Should IT be Regional??? [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

lateapex911

06-09-2006, 12:21 PM

In another thread in the BMW section, I saw this post, in response to a question posed. A bit off topic there, but wothy of discussion at this time I think.

Raymond,

IT is Regional-only for several reasons. Mostly it's due to a long-held view by some in our club that IT cars are not 'real' race cars. Couple that w/ groups of low-participation cars trying to protect their turf. You've also got some IT folks that feel that having IT go National will make them spend more money to keep up w/ those that have the money, and want to 'go to the show'. But, I'm not going to hijack this thread to deal w/ the Regional-only nature of IT.
[/b]

So..........

We have a new President, Jim Julow, who seems to think that we need to wake up and smell the coffee, so to speak. He's pretty open minded about the racing program.

We have a new class for IT proposed, and initial reports are that it is getting lots of favorable feedback.

Times are a changing in SCCA, so...........

Should IT be a category that has a right to run at the runoffs?

Open discussion here...lets not limit our answers too much by thinking that the current system (Regionals and Nationals has to remain as is forever...)

And a bit of current 'history'. The Runoffs has been, for years now, a 24 National class event. Well, SM is now National, which makes the event a 25 class deal. Thats a situation that is beeing solved as we speak. But it also means that any solution can be applied to more classes than just one. In other words, there is less reason now to have "national' classes limited to 24.

Thoughts???? Just blue skying it here....

JeffYoung

06-09-2006, 01:19 PM

I like the fact that we are the outlaw regional class that keeps the SCCA afloat. Stay regional in my view.

ITANorm

06-09-2006, 01:31 PM

Ditto.

Bill Miller

06-09-2006, 01:41 PM

Jake,

Thanks for stating a new thread on this. I was going to do it, but have been out of the office all day, and just got back. I'll re-cap my earlier proposal on this. Let me preface what I'm about to say with this. My proposal will not change the number of races that are currently held, be they currently labeled as National or Regional. Here's my proposal, in a nut shell.

First off, get rid of the Regional and National distinction. Any category that has a seperate Category Specification section in the GCR, should be eligilbe to go to the Runoffs. That means all classes in those categories should have a chance at going. If there is going to be a limit on the number of classes that can attend, then participation numbers will dictate which classes go. But, that eligibility should be determined at the class level, not at the category level.

Now, how do you determine which cars get to go. As I said in my prefacing statement, nothing would change, in terms of the number of races, or if they used to be called 'National' or 'Regiona'. They would receive new designations. 'National' races would now be referred to as 'Qualifying' races (i.e. qualifying for the Runoffs). 'Regional' races would be referred to as 'non-Qualifying' races (i.e. you can't get points towards going to the Runoffs). The only thing that would change w/ 'Qualifying' races, over the current 'National' races, is that any car that is in a class w/ a seperate CS section in the GCR would be eligible to run. In other words, all IT cars could run at 'Qualifying' races, in their respective categories, but something like GTPinto or SRX7 would not be eligible to run. 'non-Qualifying' races would look no different than current 'Regional' races, all the classes listed in the GCR could run, as well as any Region-specific classes like GTPinto, ITE, and SRX7.

One of the concerns that's been raised, is the issue of license level and driver experience. I don't think much would have to change, in that regard. Anyone w/ a valid comp. license could run a 'non-Qualifying' race, and you would need a 'Qualifying race' endorsement, if you wanted to run 'Qualifying' races. There would be no need to change any of the current licensing requirements, just simply re-name them.

One of the concerns about IT going 'National' is, that it will make it more expensive for everyone to run, as those that want to 'go to the show' will spend more. Actually, I think just the opposite will happen. I think it will actually make it 'easier' on the folks that opt to run 'non-Qualifying' races, as those that want to 'go to the show' will focus on the 'Qualifying' races, and spend their time and money there. If you don't think that's the case, just look at how many current, serious, National racers run Regionals w/ their cars. I don't even think you many of the SM folks running both.

If ITR gets approved (and I sure hope it does), I think it will really take off, and will be even more popular than ITS and ITR. Couple that w/ the fact that several of the ITR cars will be faster than EP cars, and I think you'll see a lot of people wanting to run ITR. Give those people the opportunity to run for a true National Championship, and I think you'll see some really good racing and a lot of very interested participants.

Another opposing view doesn't want to lose 'their spot' at the Runoffs. Point is, if you've got a class that can put 30 - 40 cars on the track and a class that can only put 10 - 15 cars on the track, it may be harsh, but the lower numbers should stay home. It's a better show for the fans, and better shows are what attract interest, both from a participation level (read: more members), but from a support level (read: sponsorship).

I don't really see a whole lot needing to change to implement something like this, other than some long-held, deep-seated views.

Thoughts?

CDS

06-09-2006, 01:58 PM

backformore

06-09-2006, 02:12 PM

Stay regional only. If you want to go to the runoffs, you've got 25 classes to choose from.

Andy Bettencourt

06-09-2006, 02:18 PM

Why not just have SCCA national office officially recognize the ARRC as the national championship event for IT and the other regional classes? It already unofficially holds that status. No need to try to fit all the IT classes into the Runoffs week, with the attendent problems of bumping poorly subscribed classes, etc. Maintain the ARRC (wherever it may be held) as a separate event, but give it official national championship recognition. [/b]

Maybe because it's crazy-inconvienent for 3/4 of the country to get to? If you did hold it someplace that made sense, then the SCCA might as well just add another week of racing at the Runoffs.

I wonder if Mid-Ohio would like a 'IT-Festival' to fill the space that was occupied by the Runoffs...

AB

<mucho post deleted for space reasons>
Thoughts? [/b]

I am with you 100%.

CDS

06-09-2006, 02:21 PM

[quote]
Maybe because it's crazy-inconvienent for 3/4 of the country to get to?

I was under the impression (maybe mistakenly) that the ARRC would be moving to Topeka in a few years anyway when the contract with Atlanta region is up. Is this not correct?

Greg Amy

06-09-2006, 02:31 PM

The "ARRC" is not an SCCA Club Racing event, it's an event put on by the Atlanta Region (or is it the Southeast Division?) and they own the rights to the name "American Road Race of Champions". Thus, it will always be at Road Atlanta.

I say "Go National". Been there, done that, got the medal. I'm in IT 'cause I like the prep level and the competition; trust me when I tell you the level of competition and preparation in National racing is no more or less intense or serious than what I've experienced in Improved Touring. The only difference is the letters on the side of the car.

Experience level? Bah. It takes, what?, 6 races to be eligible for a National license? The drivers are just as good (and bad) as there as they are in IT.

Level of prepration? Hah! Do you really think that the level of prep we're seeing in IT, especially in A and S and soon-to-be in B, is any less than that in, say, Touring or Showroom Stock? If you think that, you're kidding yourself (or you're blind).

The only difference you'll see is the participation numbers. You make IT a National category and it will attract more competitors. They cream will still rise to the top, and those that are currently mid- and back-markers will continue to be so, just a bit farther down the list (but they can still participate).

CDS

06-09-2006, 02:35 PM

The "ARRC" is not an SCCA Club Racing event, it's an event put on by the Atlanta Region (or is it the Southeast Division?) and they own the rights to the name "American Road Race of Champions". Thus, it will always be at Road Atlanta.[/b]

I thought SCCA national owned the ARRC name and Atlanta region contacted to use it. I stand corrected.

Bill Miller

06-09-2006, 02:45 PM

Greg,

I was simply echoing some of the issues I've heard people raise. Some I think are legit, some I think are BS.

Andy,

:023:

Whadayathink, try for a double? ;)

Speed Raycer

06-09-2006, 03:12 PM

I was just getting ready to pose the same question....

Without reading any of the replies thus far.... my thought was that ITR, or any of the classes above S (including ITE) should be a National class. That gets the BIG money spenders a place to go and keep upping the ante, gets the big power cars off the track (mostly) with the ITC guys and most importantly to me, gives me back anywhere from 12-20 laps worth of track time per weekend. :bash_1_:

Greg Amy

06-09-2006, 03:22 PM

I wonder if Mid-Ohio would like a 'IT-Festival' to fill the space that was occupied by the Runoffs...[/b]

They already got it: http://nasachampionships.com/

Bill, I wasn't responding to your points, simply writing extemporaneously. - GA

ddewhurst

06-09-2006, 03:47 PM

If IT were National the car count at the National leve & at the Regional level will be less that the Regional count is today. The cost level will escallate at the National level the same as the cost level has increased for the Spec Miata folks. Using Spec Miata as an example there have been approx 800 plus suspensions sold. It would appear that the car counts to date for National Spec Miata is 15 to 20 cars. Sure the Milwaukee Cup in the past has had 60 plus cars but that is only one race. IIRC there are 50 plus Spec Miata for the HPT event this weekend. Practice for the Runoffs.

If ya want to go to the Runoffs, pick an existing class & go or have your car classed within one of the existing 25 classes. This everyone going to the Runoffs is not the original meaning/purpose of the Runoffs. Have any of you been to the Runoffs in the last 10 years with your friends tellling them that these cars/drivers are the best of the best ?

Nuff said................ :unsure:

TimM ITB

06-09-2006, 04:17 PM

I agree 100% with Bill Miller's concept, and with Greg's observation about money spent and the level of prep currently happening in IT.

Using Bill's outline, if you want to "get to" the Runoffs, as an IT racer, you would have to find the Qualifying (ex-National) races and commit to the travel and dollars required to run them. If you don't want to get to the Runoffs (due to constraints in budget, time or for whatever reason) - you simply run whatever Non-Qualifying (ex-Regional) races that you want - and I am assuming that these would still have "Regional" points (NARRC, NERRC, MARRS, etc) implications. What's not to like?

If this were to happen, how many new races would the SCCA folks need to add to the Runoffs? 4 or 5? Isn't the program now run over 5 days? I would think that there must be a way to squeeze in these races. Or, as was suggested earlier, if necessary, the lowest subscribed car classes prioritized by total Qualifying points would not get a "spot" at the Runoffs. I would hate to see that happen, but as a CLUB, isn't the SCCA supposed to be working toward the greatest good for the largest numbers of its members?

Anyway, I think Bill Miller's approach is right on. If people want to "go for it" they can. They can spend whatever dollars that they want to on prep, etc. While others can still do as they do NOW, and run regionally, with whatever level of dollars / committment that they currently run.

It would be good if we could start identifying issues here in this forum that may need to be addressed if this concept ever becomes more than a "glint" in the eye. Such as - A)"Qualifying race" length and the issues with adding 4 more races per weekend B)Regional series (NARRC, etc) and any potential negative implications, etc

Thanks for listening.

Tim M

ddewhurst

06-09-2006, 04:46 PM

***If this were to happen, how many new races would the SCCA folks need to add to the Runoffs? 4 or 5? Isn't the program now run over 5 days? I would think that there must be a way to squeeze in these***

Runoffs qualifying & races require 8 days today for 24/25 classes.

As I'm reading these posts wasn't there a thread last year & the majority of IT people who posted had zero desire to run National. :015:

DavidM

06-09-2006, 05:17 PM

I'm not sure if I'm for or against going National. I'd have to think about it some. I, personally, would probably just still run only the regional/non-qualifying races. I like the regional series where you have to score points at multiple races to determine a season winner. The idea of one race to determine the "National Champion" just doesn't sit well with me. I think we all agree that different cars work better at different tracks. So if your car isn't well suited for the run-offs track then you probably ain't gonna win. I think it's a big accomplishment if you win the run-offs, but to me that's all you've done - win the run-offs.

One thought on the proposed plan was how do you add the IT and whatever other class races to what is currently a national weekend? Seems like the national race weekends are already full, so how do you fit in X number more practice/qualify/race sessions?

David

Ken Grammer

06-09-2006, 05:18 PM

Guys... you already have two National IT programs available to you...

NASA for sprint race events, and...

USERA for professional endurance events.

Personally I hope you give USERA a try. We are already supporting some high profile weekends and plan even more for 2007.

flaboy

06-09-2006, 06:00 PM

why would you want to get rid of itc?The car counts maybe low butwe pay our way just like everyone else.

lateapex911

06-09-2006, 07:33 PM

If ya want to go to the Runoffs, pick an existing class & go or have your car classed within one of the existing 25 classes. This everyone going to the Runoffs is not the original meaning/purpose of the Runoffs. Have any of you been to the Runoffs in the last 10 years with your friends tellling them that these cars/drivers are the best of the best ?

Nuff said................ :unsure:
[/b]

But what if you don't like the categories offered at the Runoffs?? I can think of issues with each. Prod? Puleeezz..thats a snakepit of conflicting regulations, backstabbing politica movements and arcane rules.. SS? Nice way to buy a 30K car and turn it into...well, next to nothing. And so on. Fact is, IT is a great Prep level for a club racer.

Another question/thought.:

What would be best for the club??? I submit that a class of 21 cars running around with over 7 seconds seperating the pack over one lap in qualifying isn't a real "Championship" race...it's actually a bit of a joke....not a great way to market SCCA in their one big TV showcase. And thats not just one class either! There are a lot like that! I think certain IT classes would put on a MUCH better show.

Also, who said anything about having to add time to the Runoffs? Why not just let the top 24 subscribed classes run? Your class has low car counts? Sorry, adapt and prosper, or choose another class. Darwinism has it's advantages. This whole turf protection thing has gotten crazy. The current system allows car counts as low as what, 3.5, in 5 of the 8 divisions in order to remain a National class? 3.5 cars?? c'mon..thats just silly! A "Top 24" method will weed out the weak and let thestrong flourish. Right now it's a lot of guys who go for the party protecting their turf....

Bill has given this a lot of thought, and he has some solid ideas. Gregs been there, he knows what he's talking about. More money to go racing? Depends...as always, how fast do you want to go. Look at the top guys at the ARRC..most of the top cars there put tons of National class cars to shame in respect to build quality and program.

But...what do we do about certain cars? Like cars that have different cams installed on Tuesdays than they do on Thursdays? Line item exclusions?

Geo

06-09-2006, 09:33 PM

I am torn on this idea.

From the point of view of the SCCA as a whole and in the near-term, eliminating all distinctions between National and Regional makes a lot of sense. Hold races and they all count. The most popular 24 classes one year go to the big event the next. Tough cookies to the classes that don't make the show.

From a personal perspective, I worry about cost and prep proliferation. From a completely pragmatic point of view, cost containment is purely up to the individuals competing. Anyone can spend whatever they like.

However...

I think SM is an omen. There are always people with more money to spend and are more clever.

Here is a story that echoes in my mind (from Race Tech magazine, December/January 2004):

"The pioneer who introduced carbon fibre monocoques and semi-automatic gearshifts to Formula One, [John] Barnard first considered an involvement in touring cars a couple of years ago.

He even caused a stir by attending a BTCC technical meeting. 'It really was an unfair contest,' recalls one person present that day. 'From the sort of questions he was asking, and the naive answers he was getting, you could see immediately that if he had got involved with the series he would have taken everything to a new - and not necessarily welcome- level.'"

The point of the above is that while we may think we are really clever, and the few folks willing to spend big $$$ in IT are a rare and unique breed, the fact is there are folks with far bigger budgets out there and far more clever (if it's true in BTCC it's most certainly true in IT) than the vast majority of regional racers. I fear that what we have seen in SM would be recreated in IT - much bigger budgets and much more extreme prep levels.

Look, I could easily be wrong. But I am VERY circumspect about considering moving IT to a National class. It could easily ruin a good thing.

In an effort to offer a solution, I'd suggest IT+ along the lines of Kirk's MT2 proposal. No requirement for 5 year old cars and set a "dead duck" date where they are no longer elligible. More like the Speed Touring Cars of 5 or so years ago. Kirk, if you have the MT2 proposal on your computer, could you please forward it to me? I can't seem to find it. Anyway, IMHO, this would be a much better type of class for National racing.

gran racing

06-09-2006, 09:52 PM

I'm not buying the whole "it doesn't cost more to run nationals than IT" theory. Yes, there are people in IT who spend some serious cash but I believe that number would increase if it went national. I've spoken with several previous year front running SM guys, and they're not so happy the class went national.

The whole experience thing between national and regional is a f-n joke. Because someone runs more races (not does better or is a better driver) is what determines if someone can hold a national license? I'll admit I was a bit frusted when attempting to instruct at a SCCA school but couldn't since I don't hold the glorious national license.

I'm not sure how much IT would gain by becoming a national class. Not saying I may not be able to be convinced otherwise, but my thought right now is stay as a regional class.

Andy Bettencourt

06-10-2006, 07:51 AM

SM is not the 'predictor' of what would happen to IT. SM is a VERY young class that was still in it's growth curve when it went big time. The sudden jump in prep level (ie: pro-prepped drivelines) took a lot of racers by suprise. This isn't going to happen in IT. The guys who were surprised (and dissapointed) it happened in SM where guys who WANTED SM to go National and didn't understand that their crate motor with the legal bolt-ons wasn't going to cut it anymore. Hell, all the top Showroom stock cars all have Sunbelt/Rebello/Race Engineering engines in them...

The top cars that hit the ARRC are already prepped to the max. Nothing changes. I can tell you for a fact that ITS and ITA up here in New England are already at 'Nationals' level. There are many pockets of this type of prep all over the country. Are there pockets of 'affordable' cars running around battling for a Regional Championship? Sure there are, and this might change, but it has just been sh!t luck that it hasn't happened already.

As Dave Gran said, you are going to get is MORE people prepping to the limit...SOME people are already there - and you can see who they are by looking at local championships and track records.

What IT would gain is simple:

More race dates, a chance to win a National Championship and the weeding out of some cheater cars (scrutineering is MUCH more strict at National events). All good IMHO.

And don't discount what Bill Miller said. Guys who want to run Nationals will run that 'curcuit' in order to go to the show. It's takes a lot of money, time and committment to run a National program. There is almost nothing left over for Regional racing. You will see very little crossover after the first year...and if you do, it will be the guys in top prep cars you were already seeing anyway on a weekly basis.

You have to look at history and where we are today. Undersatnd my viewpiont is infuenced by the need to develop a 100% effort to get to the front of ITA in my area. Anthony Serra powered and prepped cars fill the grids and Greg Amy's 5 years of development is paying off. I have to match it to have a chance - and I understand that because we are all looking at the same rulebook - and that is fair.

AB

Bill Miller

06-10-2006, 09:16 AM

Tim,

You pretty much 'get it', thanks. But, I wouldn't say that all classes have to be included. The SCCA has already set the precedent that for '07, they're not going to allow the same 25 classes that are eligible for the '06 Runoffs. The top 24 classes for '06 get to go in '07. That is of course, unless they capitulate again and change the rules of the game, mid-stream.

David (Dewhurst),

With all due respect David, you've been drinking a bit too much of the Prod kool-aid. The "if you want to go to the Runoffs, pick an eligible class" attitude is part of what I mentioned in my original post. It's turf protection, plain and simple, and is disingenuous to the folks that pay the freight. And your speculation that 'non-Qualifying' (nee Regional) races would have lower car counts is just that, speculation. I think it would be just as easy to make the case that car counts would go up, as now you wouldn't have the big-dollar guys keeping low-budget folks away. It's all speculation David. And while I think that this board gives insight into the way that the IT community feels on issues, the only way to really know is to ask the community at large (i.e. FasTrack request for input).

Dave (Gran),

I never said that you can run Nationals for what it costs to run IT. It will, w/o a doubt, cost more to run at the front at that level. But, as Andy said, don't think for a moment that it doesn't take close to a National-level effort to run at the front of ITS and ITA in any series on the East Coast (NARRC, SARRC,
MARRS). I also agree that the National/Regional license thing is a joke. I had a National license for a couple of years, and never ran a National.

Ken,

We're talking about the SCCA here, thank you very much.

George,

I really think my proposal would help w/ cost containment. Folks that didn't want to run 'Qualifying' races wouldn't feel that they've got to prep to the level of the guys that are currently winning in IT, to have some kind of shot at finishing higher up on the results sheet. I think a prime example that supports this, is to look at the folks that run Prod cars at the Regional level. Hell, look at anybody that runs a Runoffs-eligible class at the Regional level. I think it's a pretty safe bet that their effort is not at the level of guys running Nationals. This is not meant to be a slap at anyone the elects to run their car at the Regional level vs. the National level, simply an observation. That being said, I think that you do have folks running Nationals w/ low-level efforts. Part of that is due to that's where their friends race, and part is due to the fact that the Runoffs, for many, is more of a social event. Actually, I think those things go hand in hand. Believe me, I've seen some pretty silly things done, just so people get credit for a start, so it counts towards their Runoffs' requirements. For example, several years ago I was at a National at Daytona. There was a car that had such a bad rod knock, that it sounded like the engine would grenade at anything above idle. This guy go permission to take the green flag from pit lane, and pull over as soon as he got on the track. Counted as a start. What a frickin' joke!!

As far as cost control goes, wait until ITR is introduced. If you think that there are some big-buck ITS cars out there, hold onto your hats, as IMHO, $50k - $75 ITR cars will be all over the place. I also think that once ITR is introduced, you'll see more push to make it National, as it will be faster than EP, and I think you'll get a lot of EP folks interested in ITR because it's faster. Those are folks that will want to run for a National Championship, and will want that championship to be official, not some self-declared deal like the ARRC. Don't get me wrong, I think an ARRC win is a pretty prestigious thing to have on one's resume, but the bottom line is, it's not the same a gold medal from the Runoffs.

All that being said, I'm goint to start working on a formal version of what I outlined in my first post to this thread. I'd like to invite interested parties to work w/ my on it, if they feel so inclined. I think that the ITR proposal team worked pretty well, and I'd like to use that same model for this proposal. I'll ask our Webmaster if he can give us a work area, similar to what he did for ITR.

As Andy and Jake said, there are some significant changes going on w/in our organization, and this may be the time to do it.

racer14itc

06-10-2006, 09:16 AM

edit

Knestis

06-10-2006, 09:37 AM

Back from Choctaw, MS (don't ask) and late to this one but I think it's a net-net deal. There are going to be downsides and upsides and whether you think it's a good or bad deal will just depend on your priorities. I for one would tend to think that it would be a good move for the Club, thinking strategically, but it would have to be part of a complete rethink of the Regional/National relationship.

One wildcard idea: Rallying used to apply a "coefficient" system, that applied points multipliers to events, based on their length. It might be cool to do a similar thing, giving each division a couple of SuperPoint events to use as showcases - like double coupons at the grocery checkout. Little events like the restricted regional that's going to happen with the driver school at Rockingham could be a Coefficient 1, etc.

Geo - the MT rules are still on the web at http://www.it2.evaluand.com/compare.php3

K

Andy Bettencourt

06-10-2006, 10:27 AM

MC is right on. But where we differ is simple. He comes from ITB/ITC land where prep level is not what it is in ITS/ITA - on average. You just don't see pro-level motors, as the norm, in either class across the country.

The only thing that top IT teams don't have right now in his cost-model is an extra motor. And I submit that the prep rules in IT limit what a competitive IT car will cost as compared to a competitive Prod or GT car.

If you prepped to the EXACT same level (ie: max to the rules) in IT, Prod, GT, SM, etc, etc...IT comes in WAY at the bottom of the list, second only to SM in terms of cost effectiveness.

COULD you spend $50K on an ITC VW? Sure but there is NO way you would have to. Not everyone has to have a 'restoration quality' racecar. Will IT get an infusion of money if it goes National? You bet. Will it effect most Regions? You bet. But there are most certainly people and programs out there that are at this level already...and for the peopple who race against them nothing would change...until the top cars LEFT Regional racing and went National - leaving Regional races for the others.

It can work both ways.

Bill Miller

06-10-2006, 12:16 PM

Mark,

At the risk of you accusing me of 'skewering' you again, I'm going to disagree w/ a lot of what you say. You say that 5 years ago, you had a $10k ITC VW Scirocco. Not for nothing, but that was a pretty full-tilt ITC effort back then. And while costs will probably go up if you're shooting for a National Championship, anyone that would spend $50k on an ITC car would be spending a lot more money than they needed to, to have a competitive car. You mentioned Walt's car, how much did he have in that car? I think that looking at values for ARRC-podium IT cars is a pretty good gauge of what top National-level IT cars would cost. $50k for an ITC Scirocco? Not likely.

Your ITC/GP comparrison is a red herring. Full-prep Prod cars are such totally different animals than IT cars, you simply can't compare them from a cost perspective. You've said you've got $50k into your GP car. Does that include the sunk cost from initially trying a 1.5 FI motor and then switching to a 1.6 carb motor? You've built youself a nice, competitive GP car. You got a medal at the Runoffs last year, and I wish you well w/ it at the Sprints and the Runoffs this year. But to say that you'd have to spend as much to build an ITC version of that car is quite a stretch.

Based on your theoretical car, could you spend that much? Sure. Would you need to spend that much to have a competitive car. No. Would you see $15k - $20k ITC cars? More than likely.

I'm not sure what the disparity in lap times at the Runoffs has to do w/ the issue at hand, no do I have any idea why you brought it up. It's something that you deal with with ALL classes, so it's a non-issue, and not germane to the discussion at hand. The compliance issue you raise is also another red herring. Why would it be any more important to veryify compliance if you're racing for a Runoffs medal than an ARRC medal? If I didn't know better, it almost sounds like you're saying that IT cars aren't that important, and nobody cares if they comply w/ the rules or not.

And you don't really have 25 classes to pick from if you want to go to the Runoffs in '07. That is of course, unless the rules get changed mid-stream again. Of the 25 classes that go this year, the way things are right now, one of them stays home for '07.

Right now, someone can choose to run a Prod car. They can decide if they want to spend the time/money/effort to go after a Runoffs medal, or they can decide that they just want to go run the local series. They get to determine how much money they spend. Things would be no different if people had the same options w/ IT. If someone wanted to spend $50k for an ITC car, that's their choice. The fact that there's only one place for IT cars to run today, makes the people that choose to run a limited program, and are more concerned w/ having fun than having to win it all, have to deal w/ the group that will do whatever it takes to win.

There's no logical reason why IT shouldn't have the same options and opportunities as any of the other categories defined in the GCR. Sorry Mark, but your position sounds more like trying to protect your turf, than looking at what might be best for the club.

zchris

06-10-2006, 12:32 PM

pfcs

06-10-2006, 12:47 PM

So my question is, why would anyone want to go to the runoffs now that they're at Topeka?
Much ado about nothing.

Bill Miller

06-10-2006, 12:55 PM

lateapex911

06-10-2006, 12:57 PM

I think Mark makes good points, but I might differ on the net conclusion.

Yes, you WILL see silly expeditures if it went National.

But.....lets get to the heart of the issues.
-Does a gorgeous trailer make the car faster?
-Do two spare engines make it faster?
-How about a 5K paintjob?
-Or a megabuck Data Aq system ?
-Or .......

You get the point....certain expenditures are intimidating to the low buckers, but all of us have likely beaten guys who could spend us to death. A good Data Aq system is actually a distraction if you don't know how to use it, and it takes you away from more important things, like proper prep.

The other thing to consider is the SM comparison. Thats a bit of a red herring too. The ruleset for SM is limiting in ways that the IT set isn't. So while the same build is occuring, it's cloaked in secret "magic dust" by the builder.....most of don't know how they make the power they do, but they do, so we pony up. The IT ruleset is more open, and that can yeild savings. Also, the difference between the SM cars is paper thin. If you make 125 hp, and can buy a car with 3 more, you have to do it, as thats a 2% difference. But will a 3 hp difference define the finish in a race of 190 hp ITS cars or 250 hp ITR cars? Unlikely.

Also, keep in mind weight. For many, making weight in IT is easy. You don't HAVE to put the car on a rotiserie and strip the gunk off the bottom. Its actually disadventagious to do so, as you'll just have to add it back, but higher up!

Bill makes a good point regarding Prod prep, which is the other category near us in our racing solar system. A friend, John Weisberg, went Prod for years with his RX-7. That car was a revolving door for parts. Why? Because when they allow you to run alternate carbs or FI systems, you end up trying them all., LOL...kaaaching! Then he sold the car....gave it away after parting it out.

And so on....IT prep isn't apples to apples with Prod prep. yes, you can spend a goodly sum on an IT car, but the point of diminishing returns comes much more quickly.

That said, Marks points are valid...it will... and SHOULD take a solid effort to get to, and win a National Championship in whatever class you run in. Period.

Bill, I'm not going to agree that Mak is protecting his turf, I think his comments were honestly how he feels and thinks, and were not part of any greater conspiracy.

Nor do I think he was saying that IT is less important, in regards to the scrutineering issue. My thinking is that the Atlanta Region thinks having a big race for IT and other Regional only cars is cool, and takes the classes as they are, complete with warts and all, and hopes that a ringer in a Jensen with Wensdays cam doesn't show up, LOL.

However, if IT were to go National, it will likely be incumbent on the ITAC to comb the ITCS list and determine if, or if not, each car can be properly scrutineered. That will be the ugly side of things, as it will likely be necessary to exclude certain models for documentation issues.

Kirk, I like your ideas. Coefficients, or factors, for differing levels of races. Like 1 for a basic school, 2 for a major race and 3 for a Divisional Championship race. or something like that.

Bill, your concept is great, and I encourage you to put your ideas together formally, and you are welcome to my input at any time.

(But not sure we should go 'secret' on the top of IT.com again, LOL ;) )

racer14itc

06-10-2006, 01:17 PM

edit

lateapex911

06-10-2006, 01:20 PM

Well now that IT has slid down that slippery slope of rules creep and IT cars now use things like Motec ECU's that cost as much as a good IT car 10 years ago, I understand the desire to go national. Its to bad the club now has no true entry level class. Because those who influenced the rules did not just say NO to rules creep, we now have a problem of to many classes that are expensive heavily modified racers. IT is now so close to Prod in terms of prep level they might as well merge. Or maybe, those that wish to go National could just convert to Prod.. Nah, makes to much sense. Lets, as Americans, see if we can't come up with some convoluted reverse engineered way of making this happen that would even make the Execs at GM prowd. Guys, get real.
Chris Howard
[/b]

Chris, I've respected your posts here in the past, but on this one, I have to differ.

First, there are some very good reasons why we are where we are. Turning our backs on the progress of time can be self defeating. You listed Motec as an example.

Well, if we want to class cars, we need to allow cars to actually race. Certain ECUs have speed limiting issues. And certain ECUs can't (or couldn't) be reprogrammed. How can we write categorical rules to take care of all possibilities in that area? Well, we need to write rules that have proper allowances to allow people to race the cars that are classed. I hate the ECU thing too, but I understand how we got where we are. (And keep in mind, the IT philosophy is NOT a line item allowance philosophy as it is in other categories)

Sperical bearings. Another oft pointed to example of the death of IT. Should the rule allow only stock bushings? Good luck getting those! Alternate material only? Welll, that eliminates most materials as they require a different design to actually function. Any design in alternate material, except Sperical bearings?? Well, thats an expensive solution. I can make a SB out of Delrin...but it will cost more....a LOT more than a plain old $30 SB. The net net on the SB thing is that there were cars out there with Delrin SBs...which took more time effort and money than just allowing SBs. I don't see the performance level changing one bit due to that rule, but it will save me time and money as I put my suspension back together. Thats more entry level in my eyes.

Speaking of entry level, I also disagree that "the club has no true entry level class". First, IT is a category, and within that category exist a number of excellet "entry level" options. I caould have bought the ARRC winning ITB Accord last fall for $8K. Ummm...that's the very DEFINITION of a great entry level buy, LOL. And who says you have to win the ARRCs, or even be in the winning car in your entry year? I know guys who drive to the track, then race and drive home! IT has plenty of entry level capability, and it will in the future as well. It's the fact that you can prep the car to a reasonable level yourself that makes it so.

Convert to Prod??? Honestly, thats NOT simple, or inexpensive. And frankly, the category management, over the years, has done EXACTLY what you are faulting IT for, but a hundred times over!

Not to mention the backstabbing nature of comp adjustments that is the accepted norm in that category.

It is my opinion that Prod is seeing the numbers they see for good reasons. If Prod was NOT a National category, I bet it would die instantly.

No thanks..

Bill Miller

06-10-2006, 01:34 PM

Bill,

I stopped worring about what you think or say a long time ago. While you were sitting at your computer writing dissertations about what's wrong with my OPINIONS on this matter (and making snide little comments along the way), I was rebuilding the cylinder head of my Runoffs back-up motor. It's really easy to take pot-shots from behind the safety of your little keyboard at those that DO when you're somebody who DOESN'T. :bash_1_:

When was the last time you raced that HP Rabbit you own ?? Was it 2003 or 2002? And I seriously doubt that you have first hand knowledge of what it takes to prep and drive a top notch IT or Prod program.

When you and your car are sitting in impound at the ARRC or Runoffs, let's talk. :018:

MC
[/b]

No big surprise there Mark, you personally attack people when they don't agree w/ what you have to say. You once went so far as to tell me to never stop by your paddock because I disagreed w/ you publicly. Take your elitist attitude and shove it up your ass. Maybe that's why you're a teacher, because you get off on being in a position of power and control over a bunch of students.

Bill Miller

06-10-2006, 01:56 PM

Jake's last post made me think about something that's come up several times. People talk about IT being SCCA's "entry level class", and that making it National would take that away. While I agree that IT is probably the normal 'entry point' for someone that wants to race a production car w/ the SCCA. But 'entry level' or not, you're sure not going to run at the front w/o putting forth a serious effort. Doesn't matter if it's ITC or ITS. If entry-level is what you're looking for, you can get into a Prod car for about what you can get into an IT car for. Jake mentioned John's EP 2nd gen. RX7. He pretty much gave that car away. That was a car that medaled at the June Sprints, and IIRC, ran as high as 4th or 5th at the Runoffs. From what I remember, at one point in time, you could have bought it as a good Regional EP car for ~$12k. You could have bought it w/ all the trick Runoffs' goodies for $20k less than Coffin's $50k National ITC Scirocco.

racer14itc

06-10-2006, 02:17 PM

edit

Bill Miller

06-10-2006, 02:33 PM

Bill,

Nice language. :018:

Bill, you're an internet Bully and I don't understand why everyone else is so afraid of you and pointing out that the "emperor has no clothes" in your case. If someone disagrees with you, the cursing and foul language appears pretty quickly. The remark about the paddock wasn't due to the disagreement itself but instead the libelous things you said and borderline threats you made towards me.

BTW, the teaching career was two careers ago. keep up, will ya? :dead_horse:

As usual, the internet bully has taken over. I'll sign off and get back to having fun and working on my racecar. Y'all have fun arguing over something that will very likely never happen in my racing career. The biggest things that will stop it is internal politics, and manufacturer lack of interest in 5 year old cars.

MC
[/b]

Wow Mark, now you actually flat-out lie.

racer14itc

06-10-2006, 02:42 PM

I have had enough of this board and certain disagreeable people.

Good luck to all.

MC

Andy Bettencourt

06-10-2006, 03:40 PM

Good luck to all.

MC [/b]

Mark,

You were supposed to say, "Be careful what you wish for..." :) :) :)
AB

zchris

06-10-2006, 03:48 PM

Jake, I agree and disagree. There needs to be a class that the guy looking into club racing can see as both affordable entry level and attainable. If he hears that a ITB car for instance, can cost 20,000. to build a front runner, he might think twice about club racing being an attainable goal. You and I both know that a newbie will not win in his first couple of years, but he needs to feel its an attainable as a goal. If he sees that it will take a pile of money he does not have, its likely he will never try. I don't know about you, but I am very goal oriented. I foolishly thought in my first few years a win was attainable. And after repeatedly getting my ass kicked I realised it might take a few more years. That or everyone else would have to crash out. As a club that wants to grow, I think this has been overlooked. And we could argue till the cows come home about the sense in rules creep. I see SM going national as good if for no other reason, it was getting to big to contain at a regional. Though I think it also has gotten out of hand in the rules department.
Chris Howard

ddewhurst

06-10-2006, 04:06 PM

***You were supposed to say, "Be careful what you wish for..." ***

The folks with Spec Miata got just what they wished for at National................ :o

Now it appears some IT people want to play the National game. You to will get what you ask for. Being generous 25% of the race class will have a opertunity to win & the other 75% got what they asked for. Have you noticed that Mr. Grammer is looking for IT cars to fill his enduro series races. Do ya suppose the 75% have had their fill all ready ?

Andy Bettencourt

06-10-2006, 04:08 PM

The rules for SM haven't changed - people are just actually prepping to the max...

I am a believer that the top classes should go to the Runoffs...does anyone actually think that ITC (or to a lesser extent ITB) could actually make the numbers to get into the show? Although I am always surprised how FEW cars actually populate National race-grids, I would doubt ITC could make it - but some of the other classes put up crap for numbers. I will crunch some tonight...

Not that I am in favor of this idea but:

What if only ITR, ITS and ITA were eligible for Nationals? That leaves B and C alone and kills the perception that there is no 'affordable' place within IT. You could even 'grow' within your own category instead of having to move altogether. It's exclusionary but it does solve some problems.

The appeal for me is that I like the IT ruleset better than all the others. Meaning these cars are 'racecars' but the EXTENT of prep isn't much at all compared to the 24 currently allowed to go. Only SM and SS offer lower boundries. Plus, I want to be able to go and run against the best from ALL over the country - not just the Southeast. It's why we did it in Solo, it's why we would do it in CR.

AB

ddewhurst

06-10-2006, 06:37 PM

***The rules for SM haven't changed - people are just actually prepping to the max...***

Andy, I understand. That & those that turn consistant lap times within lets say 3 tenths & less is what will differentiate the 25% from the 75%. :023: That $1,200 clutch/pp, Pro motor & other items don't mean squat to the folks whose laps are scattered all over the chart.

Greg Amy

06-10-2006, 07:50 PM

Another idea, courtesy of Amy and Mushnick brainstorming (over beers?)

When IT was designed in 1983, there was a 15-yr limit on the eligibility of cars (1968). As IT got older, that date stayed the same. However, Showroom Stock always had a roving expiration date, originally 5 years then good for Regional Only after that (for 5 more years was it?)

How about a compromise? How about vehicles are eligible for Showroom Stock for ten years (as they are now), eligible for National status Improved Touring once they're 5 years old (as they are now) but are only eligible for National status Improved Touring for 16 years. Once a car reaches twenty years old (or older) it reverts back to Regional Only status as it is now.

This resolves several desires: National status for those that want to go for the big prize, removal of older difficult-to-classify from serious reclassification and PCAs, and older cars can still play in the small pond with little threat of the big monies playing. Big monies can take the newer cars to Topeka while the older cars fade into history for folks to toodle around in locally...

Very easy to implement, much easier to police and adjust. - GA

RSTPerformance

06-10-2006, 10:05 PM

1) With a 20 year old limit my car wouldn't even be eligable.... not in favor of that rule!!!

2) As for the limite number of cars, I don't think that ITB or ITC would have a problem reaching the goals.

3) I personally think that the "Regional" championships (NARRC, NERRC, NYSRRC, etc) are far more of a challenge than the NESCCA or National "Joke" of a championship series, thus I hope that those championships would not be effected, and if anything regional championships were made more "prestigeouse" than they currently are on a National level.

4) Why not "downgrade" some of the production class requirements such as fuel cells or race "slicks" and make IT legal cars fit into production? With that add an effort to be sure that EVERY it car/make that is classed in IT is also classed in Production. People could far more easily move up the ladder and have fun.

Raymond "If my post makes you wonder how I feel overall about the National/Regional issue... well you then understand how I actually do feel" Blethen

shwah

06-11-2006, 01:11 AM

I am fine with staying regional. I also would not fight going national, however I have no problem stepping up to a different class if/when the runoffs become a target. I used to think this was a big deal, but it just doesn't matter much to me now. I like the racing I have available right now.

The comments about IT being nearly Prod prep level are laughable. Spend some time around a competitive Prod car and see if you still hold that opinoin. BTW the cost for limited prep is no different than full prep IMO. The only things limited are cylinder head and some suspension details. I don't see how you coud build a competitive one with less effort than a full prep car.

As far as worries about cost escalation when going national. That has everthing to do with your approach, injenuity, technical skill, circle of friends and bank account. If you are exceptionally strong in any of those areas it will influence the cost for your car. Don't sell yourselves short, we are resourceful enough to be competitive on our respective budgets - it is what we do today. Those that do have the funds will use that to their advantage, as they should, but you still have to know where to spend the darn money. You can put a production car on the podium at the runoffs for less than some of the numbers folks are throwing out as hypotheticals for ITA/B/C national efforts in this thread (unless you have to build the car twice :o )

Nomex95

06-11-2006, 09:25 AM

What would happen if the class went national and then the class splits in a way. Some guys go only national races and some regional. I like racing in improved touring for the excitment and pretty good field size, now split that in half and we have half the fun? What if you win and the really fast guys weren't there cause they were saving thir car for a national, you still won but it would be better to beat the best. if all the fast guys go national racing so would i with some regional races if I can afford both. I'd rather be with the fast guys even if it meant I was an also ran.

Thanks,
Charlie #95ITB :dead_horse:

dickita15

06-11-2006, 09:26 AM

From my personal point of view as a competitor I could not care less if IT were a runoffs eligible car.

Greg, the fact that a cutoff date would make Raymond’s car ineligible should make that idea easier to sell. :D

To those that want to eliminate the distinction between national and regional races, the format for a national race is very rigidly determined by the GCR. There is much more flexibility to tailor race formats for regional races to serve the needs and wants for the competitor. If all race weekends were like the nationals it would be a lot less fun with a lot less actual racing.

I am sorry I got here after MC edited out most of his comments. I am glad Bill quoted a few. I always enjoy people making themselves look silly.

Greg Amy

06-11-2006, 11:01 AM

...my car wouldn't even be eligable.... not in favor of that rule!!![/b]

See, Raymond, therein lies one of the major problems with this (and really any) rule change: everyone thinks in terms of how it will affect THEM as an individual, not what how it would affect the collective good. Is this proposal good for the category and club as a whole? Of course some people will be unhappy, and some will be very happy, but it would be very shortsighted for any individual to support or oppose anything based on how it would affect them alone. Don't forget, my car's a 1992, so it wouldn't be eligible for that much longer either!

Also don't forget that if you support this rule as a good idea and it passes, then for you then nothing would change: you'll still be racing Regionals only. If you oppose this rule because you wouldn't be eligible and it's shot down, then nothing changes: you'll still be racing Regionals only. So, for you, it's irrelevant: I would thereofre expect you will think of this in terms of the big picture and decide whether it's a good idea for the category long-term.

Originally posted by 'Nomex95'
What would happen if the class went national and then the class splits in a way. Some guys go only national races and some regional.

And, right there Charlie, is another problem: not everyone can be satisfied. A few posts above some folks were opposed to going National because it would cause an influx of a lot of people into the class; you're concerned because it might dilute the class! Sooo, which is it (Rhetorical question)? And, whichever way it turns out, will everyone be pleased?

Nope.

Eric Parham

06-11-2006, 11:29 AM

I used to be against IT as national classes. Thanks in part to this discussion, I think I've changed my mind. I probably wouldn't push for such broad and sweeping changes as mentioned above, though. I think it would be enough to recognize that any class that is present and follows the same rules among all regions really is a de-facto national class already. Bill's non-IT regional examples (SRX7, etc.) don't have nationally recognized rules that are accepted by all regions (and I guess that's why they're not in the GCR). If a national class is still to be defined by participation numbers, I think it's time for us all to accept that the IT classes in the GCR are ready for that consideration, and more specifically a chance to compete at the Runoffs.

Bill has given this a lot of thought, and he has some solid ideas. Gregs been there, he knows what he's talking about. More money to go racing? Depends...as always, how fast do you want to go. Look at the top guys at the ARRC..most of the top cars there put tons of National class cars to shame in respect to build quality and program. [/b]

Ditto

But...what do we do about certain cars? Like cars that have different cams installed on Tuesdays than they do on Thursdays? Line item exclusions?
[/b]

I'll assume that you don't mean by the factory. I don't know if this is as much of an issue as it used to be. If it is, I think "going national" with IT can only help. In fact, I see one significant benefit of going national with IT to be helping with self-enforcement and/or willingness to protest tech stuff, at least at the "national" events. There would also be a filter-down to the regional events, based on both lap times and on the known-quantity national cars at least occasionally showing up at regional events. In the past, this may have been the biggest drawback of "regional-only" IT.

charrbq

06-11-2006, 01:51 PM

I am a believer that the top classes should go to the Runoffs...does anyone actually think that ITC (or to a lesser extent ITB) could actually make the numbers to get into the show? Although I am always surprised how FEW cars actually populate National race-grids, I would doubt ITC could make it - but some of the other classes put up crap for numbers. I will crunch some tonight...

AB
[/b]
You never miss a chance, do you?

lateapex911

06-11-2006, 02:46 PM

Ditto
I'll assume that you don't mean by the factory. I don't know if this is as much of an issue as it used to be. If it is, I think "going national" with IT can only help. In fact, I see one significant benefit of going national with IT to be helping with self-enforcement and/or willingness to protest tech stuff, at least at the "national" events. There would also be a filter-down to the regional events, based on both lap times and on the known-quantity national cars at least occasionally showing up at regional events. In the past, this may have been the biggest drawback of "regional-only" IT.
[/b]

I agree, that any legal scrutiny would help the category as a whole, at any and all levels.

But, the issue in making categorical policy changes is what to do about the exception.

IF there is a car like, lets call it a Jenorchmobile S999R, which was produced by a firm in the late 60s thru the 70s. Firm is now pretty much gone. Their documentation was sketchy, and it is known that as they were a small firm, they pretty much installed items in the car (pre emission days remember) as they could get them from suppiers on a random basis. This cam that day, that carb that month, whatever.

Now, that car is classed, and lo and behold, a cagey competitior starts dominating in that car. Tech throws up their hands...can't prove he's NOT legal, can't prove he IS!

Uh oh...Now we've created something even worse than a one model calss...we've created a one GUY class, LOL, as those cars are rare as hens teeth. Nobody can even change their program and buy one, LOL.

What do you do? Add weight to HIS car? Hmmm...kinda sounds like Prod...certainly not consistant with IT philosophy.

Well, the idea is to establish acceptabel documentation before allowing such cars to compete. As it stands now, such cars exist. They slipped thru the cracks 20 years ago. Those cars need to be dealt with in some way, either by line item exclusion (sorry guys), or thru age cutoffs (sorry more guys).

The age thing worries me as you eliminate cars in the middle of model runs. Like if we go 15 years back, and car that was produced from 89 to 93 now has half the models eliminated, but not all. If thats a good car for the class, the VIN rule makes the later models more desirable, and drives up the cost of aquiring one.

I'll add another factor: I bet the Top Brass likes the idea of more modern cars being raced. (I know that locally, Lime Rock thinks IT makes for great racing and likes tapping the locals for support races on their Pro weekends, but has decided against any more such events due to the older shaggy nature of IT.)

One thing Greg mentioned is 100% correct. No matter what, everyone won't be pleased. But then...is everyone pleased now???

One more thought on the money thing:

Racing is as expensive as the category/class is popular..

The Fathers of the category can't control that, but must attempt to make the money spent yeild diminishing returns.

charrbq

06-11-2006, 03:43 PM

One more thought on the money thing:

Racing is as expensive as the category/class is popular..

[/quote]

No truer words were ever spoken! Did I hear ITA/S/R?

Andy Bettencourt

06-11-2006, 04:37 PM

You never miss a chance, do you? [/b]

To state the facts as I see them - nope.

All we are doing is talking about average participation numbers across the country here. ITC is the least populated of all of IT, so it would make sense that it would be the first to go under the microscope for an anlysis of participation within the context of this proposal...but you want to see it as some sort of agenda against ITC on my part? :rolleyes: Numbers are numbers.

<on edit> So maybe you are from a pocket of huge ITC numbers...so a cursory look at MyLaps shows these results from the races you have raced in so far as I can tell:

3-11 2 cars
5-6 7 cars
5-12 2 cars
5-27 1 car
5-28 1 car

5 race average - 2.6 cars per race. Throw out the high and low and you get 1.6 cars per race. The fact remains that if the most popular classes are invited to the Runoffs, ITC would be in danger no? THAT is all I was saying. But there could be huge fields somewhere I haven't seen yet. Also like I said, the Prod numbers across the counntry stink too. The June National at RA had 3 EP cars, 5 FP cars, 2 GTL, 1 GP and 4 HP.

I am ALL for the top classes getting in and the possible inclusion of all of IT would put a fire under some of these drivers/classes for sure.

AB

charrbq

06-11-2006, 05:06 PM

Agenda, no. In your position, some things are better left unsaid. I don't argue numbers, they're correct, as you stated. I only wonder why you never miss a chance to pick up the shovel and toss the first scoop of dirt.

Andy Bettencourt

06-11-2006, 05:21 PM

Agenda, no. In your position, some things are better left unsaid. [/b]

You mean inflamitory statements like 'ITC is the least populated of the IT classes and might not make the Runoffs if a pure numbers game was implemented'?

:rolleyes:

JeffW

06-11-2006, 05:31 PM

AB,

My gut feeling is that S2000, CSR, DSR, HProd, or F500 could be replaced by ITR, ITS, ITA and ITB cars, based on participation numbers. F500 should be on the Super Go Kart circuit. Just like putting a gaggle of Legends cars out on my local 3/8 mile roundy-round.

Nomex95,

You are seeing the dilution of regional fields this year in SM because everyone wants to go to the Runoffs. Except for those guys who knew they were already running at the back of the field. Those guys are staying in the Regional races. Some SM Regional fields are only starting about 50% of what they have in the past. As some of those with Runoffs aspirations get their lunches handed to them at the National races, they will come sulking back to the Regionals. And they will be welcomed like the Prodigal Son. ( I mean, What fun is it only getting to watch half of the Spec Pinatas wreck?) ( On the other hand, can you imagine the carnage of an 80 car SM Runoffs starting grid all trying to get into Turn 1? I'm taking extra popcorn.)

With the exit of SM as a Regional-only class this year, the balance has shifted somewhat. Before SM went National, the Regional-only classes subsidized the Regions. We get hosed on the R/N weekends in the entry fee department, paying from 55% to 83% for a single race when compared to the cost of the double. (Nationally classed cars have the option of running both days, Region-only cars don't have that option.)

RE: Spec RX7 - most regional rules sets are more restrictive than the ITA rules, therefore the SRX7 can run as an underprepped ITA car. From reading this board, I know that Dew made the conversion in steps but continued to compete in an underprepped ITA car along the way. As long as the Regional-only classes like SRX7 have the foresight to contain the rules within those of IT, there will be a less expensive entry into Club Racing and the $40K National level car will not scare away the newbies. They'll pick SRX7 or something like NASA's Spec Neon or Spec E30 or PT().

Hmmm... 80 SM's into Turn 1 :o Oh, No! Mr. Bill

Jeff

(AB, I see you've already taken a straw poll.)

charrbq

06-11-2006, 06:04 PM

You mean inflamitory statements like 'ITC is the least populated of the IT classes and might not make the Runoffs if a pure numbers game was implemented'?

:rolleyes:
[/b]
Don't twist what I wrote by adding words to my statement! It's unbecoming of someone in you position or profession. :018:

Andy Bettencourt

06-11-2006, 06:09 PM

Chris,

I have no idea what you are talking about. My statement was paraphrasing myself. When did I twist your words? You said 'some things are better left unsaid'...I am still not sure what I said to get your panties in a bunch. Just making the point that if any class in IT ain't gonna make the numbers, it's ITC. Simple, accurate and non-combative.

charrbq

06-11-2006, 06:17 PM

Andy, I'm done with you on this matter at this time. Your standards seem to be as adjustable as your words. I'm waisting my time trying to help you to understand what you say is taken as gospel by many people as a result of your position in our club...at least on this site.

Ron Earp

06-11-2006, 06:39 PM

IF there is a car like, lets call it a Jenorchmobile S999R, which was produced by a firm in the late 60s thru the 70s. Firm is now pretty much gone. Their documentation was sketchy, and it is known that as they were a small firm, they pretty much installed items in the car (pre emission days remember) as they could get them from suppiers on a random basis. This cam that day, that carb that month, whatever.

Now, that car is classed, and lo and behold, a cagey competitior starts dominating in that car. Tech throws up their hands...can't prove he's NOT legal, can't prove he IS!
[/b]

Hmmm, sounds like a Jensen Healey - except that part about dominating! :wacko:

dickita15

06-11-2006, 06:50 PM

Hmmm, sounds like a Jensen Healey - except that part about dominating! :wacko:
[/b]

well not yet. :lol:

Chris, i don't understand your problem either. ITC is in trouble. I admit that the three or four that show up around here do put on some great races but the class is not growing. I think your time would be better spent try to attract more cars than pretending the problem does not exist.

Andy Bettencourt

06-11-2006, 06:52 PM

charrbq

06-11-2006, 07:20 PM

well not yet. :lol:

Chris, i don't understand your problem either. ITC is in trouble. I admit that the three or four that show up around here do put on some great races but the class is not growing. I think your time would be better spent try to attract more cars than pretending the problem does not exist.
[/b]
I never said the problem didn't exist, only that someone in Andy's position doesn't need to pronounce it as dead. Trying to attract more cars is tough when our leaders grab a shovel and through dirt over us. What Andy failed to include in his numbers was that there were 9 cars in C in May, not 7...only 7 finishers. Actually, there were 10, as one withdrew. In late May, there were only 2 B cars and the overall entry for a R/N weekend was surprisingly low (105 entries). He also failed to include that some of his ITA numbers were inclusive of SM running ITA for track time. He also failed to mention that there were only 4 ITA cars in April and one ITB and two ITS. SOWDIV is a very week division in anything other than SM or SRF. The southern end of MIDDIV is weak in many areas other that production. To date, I've only run one race in SEDIV, where I'm a member.
I run there for two reasons, one is the competition (admittedly), and the other is the two IT series that they have.
Andy doesn't seem to take the time to research everything as well as he needs, but doesn't hesitate to pick out the facts that support his point and leave out the facts that make his point mute.

Sorry to talk behind your back, Andy, but you made me really, really mad.

lateapex911

06-11-2006, 08:24 PM

Chris, relax...nobody's trying to kill ITC, and certainly not through a smear campaign. Fact is, ITC is a class that really doesn't have a lot of followers it seems these days, and is a class that is very difficult to add cars to, as they don't make many cars that fit that people also want to race.

I'm on the con calls with Andy, and he's not running around with a noose trying to finish off ITC.

It's a common opinion that C and B are the IT classes that are least subscribed overall, and that A and S are better subscribed.

IF this whole deal goes National, I would vote that all IT classes are afforded the same chances, and let the chips fall where they may.

But, rest assured, nobody's trying to kill the class, and nobody's selling their ITC cars because Andy say its numbers are low. He's not exactly making headlines with that, now is he?

charrbq

06-11-2006, 08:38 PM

Jake, I followed with you up until the last absurd question...it sounds like something Andy would say to sound innocent. I'm sorry to have hijacked this thread...it wasn't my intention, I just get tired of such statements coming from sources such as Andy.

True, if IT went national, ITB and ITC would be kicked out for lack of participation and that would be their death...final and permanent...just like SSA. Everyone that wants a well subscribed regional class to go national should study the history of the Shelby Can Am, all of the showroom stock classes, and F440's.

Leave it regional, just recognize it as a viable alternative to spending heavy change to race. The club and its leadership has been leaning toward making club racing a professional sport for quite a while. That would leave out IT and just about every production class and several of the GT classes. How would we handle that? I suppose we could all sit around and talk/write about how we used to race in a fun and relatively low budget class called "Improved Touring".

Andy Bettencourt

06-11-2006, 08:42 PM

I never said the problem didn't exist, only that someone in Andy's position doesn't need to pronounce it as dead. Trying to attract more cars is tough when our leaders grab a shovel and through dirt over us. What Andy failed to include in his numbers was that there were 9 cars in C in May, not 7...only 7 finishers. Actually, there were 10, as one withdrew. In late May, there were only 2 B cars and the overall entry for a R/N weekend was surprisingly low (105 entries). He also failed to include that some of his ITA numbers were inclusive of SM running ITA for track time. He also failed to mention that there were only 4 ITA cars in April and one ITB and two ITS. SOWDIV is a very week division in anything other than SM or SRF. The southern end of MIDDIV is weak in many areas other that production. To date, I've only run one race in SEDIV, where I'm a member.
I run there for two reasons, one is the competition (admittedly), and the other is the two IT series that they have.
Andy doesn't seem to take the time to research everything as well as he needs, but doesn't hesitate to pick out the facts that support his point and leave out the facts that make his point mute.

Sorry to talk behind your back, Andy, but you made me really, really mad. [/b]

Chris,

No problem, here on the BB is hardly behind my back. Some major flaws with your post however. I never quoted ITA numbers - actually, never talked about ITA numbers specifically if I recall. Help me out there.

I also never (in this thread) proclaimed ITC dead. You are recalling a thread from over a year ago in which you seemingly can't let go of. Help me out there too.

The only thing I said was that I doubted ITC could make the numbers to attend the Runoffs in a 'top 24 classes go' scenario - BUT that other classes had poor subsciption as well so I would look over the numbers. See post #43.

You have corrected me on the May event. I actually thought I was being careful on including DNF's. And it is 9 cars not 10 - DNS's don't count for squat. That brings your average to 3.0 per event you ran. Still 1.6 taking out the statistical high and low, but let's call it 3.0.

So, you are wrong about me quoting ITA numbers, you are wrong about me saying ITC is dead...other than my miss of the DNF and the DQ, what other 'research' do you want me to do for you to keep my point from going MOOT? I never presented a 'complete' set of data for review.

Let's agree again to let it drop - I guess this is an old issue clouding your read on my posts.

We all love IT and all it's classes - S to C. And frankly I hope that all 4 classes would kick the crap out of some of the Prod, GT and 'Wings and Things' that stroke around National events with little competition...

gprodracer

06-11-2006, 09:03 PM

Just so everyone is playing in the same ballpark...
The May Daytona results that are "posted" are still provisional, as the results were protested because, quite frankly, they were terribly wrong. The DQ has been overturned, and a DNF was discovered to be a podium finisher. Please don't believe everything you read, as there are 3 sides to every story. This won't change the participation #'s listed, just wanted to bring up the idea that posted "facts" may not always be correct.
Now back to your regularly scheduled thread.

Mark Larson
CFR #164010

Bill Miller

06-11-2006, 09:06 PM

I haven't look at any MARRS results for ITC this year, but last year they averaged over 10 cars per race, for the races at Summit Point. I understand that this is probably the exception, rather than the rule. The question is, why? I think ITC might have a tough road, if they had to make enough numbers to get into the Top 24. But, they should have the same chance as the other classes to make their numbers.

Knestis

06-11-2006, 09:18 PM

It's not the posts that make the participation numbers low: It's the participation numbers being low that make the topic post-worthy.

With respect, Chris - your response to the suggestion that ITC might be in trouble is a perfect example of what the club has to deal with, in terms of maintaining healthy classes. One reason there's been a general "no new classes" mandate in place for years is the difficulty making classes go away.

Setting aside the IT-national question for a moment, if the RubOffs schedule were changed to allow only the 20 classes with the greatest participation to compete for medals, there might be some disincentive to participation in those undersubscribed national classes.

But all twenty GP entrants in the nation would shriek, and their futures would be assured.

K

charrbq

06-11-2006, 10:23 PM

Andy,

I never said that you had declared ITC dead. Once again, you've put words in my post that I didn't write. You seem to be good at that...again, very rude and very unprofessional. The post you made several months ago (not more than a year) was along the same line as your statement here. As to not saying or including the ITA results, I made mention of them as you had not included them in your post. Rather, you included only ITC and caused it to appear, by your omission, that the fields were full of other cars in other classes. As I pointed out, that was not the case. You accuse me of not having all the information, yet you don't understand why I become upset when you use that method to prove your point.
As for the DNS not counting for squat, I'm sure that the driver and his crew would disagree with that statement. They made the trip, paid the bucks, and broke in practice. That, in my book, counts for something other than a statement that they don't count for squat.
Your spewing of partial information to shore up your statements is shallow, but ever flowing when you want to prove your point.
I disagree with you on many accounts, as is my right and yours. You frustrate me in many of your statements and accusations. I don't doubt or question you dedication to our group in IT. I do feel that you use your status in the club as an authority. You are quite skilled at seeming innocent and wronged when some one takes a different stand.
I never meant to attack you personally, only your methods. If you wish to launch a campaign against me and my racing class, feel free. I'm sure you do...and will. Your attempt at innocence is really shameful.

I repeat, I'm sorry to have hijacked this thread. It was not my intent. I only wanted to point out an ongoing flaw in the leadership and its reasoning. Also, in my opinion, based on my experience, the club's history, and my own feelings, I think it would be a mistake to take IT to a national level.

Andy Bettencourt

06-11-2006, 10:55 PM

Andy,

I never said that you had declared ITC dead. Once again, you've put words in my post that I didn't write. You seem to be good at that...again, very rude and very unprofessional. [/b]

Then I read this wrong from your post #65:

I never said the problem didn't exist, only that someone in Andy's position doesn't need to pronounce it as dead.[/b] See the confusion?

The post you made several months ago (not more than a year) was along the same line as your statement here. As to not saying or including the ITA results, I made mention of them as you had not included them in your post. Rather, you included only ITC and caused it to appear, by your omission, that the fields were full of other cars in other classes. As I pointed out, that was not the case. You accuse me of not having all the information, yet you don't understand why I become upset when you use that method to prove your point.[/b]

You will notice that I also didn't cherry-pick numbers from ITS (31 cars to ITC's 9) or ITA (19 or 20 without SM duplication) to secure my point. All I did was post ITC numbers as I saw them. If you want me to roll you with national IT figures, I can get 'em.

As for the DNS not counting for squat, I'm sure that the driver and his crew would disagree with that statement. They made the trip, paid the bucks, and broke in practice. That, in my book, counts for something other than a statement that they don't count for squat.[/b]

Stay on point. They don't count for participation level measurement. Same rules apply to S, A and B of which there should be the same amount of instances I am sure. It's happened to everyone.

Your spewing of partial information to shore up your statements is shallow, but ever flowing when you want to prove your point.
I disagree with you on many accounts, as is my right and yours. You frustrate me in many of your statements and accusations. I don't doubt or question you dedication to our group in IT. I do feel that you use your status in the club as an authority. You are quite skilled at seeming innocent and wronged when some one takes a different stand.
I never meant to attack you personally, only your methods.[/b]

All I said was: "I am a believer that the top classes should go to the Runoffs...does anyone actually think that ITC (or to a lesser extent ITB) could actually make the numbers to get into the show? Although I am always surprised how FEW cars actually populate National race-grids, I would doubt ITC could make it - but some of the other classes put up crap for numbers. I will crunch some tonight..."

And, NEWSFLASH! It was a preface to THIS IDEA right after it in the post:

"Not that I am in favor of this idea but:

What if only ITR, ITS and ITA were eligible for Nationals? That leaves B and C alone and kills the perception that there is no 'affordable' place within IT. You could even 'grow' within your own category instead of having to move altogether. It's exclusionary but it does solve some problems."

Good Grief.

If you wish to launch a campaign against me and my racing class, feel free. I'm sure you do...and will. Your attempt at innocence is really shameful.[/b]

This is where I realize you and I aren't on the same planet. All done.

lateapex911

06-12-2006, 12:04 AM

Andy,

........ If you wish to launch a campaign against me and my racing class, feel free. I'm sure you do...and will. Your attempt at innocence is really shameful........
.......... I only wanted to point out an ongoing flaw in the leadership and its reasoning.......
[/b]

Chris, honestly, you're getting carried away here. Nobody, Andy included, is launching a campaign against you, or ITC.

Andy's comment about excluding ITB and C, or their possible inability to "make the top 24", is not in any way an "Ongoing flaw in leadership and reasoning". That's reeeaaaally stretching I think. His comments regarding subscription levels were merely pointing out the obvious.

Honest question. Overall, (nationally) which is the best subscribed IT class? Which is the worst?? I bet the latter is easier for most folks to answer.

Remember, this is a conceptual discussion, not a campaign by anybody. I decided to bring it up again, because I feel that now, more than any time in the past decade, is the time of the greatest "flux" in SCCAs club racing progam, due to a variety of large picture changes. These outside, and inside events are significant, and provide windows of opportunity. They may also result in challenges for our program, and it's a good idea to know what and where the constituents want the program to go.

Bill Miller

06-12-2006, 06:41 AM

Chris,

You complain that Andy is putting words in your mouth, and then you turn around and accuse him of starting a campaign to eliminate ITC. Talk about double standards!! Seriously, I haven't gotten any of the stuff you claim, out of Andy's posts. Point of fact is, the available pool of cars that would fit in ITC has steadily decreased over the last 15 or so years. Even most of the <10 year-old econo-boxes make too much power to fit. Look at the hoops that had to be jumped through to get the New Beetle classed in ITC. Look around and see how many cars that have been produced since '95 that would fit in ITC.

Andy Bettencourt

06-12-2006, 08:44 AM

Chris,

You complain that Andy is putting words in your mouth, and then you turn around and accuse him of starting a campaign to eliminate ITC. [/b]

Not so fast Bill!!!

He said he is sure I wanted to launch a campaign against him and his class and he is sure I will (future) - not that I had already! Don't put words in his mouth!!! :P

:015:

eprodrx7

06-12-2006, 11:06 AM

Great thread and near and dear to my heart. Short history, Started in ITC and have raced in every IT class over the last 15 years except ITA, moved to Prod and now SM and SRF. I think I have a pretty good base of knowlage on the subject and have been on the pro IT national soap box for a long time. One of the reasons that I built the Prod car was because I wanted more then IT could offer. Competition, longer races, National recognition all worked into the decision. But if IT were a national class at the time I would have stayed in ITS. If IT does become a national class I might consider coming back (some might use this as reason alone to appose the idea!) and I think that there are alot of guys that would do the same. Most would come from the Prod ranks and I think you might see a resurgence in B & C. But we have some fundamental problems to deal with first.

We have too many classes
Participation number have been fudged for way too long to protect turf.
We the racers have let the control of the club fall into the hands of the nonracers.

So Mom always said "if you want to complain about what is wrong then you better be able to suggest a way to fix it..."

Too many classes-
Our participation number are calculated from the top 5 divisions of national racing. Why not all divisions and toss the top and the bottom to give a true picture of what is going on. Classes that go on probation for not making #'s one year drag a bunch of shit out of barns the next to make numbers and get off probation. Like the one Bill talked about with the bad motor. They get thier #'s up to 3.6 and they are safe again for another two years before they need to go to the barn again. Raise to number to 4.5 and put a nonperforming class on probation for three years. (BTW I sent this idea to the CRB over a year ago with no responce) If we impliment these rules then in a couple of years there will be plenty of room for IT at the runoffs.

Controll-
Andy and Jake and others are to be commended for there efforts on the IT adhoc. It is a shitty job, BTW I was on the prod adhoc for two years, I don't agree with all of their Ideas but they are willing to listen to what big mouthed jerks like me have to say and that goes a long way. We need more current racers in positions of power in the club. On the BOD and in the Stewards program. Good job Blethems... But the fact that I can't be a stew at an event that I'm racing at will keep me out of the program. write your BOD members. Do we need to impliment a manditory work requirement for drivers? Should the commitee that rules on the conduct of racers at an event be three people that may have never even sat in a race car?

Will these changes help or hurt? Well if we never try we will never know. Can we agree that things are not all rosey as they are? As (I hope) future National racers or whatever we call it we owe it to the club and it's future to become more involved.

RSTPerformance

06-12-2006, 11:27 AM

See, Raymond, therein lies one of the major problems with this (and really any) rule change: everyone thinks in terms of how it will affect THEM as an individual, not what how it would affect the collective good. Is this proposal good for the category and club as a whole? Of course some people will be unhappy, and some will be very happy, but it would be very shortsighted for any individual to support or oppose anything based on how it would affect them alone. Don't forget, my car's a 1992, so it wouldn't be eligible for that much longer either!

Also don't forget that if you support this rule as a good idea and it passes, then for you then nothing would change: you'll still be racing Regionals only. If you oppose this rule because you wouldn't be eligible and it's shot down, then nothing changes: you'll still be racing Regionals only. So, for you, it's irrelevant: I would thereofre expect you will think of this in terms of the big picture and decide whether it's a good idea for the category long-term.
And, right there Charlie, is another problem: not everyone can be satisfied. A few posts above some folks were opposed to going National because it would cause an influx of a lot of people into the class; you're concerned because it might dilute the class! Sooo, which is it (Rhetorical question)? And, whichever way it turns out, will everyone be pleased?

Nope.
[/b]

Greg-

My comical comment about my car not fiting your suggested model with a 20yr age cut off wasn't seriose (I try not to think about myself only, however it is common nature to do so for all of us) but looking back maybe it should have been??? After reading your post I got to thinking... what would be the best for all of IT? I think that having an age limit would NOT benefit the class.

A) 1/2 of the fields (especially a lot of the unique cars) would be eliminated. (1/2 is not a documented fact, simply my observation... especially in ITB)

B) Many of the cars you say should be eliminated are cars that would be compeating for the championship... Look again at ITB... Volvo 142 is 30 years old and still winning!!!

While car companies don't like to see old cars winnng (it doesn't show that they have made any progress over the past 20 years of development), many grassroot races love it, and we still need to keep them in mind as a grassroot member driven organization!!!

C) Having an age limit would contribute to the ongoing increases in cost to compete at a winning level.

D) Having an age limit will certainly make a 20year old car "obsolete" as it will no longer be a concern of SCCA and most people would start to argue that the car is to old to be competitive... currently we do not view things that way, or do we?

On a final thought,

I am not much of a supporter of National and Reginal events. I think making IT a national class would only get my support if they did away with this Regional/National event concept all together. I support making every class in the GCR as a National level class. Regional only classes such as ITE can stay at the reginal level. Run "SCCA Events" (both National (GCR) and Regional classes) with National and Regional championships. It would take some major reorganization and will probably never happen, but I do think that it is how we should hold events especially with the increasingly more diffucult task of finding "dates" to run events. oh and this concept would not take away the "SCCA NAtional Championship Runoffs... Keep that for the National (GCR) Classes (which would include IT as it is in the GCR).

Raymond

RSTPerformance

06-12-2006, 11:51 AM

We have too many classes
Participation number have been fudged for way too long to protect turf.
We the racers have let the control of the club fall into the hands of the nonracers.
[/b]

Another reason NOT to have IT at a National level... we (the IT guys) always complain about the numbers of other classes, and the lack of participation... however, we need to realize our own comments can hurt us!!!

If IT were to go National then like many have said would go "back" to IT. This is wonderfull for IT as the numbers would continue to rise, however it would probably kill other classes.

The current way that SCCA is designed all the classes are co-existing. Yes that is arguable, but they are and if you ever go to the SCCA National Runoffs I don't think you will see one boring race... they all Rock!!! so SCCA is achieving its goals in that aspect of things.

If we think that SCCA has to many classes why not work on getting production and IT closer together. We have LP now in production, and with a few small changes maybe we could have more crossover for those that want to go to the Runoffs??? oh but wait, you want to go and win!!! If IT becomes a National class you will spend just as much to win in IT as you would in Production so why not just go full production?

Raymond "just some devils advocate" Blethen

If IT becomes a National class you will spend just as much to win in IT as you would in Production so why not just go full production?

Raymond "just some devils advocate" Blethen
[/b]

Already I have my own responce...
Because IT has more competition at a local level

and the devil:
Are you trying to win a National Championship or a Regional Championship?

Raymond "I am now talking to myself" Blethen

orlando_wrx

06-12-2006, 11:56 AM

Just another tangent to look at as far as "National IT" is concerned...

If people are concerned about negative impact on existing IT structure, a possibility of giving the high $$ guys a place to race nationally in IT prepped cars, and at the same time lowering costs for future IT subscribers is to classify eligible SS cars prepped to the IT ruleset (new cars built to IT specs). I know, I know....yet another class(es)? It would bolster manufacturer and aftermarket support, and after a few years these cars would be forced to trickle down into IT as they would be too "old" for the National IT program. Then these cars would become affordable options for people looking into "newly eligible" IT cars. I could go on, and on...

Knestis

06-12-2006, 06:13 PM

I might be wrong but I think Raymond is arguing against a proposition that hasn't been put forward here - a true age cutoff for IT cars.

The Amy/Mushnick proposal suggested an drop-out age for NATIONAL competition, with cars remaining eligible for Regional events. I think there's some merit there. That could be handled within the ITCS if a broader initiative was put into place, to select classes for the RubOffs based on participation.

On the numbers question, I tried to explain to a NASCAR "touring" series competitor once that an SCCA road racing class can maintain national eligibility with an average of something like 4 cars per race, nationwide. He laughed so hard he cried. Step back and think about that fact, and what acceptance of that standard suggests for the health of our game.

K

lateapex911

06-12-2006, 06:31 PM

Step back and think about that fact, and what acceptance of that standard suggests for the health of our game.

K
[/b]

Yup...were a dying breed, LOL.

It is a bit alarming, when you stop and think about it, how long guys like John W, and Miller and others (me) have been beating the "This is crazy! 3.5 cars?? come ON!!!" drum ...to deaf...errr...covered ears.

One interesting thing I have noted in the responses here is that it seems the reponders who I know are Prod racers are universally against the idea. I'm sure that this sampling isn't truly indicative of the larger picture, nor that every Prod racer feels the same as those who have posted, but that single point does strike me.

To me, the bottom line for the health of the club as a whole is that they need to have classes that are well subscribed. A Top 24 system will bring that to fruition. Wasting the clubs resources on classes that nobody runs is inefficient, and in the long run, dangerous for the club.

flaboy

06-12-2006, 06:48 PM

as long as we all have a place to race is what i really think is important here.
I am part of the problem..low budget racer..i can only afford to race in about 5 events a year, not including Daytona,my "home" track.Yes ITC are small fields now,compared to when i was first racing in it 15 yrs ago.

the point i'm trying to make i guess is i don't care if its a national class or a regional class as long as i can still race my car as is.I can still only afford to race as often as i do.

But i do think there are some cars that run in ITC that could be able to go into say ITB whith out to much problrms.the rabitt,civic are the only 2 that i can think of that could probly go into ITB and still be compettive with little work.

Don"t flame me...it's only my opion,everyone has them.

I just want a place to race!!

Tim

DavidM

06-12-2006, 06:49 PM

I think I've decided I like Bill's idea of no more National/Regional races, but I don't like the idea of qualifying/non-qualifying races either. So my idea is let's just have races. No national/regional race weekends or qualifying/non-qualifying race weekends. There's just race weekends and you show up on the weekends your class is slated to race. Points can be awarded in races for both regional series, like the SARRC, as well as National standings. You declare when you enter a race whether you want National points, regional points, or both. Why you wouldn't do both I don't know, so it may just be a matter of getting both regional and national points for a race. How points are awarded could be done lots of different ways, but that's just a matter of coming up with something. This allows people to accumulate points for going to the run-offs as well as compete in regional series without having to go to different races. It seems like it would simplify the overall operation of race weekends as well if they're all run the same, just different classes.

I guess there's the perceived issue of National points guys who are spending lots of money running with the "non-national" guys who aren't spending lots of money, but, as has already been mentioned, I don't think that's much different from now. There's already guys spending tons of money on IT cars and it'll always be that way. [Note: The disparity between the people with money and those without seems to be greater in other classes so that could be an issue.] I'd rather race with the best and finish mid-pack than not have the fast guys (cause they're racing on the national/qualifying weekend) and finish on the podium. Maybe other guys feel differently, but it seems like a hollow victory to me if you win a race, but the best guys aren't there.

The run-offs become fairly straight forward. You take the top 24 (or ever how many) subscribed classes and they get to go. People in all classes have been earning National points so there's no issue of trying to figure which people in the classes get to the dance.

I like things simple and I don't think it gets much simpler. I'm sure there's lots of holes, but you get the idea.

David

eprodrx7

06-12-2006, 07:11 PM

Lets say also that to be eligible for the runoffs a class needs to make a 6 car average. With the Nat./Reg. distinction gone nobody gets told that they can't race with all their budies next year. They just don't get to go to KA. (good :wacko: bad??? :( ) We should be able to have a good show at the RO's with lage fields and say 12-15 races in a reasonable amount of time. The guys that don't make it to the big show, well try harder next year and get your class healthy. Or consolodate and come out fighting for your right to be a part. We, the classes that are well subscribed, are sick and tired of paying the bills for the same two or three cars to have thier one hooraa at the runoffs.

charrbq

06-12-2006, 08:11 PM

This is where I realize you and I aren't on the same planet. All done.
[/quote]
You finally got it right.

Eagle7

06-12-2006, 09:36 PM

I don't know what it's like in your neck of the woods, but around here nearly every Regional is a double - qualify in the morning and race in the afternoon, both Saturday and Sunday. OTOH every National I've seen is a single - practice and qualify Saturday, practice and race Sunday.

1) Why is that?
2) How does that affect this discussion?

Knestis

06-12-2006, 10:14 PM

As mentioned before, National schedules are dictated pretty strictly as I understand it. Double Regionals, if one is a cynic, are a way to generate maximum revenues in a minimum time. I don't know for sure but I'd bet that they tend to be the best moneymakers in a region's road racing program.

K

Ron Earp

06-12-2006, 10:35 PM

I don't know for sure but I'd bet that they tend to be the best moneymakers in a region's road racing program.
K
[/b]

And some of the most efficient use of the racer's time too. Whew, racing single weekends is really tough to justify with the tow, fees, lodging, and tow back. All of those are constant, for the most part, with the variable being time on track.

Combine a double SAARC with something like the Monster Memorial at CMP with the ECR and Carolina Cup and one can get in a lot of track time in a weekend with one tow. Everybody wins.

Bill Miller

06-13-2006, 12:56 AM

Not to get off topic, but I'm inclined to agree w/ Kirk re: doubles being money makers for the Region. Maybe a two-day dbl works better when you have lower car counts / fewer run groups, but after running several three-day Labor Day dbls at Summit Point and two-day dbls at Pocono, I'll take a regular two-day single over a two-day dbl any day. IMHO, a two-day dbl costs you more money for essentially the same amount of track time, all while making for a more hectic weekend.

JeffYoung

06-13-2006, 01:23 AM

Bill, really? We usually agree, but definitely diverge here.

For me, a Double SARRC weekend is perfect. Qualify in the morning, race in the afternoon -- two points races in a weekend. While "Practices" certainly are valuable track time, they eat up tires and brakes without tangential return of a qualifying spot or points from a finished race.

I'm still for IT staying regional, but am intrigued by your idea of doing away with teh National/Regional distinction. If we did that, though, I hope the double sprint race weekend concept wins out over qualify Sat./race Sun.

lateapex911

06-13-2006, 01:49 AM

Bill Miller

06-13-2006, 03:55 AM

That's one part of the "National" deal I don't like. The 30 minute races. Too looong, LOL.

I'd rather a break at 15 minutes...1 or 2 laps to bunch the field, then form up, two by two, and do it all over agian. ;)

I know, that's silly...this is serious stuff were talking about.

Well, then "Qualifying races (National points paying) are the minimum that the CRB would allow, and non qualifying races can be at the discretion of the region..a double or triple or whatever....
[/b]

Jake,

The MARRS races at Summit Point are 16 laps. That's about 25 min. for an IT race (+/- a couple of min, depending on class). To me, that's about a perfect sprint race. The Nationals there are another 6 laps or ~35 min. Also not a problem. Back in 2000, the MARRS races were 20 laps!!

Anyway, enough thread highjacking! :D

dickita15

06-13-2006, 06:05 AM

If you are a cynic you could look at doubles as a way for the region to make a profit, but the reality is the without the restriction on the format that is part of nationals the regionals can format the races the way the racers want. Memorial Day we had one practice and 3 races in two days. Most loved it.

The money we pay to us for entry fees is the money we need to pay to put on events. If you are paying money to them, then you need to be more involved the club so you see where that money goes

Andy Bettencourt

06-13-2006, 07:29 AM

I am with Jeff 100% on this one. I am all about value. A traditional Double up here is a P/Q in the AM and a race in the afternoon. Same for the following day. 2 different sanction numbers (more expense to your Region) gets you 2 races to keep your liscence active to boot - a llt of people rely on this to minimize expenses.

Two day singles are more expensive to me because 'practice' time is a freakin waste. I can practice and test in WAY more cost-effective ways than at a Regional. RACE time is what I want.

Take the race Dick talked about. 20 minute qualifyier Sat morning, then three 25 min races in 2 days (qualifying race instead of traditional Q).

I can't see at all how anyone could think that doubles weren't the best bang for your buck - and if your Region makes some money - hell that just allows you to keep doing this stupid-insane sport. Our entry fees are never double that of a single and you get to save on all the associated costs (tow, hotel, food, etc). Maybe the reason the Regions make more is because more people show up BECAUSE the value is there for them.

I do think that the R/N designation has to stay. Just all the classes would be invited. This way, the 'big dogs" can stay home when it means nothing to them and the Regional racers can stay home when the (real or perceived) uber-prep comes to town.

AB

Bill Miller

06-13-2006, 08:00 AM

Andy,

I totally agree about keeping a distinction between races (Regional/National, Qualifying/non-Qualifying, whatever). I think it's important for everyone, and it's a key component of my proposal. We'll just have to agree to disagree about what's a better value, a 2-day single or a 2-day double. I've been to too many of those Mother's Day Pocono dbls to know that they're a royal Charlie Foxtrot. Maybe I'm letting that color my view on other 2-day dbls. They've obviously doing something right in the MARRS series though, given how well subscribed it is.

Anyway, I said that I wouldn't hijack this thread anymore.

Knestis

06-13-2006, 12:12 PM

Note I said, "If one is a cynic..." :)

Like Bill, my perceptions of the value of double regionals has been tainted by recent experience. The SARRC/MARRS double at VIR is a huge non-value, both in terms of track time and days sucked out of everyone's lives. It's become a THREE day double, that pretty much banks on entrants doing the extra-charge "open practice" on freakin' Thursday. Friday was two Practice/Qualifying sessions (20 minutes each, i think), and all we had each day of the weekend was a race. One track session per day. NCR leaves HUGE dead spots in this schedule which I know from specific comments by friends has chased them out of this event.

This is really an interesting conversation because it illustrates really well how complex a policy decision like this can be, as all kinds of issues are interlocked - rightly or wrongly.

K

zracre

06-13-2006, 12:28 PM

I must agree that National race weekends are quite long and boring. Double weekends offer 2 races but at the expense of a practice (just qual/race each day). The recent sebring Short Course race was about as good as it gets...saturday practice/qual/race (12 laps @1:21:xxx) then sunday practice then 2 races (16 laps!) granted there was not a giant turn out but the format was great...even if we had the races cut to 8 and 12 laps it would have been plenty. I did the Jan Nationals down here, had the best time in Sebring, Homestead was way boring...too much waiting. I also noted that there was not a huge turn out of Nat cars. At Sebring we had a restricted regional added to the Nat and there was a HUGE turnout...I really dont want IT to go National, but it would seem to make sense for business...

DavidM

06-13-2006, 01:37 PM

I do think that the R/N designation has to stay. Just all the classes would be invited. This way, the 'big dogs" can stay home when it means nothing to them and the Regional racers can stay home when the (real or perceived) uber-prep comes to town.
[/b]

So what is the reasoning for keeping national/regional (or whatever you call them) designations? One reason I keep seeing is so that the "regional racers" (read - those with less money) don't have to compete with the "national racers" (read - those with more money). I personally question whether or not this is a valid reason and certainly don't think it's reason enough by itself. So what other reasons are there for this separation?

David

Andy Bettencourt

06-13-2006, 02:15 PM

So what is the reasoning for keeping national/regional (or whatever you call them) designations? One reason I keep seeing is so that the "regional racers" (read - those with less money) don't have to compete with the "national racers" (read - those with more money). I personally question whether or not this is a valid reason and certainly don't think it's reason enough by itself. So what other reasons are there for this separation?

David [/b]

There are a few. One, you don't want to have too many National races. You want them to be true qualifers so that the best of teh best in each Region actually QUALIFY (novel concept) for the runoffs. You want racers from all over competing for the PRIVLEDGE to go and run for the National Championship. Right now in NeDiv (what, the second largest Div in the Country?) we have 8 Nationals weekends at 7 different tracks - not bad. NeDiv has at least 22 weekends of Regional racing.

Another is that the track time at a National is mandated. You don't want 400 cars at a National or else it won't run. You need the separation in the larger Regions.

Also, the Championship series we are all used to would go away. The NARRC, SARRC, MARRS, insert your series here is now gone. You COULD run them piggy-back with the National stuff (and that may work) but it just makes sense to have them seperate. Nationals guys aren't going to run more than they have to.

During these weekends you also can't run any fun stuff like enduro's or have Regional only classes like ITE, SPO, SPU - there just isn't time.

AB

Nomex95

06-13-2006, 04:48 PM

Bill Miller

06-13-2006, 05:17 PM

A double regional!!!! Has Limerock ever heard of one? The next 2 races there are for only 1 day. hope I don't break in pratice 'cause thre is no time to fix it. I live close by , so save on hotel bills, hey wait a minute, with a one day pratice and race there is no hotel bill. Didn't see that one coming.
[/b]

Maybe for those that live close, but if you live more than 3-4 hours away, you're going up the night before. And for what they charge you for a single day at LRP, they should provide hotels! :blink:

JeffYoung

06-13-2006, 06:01 PM

Good point by Bill and Kirk on "bad doubles" -- and there are some, with SARRC/MARRS being the poster boy for that.

CMP and Roebling run perfect double SARRC weekends with qual in the morning, race in the afternoon both days. That is a great value for a couple hundred dollars.

eprodrx7

06-13-2006, 06:14 PM

LRP did a 1/2 day regional in the past few years, hmmmmm... what's to say we couldn't do a one day double! :blink:

Bill Miller

06-13-2006, 06:39 PM

Guys,

This is really morphing into a 'what kind of race weekend' thread. Please start another thread for that discussion.

Knestis

06-13-2006, 08:59 PM

On the other hand, these issues are all intertwined. A big part of what makes a "National" a National is the schedule. If the question is narrowed to, "should the RunOffs schedule include only the top XX in average nationwide participation," it MIGHT be possible to answer that question, but the original post put issues into the National-Regional frame. Look at the issues that have come up:

Preparation levels
Cost containment
Weekend event schedules
Philosophies re: value for entrants

...and that's just from a quick scan of my often-faulty memory.

K

Z3_GoCar

06-13-2006, 11:17 PM

LRP did a 1/2 day regional in the past few years, hmmmmm... what's to say we couldn't do a one day double! :blink:
[/b]

Oh, Oh, or a two day quad, or a three day sextuple :P It'd be like a long drawn out endurance race with five enduros leading up to the main. You could go from front to back and back all before the main then blow it and go back again in the feature :lol:

As for IT going national, well let's just say I have more appreciation for regional racing locally than ever before.

James

gran racing

06-14-2006, 08:53 AM

One reason I keep seeing is so that the "regional racers" (read - those with less money) don't have to compete with the "national racers" (read - those with more money).[/b]

I’m not seeing this as such a silly reason. People who have money will always find a place to race. It’s the people that are running (or trying to get into the sport) on low budgets that could be hurt most.

[b]What are people hoping to achieve by IT becoming a national class?[b/]

It sounds like the primary motivation is to have a national championship race for IT.

Then there is the “prestigue of being a national class”.

I keep following this thread waiting for the “that’s why we IT really should be a national class!” reason, but have yet to hear it. Based on what I’m hearing, the national championship race for IT seems to be the primary motivator. I’m also hearing that being a national class places various limitations on what can be done during the race weekend and will change things a bit for us. If this truly is one of the primary motivators, does IT really need to become a national class to achieve this? I’m really curious if this is one of the primary goals or if I’m totally off base with this.

Bill Miller

06-14-2006, 09:51 AM

Dave,

Unless the SCCA mgmt. changes things, and comes up w/ some kind of true National Championship for IT cars, then I believe that getting IT recognized as Runoffs-eligible is the only way to achieve this.

tom_sprecher

06-14-2006, 10:00 AM

The primary reason for the bizarre schedules for doubles and sometimes a lack thereof is due to the required quiet time on Sunday at some tracks. At Road Atlanta is something like from 10 to 12:30. That's a lot of racing time cut out of the day.

Most regions would prefer to run doubles if time permitted. They only way we were able to do it was use all three days of Labor Day weekend.

RacerBill

06-14-2006, 10:49 AM

OK - keeping the issue of National vs Regional, Qual/non-qualifying out of the equasion, what are the goals of this thread?

Let's say that we agree that we would like to have a National champion in each of the IT classes. What would it take to get there - make IT classes National classes instead of Regional only? Would that be feasable?

The first thing that would have to be worked out would be run groups. I have not seen group counts (not class counts) for nationals recently, but an indication of what group counts might look like might be the group that ITA ran in at the OVR double regional just before the runoffs last year at Mid-Ohio - 54 cars in that field. So, it might take a little while, but we've been rearranging run groups for 50 years. I'm sure that it can be worked out again. Smaller tracks might have a problem with large groups, have to see.

The second issue with adding groups at the National level is the number of races that can be scheduled at the Runoffs. We now have three days of races. Any reason why that can't be expanded to 3.5 or 4 other than cutting into the practice/qualifying time?

I don't see any show stoppers other than objections that would come from the drivers that race at Nationals and the Runoffs. And I believe that, just like the ITR proposal, if we were to come up with a proposal, with input from the National drivers. that would be a win-win situation, the suggestion would fly.

What would be the effect on IT as we know it today? No one can really predict the future exactly. But there are some possibilities. 1) There would be more races that would be available to IT cars and drivers.
2) IT would have National champions, determined in the same way that other National champions are determined. 3) and time would have to tell with this one, racers with the bigger budgets would attend fewer regionals, giving the smaller budget teams more of a chance at winning (this is my vested interest!). 4) Regionals will still be regionals, and the regions will be left to their imagination to develope new forms of races (the Indy region handicap race comes to mind!).

Will there be more Nationally prepared cars competing at the Regional level? Don't know, time will have to tell. But that is nothing that the rest of the classes that compete at both the National and Regional levels face.

Someone in this thread asked 'why we IT should be a National class'. Because 1) the IT classes have been around for quite some time now. 2) we have car counts that could bolster the total car counts at National races. I believe that having a National champion is our prime motovator (not such a bad goal), but it will only change things (as far as race wekends) for those who compete at the National level.

Bottom line, I believe that going National will give us more choices and will increase the number of IT prepared cars.

OK, that's my two cents on the issue. I know that there will be others with different opinions, and that is good. I will listen to any and all suggestions before putting my support behind any single proposal. Thanks for listening to mine.

Remember, keep the friendly mood turned on!!!!

ggnagy

06-14-2006, 11:33 AM

So, back to the race scheduling question. How does one do a 2 day double weekend with 9 race groups and 250 to 300 cars?

:unsure:

Bill Miller

06-14-2006, 12:00 PM

So, back to the race scheduling question. How does one do a 2 day double weekend with 9 race groups and 250 to 300 cars?

:unsure:
[/b]

That's the point Greg, I don't think that you can, and give people any kind of meaningful amount of track time. The Pocono dbl is a good example. I'm not sure what the car counts were (I looked at this a while ago, and IIRC, they were pretty low, on the order of 200 or so). There were two qualifying sessions, one for Race 1 and one for Race 2, on Sat. The races were on Sun. IIRC, the qualifying sessions were 15 min. and the races were 8 or 9 laps. To me, races need to be at least 15 laps, unless you're talking about huge tracks like Road America or VIR. I didn't see the '06 MARRS/SARRC VIR dbl results, but the '05 Results showed 8 lap races w/ a duration of ~30 min. That's on a 4.2 mile track.

dickita15

06-14-2006, 02:31 PM

Well we in NER can do a pretty good double with 220 cars on a 1.6 mile track. To do more we would need a longer track. If racers are involved in running the race program the format will evolve into what is best for the local racers. Our workers have evolved what they do in order to come up with better formats. This will not happen unless racers are involved in the process of running races.

I think the reason many want us to be a national class is they perceive IT as being less important to SCCA than the national classes. I have never had that hangup.

JamesB

06-14-2006, 02:45 PM

Bill we didnt run the grand this year, it was full course (3.27miles) for 10 laps. Total race time for the leader was 25 minutes.

Bill Miller

06-14-2006, 03:02 PM

Bill we didnt run the grand this year, it was full course (3.27miles) for 10 laps. Total race time for the leader was 25 minutes.
[/b]

James,

That's still about the same distance and the same race time. I think last year's race was 8 laps on the Grand Course for a total distance of just under 34 miles w/ a total race time of 28.xx min. That's also about what a 16-lap IT race at Summit Point runs, 32 miles and 25-28 min. To me, that's a good sprint race.

JamesB

06-14-2006, 04:02 PM

I dont see an issue with the time format of the MARRS SP or VIR events. Remember I used to work long before I ever thought of being a driver. And I can say that on a nice sunny day, those 5 minutes of nothing between races (even when there is no cleanup) is sometimes the only chance you have to sit down and regroup your head and body for the next race. Specially if your out in pit or F&C because your out there unprotected from the elements.

So as much as I would like more track time, I also understand the fine balence of giving the drivers what they want, and giving the workers a chance to enjoy their weekend.

gran racing

06-14-2006, 07:59 PM

Unless the SCCA mgmt. changes things, and comes up w/ some kind of true National Championship for IT cars, then I believe that getting IT recognized as Runoffs-eligible is the only way to achieve this. [/b]

Bill - that is exactly what I'm getting at. Forget changing IT to a national class, and get IT into the National Championship races. And this is not directed towards you Bill: National Championships has nothing to do with the silly national/regional designation. It has to do with being the best within your class. (Yeah, we can argue that too - trust me, I'd LOVE to have it held at Lime Rock Park in CT!!!!! Then again, costs for the race would be in excess of the $20K mark. :) )

Either way, aren't we getting the club to make a change? Here's where I'm going with this. Keep the same national groups, national and the same regional groups, regional. BUT include the regional groups within the National Championship races. To narrow things down, fine, limit it to the top X national classes and X regional classes.

By keeping IT as a regional class, it allows the flexibility of the weekend format, may (or may not) keep costs down to race in IT, give the regional classes "prestigue", amoung other things. If our goal is to get a true IT National Championship race and champion, do we need to become designated as a "national class"? I personally don't think so.

Bill Miller

06-14-2006, 09:37 PM

Dave,

With your scenario, how would you determine which drivers were eligible to race for the National Championship in any of the IT classes?

Greg Amy

06-15-2006, 07:40 AM

dyoungre

06-15-2006, 07:51 AM

Aren't we simply talking about the difference between a restricted regional, and a regional? Restricted would not provide 'championship' points, and allow the region-specific (non-GCR) classes as well? Get rid of 'National' weekends, and provide 'National' points at any non-restricted regional.

I don't care about the run-offs, and I don't really worry about cost creep. I'd love to have the flexibility of race dates that would result from allowing me to run during 'national', regional, or both events.

Bill Miller

06-15-2006, 09:38 AM

Something to keep in mind, that I think a lot of folks are missing: no one - except maybe Bill, though I'm not sure - is proposing that IT be removed from the Regional program, just that IT be allowed to be added to the National program.

Nothing else will change, Regionals will still be there, likely with full fields...
[/b]

Greg,

I'm not propsing that IT be removed from the Regional progam. Not even close. I'm simply proposing that ITS, ITA, ITB, and ITC (and hopefully ITR) be allowed to race at Nationals. Hell, it doesn't even matter if you still call them Nationals and Regionals, the key thing is to get rid of the 'Regional-only' constraint on IT. And the more I think about it, that's really all that needs to be done. No need to change the name of any races, or any license requirements (although I think the current license distinctions are silly), just dump the 'Regional-only' restriction for IT. More than likely, Nationals will need to add 2 run groups to their schedule for a race weekend. If ITR comes about, those cars will more than likely slot in well w/ T1/2/3, and AS. Depending on field size, you can probably run ITS/A or ITB/C w/ SSB/C, so maybe only one additional run group might be needed.

This is one of the reasons I was looking for additional input on this, to see what the overall goal should be, and what we would actually need to achieve it.

Hey Dave, I just noticed that you're right around the corner from me. Where in Somerset do you live? I used to live on JFK Blvd. and now live maybe 15 min. away. Always looking for someone local to do some bench racing with and maybe share a few beers.

ddewhurst

06-15-2006, 08:09 PM

Fastrack response:

Thanks for your input. :o

paulydee

06-15-2006, 09:05 PM

mustanghammer

06-16-2006, 12:33 AM

I feel bad deciding to post 7 pages into this thread.

Anyway, here are some of my thoughts whatever they might be worth (nothing at the least) :)

I would like to be able to drive at a Runoffs "like" event. That is not to say I want to drive at THE Runoffs. For one reason because it is not being held at MidOhio anymore. That is personal preference. I would rather not drive to Kansas flatland country. I would not be opposed the closer scrutineering that goes on at national events.

Another point is that I like is the current double regional format that is being used in my division. So that being said I would not drive the "National" level events for the one race format. At the same time (I am going to contradict myself here) It would be nice to have at least one 20min session to get warmed up before a legit qualifying. But that is getting off topic.

I also agree with the class distinctions being silly. What makes GP or GT3 any different than ITS or ITA that they deserve the National classification. I realize that this was a philosophy that was put together a long time ago, but why won't SCCA keep up with the times?

Did any of that make sense?
[/b]

Heartland Park is not flat and neither is the countryside around it. You have to drive 120 miles farther west on I-70 to start to see "flat." And before you see "flat" (out around Salina Ks) you drive through something called the Flint Hills and they REALLY aren't flat! Allot of the flat plains that Kansas is famous for are in Colorado, by the way!

Anyway, I ran the Restricted Regional that was a part of the National at HPT last weekend. The extra track time on Saturday for the practice session was okay but since we (IT drivers) didn't get a National length race on Sunday the extra track time wan't that big of a deal. I prefer a double Regional because the IT car counts are higher, there are more opportunities for points and more chances for Kumho dollars.

I think IT type prep levels in a National Class would be popular. Limited Prep production, while not cheap, does prove this to a certain extent. Look at EP RX7's and FP Miata's as examples of cars that are approachable to many people and therefore popular and numerous. The same could be said for SM even though this class costs more than anticipated.

It has been my experience that many would be racers make race car purchases based on whether or not a car is in a National Class. This is true even if they have no intention of taking the car they are shopping for to the Run Offs. The perception is that a Nationals eligible car is more likely to retain it's value.

I guess I support a lower prep level car classification as eligible for Nationals competition. This could be IT or something new. Anyway it happens to come about it will be popular.

DavidM

06-16-2006, 04:19 PM

There are a few. One, you don't want to have too many National races. You want them to be true qualifers so that the best of teh best in each Region actually QUALIFY (novel concept) for the runoffs. You want racers from all over competing for the PRIVLEDGE to go and run for the National Championship. Right now in NeDiv (what, the second largest Div in the Country?) we have 8 Nationals weekends at 7 different tracks - not bad. NeDiv has at least 22 weekends of Regional racing.

Another is that the track time at a National is mandated. You don't want 400 cars at a National or else it won't run. You need the separation in the larger Regions.

Also, the Championship series we are all used to would go away. The NARRC, SARRC, MARRS, insert your series here is now gone. You COULD run them piggy-back with the National stuff (and that may work) but it just makes sense to have them seperate. Nationals guys aren't going to run more than they have to.

During these weekends you also can't run any fun stuff like enduro's or have Regional only classes like ITE, SPO, SPU - there just isn't time.

AB
[/b]

I guess I have two main issues with a national/regional separation:

1) You now have to pick if you want to try and qualify (which you are not guaranteed of doing) for the runoffs by attending national weekends or if you want to run in a regional series, like the SARRC, and attend regional weekends. I like the regional weekends because you normally get lots of track time and I like the regional series, but it'd be cool to be able to qualify for the runoffs. I wouldn't be able to do both unless I attend national and regional weekends.

2) I think the regional level competition will be diluted if the best guys all go to national weekends. As I stated before, I'd rather finish mid-pack racing against the best than finish first with the best not racing. Maybe I'm weird.

I'd probably support IT being inlcuded in the National classes since the races have got to be better than the ones I've watched at the run-offs the past few years, but I'm not a big fan national/regional or any type of class distinctions. It's too much like major league/minor league or whatever you want to call it. That's why I like making all the classes equal and just having race weekends.

Somebody asked how you would determine who went to the run-offs if IT didn't participate in national weekends. A simple answer is to use the rankings from the regional series. The top X from the SARRC, MARRS, etc. get to go. Not perfect, but it would work.

David

BobsAuto

06-18-2006, 05:08 PM

Back in the late 80's, there was also the talk about making IT a national class as well as regional. It was pointed out back then that if it went National, those folks running for the National Championship would dominate and the class, as it was originally intended, for the folks with limited funds who want to race the "older" showroom stock cars they had in the back 40, would no longer be a fun place to race for the newbies and limited fun goers. I do agree, that since it's evolution in the mid 80's, IT has become more competitive and more costly. I look at what Raymond and Stephen have invested in their cars and remember scrounging for used tires for their Dad and knowing that THAT was the only way he could race.
Yes, the costs have gone up, but seriously, don't you think the costs would go even higher if it were a National Class. Earlier in this thread, someone mentioned making a regional type IT championship runoff thing like the ARRC. The NARRC runoffs were like that back in my day.

Note, the above comments in no way reflect what my kids feel, just what I, as a former racer who would love to get back into it if I could: a)afford it and b)physically be able to
feel about the ideas. You all have good thoughts and ideas, but remember to play devil's advocate on yourselves before you go for any changes in your playground.

Geo

06-18-2006, 09:05 PM

Yes, the costs have gone up, but seriously, don't you think the costs would go even higher if it were a National Class. [/b]

I do. I think those who don't are either naive or have an agenda. If it can happen in BTCC (see my previous quote from Race Tech) it will surely happen in IT.

Andy Bettencourt

06-18-2006, 09:13 PM

It still depends on where you are. ITS and ITA in the New England Region can't get any 'more expensive'. You wanna run against Serra's stuff or Blaney's stuff, you had better bring a gun to the gun fight.

Overall, costs will rise because people with money will be drawn into the class to a simpler (!) set of prep than most anything. With popularity comes money and with money comes better prep and better prep brings the need for all to step it up.

All it takes is for one 'regular' guy to come to your home town track with a golden goose and everyone has to react. There is nothing preventing it now, National status just raises the chances.

Greg Amy

06-18-2006, 10:02 PM

I think those who don't are either naive or have an agenda.[/b]

...or live in areas of the country - sorry, George - where people are seriously building cars to the limit of the rules. You saw it at your venture to the ARRC, Geo: there are people spending TENS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS to build IT cars, certainly in at least ITS and ITA. You simply CANNOT be at the pointy end of the ITA or ITS field in the Northeast until and unless you're spending a BARE MINIMUM of $20k on a race car. Ask me, I know.

You actually think that folks spent less last year on their Spec Miatas than they're spending this year? Talk about naive!!

Until you folks in the middle of the country venture out of your small corners of the world and see what's really happening out there, please stop assigning labels or ideals. And I can say this with extreme authority, given I raced half my life in Texas, Oklahoma, Kansas, Tennessee, and Missouri, then half up here in the northeast -- been there, done that; what about you? - GA

ddewhurst

06-18-2006, 11:09 PM

***Until you folks in the middle of the country venture out of your small corners of the world***

I beleive the CenDiv sends some pretty fair cars to the ARRC. :023:

lateapex911

06-19-2006, 12:32 AM

Agreed....

Will it cost more? Depends...will you spend more??

And or what?

If you want to race on old tires, and stock shocks, you will still be able to. But if it'sa popular class, you won't win. If you are winning now in an underprepared car, it's probably becouse very few are showing up.

IT is a bit of a regional deal....in some regions it's an cakealk, in others, its a dogfight to the death. I've spoken to a few guys who raced in other areas of the country where they saw 4-7 ITA cars at a race, and moved to areas where the ITA count was 25 plus. It took them a year to get used to being shocked at the number of different guys every race, and the prep level and speed of some of the cars.

IT is spotty in some areas, but has deep talent in others. If it goes National, that won't change, but i think that the designed prep level of IT will draw those who are in other classes because they have to be to run at the Runoffs.

As Andy points out, that will make it more popular, and therefore, more expensive. .....if you want to spend more.

But...with large fields comes great racing throughout the pack...so if you don't mind that your actual finish position went from a 8th in a 16 car field to a 14th in a 24 car field, but you had a great race with another equal guy, then it will be the same.

Z3_GoCar

06-19-2006, 01:31 AM

....But...with large fields comes great racing throughout the pack...so if you don't mind that your actual finish position went from a 8th in a 16 car field to a 14th in a 24 car field, but you had a great race with another equal guy, then it will be the same.
[/b]

Sounds just like SM racing. Out here they started awarding mid-pack points, you'd actually loose points for finishing too high. Anyways six cars in a field, I'm sure we'd all agree, is too small, but depending on the track, more than 20-30 is IMHO too many. Something in the middle is Goldylocks :happy204:

James

Bill Miller

06-19-2006, 08:47 AM

Without trying to offend anyone, I think it's safe to say that IT is pretty strong all along the East Coast. All you have to do is look at the NARRC, MARRS, and SARRC series to see that. I'm not sure why that's the case. Is it because there are more tracks in the East? There are 8 or 9 tracks in both the NE and SE Divisions. That's a lot of tracks to race at. With so many tracks, I think that's why you see such popular IT racing. But that's not really the issue.

For those that say that it will cost more if IT goes National. I agree, it will, if you want to run at the front and go to the Runoffs. But will it cost more than going for an ARRC win? I think that it will cost more because you'll be racing against more people that want to win the championship. Just look at a National SM program vs. a Regional SM program. I would expect the person w/ the National program to be spending more.

I think IT being National let's Regional racing be just that Regional racing. It will be a local, more relaxed, entry-level program. Will you have people that will show up w/ mega-rigs and mega-budgets? I would expect so, but at least now, the IT folks w/ the mega-rigs and the mega-budgets will have an option. Just look at all the other National classes that run Regional races. I think it's pretty safe to say that for the most part, their budgets are lower than their counterparts that run National races. And I think that speaks to Bob's comment about the folks going for the championship dominanting the IT classes. If you give them an alternate venue, they most likely won't run as many Regional races, leaving Regionals for people to just go racing and have fun.

Will it hurt car counts at Regionals? More than likely, but I'm not totally sure. I think that you could make the case that you'd get more people to bring out lower-budget cars, because now they feel that they have a chance w/o spending $30k - $50k on an IT car. I've seen more Prod cars at some MARRS Regionals than I have at some Nationals. To me, that's an indicator that people will still come out and have fun.

Knestis

06-19-2006, 09:46 AM

We have to be careful that we don't define "more expensive" strictly in terms of, "I won't be able to compete with a less-than-full-boat effort." The cause-and-effect chain is more like...

Increased interest > Increased willingness of some to commit $$$ > Increased cost to run up front

The suggestion here is that National status will increase interest, fueling cost escalation. That presumes that the interest is not already high enough to reach saturation or a point of diminishing returns for the racing dollar. The difference between a $10K ITA car and a $20K ITA car is pretty huge - between the $20K and $30K versions, that diminishes.

Greg's point is that the NER competitive market is already at that point and, with a "national" market, we have to look across the nation, rather than just at pockets where it might still be possible to run up front with something not built all the way to the rules. That might be a primary difference between Regional and National status - we all have to swim in a bigger pond. I dont' mind, frankly 'cuz I know I'm a little fish.

K

dickita15

06-19-2006, 09:59 AM

There is obviously a difference throughout the country. On the east coast there are lots of regional races. I found it interesting when I visited Texas for example how few races were in the division and how many of them were Nationals. If I lived down there owning a regional only car would severely limit the opportunities to race. I would probably not race IT. If IT goes national our classes would be a more viable choice in those parts of the country bring more competition and raising the bar. Yes it would cost more to win there. But the racing would be better.

Bill Miller

06-19-2006, 11:53 AM

What about the parts of the country that primarily run joint Regional/National races on the same weekend?

dickita15

06-19-2006, 02:19 PM

It seems like usually the regional drivers complain they do not get treated fairly in those situations.

Bill Miller

06-19-2006, 02:45 PM

Why does that not surprise me??? The way I understand it, the only reason they run the combined races is because they can't get enough cars to the track to run a National by itself.

shwah

06-19-2006, 05:09 PM

I like the Mid-Div joint weekends, but of course they let IT race on the 'National' day so that makes it easy to like.

I still think folks are overstating the cost issue. If you are a checkbook racer it will always be expensive, it is now, and it will be a bit more if people flock to a national class. If you don't have much racing budget, and I am sure that this is a big group, you learn how to make things work on your own, and you would be surprised at how often it works as well or better the way you get it done compared to the method of buying the consensus 'best stuff'. Half the fun for me is the engineering competition that this sport is. If competition gets better, some folks will spend more, and some folks will spend more and longer nights in the garage making something work - some people of both types will meet the challenge and go faster.

To the topic at hand, I could still give or take national status. Not a big deal to me at all, since I have always ended up with someone fun to race as is.

lateapex911

06-19-2006, 05:38 PM

dickita15

06-19-2006, 06:32 PM

uh jake this is a sum zero game. the cost to fund the tow fund must be included in the entry fee. it is collected from all and distributed based on distance to runoffs. I suppose this year North east guys will do a little better with that. mid div guys will pay in and get nothing.

Z3_GoCar

06-19-2006, 09:08 PM

One other thought....

I'm not a Runoffs guy, but I seem to remember talk of entry fees going into a "tow fund" that is paid by a set milage stat to those who qualify and show up at the Runoffs.

I can tell you that I thought about that at every gas stop between Atanta and NYC after the ARRCs............

Is that still in force? I'm sure it's not huge, but a few hundred is still a few hundred, and I'd rather have it than not, LOL.
[/b]

Hey Jake,

Be careful about what you wish for with that. A So-Cal Prod racer got stung in Arizona heading East by Federally trained DOT officers. He found that by accepting tow fund money amoung other benefits, you are considered a "commercial enterprise" and have to go through the hoops, including registering an RV as a commercial vehicle.

James

tom_sprecher

06-20-2006, 09:27 AM

ggnagy

06-20-2006, 10:35 AM

Hey Jake,

Be careful about what you wish for with that. A So-Cal Prod racer got stung in Arizona heading East by Federally trained DOT officers. He found that by accepting tow fund money amoung other benefits, you are considered a "commercial enterprise" and have to go through the hoops, including registering an RV as a commercial vehicle.

James
[/b]

ok, now that is just stretching it to nationals-bash. There are any number of items that were cited as renumeration which could classify one as being a "commercial enterprise". Sponsorship, contingency prizes of money or goods, even a freaking 5$ trophy. It's not like the IT fields are not full of cars with only meatballs and sanction stickers. If anything, a car with a Pro-IT or NASA sticker would have less of a leg to stand on that a nationals driver who collects from a "tow fund".

The issues that the Mazdatrix guys faced were issues that almost every racer risks when towing anything more than an open trailer.

RacerBill

06-20-2006, 12:08 PM

I hear some theories that IT will become more expensive to run up front at Regionals if IT goes National. I believe that the assumption there is that those deciding to run for a National championship with 1) spend more money preparing their cars and 2) they will continue to run the same number of regionals that they do now. I can see 1) being probable. However, unless they have REALLY deep pockets, will they spend the money on both more prep and more races? Yes, there might be one or two that could do this. As I said to a non-racing friend the other day, if I had unlimited funds and unlimited time, I could probably race every weekend from March until November, somewhere in the US! Just waiting for some of that excess descretionary income to trickle down into my pockets!

OK, let's say that they would. What would be an alternative solution to those who would spend more money on their cars to compete for a National Championship. How about working (cooperating) with the Production class folks and providing reasonable migration paths for our cars into the existing National classes. Would this provide a way for presently IT cars to compete in National classes? Yes. Would they be able to do this without making any changes to their cars? Probably not, but they would be spending additonal funds anyway. Would this thin out the IT car ranks? Probably, but not that much. And it would make IT more attractive for folks entering the world of racing by providing good racing as well as an alternative to selling teh old car and buying a new one if they wanted to move up. Not using this as an example of a car that would be competitive in all these classes, but my 83 Dodge Shelby is listed in ITA, F Prod (limited prep), E Prod, and GT3. In the immortal words of El Galo "The quality of the rape depends on what you pay!" (The Fantastics).

Oh, sorry, I forgot. I used the word 'cooperating'. (sarcastic mode off). Hey, I think it could be a win-win proposition. Guys get to go to the National Runoffs, Prod gets more cars, IT gets some new champions.

Remember what Lincoln said "you can't please all of the people all of the time".

Ron Earp

06-20-2006, 12:10 PM

When comparing various areas of this great country of ours, we all should realize we are not equally distributed. Check out the link.

Population Density (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:USA-2000-population-density.gif)

[/b]

That ties in nicely with what I was discussing at CMP a few weeks ago. Why IS the SCCA headquartered in Topeka and why are the runoffs there now? Not many blue shapes out in the middle......

orlando_wrx

06-20-2006, 12:50 PM

More expense to be competitive in IT if IT goes national? God forbid there are more fully prepped cars in IT. Maybe this is what IT needs so the true potential of classed cars becomes apparent. Racing was never intended to be an inexpensive sport. SCCA provides a place to run for fun, but seriously, if you want to be a front runner you need to prep for it. There are also plenty of people who don't have top $$ programs who consitently run up front thanks to their genious home brew engineering. These people step up to the plate and compete with guys who have $$ to spend, and money can't buy the knowledge that these people posess. A national championship in IT (not necessarily the runoffs) will not change things very much, unless you plan on going for the gusto; in which case you will need to step up your game. An insurgence of full prep cars will make things easier on the ITAC for classification/weight decisions, and help to fine tune their fomulas for future classifications. You simply can't be expected to be taken seriously running around in a half-baked car and bitchin about the guy up front who has built to the limit of the law. I know I won't be anywhere near the front for some time to come, even in a "full-tilt" effort, but we had a chassis sitting around and I figured I'd give the road less traveled a shot. I hope to be somewhere near the front within a year or two, but I'll (hopefully) get there by developing my goods, not trying to gain advantages because I haven't built the car. There are way too many people with half prepped cars bitchin about this and that right now (not necessarily the cost). I might sometimes jest playing devils advocate and stirring "stuff" up, but come on... a grid full of proper IT cars would add a whole new spice to our club and gain a bit more respect for our class(es).

edit- having a bad day so maybe posted in a harsh tone, but valid points so leaving as is.

charrbq

06-20-2006, 12:50 PM

That ties in nicely with what I was discussion at CMP a few weeks ago. Why IS the SCCA headquartered in Topeka and why are the runoffs there now? Not many blue shapes out in the middle......
[/b]
I'm not clarevoyant, or Claire anybody, but my info says you'd have to ask Steve Johnson for the answer to that question...and he's not answering his phone. <_<

zracre

06-20-2006, 01:14 PM

what would be really neat is if someone made the same map with all SCCA regions and their population numbers...

Ron Earp

06-20-2006, 01:27 PM

what would be really neat is if someone made the same map with all SCCA regions and their population numbers...
[/b]

Think the Topeka region has a huge number of members in comparison to the other regions? :D

lateapex911

06-20-2006, 01:45 PM

SCCA used to be based in Westport CT..........and thats where I'm from, 40 miles NE of NYC. Pretty significant population area. But....I bet that our cost to pay the rent, overhead and saleries of the staff would easily triple if the club remained here. Obviously, HQ needs certain resources, but it doesn't have to be next to the Rolex Jewelery and the Mitchels Custom Tailor Store, right across from the Banana Republic Store.

lateapex911

06-20-2006, 01:57 PM

How about working (cooperating) with the Production class folks and providing reasonable migration paths for our cars into the existing National classes. Would this provide a way for presently IT cars to compete in National classes? Yes. (?) Would they be able to do this without making any changes to their cars? Probably not, but they would be spending additonal funds anyway. Would this thin out the IT car ranks? Probably, but not that much.
[/b]

Some thoughts on that line.

I have a couple issues with that, mostly philosophical.

First, I think IT is a strong category within the SCCA structure, and those that i have talked to up the line agree. IF IT went to the Runoffs, classes like S and A would be among the better participated.

Why is that? Because it's cheap? Not really...because it isn't THAT cheap...at least not at the front of a 25 S car grid.

It seems to us, from the feedback we get, that IT is strong because of the "line in the sand" that the category tries to hold in regards to prep levels. Time forces certain evolutions, but the ITAC is strongly in favor of trying to maintain a status quo in terms of prep level, as they feel that the long term success of IT has been, and will contiinue to be, mainly due to that balance point.

Secondly, the basic philosophy of IT is a categorical one. Good for one, good for all. As in no line item exceptions are allowed unless it's impossible to avoid. That's not the case in Prod, where seemingly every car negotiates it's own package. This for that car, that for this car, and so on. Competition adjustments are the rule in Prod, but not in IT.

These are significant issue in the melding of the categories.

Currently, there are moves afoot to allow better cross category migration, but....the basic philosophies remain. I added a bold question mark to your quote, because I disagree with the word "Yes" there. If you allow IT cars to go to the Runoffs as LP Prod cars, they aren't really IT cars...they now fall under all the philosophies and rules that Prod runs under.

Bill Miller

06-20-2006, 02:31 PM

I'd be willing to wager that most of the ITS cars in a Runoffs's field would put a large part of the EP grid to shame, both from a prep level as well as a performance level. Introduce ITR, and make all of IT eligible for the Runoffs, and watch the migration from EP (and quite possibly GT2 and GT3).

JamesB

06-20-2006, 02:50 PM

Bill Miller

06-20-2006, 03:04 PM

I personally understand those in IT that want to go national. I can't find a good reason to say it should or it shouldn't. What I picture is that running in the top 5-10 will be next to impossible even at the regional level unless you have every possible penny in development in the car and driver.

That just makes me wonder, is it worth it to even want to be competitive in IT if this where to happen? Roght now, I would love to be. However, I have some work before I can make it up front in ITB (driver as much as car.) But right now it is possible if I can get the seat time and monies properly funding it.

IT going national just makes me think it will take 2x as much time and money to get up front then it would right now. That does not appeal to me since the only reason I decided on IT is because SM costs are out of control compared to the low cost spec class it was 4-5 years ago. I dont get into the bump and grind, in the 02 season when I started working ITB/C group used to be called bash and crash, follwed by spec masher(miata)
[/b]

That's just it James, it won't be that way. For a good example, just look at the Prod, SS, and T programs. Look at the guys that run Prod cars at the MARRS races. Now look at where those cars are w.r.t. the various lap records for the different Prod classes at Summit Point. Notice how you hardly see any of the folks that run the April National at the MARRS races. That's because they focus their effort and $$$ on running Nationals, and going to the Runoffs. Why would you expect IT to be any different?

zracre

06-20-2006, 03:06 PM

SM got pricey because so many migrated there...50-60 cars in 1 class! a spec class where you can open the motor...a formula for a real expensive class!! If SCCA made our best subscribed classes national and kept the same format (regional national weekends) im sure it would work out. everyone would have a place to race. As for LP Prod cars, I think it is a great idea! IMHO the only difficult thing would be tires...but prod runs with IT now and it works out. As for $$ IT would still go thru the roof for a top prep car...probably along the lines of 45k for a top A car instead of 25k...but anyone could still build one cheap as we have been for years. I would just like to see SCCA promoted more and maybe a little more visibility for the clubs bread and butter. my $.02

JamesB

06-20-2006, 03:43 PM

Z3_GoCar

06-20-2006, 04:46 PM

ok, now that is just stretching it to nationals-bash. There are any number of items that were cited as renumeration which could classify one as being a "commercial enterprise". Sponsorship, contingency prizes of money or goods, even a freaking 5$ trophy. It's not like the IT fields are not full of cars with only meatballs and sanction stickers. If anything, a car with a Pro-IT or NASA sticker would have less of a leg to stand on that a nationals driver who collects from a "tow fund".

The issues that the Mazdatrix guys faced were issues that almost every racer risks when towing anything more than an open trailer.
[/b]

Sorry didn't mean for it to come off as a bash :bash_1_: and those would be some of the amoung other things. Just trying to point out the dark side to having a tow fund.

James

Bill Miller

06-20-2006, 05:17 PM

Bill,

I don't know. If you ask me, most of the guys who run in MARRS are just tired of running national. But what happens when everything is pretty much national level. That means almost ever class is national, and if your running in ITA and have a break between nationals, why not come out and run the MARRS race to keep yourself sharp? I see that happening in SM this season. Maybe I am very wrong, I just dont see any adders or subtractors for the good of all.

zracer, go read the FasTrack, there is 2 years of financials posted. Standard auditing format I get on all my investment reports.
[/b]

That's just it James, if you're going to spend $1000 'just to keep yourself sharp', why wouldn't you want to do it at the perceived top level (National races)? I'm not trying to argue w/ you, as it's really all speculation. As I said, look at how many of the Prod guys from the April National run the MARRS series. And the ones that do, look at where they were on the results sheet at the National.

Karl Bocchieri

06-22-2006, 04:34 PM

Unless you look at the used car ads in the back of Fastrack you don't even know there is an IT class, and remember the line a few years ago about not posting regional results, because they only have so much room and they only want to put info in that benifit's the most people. We have been a forgoten revenue generation device for the SCCA for a long time. Only very reciently, and because of alot of work by some IT drivers who have moved up in the system has there been any progress.
ITR, great, should have happened a long time ago.
Touring cars, GT, import tuning typecars, great, cars that people can identify with, that were built in the last century. When my son came to his first SCCA race he dident know what half the cars were in some classes because most of of them were made before he was born. My IT car is 20 next year, we need new cars.

There can still be regional and national, but we should be included in the national structure. If you want to move up, spend the money and race nationals. Even if I only raced regionals, I could try some nationals and see how I stack up, I could try and qualify for the runnofs and possibly go there. At least that option would be there for us to try. I would like to go to the nationals at least once in my life. From what I see on TV it can't be too hard, in most classes there are four or five real fast guys fighting for the lead, and then there is everybody else.
I think that one big reason this does not change is that it would make it more difficult to run a national event. You would have 3 possibly 4 more race groups. Nationals would end up like regionals with 9 to 10 groups, less practice and qualifing and race time. It would put more pressure on classes that dont' have the participation numbers.
At least there is some movement, a few cracks in the wall, I just hope it contunues.