make a full out effort to get some newer ITC & ITB cars classified. Come up with a list (similar to the ITR list), run them through the process and submit it. There may not be an immediate impact, but I'm sure over a 5 year period more and more of the younger generation will be looking at it.....

[planet6racing]

Wasn't Saturn all the rage awhile back? Where are they now?
[/b]

Me too! (BTW: Saturns were never the hot ticket in SCCA. If they were, I'd expect more than 5 of them would be racing across the country...)

Spec tire is right out.

How about something like IT Formula Car? You're required to build your own car (with approval from a PE on the design) and are limited any of the Geo motors (from when they were known as Geo, not after Chevy started putting their names on them).

[ddewhurst]

HARD tires are THE way to lessen the cost of IT racing.................................

As an example folks in the past shaved Toyo tires to 4/32, now the sharp end are shaving to 2/32.............

Kart racing in some areas uses HARD tires & one set of hard Kart tires can be used for a full 18 race date season...............


Question: Do we have THE REAL issues as to why the car count in what ever class is becoming less or are we blue skying ?????????????????

Question: Do WE have the REAL issues why youth is not buying into IT racing ??????????? I see plenty of young bucks with 10 to $20,000 Spec Miatas.

David Dewhurst

[dickita15]

I wonder if a tire can be found that is fun to race on and cheap and durable. I would love someone smarter than me to come up with something other than just specing a toyo. There must be an outside the box solution that no one has come up with.

One idea that has come up amongst some of my friends after many beers is to limit everyone to five tires for the season. :birra:

[gran racing]

A combined Touring / ITish class might be good. Run stock engines, and keep suspensions, exhaust, and a few other items open still.

For me, tires is a huge portion of my racing budget. :(

Is there a way to simplify the classification process? When I worked on getting my Prelude classed, I took it with me to a few Honda dealerships. One of the guys used to have the same gen Prelude, so he was pretty familiar with it. Once they learned that it was related to racing, they got into it and really tried helping me out. At that point, I didn't own one of the $100 Honda Shop manuals for the car, but why would I? They sat me down at a desk and allowed me to make some copies. Because I'm far from a mechanic, I was very confused about several of the item on the VTS document. But never fear, I had Honda mechanics at my disposal, right? They said, what in the world are they looking for there? So, there were some items I just couldn't figure out. I then called Honda directly, but the information was "proprietary" and they couldn't release that info. After a while, I called SCCA tech. and they said that information really isn't necessary. So why in the world include it?

Hey, since the comp. guys are here, could you review the current VTS see what could be removed? What do you use when classing a car, and what is non-essential?

[planet6racing]

If we go to a spec tire, aren't we just shifting the money elsewhere? What's to stop someone from having 18 different sets of shocks for the different tracks to tune since you can't use different tires for spring rates?

Spec tires really aren't the answer, imho.

[bldn10]

"Question: Do WE have the REAL issues why youth is not buying into IT racing ???????????"

To start: whatever tires & wheels you can stuff in your fender well; wings, rocker, and nose kits; slammed. DTM lite.

On the other hand, I think alot of these young guys have so much $ invested in their cars that they cannot chance tearing them up. They drag because there is little risk. But simply giving them a place to run relatively cheap cars is not enough - they have to be COOL!

[Knestis]

... could you review the current VTS see what could be removed? What do you use when classing a car, and what is non-essential?
[/b]

An excellent question, here. There are some things that i think the ITAC's process needs that are NOT on the VTS, and a ton of stuff on the form that is absolutely NOT important to getting an IT car listed. Windshield layback angle?? Riiight.

How about an IT-specific "Classification Listing Sheet" or something similar?

K

EDIT - having raced spec-tire series, it's been my experience that they are not money-savers either. We used to buy TAKE-OFF specs from the guys willing to spend the dough to get the most speed out of their rubber.

[orlando_wrx]

Since ecu's inside the box are open, one way of decreasing costs "outside the box" would be to open up engine wiring harness and just get rid of the stock ecu box rule. Many older cars rescued from the scrap heap to be built into IT cars have been weathered and feature corroded wiring harnesses. New stock harnesses are expensive for what you really get and are becomming harder to come by in older cars. If engine management is open it just adds to expenses to pin it into the factory harness inside the factory box. The rule itself also tends to favor certain cars: Hondas have hondata and many others have larger factory ecu boxes that enable a wide selection of Management computers to be installed, while others have ecu boxes that are just tiny and near impossible to cram a computer into. The simple fact is that programmable ecu's are the way of the future and resistance is futile. A good set of air/fuel and timing maps get more power on most cars than all other "bolt-ons" combined and costs a bit less if you add the expense of all your "power-adders" together. Lets just open up the box/harness and get it over with. Yeah, yeah; I know, then the arguement would be everyone would need a programmable ecu to be competitive, but the fact of the matter is the guy with more $$ will always have the stronger motor reguardless of whats open and what isn't, lets just open the ECU and make it easier/cheaper for those who choose to go that route.

[mustanghammer]

HARD tires are THE way to lessen the cost of IT racing.................................

As an example folks in the past shaved Toyo tires to 4/32, now the sharp end are shaving to 2/32.............

Kart racing in some areas uses HARD tires & one set of hard Kart tires can be used for a full 18 race date season...............

David Dewhurst
[/b]

I think that what is happening with the Toyo tire in SM is an example of why a spec tire isn't always the answer. At 2/32's the RA1 is faster but it's life is shorter so you have to buy new ones more often. Where is the cost savings?

On the Solo II side they created a series of national level classes called Street Touring. One of the hallmarks of the class is that DOT racing tires are not allowed and a wear rating of 140 was spec'd. At first VERY low cost Falken and Kumho tires were competitive. Eventually, however the fast guys found more expense tires(that can cost more than a comparable DOT racing tire) that gave DOT racing tire like performance. So much for the cheap tire idea. Check out the Tire Rack adds in Sports Car and Grass Roots for examples. It didn't take anyone very long to find that business opportunity.

What is needed is a tire that has a long track life that doesn't have an appreciable performance spike at the begining or end of it's life cycle. You find a tire like that and a spec tire can be a good deal.

[Eagle7]

Someone reported a while ago that DOT is changing the regulations with regard to treadwear, and that it might jeopardize our R compound tires. If that does happen, it seems like it could improve tire life and lower tire costs without a spec tire rule. Anyone know more about this?

[orlando_wrx]

I dont think it's going to extend tire life. What I imagine will happen if the DOT changes make any impact on the R compound tires is that the tire manufacturers will end up using a multi-layer process to form the tires so that unshaven the tires will meet the new requirements, but upon shaving will expose a soft inner layer no different than we currently have. Kind of an opposite direction of Z rated all seasons where the outer layer is softer to provide grip but upon wearing it exposes a harder inner layer to maintain the grooves necessary for water evacuation. This will most likely translate into even higher R compound tire prices, rather than extending life and lowering costs.

[ddewhurst]

Multiple sets of skocks, nothing new there.

Multiple this & that, nothing new there.

Buying tire take offs, nothing new there.

Tire companys meeting the customer needs, nothing new there.

Back to the Spec tire for Kart racing. The tires were Bridgstone YBN IIRC. Shave em, who cares. Goop em, who cares. There was a loose rule that you couldn't goop em at the track. Woo-pe, big deal, the goop penetrated better after a time period. There were several goops on the market, you know who had a lab do an analysis of the rubber, had a chemest friend design some exact goop for the tire compound, nothing new there. Except head food. Did the designed goop help my season while winning a championship, you bet it did along with a bunch of other items.

Buying new Spec Kart tires each week, no advantage with these weekly new tires, still nothing new there.

The friken tires worked for a Spec Kart tire. Nuff said by me.

[sstecker]

could spec megasquirt with specd sensors and code version locked by md5 checksum - would keep abs/traction control out of it.

ita rims => 13lbs

read about one open wheel series that specd hard compound tires - said it negated fancy suspensions since the tires would just slide out - think they also limited # of tires per season and kept the tires between races on a truck.

[lateapex911]

could spec megasquirt with specd sensors and code version locked by md5 checksum - would keep abs/traction control out of it.

ita rims => 13lbs

read about one open wheel series that specd hard compound tires - said it negated fancy suspensions since the tires would just slide out - think they also limited # of tires per season and kept the tires between races on a truck.
[/b]


I appreciate the blue sky concept, but...

Any rule that limits wheels to a certain weight for a class, like 13lb for ITA misses the point...now all guys in ITA have worthless used light wheels AND they have to buy 12 NEW heavy wheels.

Question on the Solo tire rule: While new tires appeared that were faster, met the treadwear requirements, and were more expensive, how long do they last? I don't care if a tire is 50% more expensive, if its as fast as anything, and lasts twice as long!

[ddewhurst]

Opp's :018:

[benracin]

I haven't been around here for awhile but this was a good topic because this year I've decided that I just can't afford it and doing just one race a year is feeling like it's just not worth it anymore. What I'm noticing for people my age is that they really want to race, but smacking down $300 to go have a little fun is a ton when that amount of money can buy the next go-fast goodie you've been saving up for. Where I'm seeing the growth at is at the circle tracks. It's a stupid class but it's cheap and you get to go fast. You take a $200 piece of crap, gut it, take out the windows, put a door bar on it, and race it. There's a claim rule too so don't spend any money on your $200 piece of crap. Only problem with this class is the rules totally suck. It all depends on the way the tech guy is feeling that day. If he jumps on your hyundai accent and says it's too stiff, and you say it's all stock what do you want me to do? Then he says I'm the tech guy and it's too stiff so you're cheating. It's stupid.

Anyhoo, the point I'm getting at is why can't this fomula apply to road racing, although a little safer. You take a car from this range to this range. You gut it, you put in a cage, seat and harness and some tires. $1000 claim rule, costs $100 to race it. Maybe not as many laps to justify the cost. Stick or auto doesn't matter because who cares. We're just trying to race here. Take out the side and rear glass and paint a number on it.

What you have there is a class where anyone can go dig up a car and turn into a race car for cheap. Hell, could be done over the weekend. Maybe the numbers grow and you actually have people coming to the track to watch these funny junk cars race each other. I know there's truck loads of crappy pontiac grand whatevers out there that would make really fun cheap race cars.

There's really nothing to why the younger crowd isn't showing up. It costs a lot of money and I don't want to screw up my kickin' mazda 3. But I can buy a geo prism for $250, put a cage in it and go road racing? NO SH!T? I'd be there in a second. Got 5 friends that would join me. Look, I just boosted the number of race cars and drivers by 5. That's more than a whole ITC class. Have that many people joined the ITA ranks in the last 5 years in a region?

With this idea also come chimp simple rules. Got to be less then this engine size. The only things you can touch are gutting the inside of the car and putting tires on the stock wheels. YOU CAN'T DO ANYTHING ELSE. There, that's the whole rule book. What's the car classing procedure? Bring the car to the track. If it matches my 3 sentence rule book it's classed. That saves a little paper work at the head office and also justifies the cheap entrance fee.

Maybe this class doesn't get to go to the run offs. Maybe this class has less track time. Maybe it only gets one practice session. It doesn't really matter. When all we're talking about winning is a stupid plastic trophy does it really matter where that stupid trophy comes from? At least you got to race, and you actually got to road race like you see on TV. With the budget I try to save up for my 1 race a year I could buy a cheap car like this, prep it, and probably race a couple times. It's so easy! Plus, wouldn't it be just awesome to watch 10 crappy grand ams go flying into turn 1 at blackhawk? If I was running in some other class I'd be excited to actually go watch a race! I'm sure the corner workers would get a little more practice too. :D

I've written long enough but I guess I got fired up. I'm kind of mad that I can't race anymore and I think this solution would rock. I have a friend with two junk hyundai accents in his garage that run. Just tell me when baby!

[lateapex911]

Opp's :018:
[/b]

Huh???

There must be more, right??

[dickita15]

I appreciate the blue sky concept, but...

Any rule that limits wheels to a certain weight for a class, like 13lb for ITA misses the point...now all guys in ITA have worthless used light wheels AND they have to buy 12 NEW heavy wheels.

[/b]
Jake while I appreciate your comments about any of these ideas being difficult to use in IT that is not what we are talking about. This is a blue sky thread and early on in the thread the discussion started with sub classes or new classes. I am interested in ways that a class could be set up that would make racing cheaper, easier and fun. Maybe some of these ideas could be useful in IT or maybe they could be used for a local class or maybe they have no use at all, but I think this type of discussion is very useful in exploring why we do what we do the way we do it.

[JLawton]

What you have there is a class where anyone can go dig up a car and turn into a race car for cheap. Hell, could be done over the weekend. Maybe the numbers grow and you actually have people coming to the track to watch these funny junk cars race each other. [/b]


Actually, I think thats how IT started!!


I like your idea. Totally stock, older car with a cage and R tires. You can remove anything you want, but meet a minimum weight. Stock bushings, shocks, engines, wheels, ............

[tnord]

and then the "junkyard" class gets popular......and then there are lots of entrants.....and then some guy finds an old camaro stroker motor to throw in his junkyard camaro chassis......and then the other guy throws a new set of konis in a mudpuddle to make them look like junk..........and then the $ war is on


sorry....SM has jaded me.

[DavidM]

There's really nothing to why the younger crowd isn't showing up. It costs a lot of money and I don't want to screw up my kickin' mazda 3. But I can buy a geo prism for $250, put a cage in it and go road racing? NO SH!T? I'd be there in a second. Got 5 friends that would join me. Look, I just boosted the number of race cars and drivers by 5. That's more than a whole ITC class. Have that many people joined the ITA ranks in the last 5 years in a region?
[/b]

Somebody asked why the younger crowd isn't showing up to race. There ya go. I can understand where they're coming from. One reason I got into racing was so I wouldn't screw up my street car at track days. I could afford to spend some money, though.

I'd have to say this doesn't sound like such a bad idea. My concerns would be how do you make it safe and how do you keep it from turning into a demolition derby. I could see stewards being kept busy with lots of contact.

People have noted before how much cheaper it is to go circle track racing than road racing. A lot of it probably has to do with the lack of safety equipment, but it seems like it would be possible to have a cheap road racing class. It's never going to be super cheap as long as there are safety mandates, but it could be cheap enough to get more people involved. Somebody is probably going say you can get an ITB or ITC car cheap, but we all know getting the car is just the start. A class such as this would have minimal on-going expenses. Of course, we wouldn't want to have to be stopping the race every 5 minutes to get broken down cars off the track either. I think it's an interesting idea to ponder.

David

[benracin]

Alright, we're getting somewhere!

As for minimum weights I think that would lead down the road to more expenses and office mumbo jumbo once more. With minimum weights it's not long to people are crying for competition adjustments and "my car is too heavy". For the cheap price shut your yap and go get a lighter car. The minimum weight is what the car weighs once you take out the interior, and that's it. I know I'm talking tough but my goal would be to make it so it CAN'T get more expensive. The goal here is to have fun racing. We all know that you don't have to lead the race to have fun, although it's nice. My favorite races were racing with ITB cars in my ITA car. So even if you're slow you'll have fun with someone.

As for the motors, in the rules stock is stock is stock. If it's not stock, it's not stock. So you would still need the protest part of the deal. If your car is blowing people away and nobody can figure out why, prepare to have your car claimed. :happy204: Claim rules can be a stinker though. I think I would vote for the claim rule where you have to be entered in the race in order to claim the other persons car. And maybe something like if you claim a person's car (minues the safety equipment) they get a chance to buy yours. I just don't like the idea of leaving someone out in the cold.

Safety. That would and should be the important and expensive part here. I think this class would be limited to 4 cyl cars because we don't need guys flying down the track in a big V8 wondering if the brakes would hold. And like our other classes hitting is a no no and you'll get in trouble for it if you do it. I'm sure these cars won't hold the road as good so there will probably be some light contact. But maybe at this price range that wouldn't be that much of a problem. Right now our cars cost lots of money and so do the parts. Some of our cars are so old that body parts are really non-existant. So some dents would just have to be alright.

It may be a junk yard class but it doesn't have to act like one. The cars should be clean, well numbered, and parts shouldn't just fly off of them. Brakes need to work and it needs to look like it can go around the track with out killing someone.

Man would I love to see this class come to life. Just think how easy it is. No big scary rule book (another reason why I think kids get scared away from this). No mega huge entry fees. No scary legal looking classification process. Just get some safety gear, a cheap car, and lets go racing.

And about that rule book and all the other mumbo jumbo you have to do to go racing. Can you imagine trying to talk a kid into this by finishing this sentence:

"Sure you can go road racing, it's easy! All you need is..."

All I can think about is read giant hard to understand rule book... pay for memberhip $$, get car $$$$$$, is car legal? Did you read your book? Get car tech'd (where's that at?). Go to school (where?) $$$$$$. Pay for racing license $$. Good, now go race! $$$ Oh, and next year you get to pay BOTH memberships again. $$,$$.

When my license fees showed up this year I actually laughed. Stupid money.

[lateapex911]

Jake while I appreciate your comments about any of these ideas being difficult to use in IT that is not what we are talking about. This is a blue sky thread and early on in the thread the discussion started with sub classes or new classes. I am interested in ways that a class could be set up that would make racing cheaper, easier and fun. Maybe some of these ideas could be useful in IT or maybe they could be used for a local class or maybe they have no use at all, but I think this type of discussion is very useful in exploring why we do what we do the way we do it.
[/b]

Sorry Dick, I read the title and saw "IT classes OR IT like classes" and some of the responses were referrencing IT specifically.

RE: the circle track thing, I think it's important to remember that it's really apples to oranges. What kindof insurance enefits are the drivers covered with? Clearly the cars are crap.....I have been to some circle tracks and have been amazed at the complete casual barefeet in the paddock 12 feet from the corner with parts flying through the air mentality.

Are we too concerned with safety in the SCCA?

Why is it Ok at the circle track, but not at the roadcourse track?

Discussion questions mostly....

[benspeed]

This is a great thread. I was just thinking about how to attract more racers and a big part of the obstacle is putting a cage in the car. If we/SCCA could figure out how to make it easier to direct new racers to good cage builders that would be a great first step. Now if the vendors who serve the road racing industry were sharp, they would consider sponsoring part of a cage build because once the cage is in, the spending to keep racing remains constant. Get more cages in cars, more ongoing spending to race continues and usually grows as the racer earns more $$. A sponsorship by a vendor might include the obligation by the racer to buy a certain spend of parts or services. The problem is how to enforce the obligation without the vendor losing their shirt or calling in Jacoby and Myers.

I wonder how a vendor might sponsor a racer who needs a cage or how the SCCA might sponsor more cages? By taking a strong role in how the most expensive and difficult to find/install safety component of a car is installed, we can also potentialy increase quality control around cages. I believe bolt in cages are now correctly outlawed by SCCA in IT?

Tell me if I'm wrong, but don't most newbies want to build their car? I know I did, despite all of the good advice to buy a built car. I have a good friend who's about to make the same mistakes. I even offered to loan him money to buy a built car, but he wants to build it himself.

In the thread of keeping the intro costs down we could also build a class called Spec IT. In this class we would select very comparable cars from each major racing brand and basically equal up the cars with weight or other "non-expensive" methods. In this class there would be competition adjustments similar to World Challenge so the class doesn't have runaway winners every time. This class could become the most participated and cheapest to run. If you throw down for the big buck motor then you will pickup some rewards weight. If you don't want to buy more brake pads and tires, don't build the engineered motor. We could make that weight come off easy too - but not all the weight, so sandbagging won't pay off totally.

The cars selected would be on the highly plentiful, inexpensive shells with plentiful parts and cheap motors. If we required each marque to paint the car a specific color we create a brand rivalry situation that might compel some sponsorship/contingency awards from each Marque.

Final point - Spec IT would be made up of cars that are also newer - nothing from the 80's.

OK - tear in. :bash_1_:

[JMohn]

Let me start off by saying that I have never actually raced on a road course. I've tried autocrossing and I've tried the afforementioned circle track "junker" class and I've really enjoyed them both and also found them both a little lacking. I've also been a "lurker" on this forum and some other websites from time to time, but this particular thread inspired me to sign up and post. You see, I'm an outsider. New blood. And I feel that I'm the kind of person you're trying to attract. If I'm wrong' feel free to ignore or delete my post, or whatever is appropriate, but here's my $0.02:

The first half of this thread really had very little to do with attracting new people. It was more about how to better serve the people who were already there, IMHO. Speaking as someone on the outside, an awful lot is being asked up front just to even try it.

One of the biggest reasons for the "junker" classes at your local circle track is that they expect you to get hooked. They make it easy to get in and give it a shot. They expect that a certain percentage of those people who came out and tried it will come back again and again and will eventually move up into a higher, more-competitive class.

I took a quick look at the first few pages of the classifieds on this site, and it looks like a "cheap" car can be found for $3,000-5,000. Lets say I spent $4,000 on a ready-to-race ITC car because I'm not looking for a project (my experience is that they cost more than they save in the long run). Then I will have to buy/borrow a trailer and tow rig, travel a fair distance (maybe everyone lives closer to a road course than I do), pay a membership fee, pay an entrance fee, etc. That's a heck of a commitment to "try" something new.

Some of this (like traveling) is "just the way it is" and I don't see how any new rules or classes are going to move the road course as close as my local circle track. But there are certainly ways to make the rest of it a little easier.

On the other hand, I think the three-sentence rulebook is a bit light. Part of making it safe is keeping the cars from being too fast. Limiting the cars to 4-cyl, no turbos makes sense. You could further limit cars to SOHC or limited displacement or whatever you have to do to make sure the cars are slow enough. The car would be required to be "functional" obviously, so that means all forward and reverse gears must work, all four tires must have good rubber and brakes must function at each corner. Required safety gear would include a roll cage, fire extinguisher, and removing all glass but the windshield, etc. Of course, safety would be at the discretion of the tech inspector and any vehicle declared "unsafe" would not be allowed to participate.

As far as everything else goes: stock. That's the simpliest way to go. If it wasn't available on that model then it can't be there. intake, engine, transmission, exhaust, suspension, brakes. For the sake of simplicity, I'd probably leave shocks and tires open for change since these items wear out. Perhaps limit tire sizes?

I think the very first post mentioned claims. Claim rules have been around forever and are the easiest and most effective way of keeping things cheap cheap cheap. I think a $1,000 claim is fair. I know from experience I could put together a safe, reliable car for that much...maybe even less. Let me keep my racing seat and harness in the event of a claim. Perhaps even a $500 swap rule but the person requesting the swap must have a legal, functioning vehicle for the swap. That way no one is left without a car at the end of the day, and if you were really dumb and bought $2,500 worth of shocks because I left it open for you, you'd better not let me see them or I'll be claiming your car and beating you with it next time.

Keep the entry fees as cheap as possible and don't make me jump through a lot of hoops to try your sport. I haven't spent a lot on racing schools and I'm sure I'd be the slowest person here, but I'll bet I can get a car around the track without losing control or hurting anyone and I know what all the flags mean.

If you want to attract new people to the sport, make it easy for them. After a few races, a few of us might even enjoy it enough to be willing to pony up a bit and move up the ranks. That's how it works at the circle tracks. [whew, that got long...sorry]

[dickita15]

so you want to call it UT (Uninproved Touring)

I must admit this is interesting, and I know some will yell at this but I think you need some way to tune the suspension, maybe just springs or just sway bars.

[lateapex911]

I've always wondered about the "Come race with us, do the two schools where we drill inot you regulations and protocol, as well as a little theory, then race with the big boys" methodology. Jeeeezzz...talk about intimidating! I know guys who never got up to speed for two races, just because they were so busy getting out of the fast guys way!

The whole "Regioanl National" thing akes little sense to me. I think we should think more in terms of Novice and Expert, and Regioal Races and Divisional races. And all natioanlly recognized classes are at all events, including the Runoffs, if they meet subscription requirements.

And novices race in the Novice group until they are ready for the big time. Seems to work in lots of other sports. (I know, not enough track time...siggghhh)

And i like the free thinking here, but isn''t an old Showroom Stock car basically an Unimproved Touring car?

[Z3_GoCar]

Hey,

This is pure blue-sky, but how about a class to road race mini-vans? Did anyone see the Top Gear episode where some of the top Touring drivers from the UK raced mini-vans? Any one with a four cylinder, Chrysler Caravan, GM Astro, Ford Windstar, take all the glass out including the windshield and drive with the face shield down and leave them all stock, as if you could even find Koni SA's :P

Another blue-sky class for Tow Vehicals :035:

James

[sstecker]

local track rules - $100 for 50 laps and winner gets 1/2 of purse.




2006 Junkyard Division

Safety Rules:



Driving Suit - Required


Approved Helmet - Required

*Fire Extinguisher - Required


Window Net - Required

Seatbelt & Harness - Required


Padded around driver - Required



*Fire extinguisher 1 lb. minimum. - Fire extinguisher must be in drivers reach.

Seat with seatbelt and shoulder harness required



(Optional) Safety items maybe added. Fuel cell, race seat, five point harness, cockpit reforcement.



General Rules



No Convertibles


No Trucks


No Buses

No 4 Wheel drive Vehicles


No Station Wagons


No Muscle Cars

No Mustangs, Firebirds, Camero


No Compact Cars


No Domestic Sports Cars



Any V6 engine full size car.

Four doors cars only.

Front wheel drive only. (Pure stock drive train)

No gear lock front ends.

Automatic transmissions.

Engines must be strictly stock for make and model of car, and must retain original mounting position.

No modifications to steering or suspension. Suspension parts must remain stock.

Stock intake manifolds, exhaust manifolds, converter, muffler, and tailpipe must be in stock

Battery must be mounted under hood or trunk.

Car numbers must be painted/decaled at least 18” high on both front doors and roof. Roof numbers to read from

driver side.

Must be at least 14 years old to drive and if under 18 years old, must have parents sign release.







Body Rules



All chrome trim, plastic and glass lenses, door hardware, side windows, carpet, upholstery and headliners must be removed. Dash may be removed to add dash bar.

Must run front windshield. (Plexiglas is legal)

All body parts must be factory for that make, model and year. All parts must be securely fastened. No lightening of body.

Stock floor pans. Firewalls, trunk, ect. Must be retained. Fuel tank or fuel cell maybe mounted in trunk provided trunk is closed off from the driver. Must be securely supported by a minimum of two 2X 1/8 inch steel straps.

All doors must be welded bolted or chained.


Tire & Rims



Tires Size - 70’s - P215, P225, P235.

Each car must run the same P’s size on all four wheels.

Rims - R14, R15 - Width is not to exceed 8”.





Entry Fee $100.00 per car. (Winner will get haft of total purse.)

Division will run once a month.

No protest - Track will check tires, lock differentials, and safety equipment.

[benracin]

BOOYA! :035:

[AntonioGG]

Spec Retired Police Cruiser (SRPC)

Tires--shaved Goodyear Eagle GAs
Can be Caprice or Crown Vic (The Vickies must use a fuel cell since they come with exploding tanks)
No big block Blues Brother specials allowed.
Turrets optional...if added they must be covered with clear tape.
Sirens optional.

All standard SCCA safety equipment and car can be stripped and glass removed. :023:

"It's got a cop motor, a 440 cubic inch plant, it's got cop tires, cop suspensions, cop shocks. It's a model made before catalytic converters so it'll run good on regular gas. What do you say, is it the new Bluesmobile or what?" Elwood Blues

[gran racing]

I like the general spec IT idea. I think it would be a good idea to have the same cars that run in IT also classed in spec IT. The primary reason being for this is to give a person another step after spec IT. A person could build the car for spec IT (cheaply!), then after a while they may want to do more with it. At this point they can use the same car, just build it up more. By having the cars in both categories, it would most likely keep people from creatively spending money in Oh, don’t leave shocks open. There is a ton of money to be spent in this area and would quickly defeat the purpose of this class. Showroom stock doesn’t allow different suspension systems and they do just fine.

I didn’t replace my very old suspension on my Prelude until after the licensing school – by that point it has over 190K miles on the car with the original suspension. I only mention this to eliminate the whole “but showroom stock cars are much newer and their suspension doesn’t have a ton of miles on them” excuse. Sway bars open, maybe.

No claim rule. I can just picture it now - all of those silly VW, Mazda and Audi guys would quickly be claiming the Hondas. And who could blame them? My real reason for this is that I know my Prelude well, and have a bunch of spare parts for it. When I pop open the hood on my VW (don’t worry, its only a winter beater J ), it looks very, very different.

I am not in favor of let anyone out and race on the track. My first time racing was very intimidating. And that was after doing several HPDEs, feeling very comfortable on the track, and being one of the faster guys out there. When I got out on the track, ummm, wow – this is different! If that were one of my first experiences on the track, I would have quickly said that this just isn’t for me.

Hopefully SCCA will really promote the whole high performance driving program. I like how NASA integrates their HPDE & races. Yes, maybe the participation numbers allow this better right now for NASA. So, maybe we just allow the advanced group to have a session during the race weekend. In the NER (and I’m sure many other regions too), we have a few national classes run with our regional races. Make the national guys run the national races, which would allow room for some HPDE run groups.

[ggnagy]

various blue sky thoughts.

spec IT :
Being a MARRS flunkey, I like the SRX7/SSM type of spec rules (except for the safety stuff) but jeez, why cant someone put their heads together and figure out a SPEC specification that will make other popular car models run close to the same lap times. We've got freaking spec this, and spec that and spec the other popping up all over. Think SS cars with stripped interiors and trunk kits and find a way to integrate them.

"junker" class:
anyone remember the gaggles of slow Renalt Le Cars racing in SSC? How about a class for the 3cyl metros and that small car Ford had (ka?) with cage, belts, seats and gutting. Cheap as dirt and I'm willing to bet that they have very little in go faster parts that people would "unknowingly" have in their cars.

IT Formula cars:
We did that one once allready. It was called FJr. One engine ended up being dominant (Ford). Then some guys decided their uncompetitive FJ engine/chassis needed a spec series. we call that FV today. How about, instead, a LOCOST (lotus 7 clone) series. Spec the suspension/drivetrain parts, and set weights for various IT prep motors.

attracting soloII crossover:
Write safety equipment rule addendums to Street Mod

[JMohn]

It seems like there are really two issues here:

1) How to better serve those already involved, and perhaps keep them from leaving.
2) How to attract new people to the sport.

Obviously the former has gotten lots of attention in the past and most certainly will in the future from people on this message board and on garage benches and bar stools across the continent. But I think the latter is the one that most people here will have difficulty with because you're already involved. Try to think outside the box or paradigm-shift or whatever euphamism is popular right now.

The point is it is difficult for human beings to see from the point of view of someone who is fundamentally different from ourselves. But that's exactly what you have to do to attract people who aren't already doing this. (Of course, that assumes that you want people that are fundamentally different to show up :) )

Therefore, I think it would be wise to consider a class that most people here would probably not want to compete in. It doesn't necessarily need to be competitive, or challenging, or (quite frankly) fair. It just needs to be easy. Take a look at every single step it takes to get a novice with no car onto the track and ask yourself: is this necessary? how can this be easier? how can the costs be kept down? Every barrier to entry keeps potential rookies from showing up, so smooth over as many as possible as much as possible.

If someone wants to be more competitive or make adjustments to their vehicle then that's what all the other classes are for. And when they are ready they will most likely move up to fill out the ranks.

Put together rules that keep the cars safe, cheap and easy for the techs to inspect. Not everyone with a driver's license is a racecar driver, but I would be pretty surprised to find out that they couldn't even make it around a track without crashing. How much instruction is really required to get a person out there? Less cost should also equate to less benefits such as track time, but that's okay. Think of this as trial-size racing. :D

Everybody hates claim rules. Claim rules are an easily-implemented and extremely effective way of keeping costs down and limiting competitive advantages. That's why everybody hates claim rules. It's also why they'd be essential to making this work IMHO.

Overall I think there could be potential benefits to all the classes from this. For one, all the total rookies would be in one place where they would be safe from scratching the cars of all the "real" racers. Also more people involved would help amortize certain costs over a larger group, thereby making things cheaper for everyone. More people could also mean more exposure for sponsors and potentially a better return on sponsorship dollars which would inevitably lead to more sponsorship dollars. And as mentioned before, the more people that attempt to go racing, the more people you will find enjoying it and filling out the ranks of other classes as they wish to advance themselves.

It is quite possible that IT already is as cheap and simple to get into as is practical, and that my views are somewhere between baseless and naive. But I certainly hope not.

[sstecker]

I appreciate the blue sky concept, but...

Any rule that limits wheels to a certain weight for a class, like 13lb for ITA misses the point...now all guys in ITA have worthless used light wheels AND they have to buy 12 NEW heavy wheels.

Question on the Solo tire rule: While new tires appeared that were faster, met the treadwear requirements, and were more expensive, how long do they last? I don't care if a tire is 50% more expensive, if its as fast as anything, and lasts twice as long!
[/b]

keep with a 50lb weight penalty for <13 ?

[dickita15]

various blue sky thoughts...

attracting soloII crossover:
Write safety equipment rule addendums to Street Mod
[/b]

after reading this i was thinking you were talking about street touring which is the one that runs on hard tires but this what I found. not a cheap class but one that would allow the tuner crown to do some cool stuff.

from SCCA website
Street Modified – The top of the “street” categories, SM allows anything from Stock, Street Touring, and Street Prepared allowances and also almost any drivetrain configuration as long as the engine manufacturer matches the body manufacturer (see Solo Rules for details). Four-seaters (BMW, Corolla, Civic, Integra, Neon, Supra, Talon, VW, etc.) run in SM and two-seat sports cars (Corvette, CRX, M Roadster, Miata, RX-7, MR2, etc.) compete in SM2. Subframe connectors, carbon-fiber hoods, cams, and turbo / supercharger kits are welcome, too.

[ggnagy]

after reading this i was thinking you were talking about street touring which is the one that runs on hard tires but this what I found. not a cheap class but one that would allow the tuner crown to do some cool stuff.

from SCCA website
Street Modified – The top of the “street” categories, SM allows anything from Stock, Street Touring, and Street Prepared allowances and also almost any drivetrain configuration as long as the engine manufacturer matches the body manufacturer (see Solo Rules for details). Four-seaters (BMW, Corolla, Civic, Integra, Neon, Supra, Talon, VW, etc.) run in SM and two-seat sports cars (Corvette, CRX, M Roadster, Miata, RX-7, MR2, etc.) compete in SM2. Subframe connectors, carbon-fiber hoods, cams, and turbo / supercharger kits are welcome, too.
[/b]

Yes... and no... I meant to list both categories. Gives engine swap fans one less thing to whine about.

[ERIC THOMPSON]

i was hoping for a class that would allow rally cars to compete in a specific roadracing class...ITRally :P
but i&#39;ve exhausted this topic elsewhere on this board, with no positive outcome(EVEN THOUGH FASTRACK ACKNOWLEDGED MY REQUEST IN JUNE). but it seems that if a solo type class(sm1,sm2) would be considered for clubracing then most of these cars would qualify. and performance could be governed by minimum weight and intake restrictors(just like club/prorally). or maybe a class for 4cyl, turbo, awd cars only. expensive?..... probably(what racing isnt).... fun to watch and/or participate in?....absolutely!! and makes buying a used rally car(eclipse/talon,celica alltrac,wrx&#39;s,evo&#39;s,323 gtx,galant vr4,A41.8t, ETC) more usable and enticing :023:

17x9 wheels(max size)
2800lbs(minimum)
34mm restrictor(@300hp)
coilovers(ok)
rubber/nylon/poly bushings(ok)-no spherical joints
etc.....

just wishfull thinking i&#39;m sure

[jamsilvia]

I love the concept! I don&#39;t know how easy it would be to keep things on the cheap, but the idea is there.

Keeping a spec car (like all of those 3 cyl Metros only) AND having a claimer rule (or something similar - a trade rule??) would at least mean all your spares and stuff would still work on whoever else&#39;s car comes your way. Heh! Maybe the trader rule would be whoever finishes first trades with whoever finished last, 2nd with next to last, ect.... LOL!

I had always thought a cheap spec class would be cool. At the time I was driving a rusty, beat up 1989 Nissan Sentra. About the only thing I did was dump the interior (it was crappy anyway) and force -1.5 deg of camber in the front tires. It was a ... er ... "interesting" street car. But it was that car that made me think of a track full of them leaning WAY over one after the other! With the movement of the SS classes to T3, T4....I thought SSB cuold be revived as Spec $hit Box.

joe

[Jake]

FWIW, NASA&#39;s "new" PT class really isn&#39;t new. It was designed to match their Time Trial classes. In a way, give people a pathway. This is really where SCCA seems lost.

When the shelf-life of a Touring/SS car is up, the car has nowhere to race without being totally modified.

If I race autocross in popular SM or SM2 and decide to race the car w2w, I got nowhere to race.

I think the key is to sync the classes, so you can race a similiar car in auto-x, SS/Touring, and then some kind of IT class without making any mods other than gutting and safety.

[lateapex911]

FWIW, NASA&#39;s "new" PT class really isn&#39;t new. It was designed to match their Time Trial classes. In a way, give people a pathway. This is really where SCCA seems lost.

When the shelf-life of a Touring/SS car is up, the car has nowhere to race without being totally modified.

If I race autocross in popular SM or SM2 and decide to race the car w2w, I got nowhere to race.

I think the key is to sync the classes, so you can race a similiar car in auto-x, SS/Touring, and then some kind of IT class without making any mods other than gutting and safety.
[/b]

In an ideal world, total "cross pollenation" like that would be great.

I certainly like the concept of track cars becoming race cars.....except...

And having autocross cars slot right into race classes with the addition of safety gear sounds great too.... except...

.....except that when you structure your classes like NASA has done for time trialing, and then morph it into racing classes, you have created a cheaters paradise, and the stakes are now much higher...the racing series is going national, so the odds are that more people will actually care and compete. But how will a guy know about the other guys configuration? Is his speed coming form a part that costs him X points? or is it coming from a part that should cost Y points? With a system like that, determining legality is verrry dificult. So, it&#39;s a great method to ease the transition from lapping to racing, but....it&#39;s got issues.

.....except when the classes are changed to allow an easy transition from autocross to racing...and nobody takes advantage. On the surface, it looks like a no brainer....but it&#39;s one of those, "If you build it, will they come" questions? Historically, autocross has not been a transitional sport. Many...probably the vast majority of autocrossers get involved and never leave. So we have to be careful that we don&#39;t change existing classes, and disenfranchise existing participants, in the hope to gain new ones...that won&#39;t show.

That said, I would support a system, that allowed the top 24 subscribed classes to run at the Runoffs, and created more (yes more) classes, with those concepts in mind. But i wouldn&#39;t, for example, change existing categories that are succesful, in an effort to attract new participants. Adding IT classes is one thing, but changing the IT ruleset is another.