ITR Proposed........

[lateapex911]

Well, this is a member driven club, so it's time to make your voice count.

Last night, Andy and I were on the ITAC con call, and it was a long one...5 hours! Interesting discussions, not the least of which was the ITR proposal.

We polled the ITAC, and got unanimous support among those that were on the call. Three CRB members were there as well. They were: Stan Clayton, from the SF Region, who races an ITC Datsun 510 and some formula things, (;)) Bob Dowie, from southern upper New York state who is the assistant head honcho and races GTL, (But said if IT were around when he started he would be an IT guy instead!) and Peter Keane, of the Daytona (ex New Englander) area who races an ITB Honda. If you are in their area, search out them and give them your thoughts. They have been very supportive, and open, and they are, I think, all advocates of the concept. (3 down, 4 to go!)

Also, if you can get a chance to discuss the matter with a BoD guy, by all means take the time to bend their ear. Lot's of BoD guys are often at races working or driving. The Chairman, Bob Introne, is a NER guy, and can be found Stewarding races regularly.

Talk it up at the races. This is big...not everyone is chained to a computer. I don't want to get letters next January saying "WTF are you guys thinking???Where did THIS COME from!", LOL. See what other racers think..non IT guys too.

Finally, write down your thoughts and shoot the CRB and BoD an email. Mention why you like or don't like the idea, or what the class should or shouldn't be, if you like. (Faster? Slower? National? Regional? New cars? Safer? whatever...just write!)

For the record, the Proposal was submitted (AFAIK) in the same form that it was published here.

Now's the time to make your voice known!

(I added a poll for giggles!!!)

[ed325its]

Well, this is a member driven club, so it's time to make your voice count.

Are you sure?

[/quote]
Finally, write down your thoughts and shoot the CRB and BoD an email.[/quote]

What's the point? They won't reply anyway, other than some obscure statement in fasttrack.

[/quote]
For the record, the Proposal was submitted (AFAIK) in the same form that it was published here.
[/quote]

The proposal couldn't have been filed as posted on this site. I am sure the ITAC would have had to include weights and "formulas".

We're already asking WTF are you guys thinking? It looks like ITS will now be Spec RX7 Gen II

[seckerich]

Are you sure?
Finally, write down your thoughts and shoot the CRB and BoD an email.

What's the point? They won't reply anyway, other than some obscure statement in fasttrack.
For the record, the Proposal was submitted (AFAIK) in the same form that it was published here.
The proposal couldn't have been filed as posted on this site. I am sure the ITAC would have had to include weights and "formulas".

We're already asking WTF are you guys thinking? It looks like ITS will now be Spec RX7 Gen II
[/b]
As opposed to the spec BMW of the last few years? Last I saw there were 3 active members of the CRB that now post on this site. Try not acting like an A$$ and you might get a response from some of them. Any proposal for this new class will be put out for member imput and will give you time to check their weights and FORMULAS you are so worried about. Might not get classed 200+ pounds light as you were before but thats life.

[JLawton]

Are you sure?
Finally, write down your thoughts and shoot the CRB and BoD an email.

What's the point? They won't reply anyway, other than some obscure statement in fasttrack.
For the record, the Proposal was submitted (AFAIK) in the same form that it was published here.
The proposal couldn't have been filed as posted on this site. I am sure the ITAC would have had to include weights and "formulas".

We're already asking WTF are you guys thinking? It looks like ITS will now be Spec RX7 Gen II
[/b]


Ed,
You have "gently" reminded me in the past when I've gone on anti-BWM rants that I'm out of line. I think unless you have tried to be part of the process, you shouldn't be complaining. If you don't like what's going on, get involved!

It sounds to me that they are working to give the 325 a level playing field to play on?? I'm not sure how ITR relates to making ITS into Spec RX7?? Maybe I'm missing something............


As I tell my staff: "come to me with solutions, not problems"............

[Bill Miller]

Are you sure?
Finally, write down your thoughts and shoot the CRB and BoD an email.

What's the point? They won't reply anyway, other than some obscure statement in fasttrack.
For the record, the Proposal was submitted (AFAIK) in the same form that it was published here.
The proposal couldn't have been filed as posted on this site. I am sure the ITAC would have had to include weights and "formulas".

We're already asking WTF are you guys thinking? It looks like ITS will now be Spec RX7 Gen II
[/b]


Who's this "we" that you speak of Ed?

[orlando_wrx]

I'm excited to see a new class. However, in my perpetual state of negativity I polled that the BOD would turn it down. I'm glad to see some of the decision makers are for it as it would definitley breath new life into the upper classes. Now we just need to get IT included at the national level/runoffs and we'd be set!

[JeffYoung]

Ed -- thanks for the pat on the back for all the hard work we did to try and give you guys (the 325) a place to run unrestricted. You're the best!

[Andy Bettencourt]

The proposal couldn't have been filed as posted on this site. I am sure the ITAC would have had to include weights and "formulas".

[/b]

The proposal was submitted as text and a spreadsheet with cars and suggested weights.

AB

[lateapex911]

I'm excited to see a new class. However, in my perpetual state of negativity I polled that the BOD would turn it down. I'm glad to see some of the decision makers are for it as it would definitley breath new life into the upper classes. Now we just need to get IT included at the national level/runoffs and we'd be set!
[/b]

Joel, I don't know your age, but buddy of mine tells me you're not one of the old timers. And these days, that's a good thing. Our new President, Jim J., has made comments on his desire to entice new members to the club. To me, that means younger members (as well as others)...but it also means that your voice counts.

If you think the BoD is going to shoot it down, then tell them NOT to! And if you want IT in the National program, at the Runoffs, say so!

One of the issues affecting larger organizations is the silent majority. If there is a vocal minority, many people feel that their voice will be ignored...that management will do what they want to regardless. But in this case, I think management has their ears open. Seize the moment.

Ed, your comments were unfortunatly not laced with sarcasm, and were rather cheap shots. I would have hoped for more. This isn't the thread to drag the SIR thing through the mud. Please PM me with stuff like that, or at the very least be respectful and start a seperate post.

[wrankin]

Finally, write down your thoughts and shoot the CRB and BoD an email.
[/b]

For us newbies around here, could you post the appropriate email addresses we should use? (obfuscated to avoid the address harvesting robots, of course).

Thanks,

-bill

[orlando_wrx]

Jake- sorry, didn't make the sarcazm clear :P

[JeffYoung]

Joel, he was talking about Ed Tisdale's post -- not yours. You had some legitimate questins/concerns.

[Stan]

Bill,

The CRB's email address is [email protected].
The BoD's email address is [email protected].

Pretty clever, eh? :D

Stan

[ed325its]

Jeff L, Thanks for the gentle nudge back at me.

So it seems my thinly vailed sarcasm has been ill received. Is that because there is a level of truth to my statements or have we all reached our limit of frustration with the heated discussion on this forum (from both sides) over the last few months? I have apparently reached mine. Many SCCA members have publically stated that they will choose to race elsewhere and leave SCCA. I have not, as I have always believed and still believe that the level of racing skill and the quality of the individual participants can not be equalled outside of this club.

Allow me to elaborate to my prior post by commenting on my and some of the rebuttal statements.

Jeff Y, I do not yet know whether I should give those working on ITR a pat on the back yet. From my point of view an extreme minority of the membership got together in a closed forum and decided what would be best for myself and my car as a competitor. Then I am asked to stand in line and sing praise to the effort and idea without knowledge of the results of the effort. Personally, I chose to race in ITS because of the level of competition and I have no desire to be forcefully removed from my chosen class. I would have prefered a national BP class as opposed to a new IT class.

Jake, Is there now a consideration that IT might become a national class? This has been proposed many times before and has been summarily shot down every time. What has changed?

Steve, Why would I have any faith that this proposal would be put out for member input? Niether of the last two major philisophical changes to IT were put out to membership, including the new weight formulas or the intrusion of SIR technology. Sorry but have lost all my faith and need proof. It is also standard practice for the BOD, CRB, or any other committe of this club not to directly answer member inquiries or requests.

Why bring up the BMW, rail at me about weights and overdogs, and call me bad names? I did none of that to you. I have publically stated in this forum that the E36 (and the RX7 in my opinion) were the elite of the class and should be affected to bring them back to the field. Why esle would I have sold my very fast E30 and build an E36 if I did not believe my E30 could not keep up with the E36? That is all in the past, I was looking forward and it makes no sense to me to just replace the king of the hill with the RX7. That is what the ITR proposal appears to do with the 325 and 944s banished from the ITS class.

I have never asked for, desired, or expected a competitive advantage for my chosen model so please save your rants for others. I will continue to race in ITS despite weight or restrictor challenges. I only ask for a level playing field.

Anyone know what ITR stands for?

Thanks for the bandwidth.

[Z3_GoCar]

I was encouraged by the last (June) Fastrack. This with the comments on higher classes in Production (e.g. BP and DP) seem to indicate that there's a realization of need for classes for more powerful cars. I doubt that IT will become a National racing class with Production still active. While I don't think that Production should expire, I think that there will only be one production tub chassis class in National SCCA racing and this is what really stands between IT and National class. Actually, I like that IT is a reagonal class, it eliminates some of the National class issues.

Ed, I'd be inclined to think that it's "R" because R comes before S in the alphabet, so just as ITA is faster than ITB then ITR is faster than ITS. So then the question becomes why "S" and not "Z"?


James

[tnord]

as a former SM competitor (i say former because i've pretty much moved to ITA now)....i don't think you guys really want IT to become a national class. all these concerns and wishes (over in the blue-sky thread) about making racing cheaper and easier to get into will be squashed if it goes national. right now IT (or maybe SM) is the main entry point for new racers.....making it a national class will only make the hurdle bigger to jump over for them to get in.

oh yeah..... :happy204: for the ITAC and all involved on this.

[JeffYoung]

Ed, I don't think your perspective is a fair one. While I had some concerns as well about the ITR proposal work being done in the closed forum, I now believe it to have been necessary. A free for all on this forum about it would have been a disaster. Note also that the group (myself, Jake, Andy, Darrin, George, Stan, Ron, Kirk, Scott Giles, Ray Blethen, Dick Patullo) could have done it off line if we wanted to. As could you, if you had the initiative to do so.

ITR is in my view a necessity to keep IT healthy and growing. It is a completely different animal than B Production, and I think you know that. Without ITR, IT will be locked into cars with less than 190 hp stock and generally speaking 10 to 30 years old. We needed new blood, and ITR is the way to do it.

Let me also tell you up front what almost all of the discussion in the closed forum as about:

1. The ruleset. We very quickly agreed to use the IT ruleset with an allowance for wider wheels (ONLY).

2. The range of cars. We did have some debate over what range of "stock" hp cars we should be looking at and ultimately settled on 190 to 230. Some wanted a narrower band. Myself and others wanted a broader one. The 190 to 230 was a compromise that I think works. It cuts out the E36 M3, but you and any other club member will have the ability to ask to classify that car if you so choose, and if ITR goes through.

3. We had a lengthy debate about the place of V8s (Mustangs, Camaros and the 928) in ITR.

4. We discussed whether FWD cars with borderline ITR power should be in ITR at a low weight, or ITS at a high weight. Most went to ITR.

5. After posting several times here and on the Bimmerforums Board asking what BMW DRIVERS would prefer (running restricted in ITS or in ITR unrestricted) the limited responses I got seemed to suggest unrestricted in ITR. DO you have a problem with that? If so, why? If so, why didn't you raise it earlier? If so, write to the CRB. ITR as we have proposed it is far from a done deal.

I guess what is frustrating for me is your belief that a "small minority" chose where you car is classed without your input. The fact of the matter is that after years of members complaining about the need for a class above S, someone finally decided to do something about it. Now, members are complaining about that.
That's fine, and the way things go. But you were not left out of the process. You could have started the process yourself. You could have submitted dyno sheets and other information when the CRB was considering the SIR issue. You could have asked Bimmerworld and Sunbelt to do the same.

So, there you have it. As is usually the case, a small minority willing to do the work actually got some work done. I'll take criticism from you about how that work got done, but I will also show you where you are wrong in that criticism.

ITR is in the view of almost everyone who has looked at it a great and necessary thing for IT. If you disagree, now is your opportunity to add your voice to the mix. You think the CRB won't listen -- they listend to us. I don't think they did so because we worked in a "protected forum." They did so because our ideas made sense. Offer some ideas that make sense, other than blind criticism, and people may listen to you as well.

Thanks. PM me if you would like and I'll give you my phone number if you want to discuss this further.

Jeff

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here is the net/net.

Many people have written in suggesting that some higher powered cars be either classified in ITS or a class above ITS be created.

Two things happened. Ron and Jeff decided to go the extra mile in their 'suggestion'. They did the legwork and involved people in the process that would provide them some insight as to what the ITAC and CRB may be looking for when considering something of such magnitude. They didn't write a letter asking for a class, they wrote a PROPOSAL that included the why's and why-nots - the cars - the reasons and a conclusion.

The group, headed up by Jeff and Ron, effectively submitted a 'letter' to the ITAC for consideration. In essense, not unlike any other letter any of you may have written - albiet 1000 times more comprehensive.

The ITAC had the 'letter' on the agenda Monday evening and liked it enough to pass it to the CRB. What happens from there is out of any of our hands.

The only unfortunate thing about all of this is the perception of exclusion created by the 'protected' forum here. The Webmaster was kind enough to donate some bandwidth so we didn't have to do it all over e-mail, which would have lengthened the effort significantly. Nothing more, nothing less. This was something that anyone could have done with any blue-sky idea they wanted to bring forward.

All in all, I am very proud of Jeff and Ron, both for their initiative, their flexibility and their persistance - and might ask them to post what they learned from the entire experience. Good and bad - so that we may all learn and improve our club.

AB

[Ron Earp]

Andy,

I'll be happy to post what I've learned in this process. Bear in mind, I'm a newbie and have only been around the SCCA for two years now. Despite having messed with cars all my life I found the SCCA difficult to penetrate. Little advertising, not a broad appeal to the "street/rod/tuner" crowd nor the domestic (Mustang/Camaro etc) scene. I digress, topic of another discussion, but maybe not as R could really help in this regard.

I brought up the idea of "other IT cars" to Jeff as soon as I started reading the GCR in the back of his truck one day, and this was even before I turned a wheel. Where were the Z cars, Supras, Mustangs, 911s, 328s, M3s, etc? Where were the "modern" enthusiasts cars? After I started building the Jensen the talk continued and I made a post about it last year:

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...l=class+above+S (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=2390&hl=class+above+S)

As shown in this post, Bill said a higher class was being working on, or thought it was, but nothing ever happened for a long time and we could find no trace of someone really working on an R class.

Jeff and I kicked it around and then decided to do something about it. I made a spreadsheet with a lot of data for various possible R cars. I, and some others like like Ricky Thompson, wrote some letters asking for an R class. Jeff has been around the IT scene so he started talking to the ITAC folks about the class and seeing how something like this could actually happen. Once those folks got involved a lot of work go done quickly and we're to the point we are now, that the CRB is actually involved and seems to basically like the concept.

In working on the proposal with Jeff and the others (and Jeff authored the drafts, I didn't do as much with that) I learned that things in the SCCA happen fairly slowly, although this R proposal would be one of the fastest things ever done if it comes to pass. I learned that the ITAC, in my opinion, is levelheaded and open to new suggestions that furthers IT in the SCCA and the grand scheme of increasing membership in racing. The group really tries to evaluate what is good for IT and in my opinion carefully analyzes a situation.

I'm sure the ITAC or CRB doesn't respond to every "my ZXY has a wheel bearing issue and needs to be allowed to run a FZR bearing to....." or "I saw Johns XYZ leave me for dead on the straight, and I'm top prepped, and those XYZ drivers are cheating" or things like that. But I feel confident the ITAC and CRB has the best interests of the club in mind and are seriously trying to proactively change before we lose membership or become dinosaurs. Sure, mistakes get made, but to me the ITAC is trying to do something positive and trying to be fairly open about intentions and directions. I wasn't around back "in the day", but I hear that the differences now and then are like night and day.

I'm pleased with the response the ITAC and CRB has provided regarding the R proposal, even if I don't agree with all the edits and directions taken. Such is life, I think the edits and changes provided by the ITAC were guided by experience and knowledge of what it takes to get something up and running in club racing. Without the ITAC to help with this, and other matters, well, I imagine IT racing wouldn't get much of a voice in Topeka (why is the SCCA HQ there?) and just have to take what is handed down. Good job fellows!

Now, negative things I've learned about the process? Not a lot actually. In my opinion I think that maybe the ITAC should, as a whole, be proactive in steering IT. ITR could have been proposed two years ago and didn't have to wait for bored IT racers to start it up. I'm sure the ITAC folks were aware that IT is/was aging and 30 year old Z cars and 20 year old econoboxes probably don't appeal to the 25 to 30 year old budding racer the club needs to attract. And who knows, maybe the ITAC will be somewhat more active or already is - they have supported with helping get ITR going and taken a lot of work on getting it there, so I imagine times have already changed.

Now, I've got to go load my 32 year old British contraption and try to IT race this weekend! :D

R

[Banzai240]

In my opinion I think that maybe the ITAC should, as a whole, be proactive in steering IT. ITR could have been proposed two years ago and didn't have to wait for bored IT racers to start it up. I'm sure the ITAC folks were aware that IT is/was aging and 30 year old Z cars and 20 year old econoboxes probably don't appeal to the 25 to 30 year old budding racer the club needs to attract. And who knows, maybe the ITAC will be somewhat more active or already is - they have supported with helping get ITR going and taken a lot of work on getting it there, so I imagine times have already changed.

[/b]

Ron... WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN??? "maybe the ITAC will be somewhat more active..."??? Are you PAYING ATTENTION???

Over the past two years, the ITAC has been proactively putting changes into place that have made the whole ITR concept even possible... Looking into implementing a class above ITS has been part of the plan for IT from the beginning of the current group working together... There was some groundwork that needed to be put into place first, and some higher priority items that needed attention...

Statements such as the one you just made above show a major lack of respect for the amount of work the ITAC and CRB do to maintain these classes, and show a major lack of historical knowledge of how the SCCA has worked, and is currently working... at least as far as IT in concerned...

Sorry... but it just irritates me to no end when I hear statements like this, after having tolerated so much trying to get things where they are today...

[lateapex911]

Good posts!!!!!!!!!!

A few random comments.

Regarding the ITAC and ITR. When Ron says "the ITAC", he's referring to guys who served on the ITR ad hoc commitee, which was kinda casual, kinda appointed but highly effective. The ITAC guys were George Roffe, Andy Bettencourt, and myself. Stan Clayton added some great CRB points of view. Some of the other ITAC guys purposely ignored it, choosing to see the proposal with no previous knowledge or bias.

When the final was proposed to them, the reactions were positive, supportive and I think they felt that the T's had been crossed and the i's dotted.


Secondly, the ITR thing has been discussed over the years, but
"upstream resistance" has been significant. The "no new classes" mantra was never far from our minds.

What happened? Well, it's like anything...a combination of events. mainly two or three.

First, the basic premise is that the pressure has been building in many ways over the years.

Now...a major factor: Spec Miata goes National. Seemingly unconnected, it creates a major issue: 25 National classes, that need to go to a Runoffs where the schedule is very firm at 24. Something has to give. Once that something gives, other floodgates open.

Second major factor: The E36. The single biggest issue in all of IT, and it appears that no solution would have been acceptable to the subscribers, and the one chosen, has been loudly shouted down, long before it's success or failure has been proven. That signalled a community that was philisophically opposed to atrificial restrictions.

Knowing those things, I thought that it was as good a time as any to push for a new class, and I called Ron and suggested we run with the list I knew he had been working on. I thought it would be good to get his new vantage point, and fold in the ITACs system knowlege. Timing is everything.

What I ddn't know was that concurrently, SCCAs new President was getting his feet wet and looking at the club and the direction it was headed in. Now that I have read some of his statements, it's clear he sees the same threats we see. Loss of members to marque club racing, lack of current or near current cars being raced in many categories, other clubs such as NASA attracting new members, potentially away from SCCA, and the Runoffs "show" needing a shot in the arm. ITR could help most of those.

So......it's more a matter of timing and other events that has caused the ITR thing to have more traction than ever before. Simply, ITR is good for IT, but perhaps the higher brass sees ITR as being good for the club at this time. Perhaps thats a signal that IT as a whole is seen in a more important light. Time will tell.

It's my hope that the class passes, and it continues building on ITs strong foundation.

[wrankin]

That is what the ITR proposal appears to do with the 325 and 944s banished from the ITS class.
[/b]


Just a point, in the proposed ITR car list the only 944 model in that list is the 89-91 S2, which was never in ITS. None of the 944 models currently in the ITS list are mentioned, and therefor I assume that they are remaining in their original class.


-bill

[JeffYoung]

Bill, correct.

[lateapex911]

Ron... WHERE THE HELL HAVE YOU BEEN??? "maybe the ITAC will be somewhat more active..."??? Are you PAYING ATTENTION???

Over the past two years, the ITAC has been proactively putting changes into place that have made the whole ITR concept even possible... Looking into implementing a class above ITS has been part of the plan for IT from the beginning of the current group working together... There was some groundwork that needed to be put into place first, and some higher priority items that needed attention...

Statements such as the one you just made above show a major lack of respect for the amount of work the ITAC and CRB do to maintain these classes, and show a major lack of historical knowledge of how the SCCA has worked, and is currently working... at least as far as IT in concerned...

Sorry... but it just irritates me to no end when I hear statements like this, after having tolerated so much trying to get things where they are today...
[/b]

No, I disagree, it just shows that people don't know what goes on behind closed doors, or are assuming that nothing is happening about a certain subject because there is no evidence to the contrary.

Remember, Ron's viewpoint is fresh, which is great! He doesn't see the pounding it took to get things like PCAs in place. I remember suggesting them, and being shot out of the sky time and again years ago. Ron's history has missed that, so his comments reflect that.

I've chatted with a number of people who are relatively new to the club, and I've expained the epic battles and titanic wars that ensued over such groundwork. But I've seen them later ask questions that were already answered in regards to the history and how we got here.

I REALLY think Ron respects the work the ITAC does, and has done, but just isn't as aware of the history, and how far we've come in a relatively short period, as those who have fought the battles. His institution memory merely doesn't go as far back as ours.

I am SURE no disrespect was meant.

[Ron Earp]

Hey Darin,

I think you might have mis-read or mis-interpreted what I tried to say. I think the ITAC does and did do a fantastic job. Remember, I'm only two years in this and have no idea about what went on before so I don't mean any disrespect. The only "negative" thing I thought of was maybe the ITAC could have implimented this years ago, but maybe that is not how things worked back then. These days the ITAC seems to be a different animal compared to what I am told it was like a long time ago. Rememer, I wasn't here a long time ago.

I'm paying attention, remember, I'm one of the guys working with the ITAC on R and think they are doing a great job - do you see that written up there in the post? Sorry you took it negatively, I think the ITAC, and that includes you, are doing a good job.

Ron



Statements such as the one you just made above show a major lack of respect for the amount of work the ITAC and CRB do to maintain these classes, and show a major lack of historical knowledge of how the SCCA has worked, and is currently working... at least as far as IT in concerned...

Sorry... but it just irritates me to no end when I hear statements like this, after having tolerated so much trying to get things where they are today...
[/b]

As mentioned in the original post, I'm new - so yes, you are right, I will show a major lack of historical knowledge of how the SCCA has worked. But, I don't think I need a historical context to have an opinion and I have a lot of respect for how things work. Have a read at the rest of the post and don't focus on the last paragraph, I think the ITAC and CRB is doing fine. Maybe I should word what I was trying to say in a question instead of critisim, in that ITR is fairly obvious so why didn't or couldn't the ITAC enact it years ago?

Ron

[lateapex911]

..............in that ITR is fairly obvious so why didn't or couldn't the ITAC enact it years ago?

Ron
[/b]

Well, Ron, I know you know some of the answers to that, and I've explained why it's currently got the best chance ever in my post up the thread a bit, but....

One reason is that the groundwork wasn't in place. The house wasn't in order, or capable of holding up a second floor.

So the ITAC set about fixing that. Mostly, cars were in classes where they didn't belong, and in many cases, weights needed adjustment.

But....there was no provision to do that adjusting. So, the entire premise that IT was founded on needed ammending. Member feedback was asked for and gotten, is spite of come members claims to the contrary. That took time.

Then, the ITAC looked at all the cars, and decided to create performace targets for each class. That wasn't easy, as it wasn't a clean sheet of paper..there were lots of roadblocks. Well done in the end, congrats to them!

Once that was done, the architecture was in place, and the lifting and moving could take place.

But, it too took a bit of time. It all needed to travel through three layers of SCCA management before being approved.

Then, and only then, when the structure was in place that could support another class, could it be considered. But that required a bigger club wide philisophical change.

I think we are finally at that point now.........

[Banzai240]

Well, Ron, I know you know some of the answers to that, and I've explained why it's currently got the best chance ever in my post up the thread a bit, but....

One reason is that the groundwork wasn't in place. The house wasn't in order, or capable of holding up a second floor.

So the ITAC set about fixing that. [/b]

What Jake said! ;)

[JeffYoung]

I am new to the club as well, having started racing in 2003.

What I learned:

1. The ITAC and the two CRB board members I have dealt with are fair, interested in IT and looking out for the best interests of club racing in general and IT in particular. I may not agree with everything they do or say, but the "black helicopter" perception the general membership has (and that included me until recently) seems completely unfounded once you talk to these folks.

2. Getting things done with the confines of the SCCA is just like any other large organization of people. A small minority of people interested enough to do something start the ball rolling. The body politic then weighs in. Competing viewpoints are hashed out and the initial proposal changes. Compromises must be made to make things work. People whose position is "If I dont' get my way, I'm taking my ball and going home" are not of value to the process.

3. I think all serious initiatives in SCCA (or any large body) MUST start within a small group so that the initial hard leg work can get done. Then, the large body politic can excise from the small group's proposal, or add to it, so that it works the best for all (which means that it isn't always the best for any individual group).

I have been overwhelmingly surprised by how well the process has worked for ITR. I think that, of course, part of this is because it is somethig IT has to do to survive to avoid the atrophy and old car symdrome that in my view has crippled Production.

In the end, I am very pleased with this effort, hope that others will see that it was truly driven by a belief that it is needed to keep IT healthy and also desperately want those with legitimate concerns to weigh in with teh CRB about what we have done -- if it can be done constructively. I'm tired of a lot of the ranting on this board, much of which I am guilty in joining.

Bottom line -- I think if you want something done in the SCCA, you can do it. BUT -- you can't just expect to write a letter on your own asking for a change that affects many members. Think your proposal through. Garner support from others. Bounce it off the ITAC. Jake, Andy, George, etc. have all been more than willing to think this through with us. One-man efforts don't get it done, and shouldn't, in an organization as large as this.

But that is not to say the CRB isn't listening or won't listen. Just present them with well thought out ideas, supported by your REs or the ITAC, that make sense.

Things like "reduce weight of BMW and add weight to RX7" that I see in Fastrack are a joke guys. That's not a proposal. In fact, it's a shame that the CRB has to waste time even answering them.

[Ron Earp]

Well, Ron, I know you know some of the answers to that, and I've explained why it's currently got the best chance ever in my post up the thread a bit, but....

[/b]

And I do, I think. I just wanted Darin to know that I'm not really critizing the role the ITAC has played. Someone asked about experiences good and bad - well, all of mine have been good with the ITAC. To be honest the only "bad" thing I could come up with is "what took so long", and that isn't a complaint per say. I now know the wheels turn slowly and if ITR goes through it will be a huge shift with respect to speed of proposals.

I hope that a lot of folks willl turn out for the class and it'll be accepted as a welcome change for IT while remaining within the IT rule set.

Ron

[evanwebb]

Hey where'e the list of the car and their proposed weights?

[JamesB]

Evan,

http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/...?showtopic=8126 (http://itforum.improvedtouring.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=8126)

[Fastfred92]

What I ddn't know was that concurrently, SCCAs new President was getting his feet wet and looking at the club and the direction it was headed in. Now that I have read some of his statements, it's clear he sees the same threats we see. Loss of members to marque club racing, lack of current or near current cars being raced in many categories, other clubs such as NASA attracting new members, potentially away from SCCA, and the Runoffs "show" needing a shot in the arm. [/b]

Jake, I just sent my letter of support for ITR to the board and I fully hope that it goes thru....( bravo Jeff, Ron et al for doing the heavy lifting ) I, however, think that along with ITR we will need ( in the near future) to revamp IT to "freshen" it and I dont think the addition of a class alone will fix this. The loss we see to other marque clubs and NASA are two fold in my estimation. One, we will never be able to satisfy everybody and their favorite make of car. Two, and more importanly, I think with a general shift in the car public to more youthful and performance oriented products we are old and tired. The Solo side of SCCA is much more in tune with today than the Club Racing side and CR's rules set that many non SCCA people see as ancient and difficult to navigate. Most car club racing programs have very simple rules in place and NASA has used simple rules from day one. Our rules ( IT included) still seem to stem form the old guard mentality where you need to read it several times to understand what it means. IT as a whole could benifit from a complete rewrite of its rules and a updated more modern approach to our class. We will soon need to include the Subaru WRX or Audi A4 quattro guys, the current T1 and T2 guys need a place to go but we will also need to embrace things like "plus 1 or 2 " wheels and plug and play ecu's.. Young people drive nice fast cars on a daily basis and like to mod those cars, when they start DE's etc. and want to move to full on racing we should plan accordingly! I was instructing a while back at a DE and attempted to explain to a student what IT was all about, when I told him he would need to ditch his slotted rotors, 17" wheels, trunk lid spoiler and put his washer bottle back to fit the IT rules he asked me why??? Good question..

[lateapex911]

Fred, good comments.

Some solutions and ideas to your issues.

You mentioned Solo as being more in step. What if Solo rules required safety devices in their popular street category? And Club racing then allowed that class to race? Might make the transition easier. Certainly the club NEEDS to get into Drivers ed/lapping days more heavily.

One of the issues facing the club is that some of the things that you mention (slotted rotors, big wheels, wings) add expense to a build program. IF they acrtually make the car faster, then they become a mandatory expense. For everybody. The cost of the sport goes up.

In some cases, they slow the car down.

On one hand, if the perception is that they are needed, then perception rules, and they should be added. On the other, if we add the allowances, now we've jacked up the cost for everyone, and if those were NOT the impediments keeping the tuner crowd from racing, then we've mucked it all up for nothing.

I'm not sure such allowances are right for IT. When you look at the Tuner cars, you see things like big brakes, body kits, wings, and engine swaps. Maybe a new class with those allowances is needed. Would it be expensive? Probably, especially after the wing is ripped off the car for the third time after tire walls get hit, but...if thats what they want, why not give it to them.?

If we build it, will they come??

I hope you mentioned your larger view ideas in your letter. Thanks for writing!

[Fastfred92]

You mentioned Solo as being more in step. What if Solo rules required safety devices in their popular street category? And Club racing then allowed that class to race? Might make the transition easier. Certainly the club NEEDS to get into Drivers ed/lapping days more heavily.

[/b]

As somebody who has invested heavily ( time / cash ) in showroom stock racing I have always supported the idea of either SS or some form of IT that would allow more "tuner" mods and parts. I think this would both increase interest from potential drivers ( new members) but also increase parts vendors, suppliers etc. which can only be good for our sport.. I think that unless IT drifts towards production ( car identity wise ) we will need to accept some change in the "tuner" direction. I remember, a few years ago when Subaru gave a years membership when somebody purchased a new car, people asking about what class their new WRX would race and the looks you got when you said nowhere ( before T1/T2 had turbo AWD cars )

[p.keane]

Fred, It is not easy, but we are trying. Let's get through ITR before we go after other series competitors.