A thread on New SCCA classes [Archive] - Improved Touring Racing Forums

lateapex911

08-08-2006, 07:04 PM

From that thread, I quote this:

I'm planning on moving out of PCA and into ITR. I have to tell you, if it wasn't for the formation of ITR I would never consider moving to SCCA. My other option is NASA. Based on what I've learned, NASA is a far better venue, less politics, more models allowed, and the rules make more sense.

I'm not involved in SCCA yet and have always been told by former IT racers that the mindset is very closed, change is painful, and people spend more time bickering than racing. There's a reason NASA is growing at a very healthy pace - it's made up of a bunch of disgrunteled SCCA guys.

SCCA is doing the right thing in changing its image and forming new classes. For years there was no non-Marque challenge to SCCA. Now there is. Compition is a wonderfuil thing. SCCA needs to change its image and appeal to a broader, more open minded customer. They are doing just that and I applaud them.[/b]

Hmmmm....some VERY telling comments in there.

Z3_GoCar

08-08-2006, 08:15 PM

Thanks Jake,

I'd not visited that board yet. I'll have to go check it out.

tom_sprecher

08-09-2006, 04:09 PM

Quoted from a post in the thread linked above.

"I'm planning on moving out of PCA and into ITR. I have to tell you, if it wasn't for the formation of ITR I would never consider moving to SCCA. My other option is NASA. Based on what I've learned, NASA is a far better venue, less politics, more models allowed, and the rules make more sense.

I'm not involved in SCCA yet and have always been told by former IT racers that the mindset is very closed, change is painful, and people spend more time bickering than racing. There's a reason NASA is growing at a very healthy pace - it's made up of a bunch of disgrunteled SCCA guys.

SCCA is doing the right thing in changing its image and forming new classes. For years there was no non-Marque challenge to SCCA. Now there is. Compition is a wonderfuil thing. SCCA needs to change its image and appeal to a broader, more open minded customer. They are doing just that and I applaud them."

This has been one of the most insightful posts I have read on the topic of new classes or the dual classification issue. From what I have seen over the past 5 years, with the reduction in car counts (for road racing) and the age of most of the cars that are racing, the SCCA had better learn to adapt or it will die a slow death. Or be a Solo based club only, :( , not that there's anything wrong with Solo.

mustanghammer

08-09-2006, 09:45 PM

While I do not see an ITR car in my garage I do like the idea and the way the class was created. We need to class more cars, period.

I spent 15 years in Solo II and attended 13 Solo II Nationals (1990 to 2002). What I noticed in Solo II was that EVERY new car was classed and most of those new cars were not just given a place in Stock they were also placed in Street Prepared, Street Touring, Stree Mod, and Prepared. You could literally buy a new car and start in a Stock class and then progress through every catagory in Solo II with the same car over the next 10-15 years. Been there and done that!

I have a friend that is on the SEB (Solo Events Board) which the Solo II equivalent to the CRB. I asked him how cars are classed and whether a member request is required for a new classification. The answer was no. The car classification process on the Solo II side is proactive and the SEB (with help from specific Ad Hoc committees) does all of the leg work. Many cars are classed BEFORE they hit the market! Are they perfect, do they always get it right the first time? No but at least the cars are classed and from there changes can be made.

Compare that to way cars are classed in SCCA Club Racing......well....ah....ahh... there is no comparison.

IF you want a car classed in club racing you have to ask. Part of the asking process involves providing your arguments and facts in support of what you asking for. And the funny part is that only the requesting party's facts seem to be considered and or need to be of substance. Based on my experience the CRB can dismiss a request witout providing any meanigful facts to support their decision.

Now if you get what you ask for you can expect that your "new" car will be spec'd at an intentional disadvantage. The expectation is that you - the driver, constructor, owner - will spend your money and time proving to the CRB that the car was improperly classed and in need of adjustment. It is more likely that IF you get your car classed nobody will ever race it. Seen any E Production FOX Mustangs yet?

The fact is that the BOD should be POUNDING the table DEMANDING that the CRB and it's Ad Hoc committees produce cars to class in both new and existing catagories. It seems to me that ONLY the ITAC is doing this and everybody else is sucking hind tit.

alexands

08-09-2006, 11:33 PM

I'm the guy that posted the comments on scca.org. Hope I didn't ruffle anyones feathers. I'm just an amateur wanna-be that took a bite of the Porsche apple. It was enough to get me addicted and enough to make me reallize I can't afford to race a Porsche. I've stayed up many nights (as I said, I've become addicted) trying to figure the best class (for me) to run in. SCCA ITS seemed dated. The leading cars were 30 year old Datsuns, 20 year old Mazdas or a more modern BMW that no one could agree even belonged it IT.

I took an interest in NASA, specifcally the CMC and AI classes. The rules are very clear and as long you meet the HP/WT ratio you can race. These guys seems more into racing than rules bickering like I observed on the various websites for SCCA. However, I just can't get my head around road racing a Camaro or Mustang. Where I grew up these were drag cars, not raod racers. I then learned about the new PerformanceTouring class in NASA. Like IT, but more flexibility with regards to mods. I've always had a soft spot for Nissan Z32's. NASA classes these in a very configurable manor. This car is a far better option than the current ITS stuff and was a major reason I decided to consider the NASA route.

Now that SCCA is offering a viable venue in ITR I am all over it. I'm glad to see that they are starting to address this group. From a pure business perspective, there is an entire group of "youngsters" that have the resources and desires to race import cars. They end up doing drifting (that's another subject) because they've never experienced true wheel-to-wheel competition. Now SCCA has a chance to capture a new demographic and teach them what real motorsports is all about. This is a win-win. To not face this challenge is very dissappointing for SCCA.

My biggest fear is that we will see a whole field of "ricer" Civics with aluminum wings and 5" mufflers, and my second biggest fear is that we will continue to see a field of 25 year old cars driven by close minded "purists" who reject change.

Racing is fun and there are tons of great cars and configurations out there. Think of the possibilities, think of the fun, and think of the competition.

ITR, Here I come!!!!

lateapex911

08-10-2006, 12:44 AM

Alexands, I hope you don't mind me copying your post over from the SCCA site. I'm on the ITAC, and actually, on the unofficial ad hoc commitee that was formed in an 'after work' manner to create ITR. Actually, I was aware of a list of cars too fast for ITS that Ron Earp, and his buddy Jeff Young were working on, and the time was right..so the ad hoc commitee worked it out, got it put together, presented to the ITAC, who then polished it and gave it to the CRB, who has put it before the BoD for a vote. In the begining we were very skeptical that it would fly. SCCA, as you noted has a "no new classes" mantra, but of late, top brass has seen the light.

Your post hit to the heart of what the unofficial ad hoc commitee and the ITAC were trying to acheive with the new class.

thanks for posting it.

Andy Bettencourt

08-10-2006, 07:10 AM

I spent 15 years in Solo II and attended 13 Solo II Nationals (1990 to 2002). What I noticed in Solo II was that EVERY new car was classed and most of those new cars were not just given a place in Stock they were also placed in Street Prepared, Street Touring, Stree Mod, and Prepared. You could literally buy a new car and start in a Stock class and then progress through every catagory in Solo II with the same car over the next 10-15 years. Been there and done that!

I have a friend that is on the SEB (Solo Events Board) which the Solo II equivalent to the CRB. I asked him how cars are classed and whether a member request is required for a new classification. The answer was no. The car classification process on the Solo II side is proactive and the SEB (with help from specific Ad Hoc committees) does all of the leg work. Many cars are classed BEFORE they hit the market! Are they perfect, do they always get it right the first time? No but at least the cars are classed and from there changes can be made.

Compare that to way cars are classed in SCCA Club Racing......well....ah....ahh... there is no comparison.

[/b]

I spend a few years on the Stock Class Advisory Committee in the 90's...and the is one HUGE difference in philosophy. It's commonly called "Best of Breed" or "New replaces old". Look at F-Stock. 185hp Camaros with 320hp Camaros - in the same class. The difference is that Club Racing tries to keep everyone competitive pretty much forever. In Solo, when you can just slot next years new-and-improved car in the same class with this years car - without much regard for the competitiveness of this years car - it's very easy to class everything under the sun...but what it also does is require a major reshuffle every few years. Take a look at what is in HS now and remember where it was when it first came out.

The issue is that these aren't street cars and you can't do it that way...plus they have to be 5 years old to even get in! 9 Solo 2 Stock classes make it a heck of a lot easier to fit things.

lateapex911

08-10-2006, 10:08 AM

And thats a major reason I left Solo...one year I had a brand new cool car, the next year I had a useless bank payment.

And the New vs Old thing only holds true in the Stock class...you still see old cars in competitive spots on the modded categories.

mustanghammer

08-10-2006, 11:08 AM

I spend a few years on the Stock Class Advisory Committee in the 90's...and the is one HUGE difference in philosophy. It's commonly called "Best of Breed" or "New replaces old". Look at F-Stock. 185hp Camaros with 320hp Camaros - in the same class. The difference is that Club Racing tries to keep everyone competitive pretty much forever. In Solo, when you can just slot next years new-and-improved car in the same class with this years car - without much regard for the competitiveness of this years car - it's very easy to class everything under the sun...but what it also does is require a major reshuffle every few years. Take a look at what is in HS now and remember where it was when it first came out.

The issue is that these aren't street cars and you can't do it that way...plus they have to be 5 years old to even get in! 9 Solo 2 Stock classes make it a heck of a lot easier to fit things.
[/b]

All true except the difference is that the owner 185HP Camaro has the option to move his/her car to ESP, SM, CP and XP. And these options were likely put into place at the time the car was listed in the Solo II Stock class. No one asked....it just happened.

I understand the constraints in IT and I know that you cannot make exact comparisons between the Solo II processes and what is done in Club Racing. However NASA is classing cars in a manner that is much closer to what we do in Solo II and they seem to be making it work.

Think of it this way. You are shopping for a new power drill and you know the brand and model that you want. You really like a particular retailer but they don't stock the drill. So do you end up buying from someone else or do you ask your favorite retailer to stock this drill for you?

So if I have a Saturn ITA car and I would like to soup it up and run it in a faster class will I ask the SCCA to add this car to Prodcution or just go to NASA where it already has a HP/Weight option I like?

My beef is not so much with IT as it is with Production so any further discussion on this point would hijack this thread. Thanks

ITR = Good

planet6racing

08-10-2006, 11:36 AM

So if I have a Saturn ITA car and I would like to soup it up and run it in a faster class will I ask the SCCA to add this car to Prodcution or just go to NASA where it already has a HP/Weight option I like?

My beef is not so much with IT as it is with Production so any further discussion on this point would hijack this thread. Thanks
[/b]

That's a point I've been going over as well. I've already spent the money on the Saturn and would like to run Nationals, but there isn't a place to run it (yet). I've been wanting to write the letter, but keep seeing the "Not enough member interest" quoted as the reason not to class some cars that I've been put off.

As a result, I'm going to build a new car. Sure, it's going to be a boatload more money, but...

Andy Bettencourt

08-10-2006, 11:45 AM

All true except the difference is that the owner 185HP Camaro has the option to move his/her car to ESP, SM, CP and XP. And these options were likely put into place at the time the car was listed in the Solo II Stock class. No one asked....it just happened. [/b]

While that is nice and all, the fact remains that the Solo rules can render cars obsolete in as little as ONE year. If the upside of your car being classed 'competitively' in IT almost forever is that you have to ask for it to be classed in a higher class - so be it.

I understand the constraints in IT and I know that you cannot make exact comparisons between the Solo II processes and what is done in Club Racing. However NASA is classing cars in a manner that is much closer to what we do in Solo II and they seem to be making it work.[/b]

I disagree. NASA classes cars based on mods. Only a couple classes they have are based on power/weight. More than half of the classes are spec classes. IT cars 'fit' in PT - and that is based puring on a modification calculator where points are given and building a car to the max of the rules is impossible.

Think of it this way. You are shopping for a new power drill and you know the brand and model that you want. You really like a particular retailer but they don't stock the drill. So do you end up buying from someone else or do you ask your favorite retailer to stock this drill for you? [/b]

What if you bought your drill to bring it to 'drilling contests' and you go to the retailer who has it in stock and has these contests - but only 3 other drillers show up? If you want to drill against the best, you may need to buy that drill elsewhere.

It's just the devils-advocate point. Like I have said before, you can't have your cake and eat it too. It's impossible to classifiy all cars unless you do it like NASA - and that has it's disadvantages.

So if I have a Saturn ITA car and I would like to soup it up and run it in a faster class will I ask the SCCA to add this car to Prodcution or just go to NASA where it already has a HP/Weight option I like?[/b] What class would you run your ITA Saturn in with NASA that the rules are based in HP/weight?

My beef is not so much with IT as it is with Production so any further discussion on this point would hijack this thread. Thanks

ITR = Good [/b]

Discussion is good. Right now the SCCA is on one side and NASA is on another. I think both clubs will be moving to the middle in order to grab more dollars.

mustanghammer

08-10-2006, 03:00 PM

From Andy:

While that is nice and all, the fact remains that the Solo rules can render cars obsolete in as little as ONE year. If the upside of your car being classed 'competitively' in IT almost forever is that you have to ask for it to be classed in a higher class - so be it.

Response

It is on this point where we disagree the most. In my opinion the "wait until they ask" process creates a conflict of interest:

Member - Dear CRB, I would like to have my Saturn classed in E Production

CRB - Hmmmm, we have never thought of that what proof do you have that this a good idea?

Member - Well here are the comparitive lap times of other ITA cars that are in E Production and the specs that I feel the car should meet.....

CRB - Hmmmmm, your asking for this classification. Why should we trust your numbers? Request Denied!

So, how do we get past this?

By the way, I don't have a Saturn but I think they should be listed in Production.

lateapex911

08-10-2006, 04:06 PM

I know I'm probably perpetuating myths, but the whole Production thing always strikes me as a 3 headed monster...tough to come to grips with one head, the performance aspects head, and once you do, another head, the results head rears up, and when you finally have those two under control, here comes the political head!

I'm not sure how and why the Prod advisory commitee works, the philosophical foundation that they use for decision making, or the logic in which changes are made, but I'd agree, it appears to this outside observer to be an uphill battle to get things added.

However, and I'm sure the Prod brass would be quick to point this outas well, new cars have been added. In my casual talks with those who sponsored some requests, it was an uphill battle, and involved negotiations and begging, LOL. OK, maybe not the begging! But it CAN be done.

Keep in mind that there are more factors to consider along the road to equity in roadracing than autocrossing, and it gets complicated quickly when mods are allowed.

I would suggest that a note to the BoD and the CRB congratulating them on the new open minded approach they seem to be displaying is in order, and at the same time mentioning that if Prod is to survive, new cars need to be added, and that the PAC needs to work as an alliance, rather than an adversary to the requester, if what you say is true. Times are a changing in SCCA -land.....which means now is the time to register your input.

planet6racing

08-10-2006, 04:31 PM

Jake:

Yes, it can be done. But, I can also build another car. Something that is less "out there" and is already accepted (well, not quite yet, but...). I just think it'll be far less frustrating to build a new car from scratch than to play the political game necessary to get an ITA Saturn as an AP car (I figure I'd have a better chance classing the car higher than it should be, hence the AP).

I'm not leaving the SCCA, but I'm not going to production, either, for this very reason.

As for what class in NASA, I always thought about looking into AI for the Saturn... Of course, with plastic body panels, is it really "American Iron"? :D :D :D

lateapex911

08-10-2006, 06:19 PM

LOL...you've already named the class! AP!!

American Plastic!

hee hee...;)

(I know, it's really daul modulus fibre reinforced thermo set cross matrix linked resin, or some such, but "American Plastic" has a ring to it, doncha think??)

I don't blame you...I'd have to be paid to submit a request for Prod classing!

Knestis

08-10-2006, 07:26 PM

... What class would you run your ITA Saturn in with NASA that the rules are based in HP/weight? ...[/b]
It's not a true HP/weight category but a real ITA car would probably end up in PTF, plus or minus a letter. A car built to IT rules (fully built) actually gets dinged pretty hard for stuff that is allowed in IT but costs PT points out of proportion to their performance return.

The .5 compression bump for example. I take the same points whether I've increased the CR of the Golf to 10.5:1 or 12.5:1 - if I'm reading the lengthy description of point-adders correctly. (A big IF.) . There are other specific examples that I can't at this moment recall.

The power/weight classes include those in the GTS category, where you actually bring a dyno sheet to your first race.

It's interesting that this conversation pointed that direction because there was a mental experiment going on during the discussion of dual classification, where it was proposed that a world might someday exist where cars were classified in lots of different classes based on any number of criteria. This would be an entirely different kind of world, than that defined by the first assumptions currently applied to SCCA categories and classes - that alignment is based on common physical attributes and allowed modifications rather than the output variables of changes made to the car - like power. Or lap times.

Think bracket racing as the logical extension of this approach. (And we've had this conversation in the past.) You register for "1:50.00" and go race. If your fast lap is faster than that, you "break out" and are disqualified. Two years ago the PT concept would have seemed far-fetched and now NASA is hanging its hat on it for a lot of future entries.

I guess that we need to decide what we think is important, in terms of first principles.

K

JoshS

08-10-2006, 07:49 PM

Two years ago the PT concept would have seemed far-fetched and now NASA is hanging its hat on it for a lot of future entries.[/b]

I hear a lot of excitement about the PT method of classing cars, but let's face it -- once a national championship is on the line (this year), people are going to start taking those races much more seriously, and then NASA is going to have a serious problem with policing those classes. How is anyone to really know if a competitor's car is classed properly, when basically an infinite number of modifications might be made to it?

Same thing with the power-to-weight classes. I can bring a dyno sheet, but who says my car is in the same configuration as it was when it produced that dyno sheet?

Neither of these classing strategies meets the bar of being enforceable, and as such, are really only going to work for "recreational" racers who don't much care about winning and losing. But NASA seems to be trying to go head-to-head with the SCCA with the addition of their national championship, and it would seem they are headed for an internal collision if it turns out that someday, winning a NASA National Championship holds any significant value.

Andy Bettencourt

08-10-2006, 10:37 PM

Kirk,

As you know, I am familiar with the PT classes. My point in that was to illustrate that you can't just take your ITA "Saturn" and run in a power to weight class with NASA. You have to run a PT class unless you have a marque that fits their 'spec' proliferation.

I do find the PT classification methods interesting but I remain stedfast that the truely serious racers won;t like it because you can't take a set of rules and build to them expecting to take the car out of the equation. My fear is that at any given time or race, someone will show up with a combination that nobody thought of to date that will be faster - and your investment will be marginalized because your prep has gone to far in some areas or can't go further in others in order to stay in whatever class...
At the latest NASA race here at LRP the car counts were as follows:
PTA: 1
PTB: 0
PTC: 0
PTD: 0
PTE: 1
PTF: 4
There could have been a few more PT cars but they were spread out between H4 (2 cars) and SE-R (1 car).

lateapex911

08-11-2006, 02:49 AM

I hear a lot of excitement about the PT method of classing cars, but let's face it -- once a national championship is on the line (this year), people are going to start taking those races much more seriously, and then NASA is going to have a serious problem with policing those classes. How is anyone to really know if a competitor's car is classed properly, when basically an infinite number of modifications might be made to it?

Same thing with the power-to-weight classes. I can bring a dyno sheet, but who says my car is in the same configuration as it was when it produced that dyno sheet?

Neither of these classing strategies meets the bar of being enforceable, and as such, are really only going to work for "recreational" racers who don't much care about winning and losing. But NASA seems to be trying to go head-to-head with the SCCA with the addition of their national championship, and it would seem they are headed for an internal collision if it turns out that someday, winning a NASA National Championship holds any significant value.
[/b]

VERY well put. When the PT thing first came out, I said it was a nightmare of epic proportions trying to figure out WHICH mods worked on WHICH cars that "beat the curve" and which mods didn't work on which cars....finding the right combo, or sweet spot was a challenge of nightmare proportions, and probably needed a Cray supercomputer, (plus a lot of hard data) to spit out a definitive answer.

Then....once you have the answer, and buy the right car, and put the right mods on it, you then need to figure out IF the other guy is telling all, and you need to determine if he should be as fast as he is, with the mods he claims. Of course, you might have no way to know what mods he has!!!

Jeeeez...just typing it makes my head spin!

A cheaters paradise, and an enforcement nightmare.

The dyno thing is interesting, but when it comes right down to it, using a dyno to enforce class equity is a very difficult task. Very difficult.

However, NASAs PT class is genius in that it gives the HPDE guy an immediate place to race, while demanding nothing from him in terms of prep. No matter what he's done, there's a place to play.

Sooner or later, it will dawn on some that there is still a magic combination that "beats the system" better than other combinations, but for the guy looking to step up and get his feet wet in wheel to wheel racing, its a great next step.