March fastrac

[88YB1]

March FAST TRAC is up

[erlrich]

Here 'tis: http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/07-03-fastrack.pdf

Time to make your opinions known, if you haven't already.

[lateapex911]

yeah, yeah, yeah, but this Fastrack has the funniest thing I have ever read in it!

Here it is: http://www.scca.com/_FileLibrary/File/07-03-fastrack.pdf

Page 15, Prod section, line item 7.


Those Prod guys....they KILL me!


LOL> :lol:

[erlrich]

<div align="left">
yeah, yeah, yeah, but this Fastrack has the funniest thing I have ever read in it![/b]</div>
<div align="left">
Priceless....</div>

[RSTPerformance]

7. FP – Please remove your heads from your asses (Johnson). Inconsistent with class philosophy.


I am not sure what I like better, the request, or the reply... Jake personally for me this really makes SCCA look bad and proves that the process doesn&#39;t actually work.... who reviews this crap???

on a brighter note, looks like the 2002 Mini Cooper is a done deal as of 3/1/07... Go get em!!! I think this will be a "hot car" for ITB and certainly a fun one :) It is on my new favorite car list!!!

Add new spec line to ITCS p. 327, Mini Cooper (2002), Engine Type: 4 Cyl DOHC, Bore x Stroke(mm) / Displ.(cc): 77.0 x 85.8 /
1598, Valves IN & EX(mm): (I)30.3 (E)23.3, Comp. Ratio: 10.6, Wheelbase(inch): 97.1, Wheel Dia.(inch): 15 / 16, Gear Ratios:
3.42, 1.95, 1.33, 1.05, 0.85, Brakes Std.(mm): (F)276 Vented Disc ®239 Solid Disc, Weight(lbs): 2500.

ECU&#39;s... not sure how I feel and I do not have time to read through 500+ post for biast info... I am trusting the masses on this one :bash_1_: If it should absolutely not go though PM me and educate me so I send in my input. If it really does need to be changed I am sure you will get the votes to do so, so don&#39;t waste my time ;)

Raymond "Just when you think things are settlin down, they all get going again!!!" Blethen

[JimLill]

what a hoot!

[Stan]

You guys need to keep reading page 30 very carefully... :114:

[shwah]

Yeah I caught the prod request right away. Damn funny, by both parties. :P



You guys need to keep reading page 30 very carefully... :114:
[/b]
You mean the part about letting people run IT cars in Prepared, so that we can experience national level competition? Might be interesting when the Prepared category is thin, but sort of like bringing a spoon to a gun fight when the real cars show up. Nice gesture though.

I was more interested in the alternate rear brakes for the ITS Olds. How is that consistent with the class philosophy?

[Bill Miller]

The Prod line was funny, and sad, all at the same time. Funny, because it&#39;s so true. Sad, because it really shows how Mickey Mouse and broken the whole thing is.

The Prepared thing is one of the biggest crocks of **** I&#39;ve read in a long time. "Experience a National event" What&#39;s that, where you only have 2 or 3 cars show up for a given class, yet you get to pay a premium for the privilege? BTW, it&#39;s pretty easy to see through what&#39;s happening w/ that one. They think they&#39;ll be able to bolster the Prepared participation numbers so they can give it a Runoffs&#39; slot.

And I don&#39;t know how they could print the answer to Dick&#39;s request w/ a straight face. Guess what, all those ex-ITS, now ITR cars are correctly classed in ITR.

The crap I read really helped seal the deal for me, I&#39;m not renewing my membership this year.

And the nonsense w/ the Quad4 cars&#39; brakes is just an extension of what was there for the other cars that were classified. Still doesn&#39;t make it consistent w/ the IT philosophy, but then again, I&#39;ve never gotten an answer as to why it was allowed in the first place.

As far as the ECU issue goes, have fun guys!

[Greg Amy]

Wow! IT cars in prod, effective 3/1/07? An astounding turn of events...

[JoshS]

Wow! IT cars in prod, effective 3/1/07? An astounding turn of events...
[/b]
No, it&#39;s IT cars in Prepared, not Production.

[Greg Amy]

Ah-hah! Gotcha. Not so intriguing any more...<grin>

(Greg&#39;s prediction: a lot of experienced IT drivers yelling "these &#39;National&#39; guys drive like ROOKIES!")

[Ron Earp]

And the nonsense w/ the Quad4 cars&#39; brakes is just an extension of what was there for the other cars that were classified. Still doesn&#39;t make it consistent w/ the IT philosophy, but then again, I&#39;ve never gotten an answer as to why it was allowed in the first place.

[/b]

No kidding! Who do you have to know to get that in? I need to make some friends so I can get rid of the rear drums on the Jensen, the Z car, and the TR8. Hell, let&#39;s just let all cars with rear drums replace them with discs.

Here we are debating things that are grey with class philospohy while this disc brake substitution is completely contrary to it.

Ron

[ddewhurst]

***You guys need to keep reading page 30 very carefully...***

Stan, this is not a shot at you. The National folks (restricted Regionals), the Prepared folks & everone else who has a wish to USE the IT folks should do the same thing that Johnson requested. We IT folks were good enough to support the numbers for the Milwaukee Region Cat National untill Spec Miata came along then the IT folks were no longer good enough to be included.

As far as I am concerned the National folks can stick it where the sun don&#39;t shine.

Oh ya, then there is Grammer with his endro things always posting on the IT site. Come & play suckers.

Classing the Mazda 1st gen RX-7 in G Production non-ported. Creating another level of prep is not consistent with the Production car class philosophy. SURE, you guys add the Hybird that a Production car traditionalist asked for. That Stan is total crap & people wonder why IT people don&#39;t fall all over each other to get into Production car racing.

[RSTPerformance]

Oh ya, then there is Grammer with his endro things always posting on the IT site. Come & play suckers.

[/b]

Dave- Not sure why you brought Grammer into this, I think it is great that he is offering us another place to play.

Ken, please don&#39;t get discouraged by davids comments and continue to let us know of every opportunity that you can offer us.


Stan- While I appreciate the efforts that you and other have made on page 30, did you (SCCA) have to bewitle the IT community like we are a bunch of hicks whom don&#39;t know how to race? "While IT cars may not be competitive in the Prepared category, competition within the category will allow regional competitors to experience a national event." You make it look like National racing is some treasure... I have seen people like Paul Newman race around Lime Rock every year and smash into everyone, I also watch all the prod guys where 1/2 are good and 1/2 are slower than most cars at a drivers school. National racing sure is an experience, 1/2 of the people think they are pro racers but in reality can&#39;t drive 1/2 as good as most the IT field on any given weekend.

Raymond "I&#39;ll stay regional" Blethen

Although after my venting I am wondering how embarrased SCCA would be if they see some POS very slow IT car show up at the National Runoffs... lol If the rules didn&#39;t restrict 1990 or newer that is the only races that I would run just to be a pain in the @$$...

[Joe Harlan]

Actually I have supported allowing lower prep levels to play in higher prep classes for a long time. I think it will be an honest chance for people to try something different without having to make the capitol invenstment of dumping their old car to move to a different class. Please note i said prep levels not prep quality. I really believe this is a good way for folks to get to know each other also. For years I have listened to pompuss jerk talk about the quality of driver and prep at a regional level and I think this is an opportunity to prove otherwise. As they say..."enjoy the ride" this is just another opportunity to race and nothing more.

[RSTPerformance]

Joe-

I agree with you 100%, I just don&#39;t like the tone in the way it came across... maybe I read it wrong...

Raymond

[Joe Harlan]

Raymond, I quit reading intent. I read the message. The message is another place to race. Years ago when I helped to re-write the RS rules out here that was a big part of the rules set. YOu could run you IT car in RS for extra track time (share the car) as long as you kept the IT level of prep. One change that was not IT and you had to meet all the RS rules including safety stuff. I thought it was a cool way for people to share a car and buddies to get to run against eachother for fun and bragging rights. I have been pitching this thought to anyone that would listen on the CRB and the BOD for manny years now. This has been pitched hard at the prod folks also but I think most of them would rather sink with the ship. While I don&#39;t fully agree with david on the GP RX7 I also don&#39;t disagree that that car could run GP at sime level of prep that would be suitable.

[shwah]

Hey - this might give me a chance to crew and drive at the Sprints. I have been trying to figure out how to convince the wife that we needed to take a trip to Road America twice in June so I could race one time, and help Chuck the next.

[mustanghammer]

You guys need to keep reading page 30 very carefully... :114:
[/b]

Interesting....but it doesn&#39;t apply to me in my OLD 83 RX7! I guess I will have to run it in EP (it&#39;s legal there) to get that National Event feeling!

My guess is that they will be opening Prepared up to A Sedan, Touring cars and even OLD IT cars in a few years to make run off&#39;s numbers.

I was more interested in page #17. They didn&#39;t say NO!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Observations:

1. The remove your head from ass comment is funny to me. It&#39;s a joke, not a slip up.

2. Prather wants the FP Miata reduced by 50lbs? Didn&#39;t he just win a National Championship?

3. Mr. Waterhouse loves him his Mini&#39;s!

4. The Calais deal was the seperation of the regular model and the 442 model. It was not sepcifcally asked of the CRB that they allow the spec line note change to carry over but I guess they did it proactively. I know nothing of the history of the allowance and think it is against class philosophy. Weird.

5. Mini Cooper in ITB should be fun if anyone builds one

[xr4racer]

Why the 1990 cutoff for prepared? Some cars like the RX-7 and many others have body styles that were built pre &#39;90 and post &#39;90 with very few changes.

Matt Miller

[JoshS]

The way I read it, if you have a pre-1990 car legal for IT, you can still run that in Prepared. But you cannot build a car directly to the Prepared rules published in the book if the car is that old.

[Joe Harlan]

Why the 1990 cutoff for prepared? Some cars like the RX-7 and many others have body styles that were built pre &#39;90 and post &#39;90 with very few changes.

Matt Miller
[/b]
Because there are plenty of classes for old cars? I really don&#39;t have an issue with it. Touring and SS have a 10 year old maximum. I don&#39;t see a vin requirement so my 1989 S13 can run as a 1990 model. The year deal is the least of the issues with this class. The rules still need some work and it is gonna be a big money deal to run at the front.

[Bill Miller]

No kidding! Who do you have to know to get that in? I need to make some friends so I can get rid of the rear drums on the Jensen, the Z car, and the TR8. Hell, let&#39;s just let all cars with rear drums replace them with discs.

Here we are debating things that are grey with class philospohy while this disc brake substitution is completely contrary to it.

Ron
[/b]


Ron,

The reasoning I heard years ago was that it was due to the poor design of the stock drum brake system and that it was prone to failure under race conditions. This was not an official position, but info I got from someone that raced one.

They&#39;ll shoot down things that actually make sense as being &#39;inconsistent w/ class philosophy&#39;, yet push crap like this through (Kirk, I admire your efforts, but did you really think that it would be changed?).

And no Raymond, you didn&#39;t read it wrong. Unfortunately, that&#39;s the way a lot of people still view IT and Regional racing. It&#39;s well and truly ironic that the &#39;head up your ass&#39; comment made it into this issue of FasTrack. I honestly don&#39;t know why the IT community puts up w/ this kind of attitude. The SCCA needs the IT community WAY more than the IT community needs the SCCA. Pack the whole thing up and take it to NASA. I&#39;m sure they&#39;d welcome you w/ open arms, and pretty much take the whole package w/o any changes. And you can bet that you&#39;d be able to take track dates w/ you, as it would get damn expensive for a Region to put on a race w/o the IT cars showing up.

The people in Topeka will continue to jerk the racers around as long as the racers let them. It&#39;s just no longer worth it to me to subsidize that kind of nonsense.

[dickita15]

ITA – Dual classify the ITA RX-7 in ITA and ITB (Patullo). The car is properly classified.

I must admit that while I am not surprised by the decision. Reading this one line really does not do justice to the argument I presented regarding the impact of cage requirements, trusting the weight setting process and allowing the free market to make choices where the right solution is not crystal clear.
:rolleyes:

On the subject of IT cars running in Prepared to experience National races, remember that in some parts of the country there is not a strong regional series like we are used to in the Northeast. It is easy for a Narrc or Marrs competitor to think this is condescending but is some divisions there are not enough opportunities for good racing in regional classes.

[Bill Miller]

Dick,

I understand that not every part of the country is lucky enough to have the kinds of IT series that run up and down the East coast, but I hardly see how letting people bring a knife to a gun fight would create &#39;good racing&#39;. And did I just miss it, or did they not say if the IT cars would run in BP or DP? I&#39;m not so sure it would be the case, but maybe some of the hot ITR cars might do ok in DP, but even that&#39;s a stretch.

[gran racing]

On the subject of IT cars running in Prepared to experience National races, remember that in some parts of the country there is not a strong regional series like we are used to in the Northeast. It is easy for a Narrc or Marrs competitor to think this is condescending but is some divisions there are not enough opportunities for good racing in regional classes. [/b]

Ah, good point. I didn&#39;t think about that.

Too bad the 7 can&#39;t be dual classed, but I suppose many other cars would want that as well. It would be pretty cool to see it in B.

[dickita15]

You are right Bill, from the little reading I have done of the Prepared rules a legal IT would not be in the same league, however as Joe pointed out the concept of running a car in a higher class has much appeal and this is a first step. Honestly something like this for prod is logical but with the way the prod guys are change it just can’t happen there, at least now.

Besides it is just an option. We may not think it is significant but I do not see where allowing an additional opportunity can be bad.




Too bad the 7 can&#39;t be dual classed, but I suppose many other cars would want that as well.
[/b]

and this would be bad why?

my letter asked for the allowance of dual classification as a possibility for all cars that could safely race in two classes and then went on to descibe the specific issues with the Rx7 because as I stated in the letter I was most familiar with that example.

Trust the process and let the market decide.

[Bill Miller]

That&#39;s just it Dick, I don&#39;t buy that "I want to race in a group where I&#39;ll be a rolling chicane" line. Racing where you&#39;ll be a back marker has appeal? If that&#39;s the case, run your car in ITE. There&#39;s nothing magical about a National, so why pay the extra $$$? I can think of a couple of differences between Nationals and Regionals. Nationals cost more, have longer races, and don&#39;t have any IT cars. That&#39;s it, nothing special. I&#39;ve been to the Pocono dbl National, and I can tell you, it doesn&#39;t come close to the Labor Day dbl at Summit Point in either car count or good racing.


I&#39;m telling you, this move is designed to bolster numbers for Prepared so that they can get a Runoffs&#39; slot. You think anyone is going to keep track of which Prepared cars are really IT cars, and not count them towards participation numbers?

[p.keane]

Bill, no one on the current CRB believes that the IT guys are red headed step childern. I have been a long time supporter of IT getting national status. I believe that if it happend 3 or 4 of the exsisting runoff classes would be sitting home the year after they were elligible. The line in the revised Prepared rule is just what it says, we would like the IT guys to show up at the National events and let the old gaurd see that they are not ratted out cars. Secondly, we did not want to hear what a**holes we were because an IT car was not competitive in Prepared, it is not supose to be. With the current climate within all of our ad hoc committees and the CRB, I think you are making a mistake by packing up and heading to that other sactioning body. PK

[mustanghammer]

For Sale:


************************************************** **************

1 National class legal ITA RX7 complete with a National License holding driver

Price: Race Entry Fees plus $500.00

My car can be used to bolster Run-Offs car counts in the following classes

GT2
GT3
E Production

I promise to start, finish and not beat any National driver that is running a mule engine and just stroking it long enough to get a National finish.

************************************************** ****************

[Wreckerboy]

Slightly OT - How about the Nissan 240SX with the 97.5mm wheelbase (GTL, item 5)? With a 3.44 inch wheel base it should have some amazing turn in capability, but I don&#39;t really see it being that stable in a straight line.

[Stan]

Sorry about not making time to reply again last night...life intrudes. :)

Yes, the letter from Mr Johnson is real. I am confident he has his view of the situation, but I will just comment that he appears unhappy that the "process" finally caught up to his car. I am also confident that as the process initiated first in IT is applied more universally in Prod we will get more letters from unhappy car owners. That&#39;s life.

As far as the rear discs in the Olds, there may have been a breakdown in communication between the ITAC and the CRB that led to it being misapplied to too many cars. Mistakes happen and can be corrected, but that&#39;s not a reason to go spastic over it. Likewise, if your favorite IT request got turned down again, contact the ITAC to get a reading on why, and then re-engage. If you haven&#39;t convinced the ITAC, odds are you haven&#39;t convinced the CRB.

The Prepared rules were closely patterned on the published World Challenge rules. Unfortunately, those rules differ sharply from what is actually used in the field, so over the next few months you can expect a lot of corrections and clarifications to ensure that as many cars are captured as practical.

Lastly, the IT wording in Prepared is simply an up-front acknowledgment that the CRB is not going to change either the IT specs or the B/DP specs to make IT cars more competitive. If you have a late model ITR prepared to the limits of the rules, the car should be very competitive in DP, where WCT and purpose built cars are limited to 250 crankshaft hp. If you bring your early 90&#39;s ITB car to BP...not so much. Likewise, if you consider National racers a bunch of wankers that you don&#39;t want to be seen with, fine. If, OTOH, you want to cross over and add some Nationals to your racing calendar, have at it. Your choice...have a good race!

Stan

[shwah]

Not going spastic over the Olds brakes, just noting that it does not fit the IT philosophy. I would expect this could be corrected pretty easily.

When I am ready to get serious about national racing, either IT will be national by that point (I&#39;m not beating that drum, but I could see it happen), or I will be running an FP car. I think it might be fun to, as some say, &#39;wade into those murky waters&#39;. Until then I may take in a DP race here and there with my weak ITB car. At least initially the fields will be low, and weak relative to the performance potential of the category, so there may well be someone to race against. Once the class gets up to speed I won&#39;t bother.

I am sure that part of the goal is to build numbers, but I honestly beleive there will be plenty of numbers with the &#39;real&#39; prepared cars, as they get on track. There are several older WC cars for sale, and there are several guys with the $$ to play with that want to run a &#39;real&#39; race car. I think they can also expect some crossover from other series. I know of one NASA USTCC car that is seriously looking at DP right now, due to disatisfaction with their current series management, and contingency sponsor issues on that side of the fence. It should be possible to move a GAC car into Prepared as well.

I wonder if VW will add DP to the list of eligible classes for thier contingency program?

[planet6racing]

OK, I guess I&#39;m a little lost. What the hell is "Prepared?" Is that the new BP and DP categories? But I thought the P was for "Production," not "Prepared."

Basically, it&#39;ll be me against a bunch of cars built to World Challenge specs?

[erlrich]

OK, I guess I&#39;m a little lost. What the hell is "Prepared?" Is that the new BP and DP categories? But I thought the P was for "Production," not "Prepared."

Basically, it&#39;ll be me against a bunch of cars built to World Challenge specs? [/b] Bill - yes, and yes. See page 339 of your GCR. I think, as others have noted, that the only IT class that would have any chance of competing with the DP cars would be ITR. Still, how funny would it be to have a few of our top IT guys sitting on the grid at the Runoffs?

Peter, Stan - thanks for stopping by to check in on us from time to time. I&#39;m fairly new at this and so don&#39;t have sufficient history to have developed the level of cynicism other have, so I probably appreciate your efforts a little more than I should :D . Still, please don&#39;t allow the &#39;glass half empty&#39; crowd around here to deter you from jumping in from time to time.

That said, I do think the notice about IT cars running in prepared may have come across as a little patronizing. A+ for content, C- for presentation.




Slightly OT - How about the Nissan 240SX with the 97.5mm wheelbase (GTL, item 5)? With a 3.44 inch wheel base it should have some amazing turn in capability, but I don&#39;t really see it being that stable in a straight line. [/b] It&#39;s all in the setup - corner weights have to be spot on :D The real problem I see is getting enough offset so the front wheels don&#39;t rub the rears in those hairpins.

[dickita15]

I&#39;m fairly new at this and so don&#39;t have sufficient history to have developed the level of cynicism other have,
[/b]

don&#39;t worry it will come with time. :lol:

[JeffYoung]

After one scare, I&#39;m pretty pleased with this Fastrac. And more pleased with STan and Peter coming here to post offer explanations.

Thanks guys.

[jhooten]

There&#39;s nothing magical about a National, so why pay the extra $$$? [/b]

One good reason, with the pending demise of the closest track to me and the next nearest being a 200 mile each way tow, I could do one double national weekend and have enough race credits to renew my national liscense instead of having to tow 400 miles 2,3,or 4 times to get enough regional races to renew. Ends up being cheaper in the long run.

[Stan]

Jerry, which track down your way is closing? Stan

[StephenB]

Exactly why I think this is a great idea. I wish that I could have raced my IT car with my dad when he was running Nationals. Instead we spread ourselves thin and ran a full National and a full regional schedule. It was tough on us and our wallets and didn&#39;t allow any "breaks". Except of course the cars that broke as the season progressed due to time and the ability for all of us to work on the cars. I think allowing us to race in nationals would have worked great for my family and allowed us all to go and race together. Of course my dad is no longer running nationals so I won&#39;t take advantage of this anymore...

If I was going to run a bunch of races this year I probably would go to the National at NHIS because I could. One thing we all want is more tracks to race at so we have more dates to race. This is one way that I see SCCA trying to give us what we are looking for! We can have fun and create our own races against eachother. So what if a WCT car shows up and kicks our bu. Do you really feel like you lost if you beat 10 other IT cars and lost to the 1 WTC car? I am personally only planning on Watkins glen in July and Mid Ohio in August this year because of money so I like I said I can&#39;t take advantage of what they are offering but I do thank them for the opportunity.

Stephen

[ddewhurst]

***Dave- Not sure why you brought Grammer into this, I think it is great that he is offering us another place to play.***

Raymond, do you like the feeling of being USED for the profit of another?

[RacerBowie]

***Dave- Not sure why you brought Grammer into this, I think it is great that he is offering us another place to play.***

Raymond, do you like the feeling of being USED for the profit of another?
[/b]

Who gives a big fat crap if Ken Grammer is trying to make money running a racing series. More power to him! He is offering a product at a price point. If you don&#39;t like it, don&#39;t go.

[Greg Amy]

Bowie: Amen.

[R2 Racing]

I can kind of relate to what Stephen said above. I&#39;ve toyed with the idea of going into Limited Prep FProd but one of the big hurdles was the fact that while I&#39;d have a National car, the rest of my team would have regional cars. So pretty much we&#39;d be trying to run both a full national campaign as well as a regional one too. That would just be too much. But now if I wanted to go off and do a national event in a Prod car, the rest of my team would have a place they could race that weekend too. I&#39;m not saying it&#39;s going to happen, but it could.

[Roy Dean]

4. Appendix B. Glossary, clarify the definition for a Traction Bar by adding to read as follows: Traction Bar – A longitudinal link
to an axle housing or hub carrier which resists torque reaction from the driven wheel(s) by acting in compression or tension.[/b]

:D

[Stan]

Stan, this is not a shot at you. The National folks (restricted Regionals), the Prepared folks & everone else who has a wish to USE the IT folks should do the same thing that Johnson requested. We IT folks were good enough to support the numbers for the Milwaukee Region Cat National untill Spec Miata came along then the IT folks were no longer good enough to be included.[/b]Dave, for the past 5 years I have been trying to get the Club to eliminate the difference between Regional-only and National classes...and just have classes. Peter has been doing the same even longer. The difference is that we are both now on the CRB and are gaining allies in the fight for class and category equality. We aren&#39;t there yet, but at the same time I know that some IT folks would like to run Nationals without having to invest in a new car, so we&#39;ve opened the door as far as we can for now.

A word on "being used". Ultimately each and all of us who race are "being used" by others as well as "using" others...unless you&#39;ve built your own road course and don&#39;t share it with anybody else. It&#39;s called banding together as a club to share our hobby. And it is our "using" and "being used" that makes this madness even possible, so I&#39;d urge you to not get too wound around the axle over "being used".


As far as I am concerned the National folks can stick it where the sun don&#39;t shine.[/b]Tabled for committee input. :happy204:


Oh ya, then there is Grammer with his endro things always posting on the IT site. Come & play suckers.[/b]Sounds more than just a little bitter, Dave. I don&#39;t know Grammer, but I do know that the prospect of running Enduros is the only reason I haven&#39;t sold my 510.


Classing the Mazda 1st gen RX-7 in G Production non-ported. Creating another level of prep is not consistent with the Production car class philosophy. SURE, you guys add the Hybird that a Production car traditionalist asked for. That Stan is total crap & people wonder why IT people don&#39;t fall all over each other to get into Production car racing.[/b]IT people don&#39;t fall all over each other to get into Production car racing for a variety of reasons. Chief among them I suspect is the screwing the Prod guys gave IT cars after the first round or two of cross-listing. Me? I&#39;d sweep them all into GTL and be done with it, but I can&#39;t seem to make much headway with that idea, either. :dead_horse:

Stan

[tnord]

Who gives a big fat crap if Ken Grammer is trying to make money running a racing series. More power to him! He is offering a product at a price point. If you don&#39;t like it, don&#39;t go.
[/b]


funny this comes up, as i got my ass chewed by our BOD rep for promoting a competing sanctioning bodies race at an SCCA meeting. i was promoting it because Ken was nice enough to provide us with a couple of discounted entry fees to help fill the fields, which was only available to our SCCA region members.

myself, nor anyone else really thought it was that big of a deal, but apparantly this particular BOD member did.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, no one on the current CRB believes that the IT guys are red headed step childern. I have been a long time supporter of IT getting national status. I believe that if it happend 3 or 4 of the exsisting runoff classes would be sitting home the year after they were elligible. The line in the revised Prepared rule is just what it says, we would like the IT guys to show up at the National events and let the old gaurd see that they are not ratted out cars. Secondly, we did not want to hear what a**holes we were because an IT car was not competitive in Prepared, it is not supose to be. With the current climate within all of our ad hoc committees and the CRB, I think you are making a mistake by packing up and heading to that other sactioning body. PK
[/b]

Peter,

I totally agree, if the 5 IT classes were allowed to run Nationals today, and attempt to qualify for a Runoffs&#39; spot for &#39;08, I have no doubt that at the very least , they would depose 2 classes, and quite possibly 4. I think ITS and ITA would be no-brainers, and it just may be the boot in the pants that some of the ITR folks would need, and you might see a bunch of ITB cars and maybe even the ITC folks show up). Throw that in w/ the &#39;exceptions&#39; that I bet get given to the &#39;pet&#39; classes, and you&#39;ll probably see most of Prod, GTL, S2, CSR, F5 and maybe 1 or 2 more on the outside looking in. That is, if they stick to their limit of 24 Runoffs&#39; slots.

And I probably won&#39;t be heading to NASA either, I&#39;ve got my car up for sale. This is supposed to be something we do for fun, and it&#39;s not fun any more. I don&#39;t think NASA has everything right, just that they&#39;re an alternative product for people that finally get fed up w/ being jerked around by the SCCA.

The RX7 request is a great example of that. The precedent has been set for dual-classification, why not try it w/ some other cars? If it puts more cars on the track, or creates more entries at a race, that sounds like a good thing to me. You&#39;ve got a pretty good system in place now for spec&#39;ing IT cars. If it works for one class, why wouldn&#39;t it work for another? Car A is in Class X at xxxx# and in Class Y at yyyy#. The tools are in place to make this kind of thing work, one has to wonder why they&#39;re not used.

And the recent comment in FasTrack is just one more example of a canned, flip answer to what was probably a pretty well thought out and presented proposal. And as someone else said, you get points for the intent of getting the IT cars in Prepared, but the presentation really missed the mark. And when you look at it in light of other things that have happened previously (like small-bore l-p Prod cars admittedly classed as field-fillers), don&#39;t be surprised when people think they&#39;re getting bent over again.

[mengelke]

David,

Let&#39;s not ignore the fact that the IT numbers at the Cat were not impressive for many years. 9 cars do not justify a seperate group.

(edit: 1998=28, 1999=27, 2000=27, 2001=20, 2002=19, 2003=17, 2004=63 sm, 2005=71sm)

Bring cars and you will get a run group again.

Mike Engelke

[gran racing]

We can have fun and create our own races against eachother. So what if a WCT car shows up and kicks our bu. Do you really feel like you lost if you beat 10 other IT cars and lost to the 1 WTC car?[/b]

I totally agree with you. Look at how many cars in various fields never have a chance of coming in first for their class. Do not think there are many other races going on within the class - they are just not out in the open. When I was in ITA, my goal was to beat a friend of mine (Jake Fisher). If I beat him, I won!!! Unfortunately that didn&#39;t happen too often.

If others in my class decided to attend a few National events, I&#39;d certainly consider it. Besides, then it would be us IT cars versus them national guys. In a way, it would be fun to encourage other drivers in my class to help try to beat-up on some national drivers. B)

[p.keane]

Bill, I believe (and I think Stan will agree) that this is the new SCCA. We are trying as hard as we can to get rid of the old way of classing cars. I call it the plate method, you through a plate up in the air and see how many shots it takes to break the plate. Three shots SSB! The ITAC has done a great job using a process to equal the playing field with out favorites. Stan and I are numbers guys and we believe a similar process should be used in all classes. I agree with you about the limited prep prod rules and I was going to make it my mission to get in the middle of it and try to make it right. Once I started to do some investigating and found out that even long time prod guys do not know why the rules are the way they are, it left me scratching my head. Then the Prepared class came along and I believe that it is a viable solution to the SCCA&#39;s future, so that is were I have put my attention.

As for the RX7, people have been trying to get it into ITB for as long as I have been on the CRB/ITAC. The simple turth is the car has way to much potential for ITB or it will have to weigh so much that it would not be any fun to drive. I believe that a well prepared RX7 is still capible of runing at the top of ITA, specially after the 100 pound weight reduction. By no means do I think it is the car to have in ITA, but it can and does compete well in ITA. The only reason we dual classed the ITS/ITR cars was we were not sure ITR would generate the numbers, so why make guys run there. PK

[jhooten]

Jerry, which track down your way is closing? Stan
[/b]


The prophets are predicting the loss of Texas World Speedway to Developers in the very near future.

[Knestis]

The only reason we dual classed the ITS/ITR cars was we were not sure ITR would generate the numbers, so why make guys run there.[/b]

We need to bookmark this page for future generations, when someone trots out alterative histories (intentions) for the policy. :)

K

[Marcus Miller]

*Any* 1990 and newer "IT" legal Car is legal for Prepared?
Including ITE?
Anyone read the SFR ITE rules?
Hello 700+ HP 12 inch wide hoosier tired Mistu Evos... that outruns Vipe Comp coupes, GTSR&#39;s, etc...

:026:

[DavidM]

Dave, for the past 5 years I have been trying to get the Club to eliminate the difference between Regional-only and National classes...and just have classes. Peter has been doing the same even longer. The difference is that we are both now on the CRB and are gaining allies in the fight for class and category equality. We aren&#39;t there yet, but at the same time I know that some IT folks would like to run Nationals without having to invest in a new car, so we&#39;ve opened the door as far as we can for now.
[/b]

Here&#39;s to hoping this happens. I think doing away with the National/Regional class distinctions could be one of the best things the club can do to improve itself.

Due to the Road Atlanta repaving, the regional weekend normally held at the end of February will be combined with the National event in June. Us regional guys will get our own races, but will qualify with the national classes. This could be an interesting trial for coexistence. I&#39;m looking forward to it as I&#39;ve never participated in a national weekend and I think the national guys will be surprised by us regional folk.

David

[erlrich]

*Any* 1990 and newer "IT" legal Car is legal for Prepared?
Including ITE?
Anyone read the SFR ITE rules?
Hello 700+ HP 12 inch wide hoosier tired Mistu Evos... that outruns Vipe Comp coupes, GTSR&#39;s, etc...

:026: [/b] Ahhh, grasshopper, you must read carefully: "GCR listed IT cars, 1990 and newer, under the current IT specifications".

[Stan]

*Any* 1990 and newer "IT" legal Car is legal for Prepared?
Including ITE?
Anyone read the SFR ITE rules?
Hello 700+ HP 12 inch wide hoosier tired Mistu Evos... that outruns Vipe Comp coupes, GTSR&#39;s, etc...

:026:
[/b]Sorry Marcus, but did you notice the words "GCR listed IT cars..."?

Of course, it should be straight forward to convert your car to BP. Another Evo with similar hp is running in Florida with the 40mm SIR...good for 450 hp.

Stan

[mustanghammer]

Dave, for the past 5 years I have been trying to get the Club to eliminate the difference between Regional-only and National classes...and just have classes. Peter has been doing the same even longer. The difference is that we are both now on the CRB and are gaining allies in the fight for class and category equality. We aren&#39;t there yet, but at the same time I know that some IT folks would like to run Nationals without having to invest in a new car, so we&#39;ve opened the door as far as we can for now.


[/b]

Thanks for your efforts in this regard.

I am a supporter of IT having national status. I say this knowing full well that I don&#39;t currently have the best ITA car there is. If IT went National I would be willing to build a new car as long as I get to use IT rules and regs.

Thanks

[ddewhurst]

Stan, Bowie, Greg, who gets USED at a Regional race? I presume the gold from an event all gets dumped into the same Regional pot therefore a Regional race may help support a loosing National race or a National race may support a loosing Regional race all of which I don&#39;t call being used. But when it&#39;s called bring your money to a National event little red head to increase the numbers $$$, that I call being used. Your (Regional only cars) good enough to increase our (National) numbers $$$, but your (Regional only cars) not good enough to be part of us (National). As a couple others have said the Regional ITA & ITS cars would be in the 24 count in a hurry if they were allowed to be National cars. Great work on the IT to National front.

Different thoughts for different folks.

Mike, do you have the individual total for the IT cars at EACH of the Cat Nationals? I would be interested in knowing the numbers in a pm or here.

[RacerBowie]

Stan, Bowie, Greg, who gets USED at a Regional race? I presume the gold from an event all gets dumped into the same Regional pot therefore a Regional race may help support a loosing National race or a National race may support a loosing Regional race all of which I don&#39;t call being used. But when it&#39;s called bring your money to a National event little red head to increase the numbers $$$, that I call being used. Your (Regional only cars) good enough to increase our (National) numbers $$$, but your (Regional only cars) not good enough to be part of us (National). As a couple others have said the Regional ITA & ITS cars would be in the 24 count in a hurry if they were allowed to be National cars. Great work on the IT to National front.
[/b]

Again, who cares? Whoever is putting on the event is providing a place for people to play. If you don&#39;t like the price, or what the profit gets used for, then go play somewhere else, or don&#39;t play at all.

You also wrote: "Oh ya, then there is Grammer with his endro things always posting on the IT site. Come & play suckers."

What did you mean by that? That we are suckers if we go race with USERA just because he is trying to make money?

I usually don&#39;t respond when you say something that bugs me or that I disagree with because it doesn&#39;t seem worth my time, but this time you were being just a bit too much of a pain in the ass.

[Greg Amy]

Oh, Gawd: 4 pages in 23 hours, and about a half-dozen thread trails...this doesn&#39;t bode well...

I like beer.

[Ron]

I have a question. At Road atlanta in late march there is a National race with 2 PRO-IT races. I run a 1993 ITB ford mustang. could I run it as is in the following races all on the same weekend. Of course if they combine lets say EP and BP no, but would my little ITB fit all the class needs.

EProd( looking at last ears times about 10 seconds a lap slower)
BPrep( still slow)
Both Pro-it races(we have done well in the past)

[Z3_GoCar]

Sorry Marcus, but did you notice the words "GCR listed IT cars..."?

Of course, it should be straight forward to convert your car to BP. Another Evo with similar hp is running in Florida with the 40mm SIR...good for 450 hp.

Stan
[/b]

Here&#39;s a question about IT cross listing in Prepared. In IT you can have an open topped convertable race car, in Prepared you MUST have the factory hardtop. I know that I&#39;m giving up a lot of top end speed with all that drag, but the hard-top is getting harder to find. Sure I&#39;ll get one eventually, but I don&#39;t want to just jump on the next one I see for sale as they&#39;re going for ~$3k a pop.

James

[JoshS]

James,

The Fastrack says you can run EITHER as an IT-prepped car, OR as a Prepared-prepped car. As long as your car is IT legal, it&#39;s legal for Prepared. You can&#39;t mix-and-match the rulesets, it&#39;s one or the other.

[Z3_GoCar]

Well,

I don&#39;t understand what the purpose of the hard-top rule is if they&#39;re just going to allow open-toped cars in the category anyway?? Maybe, they assumed that all IT cars have a top...

Actually, I don&#39;t think TC ever ran a top on any of his cars, but that was Grand Am not WC...

It&#39;s just another reason I&#39;ll still be running ITE this year and not Prepared.

James

[lateapex911]

I usually don&#39;t respond when you say something that bugs me or that I disagree with because it doesn&#39;t seem worth my time,.... [/b]

If only I was so intellegent, LOL.

Daivid, it&#39;s not that black and white. There ARE situations where one hand can wash another.

Guys, I&#39;ve been on some loooong con calls, and they haven&#39;t been JUST about ITAC business. Often they can run long, and discuss much broader subjects, like IT going National, the elimination of the Regional/National seperation. I&#39;m not trying to brag, but my impression is that the CRB is genuinley interested in what the ITAC thinks of such concepts, and I&#39;m sure they&#39;ll tell you, I have been more than happy to give them my opinion.

I feel that the club is wasting a huge opportunity with IT, as it&#39;s a great way to entice people to go racing, and not making it one of the well publicized categories is just dumb. I know that there are some who agree, and I know they are beating that drum constantly.

But, it&#39;s not going to happen overnight. Regarding IT cars in Prep, sure, it might help get the class off the ground, but at the same time, it&#39;s not hurting anyone, is it? if you want to get some track time for whatever reason, how is having more options bad?

Unlike some here, i just don&#39;t see the SCCA "Man" as trying to screw the little guy.

(Oh, maybe I&#39;m confused, but wasn&#39;t the 442 broken out from an existing line in ITS that already had the rear disc allowance as aprt of an error correction? If so, HOW could you eliminate the allowance?? "Sorry guys, but yank those off your car and find some of the old crappy ones, eh?". That&#39;d be fair, wouldn&#39;t it?)

[JohnRW]

Stan, Bowie, Greg, who gets USED at a Regional race? I presume the gold from an event all gets dumped into the same Regional pot therefore a Regional race may help support a loosing National race or a National race may support a loosing Regional race all of which I don&#39;t call being used. But when it&#39;s called bring your money to a National event little red head to increase the numbers $$$, that I call being used. Your (Regional only cars) good enough to increase our (National) numbers $$$, but your (Regional only cars) not good enough to be part of us (National). As a couple others have said the Regional ITA & ITS cars would be in the 24 count in a hurry if they were allowed to be National cars. Great work on the IT to National front.
[/b]


Nice rant. Unintelligible and irrational. So...what exactly is your problem with Grammer and USERA ? You&#39;ve now been asked twice for an answer.

From my observation point (one that includes actually attending SCCA race weekends where USERA is an &#39;included&#39; group), USERA actually brings additional entries to the race weekend.

But hey...rant away.

I, for one, got a big laugh out of the FP &#39;not recommended&#39; item. Bob Dowie has a wicked sense of humor, and if you send idiotic items to the CRB, you can now expect an appropriate response. Bravo.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, I believe (and I think Stan will agree) that this is the new SCCA. We are trying as hard as we can to get rid of the old way of classing cars. I call it the plate method, you through a plate up in the air and see how many shots it takes to break the plate. Three shots SSB! The ITAC has done a great job using a process to equal the playing field with out favorites. Stan and I are numbers guys and we believe a similar process should be used in all classes. I agree with you about the limited prep prod rules and I was going to make it my mission to get in the middle of it and try to make it right. Once I started to do some investigating and found out that even long time prod guys do not know why the rules are the way they are, it left me scratching my head. Then the Prepared class came along and I believe that it is a viable solution to the SCCA&#39;s future, so that is were I have put my attention.

As for the RX7, people have been trying to get it into ITB for as long as I have been on the CRB/ITAC. The simple turth is the car has way to much potential for ITB or it will have to weigh so much that it would not be any fun to drive. I believe that a well prepared RX7 is still capible of runing at the top of ITA, specially after the 100 pound weight reduction. By no means do I think it is the car to have in ITA, but it can and does compete well in ITA. The only reason we dual classed the ITS/ITR cars was we were not sure ITR would generate the numbers, so why make guys run there. PK
[/b]

Peter,

Thanks for the reply. I&#39;d like to believe that things have definately turned a corner w/ the SCCA (at least from an IT perspective). I applaud the work that Darin and the others on the ITAC did in getting an objective process put in place for classing cars. I also applaud them for having the sack to run the entire ITCS through the process. Darin and I may have had our differences, but I will raise a glass to him (and the others) and celebrate what they did for IT.

The fact that we were able to get ITR through the system in record time is another indicator that things have changed w.r.t. IT. It was a pleasure to be part of the group that put the proposal together.

The RX7 is just the poster child for the &#39;tweeners&#39;. It&#39;s also very visable, so it&#39;s easy to hold it up. Another great example of a &#39;tweener&#39; is the AW11 MR2. People have been trying to get that car moved to ITB since the early/mid 90&#39;s!!!

[Knestis]

Oh, Gawd: 4 pages in 23 hours, and about a half-dozen thread trails...this doesn&#39;t bode well...

I like beer.
[/b]

Excellent point. Maybe if someone has a juicy topic coming OUT of a VastCrack publishing announcement, they should post a topical thread...?

I like beer, too. In fact, I&#39;m drinking one right now.

K

[Stan]

Here&#39;s a question about IT cross listing in Prepared. In IT you can have an open topped convertable race car, in Prepared you MUST have the factory hardtop. I know that I&#39;m giving up a lot of top end speed with all that drag, but the hard-top is getting harder to find. Sure I&#39;ll get one eventually, but I don&#39;t want to just jump on the next one I see for sale as they&#39;re going for ~$3k a pop. James[/b]
Josh is correct as far as he goes, James, but that isn&#39;t the whole "convertible" story. The statements under Chassis in the B and D spec sections that state "Convertibles are permitted with a hardtop" are permissive in nature, not directive. In other words, if you have a convertible you may run it as a convertible or with the OEM hardtop, your choice. To see what I mean, take a look at paragraph 13 on page 341, where is says "Fabric tops are not permitted, and shall be removed along with all associated hardware. It may be replaced with an OEM hardtop if one is available." Convertibles are definitely permitted. Stan

[Marcus Miller]

Sorry Marcus, but did you notice the words "GCR listed IT cars..."?

Of course, it should be straight forward to convert your car to BP. Another Evo with similar hp is running in Florida with the 40mm SIR...good for 450 hp.

Stan
[/b]

Ha. No I missed that...

I wish it was my car! (Kent Jordan has torn up the west coast in it, in ITE, SP, etc...)

Marcus

[Stan]

Is that the "Muellerized" (sp?) car, Marcus? If so, that thing IS a beast! :OLA:

[Knestis]

They turned one of those Mueller Evi into small pieces spread all over the countryside, if the video postings are accurate...

K

[Marcus Miller]

Stan, yep. RRE (Road Race Engineering) is owned by John Mueller, who built the car. I went through school with Kent, he is a hell of a nice guy...

Dr. K.- Yep; that was Evo v.1 he pushed off the exit of the big sweeper at Willow Springs and hooked a rut, then spun into the infield and performed a hellacious arial show with a formerly fairly pristine Evo.

The one he has now is just wicked.

Back on this topic- Who cares?\
I mean really?

At least a subset of IT cars have been basically prod legal for a while and I don&#39;t see anyone screaming that we are propping up their numbers?!?!?


Marcus, who is kinda thankful he went SM racing....

[Z3_GoCar]

Josh is correct as far as he goes, James, but that isn&#39;t the whole "convertible" story. The statements under Chassis in the B and D spec sections that state "Convertibles are permitted with a hardtop" are permissive in nature, not directive. In other words, if you have a convertible you may run it as a convertible or with the OEM hardtop, your choice. To see what I mean, take a look at paragraph 13 on page 341, where is says "Fabric tops are not permitted, and shall be removed along with all associated hardware. It may be replaced with an OEM hardtop if one is available." Convertibles are definitely permitted. Stan
[/b]

Stan,

Thanks, that subtlety passed me by. My take on that was the hard-top was manditory in DP, as in no hard-top no convertible race car. I&#39;m glad to be wrong on that actually.

James

[ddewhurst]

***I usually don&#39;t respond when you say something that bugs me or that I disagree with because it doesn&#39;t seem worth my time, but this time you were being just a bit too much of a pain in the ass.***

Most times when I piss someone off it&#39;s because they don&#39;t view a rule similar to my understanding of a rule. If that&#39;s your issue with me say so. Maybe some of you folks know ALL the rule sperfectly 100% & maybe some of you folks do what the hell you want. Any specific you would like to discuss? What really is a pain in the ass to me is when a rule is being discussed & there is silence. To me that means that the people who are illegal don&#39;t want to take part. It&#39;s easy to be a lurker like yourself because then nit pickin is easy. But then if you take part in rules discussion someone may catch you in error.

Now back to Grammer & HIS business. When I looked at his USERA site I didn&#39;t notice anything that connects his outfit the the SCCA. I noticed no connection for his Iowa race with the SCCA. I could also race with NASA & Midwestern Council but it&#39;s my choice not to race with them because the more different organizations I would race with the more it will reduce the car count at SCCA races.

Like I said in a previous post. Different thoughts for different folks. If ya don&#39;t like it don&#39;t read my stuff. You may be fast but I have not called you a pain in the ass.

[RacerBowie]

ddewhurst

You are not worth my time. I&#39;m out.

[dickita15]

Most times when I piss someone off it&#39;s because they don&#39;t view a rule similar to my understanding of a rule.
[/b]

Honestly I really think it has more to do with presentation rather than any given opinions.

[planet6racing]

Excellent point. Maybe if someone has a juicy topic coming OUT of a VastCrack publishing announcement, they should post a topical thread...?

I like beer, too. In fact, I&#39;m drinking one right now.

K
[/b]

I like Scotch. Scotchy Scotchy Scotch... :D

(And, if you change your settings, this can be only 2 pages!!)

[erlrich]

(And, if you change your settings, this can be only 2 pages!!) [/b] Thank you Bill...I was trying to figure out why when people kept saying "such and such thread is 50 pages", I was only seeing 15.

[ddewhurst]

***Honestly I really think it has more to do with presentation rather than any given opinions.***

Dick, I agree ^. I was going to include that point in my response but I figured the more intellect than myself would have a new topic. Because of my presentation or lack of skills I attempt to use smilies but that don&#39;t fly well for some.

[jjjanos]

The people in Topeka will continue to jerk the racers around as long as the racers let them. It&#39;s just no longer worth it to me to subsidize that kind of nonsense.
[/b]

Wow. I look at the CRB and the other committees of members "at" Topeka and I see nothing but racers.

[RSTPerformance]

Stan/Peter-

Thanks for correcting our views on the issues I brought up. It is great to see people whom care enough to share the "secrets" so we all can understand where everyone is coming from. Thanks again for the small step towards your long term goals, you/we are heading in the right direction.

As for NASA, I grew up in SCCA, no matter how bad it gets, NASA still doesn&#39;t have any events in or around where we race, so I doubt they are that interested in taking over any SCCA classes. From what I see they market to a completely different and "younger" crowd. Sure we could learn from them, but I still think we have the best racing affordably & readably available to the average racer.


Raymond :eclipsee_steering: Blethen

[greendot]

Another great example of a &#39;tweener&#39; is the AW11 MR2. People have been trying to get that car moved to ITB since the early/mid 90&#39;s!!!
[/b]

I don&#39;t say much here so that my ignorance isn&#39;t obvious so I admit right off I don&#39;t know an AW11 MR2 from any other MR2, but I remember ( I think, not always sure about the memory these days) the early 90&#39;s when an MR2 was moved from ITS to ITA, so maybe your time frame is just a little off. :D

Now back to your regularly scheduled chat. :024:

[Greg Amy]

(The AW11 is the first-gen "door stop" that&#39;s currently in ITB; the second-gen SW20 is the one that just got moved to ITA...)

[RSTPerformance]

(The AW11 is the first-gen "door stop" that&#39;s currently in ITB; the second-gen SW20 is the one that just got moved to ITA...)
[/b]

I don&#39;t think any Toyota MR2&#39;s are in ITB, otherwise I would probably be changing cars...

Raymond

[Greg Amy]

Right. That&#39;s what we here call a "Freudian Slip"... ;)

Should read:(The AW11 is the first-gen "door stop" that&#39;s been in ITA...)

[Bill Miller]

I don&#39;t say much here so that my ignorance isn&#39;t obvious so I admit right off I don&#39;t know an AW11 MR2 from any other MR2, but I remember ( I think, not always sure about the memory these days) the early 90&#39;s when an MR2 was moved from ITS to ITA, so maybe your time frame is just a little off. :018:

Now back to your regularly scheduled chat. :024:
[/b]


You admit that you don&#39;t know what you&#39;re talking about, but you&#39;ll still shake your finger at someone. Things that make you go "Hmmmm...."



Wow. I look at the CRB and the other committees of members "at" Topeka and I see nothing but racers.[/b]

And look at how many members of the BoD are racers.

[greendot]

A poor choice of smilie.

Better now?


What I do remember for sure is racing against an MR2 in the early 90&#39;s in ITS and that car getting reclassified to ITA by the mid 90&#39;s. I will submit that my comments did solicit some clarification from those who do remember about MR2 classification history.

[Bill Miller]

A poor choice of smilie.

Better now?
What I do remember for sure is racing against an MR2 in the early 90&#39;s in ITS and that car getting reclassified to ITA by the mid 90&#39;s. I will submit that my comments did solicit some clarification from those who do remember about MR2 classification history.
[/b]

Well, if it was an MR2 in the early 90&#39;s, it would have to have been an AW11, as the SW20 would have been too new, and wouldn&#39;t have been eligible for IT. I started racing mine (AW11) in &#39;95, and it was an ITA car then, and had been one at least for a year prior to that. I was not aware that it had previously been in ITS, but I do know that other AW11 racers told me that requests had been submitted to move the car to ITB. IIRC, the first year the AW11 was available was &#39;85, That means it wouldn&#39;t have been eligible for IT until &#39;89. I think the 1st gen. RX7 was still in ITS at that point in time, so it&#39;s not that big of a stretch to think the AW11 would have been in ITS. IIRC, the Rabbit GTI was in ITA in &#39;89, and the 1.6 VW Rabbit/Scirocco was in ITB.

[greendot]

:unsure:
Ohh, I am so confused. Maybe my memory is even worse than I thought. The MR2 that I am thinking of may have been a SS car running in my same race group and then went to ITA when it became eligible. I remember also that the owner took the car to a P class a few years later.
Well, I am quite positive that I was driving a 13b 1st gen RX-7 in ITS against a 12a car. I began in that class/car in 1992 after 3 years in Sports Renault.

Time for me to revert to keeping quite lest I reveal any more memory faults. :026:

[lateapex911]

I didn&#39;t really get into IT until 93 or so, then quit immediately to move to Cal and do some design school stuff, so my knowledge of things from that era is shaky and anecdotal at best. But, IIRC, the standard MO was to put cars in ITS (or aclass higher than where they should really go) for a bit to see how they did, then move them to where they really belonged. So the 1st gen RX-7 was in ITS, and I seem to recall it got moved to ITA in the early 90s, which spurred my interest, as I though it might be able to run with the then top dog RX-3SP, but didn&#39;t stand a chance against the ITS cars.

Point being, I think that the CRB often put cars in a class higher and watched it shake out. And sometimes, I think they "forgot" about cars, or didn&#39;t have enough data (how could they, LOL) or a good enough feel to move them, which helps explain how some cars ended up places they clearly didn&#39;t belong.

So, while some subscribe to the belief that IT has never been about "comp adjustments" or moving cars between classes, it doesn&#39;t ring entirely true to me.

[Brian Holtz]

And look at how many members of the BoD are racers.
[/b]

Bill,

What does this mean??

Brian

[lateapex911]

Welcome Brian....

[JohnRW]

Bill,

What does this mean??

Brian
[/b]


...and an inquisitive crowd starts to collect, waiting for a response....

[jjjanos]

Bill,

What does this mean??

Brian
[/b]

I&#39;m certain he didn&#39;t mean you by that remark. :o

[Bill Miller]

Bill,

What does this mean??

Brian
[/b]

Just what it says Brian. While most (all?) of the people on the CRB and AdHocs are active racers, how many BoD members are?

Sorry to keep you waiting John.

[JohnRW]

Don&#39;t play dumb, Bill. Don&#39;t say "Whuh ?" and put on the &#39;innocuous&#39; look. There is some subterfuge to your comment...enlighten us all to what you&#39;re inferring...come right out and say it. Besides, some here are a little &#39;thick&#39;, and you need to splain it to us.

Somebody asked you for an explanation. You&#39;re rarely at a loss for words...why clam up now ?

[Knestis]

Actually, John - I think it&#39;s an issue worth considering. I confess that I don&#39;t actually know what the on-track experiences of the BoD members are, or how many are currently active racers. It arguably matters, depending on what the question is. That&#39;s NOT intended to be some kind of blanket criticism of the group, or a jab pointed at any particular individual - just a ponder.

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

And the more &#39;racers&#39; we have on the Bod would create a "we need more BUSINESS PEOPLE" on the BoD...or "He is bias and has an agenda because he runs in XYZ class". There are some people who will never be happy.

I can tell you that the BoD Chair (my BoD rep - Introne) knows just as much or more than anyone in the SCCA at ground level. He is a former RE and frequently serves as race chair. He knows his &#39;grassroots&#39;. He listens when you grab his ear, he presents what he can at NER meetings as a speaker.

What kind of person do we want on the BoD if this guy doesn&#39;t fit?

[tnord]

my knee jerk reaction is that people on the BOD should be racers themselves. then i think about my BOD representative, and my opinion instantly changes. i think having smart, reasonable people who listen is far more important than having a current driver.

[Brian Holtz]

I&#39;m not sure what Mr. Miller getting at, but I will give you a rundown, as best that I can recall.

There are currently seven directors with competition licenses:

John Sheridan - currently in SM but also has driven HP and AS
Charlie Clark - EP, GT3, ITA, numerous Runoffs
Mike Sauce - FP, FF, FC, FA, President&#39;s Cup winner, Runoffs front runner, Pro Atlantic
Jim Christian - FF, SRF, FSCCA, SRSCCA, numerous Runoffs
Duck Allen - FP, SRF, numerous Runoffs
RJ Gordy - SRF
Andy Porterfield - GT1, TransAm, numerous Runoffs

Of the remaining six, all but Kaye Fairer have extensive racing backgrounds.

Brian Holtz - 16 years in ITA, 2nd place in MARRS series. Wins at Summit, Glen, Pocono
Bob Introne - SRF for a couple of years
KP Jones - FV for years, numerous runoffs
Larry Dent - TransAm, S2000
Bob Lybarger - anything without fenders, FV guru

Brian

[Knestis]

...and I voted for Kaye. :)

Thanks for the info. That&#39;s pretty interesting, actually.

K

[charrbq]

Did I miss something? Fastrack stated that &#39;90 and later cars in IT prep would be eligible for Prepared. Even though that seems like an oxymoron to me, I think I understand what I think they&#39;re doing, but that&#39;s an opinion I&#39;ll keep to myself...for a change.

What I question is there is no allowance, that I read, for safety items. A legal IT car doesn&#39;t have to have window straps, a fuel cell, or an onboard fire extinguisher, but Prod, GT, and, I understand, Prepared cars do. This is a screaming point on the Prod Site (as id they needed more).

[greendot]

I think it goes to maybe a poor choice in class name.

Prepared is not Production.

[JoshS]

What I question is there is no allowance, that I read, for safety items. A legal IT car doesn&#39;t have to have window straps, a fuel cell, or an onboard fire extinguisher, but Prod, GT, and, I understand, Prepared cars do. This is a screaming point on the Prod Site (as id they needed more).
[/b]
I don&#39;t understand the question. Fastrack says:


Vehicles meeting one of the following criterion may compete in the Prepared category:
· Cars built specifically under these Prepared rules
· Currently classified World Challenge cars, using the vehicle’s most recent VTS sheets.
· GCR listed IT cars, 1990 and newer, under the current IT specifications
[/b]

So what&#39;s the issue? Is it that some cars in the class require window straps, and others don&#39;t? So what? An IT car "under the current IT specifications" is legal in Prepared. Therefore, an IT car without window straps is legal in Prepared. Who is bothered by this?

[Bill Miller]

I&#39;m not sure what Mr. Miller getting at, but I will give you a rundown, as best that I can recall.

There are currently seven directors with competition licenses:

John Sheridan - currently in SM but also has driven HP and AS
Charlie Clark - EP, GT3, ITA, numerous Runoffs
Mike Sauce - FP, FF, FC, FA, President&#39;s Cup winner, Runoffs front runner, Pro Atlantic
Jim Christian - FF, SRF, FSCCA, SRSCCA, numerous Runoffs
Duck Allen - FP, SRF, numerous Runoffs
RJ Gordy - SRF
Andy Porterfield - GT1, TransAm, numerous Runoffs

Of the remaining six, all but Kaye Fairer have extensive racing backgrounds.

Brian Holtz - 16 years in ITA, 2nd place in MARRS series. Wins at Summit, Glen, Pocono
Bob Introne - SRF for a couple of years
KP Jones - FV for years, numerous runoffs
Larry Dent - TransAm, S2000
Bob Lybarger - anything without fenders, FV guru

Brian
[/b]

Brian,

I guess what I should have said was "How many are current, active racers?" Doesn&#39;t really matter much to me though. Since I&#39;m no longer a member of the SCCA, it doesn&#39;t really impact me.

John,

I could give a rat&#39;s ass if my answer was good enough for you or not.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I think I understand what I think they&#39;re doing, but that&#39;s an opinion I&#39;ll keep to myself...for a change. [/b]

:D

I will be writing a letter requesting that cars entering these Prepared classes as IT cars, under this allowance, NOT be added to the official car count for Runofffs eligibility.

[Bill Miller]

:D

I will be writing a letter requesting that cars entering these Prepared classes as IT cars, under this allowance, NOT be added to the official car count for Runofffs eligibility.
[/b]


That&#39;s just it Andy, if you read the passage in FasTrack again, it&#39;s not saying "IT cars running in Prepared", it&#39;s saying that if it&#39;s listed in the ITCS, is a 1990 m/y or newer, and is built to IT specs, it is a Prepared car. With this single passage, they created two different prep levels (pretty major differences too) w/in the same class. And don&#39;t think for a minute that they won&#39;t count those cars towards the participation numbers (that&#39;s why they did this).

What&#39;s really going to be interesting is to see if there are any significant differences between the safety requirements for an IT car vs. a Prepared car. I haven&#39;t had time to read through the Prepared rules closely enough to see if there are.

[dickita15]

Sure the comp board is using the inclusion of IT cars to bolster the prepared ranks. That is what has the Prod guys upset. With the top 24 rule they may lose a spot or two so they are trash talking we IT guys about the safety of our cars and our driving. It’s funny because if Prod adopted the same philosophy it could bolster their numbers and help them beat such classes as CSR and GT3. In the view of a segment of the some of the prod guy they are the Legacy classes of SCCA and as such deserve an elevated status in Club Racing.

[Knestis]

:D

I will be writing a letter requesting that cars entering these Prepared classes as IT cars, under this allowance, NOT be added to the official car count for Runofffs eligibility.
[/b]

Right on. If IT cars are going to get counted for RubOffs qualification, it should be as IT cars.

The current situation is like being the geeky guy that hot girls come cry on in the middle of the night, when the jerks they are willing to date in public treat them like crap.

K

[dickita15]

The current situation is like being the geeky guy that hot girls come cry on in the middle of the night, when the jerks they are willing to date in public treat them like crap.
[/b]

wow

[Andy Bettencourt]

I wrote my letter. I don&#39;t want the IT cars bolstering anyones car counts. I don&#39;t think it&#39;s fair to ANY of the other classes who are struggling to make the &#39;show&#39;. If I was king for a day, here is what I would do:

- ANY class that makes minimum participation numbers to REMAIN a class, gets to run for a National Title

- The top 24 get the premier slots (Speed coverage)

- The bottom get to run either before or after with no TV time. Yes this extends the event, but so what? If you have the classes, you owe it to them. And the current average car mins are what - 2.5 cars? That is a JOKE. Should be at LEAST 5 cars per National to even be considered a class. Think of it this way, you could come in last at every race you attend and still qualify. Laughable really.

- Throw ITR in there. You wanna see some sweet cars that would get the attention of our target audience?

[Greg Amy]

...being the geeky guy that hot girls come cry on...[/b]
Nice analogy, and spot-on. - GA

[greendot]

So, about the 1990 requirement. The second gen RX-7 spec line is 86-91. Any car in that range could be identical to the next one except for the VIN. Is the rule meant to include cars that have 90 or newer in the same speck line or is it hard and fast 1990? Just not well thought out IMO.

[tnord]

i think i&#39;ll follow your lead with that letter andy.

question - does anyone think that having the runoffs on TV does/could attract new drivers? if it does, i might be convinced to support IT going national.

[JoshS]

i think i&#39;ll follow your lead with that letter andy.

question - does anyone think that having the runoffs on TV does/could attract new drivers? if it does, i might be convinced to support IT going national.
[/b]

I think it attracts new drivers to the class (if there&#39;s a great race), but I&#39;m not sure it attracts new drivers to the club. Maybe new drivers from other clubs, but I don&#39;t think the broadcast turns very many non-racers into racers, mostly because I don&#39;t think very many non-racers watch.

[Bill Miller]

Nice analogy, and spot-on. - GA
[/b]

Absotively on the money!!!



I think it attracts new drivers to the class (if there&#39;s a great race), but I&#39;m not sure it attracts new drivers to the club. Maybe new drivers from other clubs, but I don&#39;t think the broadcast turns very many non-racers into racers, mostly because I don&#39;t think very many non-racers watch.
[/b]


You think the time slots that they air has anything to do w/ that? :(

[Stan]

You think the time slots that they air has anything to do w/ that? :([/b]One word: Tivo.

Yeah, the broadcast times are inconvenient, but SCCA is not the only victim of that. For some reason I can&#39;t get my pal Bernie to broadcast more than a few of his piddlin&#39; little 18-car races at a time convenient for me to watch live, so I eventually gave in and invested in some modern recording technology. Cheap, convenient and super reliable. :happy204:

[lateapex911]

Stan, I too Tivo everything. But whats being said here is that, (I think I can boil it down to these points?)
The club broadcasts it&#39;s races on Speed, and one major hope in that is to gain membership and racers. Arguably, thats integral with the whole ProRacing concept.
The broadcasts are on at inconvenient times.
Newbies don&#39;t know enough to go searching for our races to Tivo, so the broadcast times are sort of defeating the purpose.
On top of that, here we are finally getting some exposure, but we&#39;re showing the product that most newbies aren&#39;t attracted to! DUH! Prod races are looked at as Vintage, Sports racers are seen by most newbies as too "radical" to try first, (same for most open wheel classes) and Touring looks cool...but $$$$....at least to entry level folks. The single best "entry level" category (debate the SM thing seprately, LOL) is IT, and it&#39;s never mentioned or shown. Its a shame to waste the clubs single best marketing and exposure opportunity by not showing the right product, and soing it at a bad time.
The simple solution is to make all Nationally recognized classes Runoffs eligible, Hold out say 3 classes for "promoters option" so the club can make sure that classes that need to be there for business reasons can be (I&#39;m not an idiot, I know there are other forces at play here), and then let the chips fall where they may.

What we&#39;d end up with is classes and categories thinking BIG picture. CSR/DSR? They&#39;d start figuring out a solution, as would the Prod folk. They&#39;d have to, as it&#39;s obvious that their numbers have been a huge joke for years, and nobody&#39;s been strong enough to come right out and say the King has no clothes.

The club needs to stop dorking around and just do it. Let the market decide. It will in the end anyway, but by either leaving the club, or not joining in the frst place, which is NOT the desired outcome

[Bill Miller]

One word: Tivo.

Yeah, the broadcast times are inconvenient, but SCCA is not the only victim of that. For some reason I can&#39;t get my pal Bernie to broadcast more than a few of his piddlin&#39; little 18-car races at a time convenient for me to watch live, so I eventually gave in and invested in some modern recording technology. Cheap, convenient and super reliable. :happy204:
[/b]


Stan,

Pretty arrogant, don&#39;t you think? As Jake pointed out, you don&#39;t want to make them have to search around for when the races are on, so they can program their Tivo. Be nice if you could get it slotted next to one of the shows that gets a lot of younger viewer&#39;s attention, like Pinks, Nopi Tuner Vision, etc. You want them to happen to catch after their watching one of the shows that they like. Or at least run ads for when the races will be on. Take a que from network TV, they run shows that are hurting right after shows that are very popular. Granted, it works less now, w/ remotes, than it did when people had to actually get up and go change the channel, but it&#39;s still a valid model. And do you think that F1 may have just a bit more exposure than the SCCA Runoffs? I&#39;d actually expect more from a CRB member.

[Stan]

The simple solution is to make all Nationally recognized classes Runoffs eligible, Hold out say 3 classes for "promoters option" so the club can make sure that classes that need to be there for business reasons can be (I&#39;m not an idiot, I know there are other forces at play here), and then let the chips fall where they may.[/b]I never took you for an idiot, Jake! :P

Seriously, I agree 100% that the Club should have only "classes". One suggestion that&#39;s been floating around for years for dealing with the number of classes at the Runoffs (most recently repeated by Prod guy and former CRB member Basil Adams) would be to allow all GCR classes to attend the Runoffs who get more than, say, 15 competitors to sign up for the Runoffs. Cut qualifying to 3 sessions. Hold the lowest subscribed classes&#39; races on non-televised Thursday. Scratch tire warming and hold the top 24 classes&#39; races, 8 per day, from Friday through Sunday. The details would need to be worked out, but&#39;s worth discussing.


What we&#39;d end up with is classes and categories thinking BIG picture. CSR/DSR? They&#39;d start figuring out a solution, as would the Prod folk. They&#39;d have to, as it&#39;s obvious that their numbers have been a huge joke for years, and nobody&#39;s been strong enough to come right out and say the King has no clothes.[/b]Speaking as a CSR guy, I agree with a resounding YES! For years (decades?) some classes have been in a state of complacency as they met the minimum number to retain their National status and hang onto a spot in the Runoffs, all the while losing cars and drivers. In fact, I recently read on the Prod forum that last year only 36 HP guys ran enough races to qualify for the Runoffs. I&#39;ll bet San Francisco Region alone has more ITS and A cars that ran 4 races than HP did in the entire nation. CSR isn&#39;t much better off, where about 85 drivers ran Nationals.


The club needs to stop dorking around and just do it. Let the market decide. It will in the end anyway, but by either leaving the club, or not joining in the frst place, which is NOT the desired outcome.[/b]Peter and I are working on it, but we have to build a consensus first.

[lateapex911]

Thanks Stan, it&#39;s good to hear from those up the line. I&#39;m sure a lot of the guys who post here aren&#39;t aware of what some of our CRB guys are thinking.

In my experience, toadys CRB is, shall we say, more "proactive" than most might imagine. That&#39;s not to say they&#39;ll just whip the ship around overnight, and there&#39;s no guarantee that any of us will truly like the new direction, but, it&#39;s obvious that there are those on the board for whom "Business as usual" isn&#39;t good enough.

[Stan]

Stan,

Pretty arrogant, don&#39;t you think? As Jake pointed out, you don&#39;t want to make them have to search around for when the races are on, so they can program their Tivo. Be nice if you could get it slotted next to one of the shows that gets a lot of younger viewer&#39;s attention, like Pinks, Nopi Tuner Vision, etc. You want them to happen to catch after their watching one of the shows that they like. Or at least run ads for when the races will be on. Take a que from network TV, they run shows that are hurting right after shows that are very popular. Granted, it works less now, w/ remotes, than it did when people had to actually get up and go change the channel, but it&#39;s still a valid model. And do you think that F1 may have just a bit more exposure than the SCCA Runoffs? I&#39;d actually expect more from a CRB member.[/b]Bill, did you resign your sense of humor along with your membership? I made light of your comment about the slot times for Runoffs broadcasts because we have no control over when the races are broadcast. As the BoD has said repeatedly, we don&#39;t pay for the coverage and Speed pays all their own costs to produce the vids. In return we have no say in when it is shown.

[Bill Miller]

Bill, did you resign your sense of humor along with your membership? I made light of your comment about the slot times for Runoffs broadcasts because we have no control over when the races are broadcast. As the BoD has said repeatedly, we don&#39;t pay for the coverage and Speed pays all their own costs to produce the vids. In return we have no say in when it is shown.
[/b]


Then what the hell is the point of having them broadcast at all? It&#39;s supposed to be a marketing tool for us, yet we&#39;re not going to use it to that end. Don&#39;t kid yourself into thinking that SPEED is not making money on airing the Runoffs. It&#39;s our &#39;product&#39;, we should have some say over how they use it. And we absolutely have control over when the races are shown, it&#39;s part of the contract negotiation that allows SPEED to broadcast them. You may know a lot about race cars, but it sure seems like you don&#39;t know much about business.

[gran racing]

Don&#39;t kid yourself into thinking that SPEED is not making money on airing the Runoffs. [/b]

I&#39;m don&#39;t think 3 a.m. advertising slots are going for much these days. :( In my opinion, SPEED is using the Runoffs coverage to fill some space, while providing a product dedicated viewers will watch.


we don&#39;t pay for the coverage and Speed pays all their own costs to produce the vids.[/b]

I didn&#39;t realize that. That&#39;s pretty cool. Free advertising regardless of the time it is aired should always be welcomed.

[erlrich]

Then what the hell is the point of having them broadcast at all? It&#39;s supposed to be a marketing tool for us, yet we&#39;re not going to use it to that end. Don&#39;t kid yourself into thinking that SPEED is not making money on airing the Runoffs. It&#39;s our &#39;product&#39;, we should have some say over how they use it. And we absolutely have control over when the races are shown, it&#39;s part of the contract negotiation that allows SPEED to broadcast them. You may know a lot about race cars, but it sure seems like you don&#39;t know much about business. [/b]

Bill, you should really consider adding a tag line as Joe did, unless of course the point is to make it perfectly clear that you are indeed a pompous ass. If that&#39;s the case then just continue as you are, as you&#39;re doing a great job.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill, you should really consider adding a tag line as Joe did, unless of course the point is to make it perfectly clear that you are indeed a pompous ass. If that&#39;s the case then just continue as you are, as you&#39;re doing a great job.

[/b]

Bill&#39;s a good guy, he just spends too much time on the Prod board... :D

We debate nitpicky rules, they slam the SCCA at every turn. Po-TA-toe, Po-TAH-toe :birra:

[StephenB]

Bill, you should really consider adding a tag line as Joe did, unless of course the point is to make it perfectly clear that you are indeed a pompous ass. If that&#39;s the case then just continue as you are, as you&#39;re doing a great job.
[/b]

I agree.

[tnord]

Then what the hell is the point of having them broadcast at all? It&#39;s supposed to be a marketing tool for us, yet we&#39;re not going to use it to that end. Don&#39;t kid yourself into thinking that SPEED is not making money on airing the Runoffs. It&#39;s our &#39;product&#39;, we should have some say over how they use it. And we absolutely have control over when the races are shown, it&#39;s part of the contract negotiation that allows SPEED to broadcast them. You may know a lot about race cars, but it sure seems like you don&#39;t know much about business.
[/b]

....except for i believe it costs something on the order of $1.5mil to get Speed out there, set up, footage recorded, and torn down. if SCCA had to flip that bill, i bet we wouldn&#39;t have any coverage.

something about a gift horse and mouths come to mind. :cavallo:

[p.keane]

Andy, I do not agree with your letter at all. Why should paying entrants not be counted, just because they are IT cars? All of the current 1990 and newer IT car are Prepared eligible. All the CRB did was allowed current IT cars to run in Prepared with out purchasing a SIR and retuning their engines. If the IT competitor likes the Nation/Prepared experience they can upgrade their current car to the Prepared rule set. As part of the same rules changes, the CRB made it easier for current World Challenge cars to compete in the Prepared class. The WC cars will bolster the Prepared numbers, but were are the complaints on the Prod site about letting them run unmodified? The Prod guys just do not want to let the red headed step child in IT to compete in National events. Where is your letter asking for the Pro guys not to be counted?

It is very simple; the Prod guy had the first crack at bring the IT guys to National events, but did not want to do it fairly. Now that there is an alternative, the CRB is out to get them. You know that that is not true. I was just at a regional this weekend (Sebring short course) and there were 22 ITB cars and 15 ITC cars. Can you name a national event that had that many G & HP car in it last year? I think it sucks that there are hundreds of IT competitors that support this club and do not have a say what happens nationally, or get invited to the dance. I know the Prod guys like to say the IT is regional only, but that came from the beginning of IT when everyone thought that they were rolling junk yards. That is not the norm for IT cars today and I believe that there are example of IT car that are better prepared then some of the cars running at the front at National events. PK

[greendot]

So, about the 1990 requirement. The second gen RX-7 spec line is 86-91. Any car in that range could be identical to the next one except for the VIN. Is the rule meant to include cars that have 90 or newer in the same speck line or is it hard and fast 1990? Just not well thought out IMO.
[/b]

OK, so we have hopefully gotten away from the chat about TV coverage. Does anybody have any input regarding my question? Or must I say it in a way that offends somebody to get a reply? :D

[Greg Amy]

Greendot, I don&#39;t think anyone here is going to have an answer for you. Strictly to the rules, especially given the VIN requirement in IT, I don&#39;t see how an equivalent 1989 Mazda RX-7 is legal to compete in Prepared, regardless of its equivalence to the legal 1990. Will that be enforced?

This is a good one to send to the CRB. They&#39;re the ones that came up with this rule, it&#39;s really their call as to how to handle it.

[erlrich]

OK, so we have hopefully gotten away from the chat about TV coverage. Does anybody have any input regarding my question? Or must I say it in a way that offends somebody to get a reply? :D [/b] Yes, exactly - your post was nowhere near inflamatory enough to get a response, you should really work on that.

Seriously though, I think Greg is right on. I would add, and am just guessing, that the 1990-up requirement was probably just an arbitrary line in the sand, intended to keep the "antiques" out of the class, and not done with consideration for any particular model line. I would bet the CRB would be receptive to allowances for models that cross over. Or not :unsure:

[JIgou]

Andy, I do not agree with your letter at all. Why should paying entrants not be counted, just because they are IT cars? All of the current 1990 and newer IT car are Prepared eligible. All the CRB did was allowed current IT cars to run in Prepared with out purchasing a SIR and retuning their engines. If the IT competitor likes the Nation/Prepared experience they can upgrade their current car to the Prepared rule set. As part of the same rules changes, the CRB made it easier for current World Challenge cars to compete in the Prepared class. The WC cars will bolster the Prepared numbers, but were are the complaints on the Prod site about letting them run unmodified? The Prod guys just do not want to let the red headed step child in IT to compete in National events. Where is your letter asking for the Pro guys not to be counted?[/b]

My response to that would be something along the lines of "Because the Prepared classes - along with F1000 - were answers to questions no one asked." My understanding is that the Prepared classes were created specifically FOR the current and past WC car (although it appears that got screwed up somehow....)

As for the "Pro" guys taking part and their numbers counting? Fine. The class was created for them, so their old thrashed cars can perhaps hold some semblance of market value after a season of PRO racing. Let them support it.

But offering it up to IT as a way to "try out" National racing? Please. Even though the season is young, it&#39;s been going long enough to see the trend in BP and DP participation. Unless SOMETHING happens to fill the fields, the new dream classes will die on the vine. The move to "allow" IT a chance to "try out" National racing is a thinly veiled attempt to manufacture participation numbers and keep the class alive.

My question to you would be:

The GCR has a clearly-defined process for a class to become National. Suddenly this year we&#39;ve got how many new classes that haven&#39;t followed that process? Why?

And now there&#39;s an allowance for cars that WILL be field fillers in the new golden child class.....why? Sorry, but I just don&#39;t buy the "Here&#39;s a chance to try out National racing" bit.

Maybe it&#39;s a cynical outlook, but the past couple of years of FSCCA not hitting those GCR numbers coupled with the 24-25-24 "We&#39;d kill off GTL if it were number 25, but since it was T3 we&#39;ll extend the lease" Runoffs dance has helped jade more than a few folks who DO care about the club and the classes.

Jarrod

[tnord]

All the CRB did was allowed current IT cars to run in Prepared with out purchasing a SIR and retuning their engines. If the IT competitor likes the Nation/Prepared experience they can upgrade their current car to the Prepared rule set. [/b]

whether this actually WAS the CRB/BODs intent for this allowance or not (i really don&#39;t buy it one bit), the reality of the situation (remember intent vs reality in the ECU rule) is that this is all f*#@&d up, and IT cars are serving as a life raft to try and keep the Prepared class alive at the expense of established and healthy classes. AT BEST this is a zero-sum game.

outside of the changes made in IT, the classing structure and runoffs requirements is a joke. you print a rule about minimum entrants/event, max classes for the runoffs, then not 12mos later those lines are striked and replaced with whatever rule needs to be written to mess things up further and "keep everyone happy."

the CRB/BOD needs to grow some balls and do what everyone with a brain knows needs to be done. eliminate dead weight.

<--submitting a letter similar to Andy&#39;s today.

[planet6racing]

So, you guys are writing letters to stop me from my ultimate plan?

1) Run in prepared with my little ITA car.
2) Qualify for the Runoffs
3) Drive to Topeka with big signs on the trailer saying things to the effect of "IT rules, Production Drools!"
4) Get air time on SPEED pushing my super secret agenda
5) ???
6) PROFIT!!

Since the CENDIV probably won&#39;t have too many cars for the DP group, I think being in the top 10 in points shouldn&#39;t be that hard. It&#39;ll be a great time to be the lone IT car there... :birra:

[p.keane]

"My question to you would be:

The GCR has a clearly-defined process for a class to become National. Suddenly this year we&#39;ve got how many new classes that haven&#39;t followed that process? Why?

And now there&#39;s an allowance for cars that WILL be field fillers in the new golden child class.....why? Sorry, but I just don&#39;t buy the "Here&#39;s a chance to try out National racing" bit.

Maybe it&#39;s a cynical outlook, but the past couple of years of FSCCA not hitting those GCR numbers coupled with the 24-25-24 "We&#39;d kill off GTL if it were number 25, but since it was T3 we&#39;ll extend the lease" Runoffs dance has helped jade more than a few folks who DO care about the club and the classes."


JIgou;
The difference is in the past all National classes got invited to the Runoffs. Now it is only the top 24. New classes can compete in National events, but do not get a spot at the Runoffs. The BOD changed the number of classes to 25. The BOD members I have talked to said they would have done the same thing for GTL.

Tnord
IT cars have been supporting Nationals for years, why do you think we have a two hundred car IT feild at the National at Daytona? I agree with you about the balls part, but because we are a club it does not seem to happen.

[seckerich]

Andy, I do not agree with your letter at all. Why should paying entrants not be counted, just because they are IT cars? All of the current 1990 and newer IT car are Prepared eligible. All the CRB did was allowed current IT cars to run in Prepared with out purchasing a SIR and retuning their engines. If the IT competitor likes the Nation/Prepared experience they can upgrade their current car to the Prepared rule set. As part of the same rules changes, the CRB made it easier for current World Challenge cars to compete in the Prepared class. The WC cars will bolster the Prepared numbers, but were are the complaints on the Prod site about letting them run unmodified? The Prod guys just do not want to let the red headed step child in IT to compete in National events. Where is your letter asking for the Pro guys not to be counted?

It is very simple; the Prod guy had the first crack at bring the IT guys to National events, but did not want to do it fairly. Now that there is an alternative, the CRB is out to get them. You know that that is not true. I was just at a regional this weekend (Sebring short course) and there were 22 ITB cars and 15 ITC cars. Can you name a national event that had that many G & HP car in it last year? I think it sucks that there are hundreds of IT competitors that support this club and do not have a say what happens nationally, or get invited to the dance. I know the Prod guys like to say the IT is regional only, but that came from the beginning of IT when everyone thought that they were rolling junk yards. That is not the norm for IT cars today and I believe that there are example of IT car that are better prepared then some of the cars running at the front at National events. PK
[/b]
Well said Peter. I would add that most of the IT cars I see are better prepared and cleaner looking than half the cars I teched at a recent national. I would have run the ITS car if I had known before the weekend. Even saw GTL cars being given to people to race free just to prop up their numbers. False market if I ever saw one. Keep up the good work.

[lateapex911]

So here&#39;s an idea.

We start up a website, and get the word out that "IT" cars..REAL IT cars...will be running in Prepared, like Planet 6, and we&#39;ll label our cars "Under D Prepared", and we&#39;ll make our own trophies and hand them out in Topeka to OUR winners. If you&#39;re the first ITA car in the field, no matter where you finish overall, you win UnPrep-ITA. Maybe Speed will pick up on it and run it as a "sidebar" or a "human interest" story.

Could be fun!

:eclipsee_steering: .

[cherokee]

I think it has a lot to do with where the clubs priority is. I think it might have lost it&#39;s way, The classes that are the answer to the question nobody asked is illustrates this. The Touring classes show that they are intrested in what the MFG&#39;s want. Why did Spec Miata get national status, they have car counts....so does IT, they also have Mazda. Do you think that Mazda had nothing to do with it, if you do you are crazy.

I will also say lets just have classes, and let the runoff&#39;s go to the top supported classes, we are a club for the members not for General Motors or Mazda, or Enterprise. If for some reason ITA makes it and ITB does not, so be it and on down the line. We are not removing your place to race you just will not be in the "show" if your classes car counts are not high enough. There is no reason on Gods Green Earth why IT is not a "national class". Every reason I have seen as to why IT is not national does not hold water. None of this will take away your place to race, just perhaps your spot in the runoffs.

Last thing, If you want to choose to not renew your membership with the SCCA that is fine, but if you are not a member of the club then you have no right to bitch about how things are done. It is kinda like griping about the Bush when you never voted.

[charrbq]

I have an idea...it&#39;s just as full of holes as most of my ideas are, but it&#39;s still my idea. Whenever the comp board, national office, or whoever comes out with these schemes about boosting class counts with other classes of cars, or allowing cars from one line of the GCR to update parts from another, instead of just complaining about it here, why don&#39;t we start sending them letters in response...just like they do us...that state "Not Consistant With Class Philosophy!"? :dead_horse:

[p.keane]

To make things perfectly clear, if I have an agenda or a golden child class it is IT!

[tnord]

Tnord
IT cars have been supporting Nationals for years, why do you think we have a two hundred car IT feild at the National at Daytona? I agree with you about the balls part, but because we are a club it does not seem to happen.
[/b]

wrong.

IT cars have been supporting National Race Weekends. This is a benefit to SCCA with no detriment to IT whatsoever via maximizing entries on a given weekend. Scavenging entries from IT and plopping them in Prepared hurts the IT field as well as SCCA as a whole because now (if you count IT cars as official P cars for runoffs eligibility) the club is forced to support another class via rulemaking, scheduling, grouping, etc. not to mention shrinking the field size of what is one of the healthiest categories we have, making it a less attractive place to be.

what&#39;s better, to have 5 classes with 5 cars each, or 2 classes with 13 or 12 entries? does it matter? i sure think it does.

[ddewhurst]

***To make things perfectly clear, if I have an agenda or a golden child class it is IT!***

I like that ^ a whole bunch either Regional or allowing IT to become one of the National 24 if numbers warrant.

[planet6racing]

So here&#39;s an idea.

We start up a website, and get the word out that "IT" cars..REAL IT cars...will be running in Prepared, like Planet 6, and we&#39;ll label our cars "Under D Prepared", and we&#39;ll make our own trophies and hand them out in Topeka to OUR winners. If you&#39;re the first ITA car in the field, no matter where you finish overall, you win UnPrep-ITA. Maybe Speed will pick up on it and run it as a "sidebar" or a "human interest" story.

Could be fun!

:eclipsee_steering: .
[/b]


UnPrep-ITA! I love it!

Oh, and we get Gregg to sponsor us all. And make it a requirement that every IT driver has to where an Isaac. And we get great big SFI with a slash through it stickers for the hoods of all the cars. And we have the best party. And the best food. And, we keep all the Speed people drunk and well fed so they are sure to like us!! :happy204:

[cherokee]

IT cars have been supporting National Race Weekends.....Scavenging entries from IT and plopping them in Prepared hurts the IT field as well as SCCA as a whole because now (if you count IT cars as official P cars for runoffs eligibility) the club is forced to support another class via rulemaking, scheduling, grouping, etc. not to mention shrinking the field size of what is one of the healthiest categories we have, making it a less attractive place to be.
[/b]

IT cars support the club more then anyone in Topeka wants to admit. But I think in their eyes our class is only good for supporting the club, filler if you like. If IT was a national class they would have never gone to IT for filler for the Prep. class, let me ask is there a national class that is closer to Prep. then IT? Why did they not take them....because they are national....and hurting for car counts. In IT car counts don&#39;t mean a darn thing, to anyone making the rules.

It looks to me like Topeka&#39;s main intrest is in the national classes what ever they may be, no one should be shocked that they try to bleed the IT fields dry to make the national classes look better. Make IT national and all this will go away.

[DavidM]

UnPrep-ITA! I love it!

Oh, and we get Gregg to sponsor us all. And make it a requirement that every IT driver has to where an Isaac. And we get great big SFI with a slash through it stickers for the hoods of all the cars. And we have the best party. And the best food. And, we keep all the Speed people drunk and well fed so they are sure to like us!! :happy204:
[/b]

So will IT cars be eligible for the runoffs in the prepared classes? I didn&#39;t read the rule enough to know for sure. If so, then what would be interesting is if all the IT guys started showing up on national weekends to race in prepared. I can&#39;t imagine that there will be but one or two prepared cars running so most of the field would wind up being IT cars. You could then wind up with most of the prepared field at the runoffs being IT cars. The true prepared cars would run away (assuming good drivers), but the real racing would be between the IT cars. May show SCCA HQ what they&#39;re missing by not including IT in the big show. An interesting thought anyways.

I may enter the prepared race at Road Atlanta in June just for the hell of it. I&#39;ll be there anyways since the Regional is being combined with the National. If nothing else it&#39;s more track time. I&#39;ll have to wait and see how the schedule looks.

David

[planet6racing]

I&#39;m thinking about the June Sprints! None of that low profile stuff... ;-)

[gran racing]

Becareful of what you wish for when thinking about IT becoming a National class or going to the "big show".

[cherokee]

Becareful of what you wish for when thinking about IT becoming a National class or going to the "big show".
[/b]

Why? :he asks while poking the wasp nest with a stick:

:)

[DavidM]

Becareful of what you wish for when thinking about IT becoming a National class or going to the "big show".
[/b]

Uh oh. :dead_horse:

I like beer. :birra:

David

[gran racing]

Without getting into another long winded debate of if IT should remain regional or go national (or should be invited to the race out in KS), I think most of us are quite happy with IT now and the way it is heading. We really have a great thing right now that keeps getting better. My fear is that this paricular change will make things quite different - for better or worse, that can be argued both ways. I do believe we can agree that in some way, IT will be impacted if this happens.

I have no issues with not being invited to the Runoffs. When I got into IT, that was never on my mind. We&#39;re talking about how the Runoffs receives very poor t.v. air time, so that really isn&#39;t an appeal to me. Sure, I&#39;d watch my race (like 20 times!) and bribe a few friends to come over and watch with wings & beer after I recorded it on my DVR. I am quite happy with going to the new Mid O Festival then down to the ARRC later in the year.

I suppose a lot of this depends upon the goals of the club and how IT fits into that.


REAL IT cars [/b]

Jake, what are real IT cars?

[lateapex911]

Well, in that context, where IT cars are running in D Prep, it would be cars that were true IT cars, not some hybrid.

It&#39;s just a goofy idea, basically giving an award to the guy who brings the best knife to a gunfight. But lets not give the award to the guy who&#39;s installed a blade ejection device on his knife, you know?

[Bill Miller]

The difference is in the past all National classes got invited to the Runoffs. Now it is only the top 24. New classes can compete in National events, but do not get a spot at the Runoffs. The BOD changed the number of classes to 25. The BOD members I have talked to said they would have done the same thing for GTL.


[/b]

Peter,

The president of the SCCA stated exactly the opposite.

[ddewhurst]

***Becareful of what you wish for when thinking about IT becoming a National class or going to the "big show".***

It would be no different than Spec Miata going National. Some people would do Nationals & some people would do Regionals. & as I see in races at Road America & Blackhawk Farm the Regional counts would be less than before going National.

[gran racing]

I do not fully buy into the concept that IT going national would be the same as when SM went national although I&#39;m sure there would be similarities.

[PSherm]

My .02, for whatever it&#39;s worth, is that IT is just being used as a field filler so a new class can make numbers. After all the crap IT has taken over the years from the CRB (etc...), there&#39;s a lot of built-up distrust/resentment of ANYTHING the comp board does regarding IT???

I think I&#39;d much rather see IT getting National status before I&#39;d consider running with Prepared. What&#39;s to stop the board from saying IT is no longer welcome in Prepared after they make numbers?

[CaptainWho]

My .02, for whatever it&#39;s worth, is that IT is just being used as a field filler so a new class can make numbers. After all the crap IT has taken over the years from the CRB (etc...), there&#39;s a lot of built-up distrust/resentment of ANYTHING the comp board does regarding IT???

I think I&#39;d much rather see IT getting National status before I&#39;d consider running with Prepared. What&#39;s to stop the board from saying IT is no longer welcome in Prepared after they make numbers?
[/b]

I haven&#39;t been in either racing or the SCCA or Improved Touring for very long, so in a lot of ways I really don&#39;t have a horse in this race. That said, I feel that the CRB is treating IT very shabbily, particularly with respect to the "run with Prepared to get their numbers up, but don&#39;t expect anything in return". Granted, that hasn&#39;t been stated outright, but based on prior experience, that&#39;s the way I expect things to progress. There are apparently a lot of people out there who are quite happy to enlist the water buffaloes of IT when their particular ox is about to be gored. But like compliant indentured servants we&#39;re supposed to respons "Yessuh, massa, right now!" when told to go away, we&#39;re just a regional class. The IT gang coughs up the "quid" and HQ witholds the "pro quo". Stick without carrot. [Please pardon the unwanton mixing of metaphors]

That grinds my gears.

So, what if no one in IT runs with the Prepared groups? Just let them sink or swim on their own, with no help from us. Then see what the BOD and CRB do when they don&#39;t even come close to making numbers for the Run Offs. Or they do. It&#39;s still no skin off our backsides.

[JeffYoung]

Doug, respectfully disagree -- how can we argue with another place to race? I see no downside for us.

I don&#39;t like the post 90 rule though, cuts a lot of us guys with IT dinosaurs out. What was the justification for that?

[dickita15]

I must admit I have been surprised at the negative reaction to allowing IT cars run in prepared. I get that the CRB is allowing this to jump start Prepared numbers but I just don&#39;t feel used.

Doug if your goal is for IT to be national than boycotting nationals in prepared may just send the message that IT drivers do not want to run nationals.

Jeff, I had a chat with a CRB member a few years ago and his worry was if IT went national it would be a enforcement nightmare because of all the old obscure cars that are classed in IT. He told me at the time that maybe if IT went national they should have a cut off on car age. I know that there are older cars in Prod but the specs are well documented for them. If we want older cars allowed we will need to give the CRB a method for documenting the specifications on these cars.

[Bill Miller]

I must admit I have been surprised at the negative reaction to allowing IT cars run in prepared. I get that the CRB is allowing this to jump start Prepared numbers but I just don&#39;t feel used.

Doug if your goal is for IT to be national than boycotting nationals in prepared may just send the message that IT drivers do not want to run nationals.

Jeff, I had a chat with a CRB member a few years ago and his worry was if IT went national it would be a enforcement nightmare because of all the old obscure cars that are classed in IT. He told me at the time that maybe if IT went national they should have a cut off on car age. I know that there are older cars in Prod but the specs are well documented for them. If we want older cars allowed we will need to give the CRB a method for documenting the specifications on these cars.
[/b]

Read between the lines on that one Dick. What does it matter where IT runs w.r.t. ability to document the specs? It&#39;s ok for IT to continue to run Regionals w/o being able to document specs? Or, that since IT onlyruns Regionals, nobody cares what the specs are? Ever wonder why you don&#39;t hear much about Regional issues among folks that run National-eligible cars? Sadly, in spite of what people are being told, there&#39;s still an attitude that Regionals don&#39;t really &#39;matter&#39;. That gets carried through to IT, and comments from rules makers like the one above just reinforce that theory.

Jeff,

I think the 1990 cutoff has to do w/ one of the things that&#39;s at the core of Prepared, there are no cars older than 1990 listed.

[JLawton]

If so, then what would be interesting is if all the IT guys started showing up on national weekends to race in prepared. I can&#39;t imagine that there will be but one or two prepared cars running so most of the field would wind up being IT cars. You could then wind up with most of the prepared field at the runoffs being IT cars. The true prepared cars would run away (assuming good drivers), but the real racing would be between the IT cars. May show SCCA HQ what they&#39;re missing by not including IT in the big show. An interesting thought anyways.

I may enter the prepared race at Road Atlanta in June just for the hell of it. I&#39;ll be there anyways since the Regional is being combined with the National. If nothing else it&#39;s more track time. I&#39;ll have to wait and see how the schedule looks.

David
[/b]


Best idea I&#39;ve heard so far!!

I certainly don&#39;t understand all the strong emotions on this decision. Christ, if this was my biggest worry this season (or this hour!!) I would be a happy man. If you don&#39;t like the decision, don&#39;t race. If you do, go have fun!!

[dickita15]

Sorry Bill but I think I do get it. If IT was at the runoffs it would be the CRB&#39;s job to deal with the specs. Right now it is not their problem, it is ours. The runoffs is the only place where the club takes responsibility for determining the legality of cars. I think it is quite understandable for the CRB to worry about this and I take it as no insult. How would you like to be the guy to decide the cam specs on a Jensen Healy of the suspension pick up points on a Opel Gt.

[erlrich]

I must admit I have been surprised at the negative reaction to allowing IT cars run in prepared. I get that the CRB is allowing this to jump start Prepared numbers but I just don&#39;t feel used. [/b]

I can&#39;t say I&#39;m really surprised at the overall reaction, given the abundance of cynicism we have here, but I have been surprised by some of the individuals who have joined the black helicopter watch group. Even if it is true that the CRB is allowing IT to run in Prepared to get the numbers up, who cares? If you don&#39;t like it, don&#39;t race your IT car in Prepared. I don&#39;t buy for one second that allowing IT cars to run in a national class, where they have zero chance of being competitive, is going to steal cars from the IT fields.

I do get it that some of you feel like we&#39;re being used; but it&#39;s not like this is something we&#39;re being forced to do. If you don&#39;t like it, just don&#39;t support it. I can&#39;t imagine there are going to be that many IT guys who want to race with cars 5 - 10 seconds faster than they are anyway.

[Brian Holtz]

Peter,

The president of the SCCA stated exactly the opposite.
[/b]

Bill

Do you know this for a fact or is it just hearsay based on what someone else said? Jim Julow was not privy to the email conversations that were going on among the BOD. The reason that it was changed to put it off a year was because the original effective date for counting the current year was in the middle of the season. It was felt that this wasn&#39;t fair to anyone, be it T3 or GTL.

Brian

[CaptainWho]

Personally, it doesn&#39;t matter to me whether IT classes are National classes or not. Even if I ran National races, to get invited to the Run Offs I&#39;d have to run in an extremely undersubscribed class. :D The day the car or prep level or track conditions are the limiting factors on my racing is long in the future.

But I don&#39;t like hidden agendas and such, especially in a club like this. In just over three years, I&#39;ve become very cynical about the way the club so often seems to run. I run everything through the "Who&#39;s Ox" filter. Not that I think the grass is greener elsewhere. It seems to be part and parcel of volunteer or mostly volunteer non-profit (or not for profit) organizations. And quite a few non-volunteer, for-profit ones, too. :(

[Gary L]

Sorry Bill but I think I do get it. If IT was at the runoffs it would be the CRB&#39;s job to deal with the specs. Right now it is not their problem, it is ours. The runoffs is the only place where the club takes responsibility for determining the legality of cars. I think it is quite understandable for the CRB to worry about this and I take it as no insult. How would you like to be the guy to decide the cam specs on a Jensen Healy of the suspension pick up points on a Opel Gt. [/b]

Errrr.... Wuttabout the IT cars that are already running in national classes? Do the terms "production" and "limited prep" ring a bell?

[Greg Amy]

IT cars that are already running in national classes?[/b]
Gary, IT-legal cars cannot run in Production. Requirements such as headlights and lamps removal, plus the requirement for a fuel cell (only recommended in IT) prevent them from competing.

I haven&#39;t reviewed the Prod rules in a couple of years, but if the requirement to remove headlamps and other lenses was rescinded, then IT-legal cars (except convertibles) can run as-is, with the recommended windshield clips installed, door glass stuff all removed, and fuel cell installed. - GA

[JoshS]

I haven&#39;t reviewed the Prod rules in a couple of years, but if the requirement to remove headlamps and other lenses was rescinded, then IT-legal cars (except convertibles) can run as-is, with the recommended windshield clips installed, door glass stuff all removed, and fuel cell installed. - GA
[/b]
Except for the faster, newer ones. ITS and ITR cars are too fast for the fastest Production class.

[Gary L]

Greg - My comment was directed towards Dick&#39;s assertion that if IT cars were allowed to participate at the runoffs, it would be impossible to keep track of the specifications. But IT-based limited prep cars, are already at the runoffs. And the specifications, like Dick&#39;s suspension pickup point example, are already being dealt with. Or not.

My point would be... that cat is already out of the bag. Right? Or is there significant additonal paperwork (to include suspension pickup points, etc) that has to happen before an IT car like my Volvo is classified in F production as a limited prep, ex-ITB car? (This is an honest question... not an argument.)

[charrbq]

[/quote]




IT-legal cars cannot run in Production. Requirements such as headlights and lamps removal, plus the requirement for a fuel cell (only recommended in IT) prevent them from competing.


[/b]
There may have been a rules change that I&#39;m not aware of in production and limited prep, but, to my knowledge, IT cars, meeting the safety specs of Production, can run in their appropriate class. Chris Albin used to run his ITB Golf in both ITB and GP. Same car for both, as many of his events were back to back. He had a welded cage, window straps, fuel cell, and fire system...all legal for Production and recommended for IT. He did do some playing with slicks for a while, but I believe he took the IT car to both the Runoffs and the ARRC one year. He later built a Production car only as it was wearing out his IT car to run so much.

[cherokee]

I did not mean for that little comment to twist the thread down the national path.




I am quite happy with going to the new Mid O Festival then down to the ARRC later in the year.

I suppose a lot of this depends upon the goals of the club and how IT fits into that.
Jake, what are real IT cars?
[/b]


This is a big part of the problem, you are happy with the Mid O Fest, Prod guys are wanting to go to Prod Fest, The AARC is the champs for the IT cars.....

Does anyone but me think that the club is splintering? This is a big problem, and I think will destroy the club.
Get all the classes together, and on a level field. Let car counts determine what goes to the big dance.

The world is changing, SCCA is not. I for one want to see my car on T.V. I do this for fun what would could be more cool then that? The AARC is ignored by the club, so will the IT and Prod Fest. There is only one "big dance" and that is the way it should be, and the largest classes should be part of it, if you don&#39;t like where it is do what it takes to change it.

As far as not being able to police our old IT cars...sorry don&#39;t hold water...I guess if a cam is impossible to check or a pickup point, perhaps we should let those be open....just like ECU&#39;s :poking that buzzing nest again: :rolleyes: Or if I show up with the Opel sounding like a top fuel drag car, I have no worries as the specs are impossible to police.....ya I bet.

I think that the reason they cut off the IT cars at 1990 is how would it look if an old Jenson, Triumph, or heaven forbid an Opel do well in the new chosen class, If they even show up it is going to be bad. This class is getting a runoff spot, no question about it. Can&#39;t have that old POS in there now can we, and if the T.V. cameras are running what do you think they would show, just for the human intrest part of it, I for one can say that the odd ball cars are some of the best looking ones of the lot, do you honstly think that speed would not come up and say: So tell me Jeff, Why an Old Triumph TR8?.......Well that is one good looking car, hope you do well.

[OTLimit]

Chris Albin used to run his ITB Golf in both ITB and GP. Same car for both, as many of his events were back to back. He had a welded cage, window straps, fuel cell, and fire system...all legal for Production and recommended for IT. He did do some playing with slicks for a while, but I believe he took the IT car to both the Runoffs and the ARRC one year. [/b]

Kind of. We campaigned the same car in IT and GP for 2 years. The first year (2001) Chris won the regional GP and ITB championships, and he spent the summer of 2002 building a GP car--which made it&#39;s debut at the Labor Day races in Topeka, went to the regional races at Mid-Ohio right before the Runoffs, and then was 6th at the Runoffs. The IT car never raced at the Runoffs (although it was there as a backup).

It required us to do some quick changes of tires, doors, and grills/headlights/marker lights between races. Most regions seemed to help our situation by not having us run in back-to-back groups--and when it happened, he opted for one or the other.

The problem was that it just got OLD after awhile--a real pain. And if not for a really good bunch of friends, it never would have been possible. But I think he made his point--it can be done.

[dickita15]

Greg - My comment was directed towards Dick&#39;s assertion that if IT cars were allowed to participate at the runoffs, it would be impossible to keep track of the specifications. But IT-based limited prep cars, are already at the runoffs. And the specifications, like Dick&#39;s suspension pickup point example, are already being dealt with. Or not.

My point would be... that cat is already out of the bag. Right? Or is there significant additonal paperwork (to include suspension pickup points, etc) that has to happen before an IT car like my Volvo is classified in F production as a limited prep, ex-ITB car? (This is an honest question... not an argument.)
[/b]
I think it is easier to add some cars to prod and deal with figuring out the specs for the few former IT cars that they let in than it would be to have effective enforcement on the hundreds of cars listed in IT.
I am not saying it cannot be done. All I am saying is if you are going to lobby to make T national you will need a plan to deal with the enforcement issue. It does not even matter if the concern is well founded; the perception is there so you will have to have a plan to overcome it.

[Stan]

Does anyone but me think that the club is splintering? This is a big problem, and I think will destroy the club.[/b]While I agree somewhat with your observation, I disagree strongly with your conclusion. I happen to think that the "frank and open discussions" one sees here and elsewhere are a key to the Club&#39;s health. How can the Club&#39;s elected and appointed leadership know what&#39;s really on folks minds if we aren&#39;t talking? The old days of waiting for hand-crafted letters to arrive in Denver are behind us, guys, and IMHO our present squabbling Tower of Babel is a vast improvement on that old model. Good riddance!


Get all the classes together, and on a level field. Let car counts determine what goes to the big dance.[/b]I agree 100%. Back in the day when IT was approved, the classes really were treated as the red-headed step children of SCCA. I think we&#39;re getting to the point where we are beyond that, and I foresee a day when IT is no longer expected to "step to the back of the bus".


The world is changing, SCCA is not.[/b]Bollocks! What do you call the fundamental change to how classes are classed from the outset? What do you call multiple members of the CRB publicly calling for IT to be accorded the same rights and privileges of any other class?


As far as not being able to police our old IT cars...sorry don&#39;t hold water...I guess if a cam is impossible to check or a pickup point, perhaps we should let those be open....just like ECU&#39;s :poking that buzzing nest again: :rolleyes: Or if I show up with the Opel sounding like a top fuel drag car, I have no worries as the specs are impossible to police.....ya I bet.[/b]That is one member&#39;s opinion at some time in the past. I happen to think that between the factory shop manual and the some additional work from the members and the ITAC that all those issues cab be resolved to most folks&#39; satisfaction.


I think that the reason they cut off the IT cars at 1990 is how would it look if an old Jenson, Triumph, or heaven forbid an Opel do well in the new chosen class, If they even show up it is going to be bad. This class is getting a runoff spot, no question about it. Can&#39;t have that old POS in there now can we, and if the T.V. cameras are running what do you think they would show, just for the human intrest part of it, I for one can say that the odd ball cars are some of the best looking ones of the lot, do you honstly think that speed would not come up and say: So tell me Jeff, Why an Old Triumph TR8?.......Well that is one good looking car, hope you do well.[/b]The second part of your paragraph proves that the first part cannot possibly be correct. :D

Now...for the record. (EVERYBODY PAY ATTENTION!!! :P ) We chose 1990 as the cutoff year for B & DP for one simple reason. When we sat down last year to draft the Prep rules to bring WC cars into club racing, we asked the Pro guys for input on which model years they wanted covered. They said that as far as they could tell from the old records the first model years classified were the 1990 year cars. (They could be 5 years old at the time.) A year ago we had no thought to adding IT cars to the mix, so said "1990 is it!" There is no magic to it. There are no black helicopters circling out there ready to swoop down and thwart the dreams of IT guys who want to run their (insert favorite pre-90 car here) in DP.

And frankly, knowing that IT cars below the ITR ranks would be nearly totally uncompetitive in DP, and that there are few if any pre-90 ITR cars, we did not change the model years. It isn&#39;t because we don&#39;t want to see your ugly-a$$ Opel or 510 out there ( :P ) ... it&#39;s because we honest did not think that many pre-90 car owners would be interested. Ya can&#39;t have it both ways, guys. The CRB can&#39;t be trying to stuff the DP ballot box on the one hand and legitimately cutting off ballot stuffers on the other... :wacko:

Are we havin&#39; fun yet? :023:

Stan

[JamesB]

Are we havin&#39; fun yet? :023:

Stan
[/b]


Not till Friday, and no racing fun till the end of April for me.

[erlrich]

Now...for the record. (EVERYBODY PAY ATTENTION!!! :P ) We chose 1990 as the cutoff year for B & DP for one simple reason. When we sat down last year to draft the Prep rules to bring WC cars into club racing, we asked the Pro guys for input on which model years they wanted covered. They said that as far as they could tell from the old records the first model years classified were the 1990 year cars. (They could be 5 years old at the time.) A year ago we had no thought to adding IT cars to the mix, so said "1990 is it!" There is no magic to it. There are no black helicopters circling out there ready to swoop down and thwart the dreams of IT guys who want to run their (insert favorite pre-90 car here) in DP.

Are we havin&#39; fun yet? :023:
Stan [/b]

Geez Stan, you sure know how to ruin a perfectly good conspiracy theory :rolleyes:

I hope you&#39;re happy now.

[lateapex911]

Stan, thanks for checking in. Our con call was kinda screwed up last night as the phone system was broken, and I joined late. I thought I heard some comments on the whole IT in Proep thing, and I *thought* I heard that IT cars wouln&#39;t be counted towards Prep numbers. Is that really the case? I can&#39;t see how that could be happen...who breaks it out?

I DID get an answer on the 1990 cutoff. If you are in a car that has a 1990 version on your spec line, (like the 2nd gen RX-7) you&#39;re good to go.

[cherokee]

Geez Stan, you sure know how to ruin a perfectly good conspiracy theory :rolleyes:

I hope you&#39;re happy now.
[/b]


No conspirancy, they had the Pro guys tell them how they wanted the class setup. That sure makes me feel good, perhaps we should let them take care of the money as well.



Yep having fun. :D

[JamesB]

Man I lost the bet, I figured it would be another hour before someone brought up the money again.

As for asking pro what the age of the WC cars and setting a limit, so be it, dont like it dont race in prepared.

[Brian Holtz]

Let me see if I can weigh in here. Just some thoughts as 1/13th of the BOD.

One of the problems that I have with the 24 class rule is that we now have a competition between classes for a spot at the Runoffs. We are already seeing the protectionist attitude where anything that encourages participation in one class is bad for another class. This is especially prevalent on the Prod side of the club and has now been supported by some of the IT folks, based on letters that we have already received. The CRB has allowed IT cars, which have a great potential as the starting platform for a Prepared car, to enter national races in IT trim. Basically it allows them to be exempt from the SIR and weight requirements in exchange for not taking advantage of the rules regarding compression ratio, camshafts, porting, pistons, brakes, pickup points, etc. There are certainly some ITR cars that could take advantage of this allowance and immediately be more competitive than some of the back marker Production cars that we see at nationals. If we are going to grow and bring forward new ideas and classes we need to be able to nurture them without someone feeling threatened. Otherwise our competitors will do it for us.

I don’t necessarily see this as a move to make IT a national class. As one who served on the original ITAC, including a stint as chairman before moving to the CRB, I have always been leery of moving towards a national class for IT. Specification enforcement is one issue, cost another. A recent post suggested making camshafts and pickup points free if they can’t be enforced. Talks about letting things get out of hand. Pickup points can be enforced as we are already doing it in Prod limited prep. Camshafts maybe a different deal as originals are no longer stocked by the manufacturer, although I suppose with the proper scrounging that the club could come up with specs for the appropriate bump sticks. That being said, I’m still concerned about the cost escalation to be competitive.

We’ve got to be more competitive in the marketplace. That means bringing new ideas and classes forward. I think Prepared is a good start, although the stigma of calling it a class for ex-WC cars makes me cringe. We also need a closer tie to the tuner market and newer automobiles. The problem is bringing people to the Runoffs. It is not the number of classes that is the issue; it is the number of competitors in each class. We invite a lot of competitors and a lot of them come. There is a limited amount of track time for qualifying and only certain class combinations that fit on the track. We could bring more classes if we invited fewer cars in each class so that there could be some logical class combinations for qualifying. We need to really start thinking outside the box regarding the Runoffs, but there are many parts to the puzzle.

Regarding television, it is currently tied to the SPEED contract with Pro Racing. Right now that contract is good through this year. I can tell you that the BOD was as stunned as everyone else to find out that we were going to be on TV when we were this year. After a number of years in a prime spot I guess we just got complacent. I will be working on seeing what can be done for this year. Somebody stated that the cost for TV production was around $1.5 million. I have been told it is closer to 1/5th of that. That being said, it is not something that we can afford to do on our own.

Brian

[charrbq]

Kind of. We campaigned the same car in IT and GP for 2 years. The first year (2001) Chris won the regional GP and ITB championships, and he spent the summer of 2002 building a GP car--which made it&#39;s debut at the Labor Day races in Topeka, went to the regional races at Mid-Ohio right before the Runoffs, and then was 6th at the Runoffs. The IT car never raced at the Runoffs (although it was there as a backup).
But I think he made his point--it can be done.
[/b]
Sorry Leslie, I thought Chris told me the car was too worn out, I didn&#39;t know he meant the crew. I know you guys work like no one else can on that car when it&#39;s not on the track. :birra:

[lateapex911]

Brian, my general reations, randomly...

I&#39;m still scratching my heads on the Prep thing. I kinda see it, but not all the way. I seee your point about having fully subscribed fields at the Runoffs...but adding classes like Prep wasn&#39;t the solution I expected. On one hand you point to the desire to keep IT Regional as a cost control method, yet the new classes will be hugely expensive, if they shake out. It is hard for me to imagine full fields of competitive Prep cars, but maybe I don&#39;t have a good handle on the market.

It strikes me that IF IT were a national class, you&#39;d have fuller IT class races than half the other classes. I know the BOD hasa no interest in seeing old cars out there though.

On the TV thing, I understood that the SPEED coverage was tied to the WC coverage. But, I&#39;m worried that SPEEDs core viewer is getting further and further from roadracing, and that SPEEDs desire to cover the WC races will get more and more expensive. I wonder if the horse is out of the barn in terms of Runoffs coverage on that, or any other network.

[JoshS]

There is a limited amount of track time for qualifying and only certain class combinations that fit on the track. We could bring more classes if we invited fewer cars in each class so that there could be some logical class combinations for qualifying. We need to really start thinking outside the box regarding the Runoffs, but there are many parts to the puzzle.
[/b]
I don&#39;t think I&#39;d be the only one to say that 4 qualifying sessions is overkill, and I&#39;m a Runoffs competitor. Surely at least one of those days could be a race day instead, even if it has no TV coverage.

And I still don&#39;t buy the cost-escalation argument if IT were to go National. It&#39;s already there in most places, and we can see now that with most National classes, in most regions, you have to spend more to win a National championship than you do win a Regional championship. If regional championship remains someone&#39;s goal, the cost of that won&#39;t go nuts, as the big budget efforts will be running National races. I&#39;d be willing to predict that in some regions, the cost of a regional championship will go DOWN, since the big budget efforts won&#39;t be in that battle anymore.

[cherokee]

Let me just say Thanks to Brian for posting here, it does show that there is an effort made to keep us in the loop.

The cam and pickup comment was an off the cuff comment, I personally think that the specs for any IT car can be come up with, if not how do we know if it is a legal IT car?

As far as if IT becomes a national class it will get too expensive, I just don&#39;t buy it. People are going to spend what they are going to spend, I would bet that a top rung E36, 944, VW, Honda.....costs some real money. I know what I have spent on my IT car and it is a pretty penny. I would bet that the top finishing cars have money and time spent on them already. Using a name already brought up, I would bet that if Chris Albin ran a Runoff ITB VW I doubt he would spend a ton more money on it then he does already, would he spend more vs. going to Atlanta...I know the tow would be cheaper. I don&#39;t think he would spend any more then a Atlanta effort, I also bet he would finish pretty well, the same could be said for anyone in that league. The top IT drivers are already spending the money, time, effort doing the research, they just don&#39;t get the same level playing field against the other classes, or get the same rewards, and by most they don&#39;t even get the same respect as a driver in a national class.


You talk about being competitive in the market place, do you realy think that having a class like prep is the answer? How many people are going to be able to afford to run one of these cars for a season. I would bet that you would get a lot more folks out with a Factory Five type class then a class that is half a tick from a GT class. To me it looks like it would have been closer to re-vamp one of the GT classes and your new Prep class and mush them together then to go messing with IT. But we all know the reasons behind IT being the feeder.....we don&#39;t count, don&#39;t mess with a national class most of them don&#39;t have car counts as it is, and even a well preped IT car has a snowballs chance of beating a halfway good WC car, so that will not effect the finishing order that much.

I will take off the Oliver Stone hat now :)

It is hard to tell inflection with the way I write, I don&#39;t want to sound testy just trying to make my point...have a good debate. I wish I was better with the written word I could get my points and ideas across a little better.

[tnord]

IT going national won&#39;t raise costs to maintain your current finishing position??? :lol: <---that&#39;s me laughing hysterically from the perspective of one foot in the SM pond and one foot in the IT pond.


One of the problems that I have with the 24 class rule is that we now have a competition between classes for a spot at the Runoffs. [/b]

how is this a problem? this passes the buck from the BOD deciding who gets to play and forces the competitors to find a way to consolidate or die. sounds good to me. do you not agree that we have too many classes already (judging by other comments, it seems as though you don&#39;t).


Basically it allows them to be exempt from the SIR and weight requirements in exchange for not taking advantage of the rules regarding compression ratio, camshafts, porting, pistons, brakes, pickup points, etc. [/b]

if the BOD is concerned with legality enforcement in IT as it&#39;s own national class, how is it any less of a problem in Prepared? because they theoretically are uncompetitive? garbage.


We’ve got to be more competitive in the marketplace. That means bringing new ideas and classes forward. I think Prepared is a good start, although the stigma of calling it a class for ex-WC cars makes me cringe. We also need a closer tie to the tuner market and newer automobiles. [/b]

yeah, we did, it&#39;s called ITR. it&#39;s the cheapest and easiest place to play for newer/faster vehicles. how in the world do you expect under 30yr olds making sub 50k/yr to buy, build, or maintain a Prepared vehicle? this is the BOD&#39;s solution to bringing new younger members?


It is not the number of classes that is the issue; it is the number of competitors in each class. [/b]
do you not make the connection here? the more classes you have the fewer competitors there will be in each class. did you look at the NASA national championship entry list last year?


We need to really start thinking outside the box regarding the Runoffs, but there are many parts to the puzzle. [/b]

really? i&#39;m pretty sure it&#39;s an easy fix, and you guys had it figured out at one point then went and screwed it up. make every class national and the top 24/25 get to go; effective 2008. done. the only way it gets complicated is being to scared to alienate a very small group of people relative to the whole.

[IPRESS]

Was that the kinder gentler Travis? :P

I vote for less qualifying sessions and more races (at the Runoffs). Of course I also like IT being Regional. You may not think the price of poker will go up with a Runoffs carrot stuck out there, But you are sadly mistaken. The ONLY reason I would support IT going National would be for it to have EQUAL track time in our DIV. The DIVs that have lots of DBL Reg. weekends are in good shape now.

Mac (envious of the SEDIV IT schedule)

[DavidM]

Stan, thanks for checking in. Our con call was kinda screwed up last night as the phone system was broken, and I joined late. I thought I heard some comments on the whole IT in Proep thing, and I *thought* I heard that IT cars wouln&#39;t be counted towards Prep numbers. Is that really the case? I can&#39;t see how that could be happen...who breaks it out?

I DID get an answer on the 1990 cutoff. If you are in a car that has a 1990 version on your spec line, (like the 2nd gen RX-7) you&#39;re good to go.
[/b]

Cool. My 1989 240SX should be ok then. I was starting to wonder. I&#39;m gonna laugh my ass off if I run in DP in June and wind up on the podium because only 1 or 2 prepared cars show up.

I knew the whole national thing was going to start again. I for one think the top guys won&#39;t spend anymore because they already build full-out efforts. It&#39;ll probably get more expensive to run mid-pack, but that&#39;s the way it goes. As long as the racing&#39;s good does it matter? You&#39;ll still be able to go out and just run around if that&#39;s what you want to do. I always thought the challenge of going faster was part of the game.

I still like beer, but only good beer (no budweiser or busch or any other water)

David

[JeffYoung]

Stan, thanks for the explanation. Makes sense to me.

[Bill Miller]

if the BOD is concerned with legality enforcement in IT as it&#39;s own national class, how is it any less of a problem in Prepared? because they theoretically are uncompetitive? garbage.
[/b]

BINGO!!!

Brian,

I was simply repeating what someone stated that Mr. Julow told him directly. Didn&#39;t see anybody jump up and contradict it then. If he did not say that, I stand corrected.

[p.keane]

Jake, I do not know what call you were on, but that was never said last night. PK

[lateapex911]

Peter, do you mean the part I was unsure of...about the counts, or the ability to run an 89 RX-7 if it&#39;s on the same spec line as a 90 RX-7? (like the ITS cars?)

[p.keane]

The part about the count. You are right about the car years. PK

[PSherm]

Brian, my general reations, randomly...

It strikes me that IF IT were a national class, you&#39;d have fuller IT class races than half the other classes. I know the BOD has no interest in seeing old cars out there though.

[/b]

Jake, if this is true, then why is Prod still a National class? :lol:

[Andy Bettencourt]

A lot has been said here but I can tell you all this. With Chris and Peter on the CRB, Improved Touring is more represented than it ever has been. I am very excited about this - they are turing the ship slowly.

Let&#39;s not get down on the CRB too much WRT IT. What is it we want that we don&#39;t have now? National status is a doubl-edged sword that some people want and some don&#39;t. The CRB is just as responsive to IT requests as they are to anyone. I don&#39;t feel slighted at all. Would *I* like to run my ITA car Nationally? You bet - but that doesn&#39;t mean it&#39;s the best thing for the category.

[planet6racing]

Jake, if this is true, then why is Prod still a National class? :lol:
[/b]

Exactly. And all this talk about not being able to police the old cars? Come on. They don&#39;t get much older than the Prod cars. Plus, IT cars are far less likely to release the toxic Lucas Smoke on track, thereby making it safer for the workers! :D

[JohnRW]

Let&#39;s not get down on the CRB too much WRT IT. [/b]

Correct. Remember that the majority pf opinions expressed here on IT.com do not necessarily reflect the majority of opinions held by IT racers in general. &#39;Self-selecting poll&#39; - http://www.aaxnet.com/topics/polls.html

[lateapex911]

Exactly. And all this talk about not being able to police the old cars? Come on. They don&#39;t get much older than the Prod cars. Plus, IT cars are far less likely to release the toxic Lucas Smoke on track, thereby making it safer for the workers! :D [/b]

Yes, but lets look at the facts.

Prod is a much different animal. Each car has different allowances. A billet crank for this one, a different throttle body for that. All cars on Prod have been selected because the specs are either known, or are mandated by the club.

IT cars, on the other hand, were often added early on when the "no guarantee" clause really was the mantra. The CRB (at the time it was called something else) wasn&#39;t overly concerned with the scrutineer-ability of every car added to the ITCS. There are cars in IT that have, shall we say, dubious specifications. Certain British cars come to mind, from small manufacturers, who changed cams several times during the year, depending on which source had some at the right price. Which cam is in the service manual? Maybe someone knows for sure, but it does get sticky.

So, there ARE issues when it comes to making IT a Runoffs eligible category. Heck, right now it&#39;s an issue, but it hasn&#39;t reared it&#39;s head. The CRB is rightly concerned (I think) with the potential temptation that would exist for a less than up and up competitor to "create" a killer obscure car, win the championship, based on non existant or conflicting specs.

Is it a deal breaker? No, but it can&#39;t be overlooked, and it isn&#39;t easy.

[erlrich]

So, there ARE issues when it comes to making IT a Runoffs eligible category. Heck, right now it&#39;s an issue, but it hasn&#39;t reared it&#39;s head. The CRB is rightly concerned (I think) with the potential temptation that would exist for a less than up and up competitor to "create" a killer obscure car, win the championship, based on non existant or conflicting specs.

Is it a deal breaker? No, but it can&#39;t be overlooked, and it isn&#39;t easy.
[/b]

Jake, this reminded me of an letter I was planning to send to the CRB regarding SS cars. I have a couple of buddies who run in SSC in the MARRS series, and while shooting the bull one afternoon last year one of them was telling me about this nice Neon he had been racing up through the prior year, but was now sitting gathering dust because it was no longer eligible for SSC and he didn&#39;t want to go through the trouble of converting it to ITA. My thought was why wouldn&#39;t they allow SS cars to continue racing at the regional level, and just make them ineligible for national races after the 10 year period.

The same thinking could be applied to IT cars if they went national, couldn&#39;t it? Obviously the 10 year rule wouldn&#39;t work, but what about 15? Or 20? Wouldn&#39;t that rule out most of the potential problem cars, while still allowing the majority of current IT cars to compete?

[Joe Harlan]

Jake, this reminded me of an letter I was planning to send to the CRB regarding SS cars. I have a couple of buddies who run in SSC in the MARRS series, and while shooting the bull one afternoon last year one of them was telling me about this nice Neon he had been racing up through the prior year, but was now sitting gathering dust because it was no longer eligible for SSC and he didn&#39;t want to go through the trouble of converting it to ITA. My though was why wouldn&#39;t they allow SS cars to continue racing at the regional level, and just make them ineligible for national races after the 10 year period.

The same thinking could be applied to IT cars if they went national, couldn&#39;t it? Obviously the 10 year rule wouldn&#39;t work, but what about 15? Or 20? Wouldn&#39;t that rule out most of the potential problem cars, while still allowing the majority of current IT cars to compete?
[/b] Erl, i have always felt the same way but the issue is, After 10 years the new factory parts supply is not real good for things like blocks,pistons, factory crate motors,transmissions, ect. There would have to be a regional set of SS rules written,(which IMHO was why IT was created) that allowed for minor overbores or restoing these parts back to factory sizing. I am pretty sure that even now in SS if you score a cylinder you replace the block because there is no provision for sleeving boring or repair. Just my take on it. Really no reasn that the car could not be runin IT with any changes is there?

[lateapex911]

Earl, that WOULD work, IF the cars with sketchy history were produced before the cutoff date, not after.

The solutions are:

1- Define the problem cars and eliminate them from national level competition
2- Define the problem cars and drw a line in the sand via a model year exclusion that eliminates them and all others older than them.
3- Define the problem cars and create defacto specs for them, where research cannot confirm legitimate specs.. (This may have the effect of making certain examples eligible, while others may wind up on the wronf side of the line. . As the cars are obscure, it&#39;s unlikely this would affect many, if anybody)


Of course, Items 1,2 may have policy issues other than the specific spec problems become involved, such as the deisre among some to eliminate older cars just on the basis of appearances, or other less concrete goals.

[cherokee]

There are cars in IT that have, shall we say, dubious specifications. Certain British cars come to mind, from small manufacturers, who changed cams several times during the year, depending on which source had some at the right price. Which cam is in the service manual? [/b]

That is BS.

I don&#39;t know about certain British cars but I do know about obscure German cars. When my car had its intake valve size adjusted it took paperwork up the wazzu to prove that cars came from the factory with 42mm intake valves. The paperwork exists the driver just has to find it if he wants to run the part in question, have the driver prove that the part is/was offered by the MFG. In my case the 40mm intake valve size was what was legal until someone did all the work (thanks) to prove past any shadow of a doubt, with MFG documents that 42mm was installed at the factory. The spec for a one cam grind might not be available so it ain&#39;t legal till someone puts forth the effort to prove to the SCCA that car came with this type of cam grind. (now you know why there are two types of intake valves listed on my spec line)

The bottom line is that there is some kind of spec for cams, carbs, compression, whatever. The spec that is available is the spec that is legal.

[lateapex911]

That is BS.

[/b]

?????

Perhaps Ron Earp or Jeff Young might want to chime in here and tell me I&#39;m full of it, cuz&#39; they run some old British cars....

[cherokee]

?????

Perhaps Ron Earp or Jeff Young might want to chime in here and tell me I&#39;m full of it, cuz&#39; they run some old British cars....
[/b]

The point is that specs are available. To make changes in the spec line as in my case, or to confirm the existing specs.

[planet6racing]

I&#39;m actually going to agree with Cherokee here. :o ;) It was my responsibility to make sure the specs for my car were correct. It is my responsibility to make sure I have a factory service manual. And it is my responsibility to field a properly prepared car. If I show up with something that doesn&#39;t match the GCR/ITCS/FSM, then I should be thrown out of there.

Is it easy? No. But the burden isn&#39;t on the scrutineers. They look at the rules, at the FSM, and make a determination if a car is or is not in spec. You can tell them your life story about how you dug through the annals of British Historical Cars to find the one cam that magically worked, but if it is not in the spec line or in the FSM or any other approved documentation, thank you for playing.

I know, I see it as a black and white issue. Somebody convince me there is a grey area, cause I&#39;m not seeing it.

[cherokee]

eeeek....I hope I am not that far off base :)

[Brian Holtz]

IT going national won&#39;t raise costs to maintain your current finishing position??? :lol: <---that&#39;s me laughing hysterically from the perspective of one foot in the SM pond and one foot in the IT pond.
how is this a problem? this passes the buck from the BOD deciding who gets to play and forces the competitors to find a way to consolidate or die. sounds good to me. do you not agree that we have too many classes already (judging by other comments, it seems as though you don&#39;t).
if the BOD is concerned with legality enforcement in IT as it&#39;s own national class, how is it any less of a problem in Prepared? because they theoretically are uncompetitive? garbage.
yeah, we did, it&#39;s called ITR. it&#39;s the cheapest and easiest place to play for newer/faster vehicles. how in the world do you expect under 30yr olds making sub 50k/yr to buy, build, or maintain a Prepared vehicle? this is the BOD&#39;s solution to bringing new younger members?
do you not make the connection here? the more classes you have the fewer competitors there will be in each class. did you look at the NASA national championship entry list last year?
really? i&#39;m pretty sure it&#39;s an easy fix, and you guys had it figured out at one point then went and screwed it up. make every class national and the top 24/25 get to go; effective 2008. done. the only way it gets complicated is being to scared to alienate a very small group of people relative to the whole.
[/b]

Travis,

I’m just saying that we used to threaten classes with just the participation rule. Then when classes were looking at losing national status they would find ways to increase car entries. The other classes really had no part in the issue. Now, with the competition to qualify for Runoffs invitation people are paying a lot more attention to how their class is affected by actions within the other classes. I’m also not saying that we don’t have too many classes, I’m just pointing out that maybe we are not limited to 24 if we look at other ways to structure the Runoffs. Production limited prep only mirrors IT in some of the cylinder head preparation. I believe that there will be other things that will have to be looked at, specified and documented for IT to run for a national championship. It is entirely possible that the cost of building a Prepared car may be prohibitive. If so, I would expect the CRB to monitor the situation and ask for rule changes. I see this class as being in a development stage. I would hope that more classes would not dilute the fields but instead offer new opportunities for current drivers and ones that we don’t have yet. I’m a bit confused where you say we screwed it up, unless you mean that we should include IT cars in national racing. Let’s see what the CRB comes up with.

Brian

[Andy Bettencourt]

One of the other things that I have learned is that Prod had their chance with including IT cars. I guess they didn&#39;t want us so it seems disingenuous to complain about car counts in BP/DP...I didn&#39;t know this when I wrote my letter. Besides, I think an ITR car can be a damn fast car in DP...

I would think that the following would be just fine:

"Improved Touring-spec cars are eligible to run at National events in the Production and the Prepared classes as follows - ITR to DPrep, ITS to EProd, ITA to FP and ITB to GP and ITC to HP"

Would some Production cars get whooped? You bet - but not because the deck was stacked against them. Ain&#39;t no way in an apples to apples scenario that the IT cars win so they should have nothing to worry about except getting beaten by a better driver in a better prepared car. Car count issues would fade away.

[cherokee]

I believe that there will be other things that will have to be looked at, specified and documented for IT to run for a national championship. [/b]


What would they be?

[tnord]

Travis,

I’m just saying that we used to threaten classes with just the participation rule. Then when classes were looking at losing national status they would find ways to increase car entries. The other classes really had no part in the issue. Now, with the competition to qualify for Runoffs invitation people are paying a lot more attention to how their class is affected by actions within the other classes. I’m also not saying that we don’t have too many classes, I’m just pointing out that maybe we are not limited to 24 if we look at other ways to structure the Runoffs.
[/b]

you&#39;re (the BOD) paying lip service to the people that believe a participation rule is healthy by creating it, then when it becomes &#39;inconvienent&#39; striking the old rule and lowering the standards. you&#39;re also creating a problem for yourself with the addition of what, 4 new classes without any sort of plan for consolidation or elimination of other classes. maybe the BOD has one, but i don&#39;t see allowances made in the runoffs schedule for 4 more classes either. what are we at now, 29?



It is entirely possible that the cost of building a Prepared car may be prohibitive. If so, I would expect the CRB to monitor the situation and ask for rule changes. I see this class as being in a development stage. I would hope that more classes would not dilute the fields but instead offer new opportunities for current drivers and ones that we don’t have yet. I’m a bit confused where you say we screwed it up, unless you mean that we should include IT cars in national racing. Let’s see what the CRB comes up with.

Brian
[/b]

entirely possible that it&#39;s cost prohibitive? c&#39;mon....ex Speed WC cars run in this class, how much did you guys think they cost to buy/build/maintain? if the Prepared class has the potential for rule changes to make it less cost prohibitive, it&#39;s only moving in the direction that it will overlap IT. i&#39;m really befuddled as to how this class is going to coexist with IT, Prod, and GT. you want to create a national class that&#39;s appealing to a younger demographic, what&#39;s wrong with IT/SM?? you want a class similar to prod but for newer cars? ok, do that.

where the BOD screwed up is reneging on their "top 25 go to the runoffs/min 3.5 (or 3) avg entrants to keep national status."

brian, thank you for taking the time to volunteer your time and post on this board, and realize that when i say "you" i really mean the BOD as a whole. i just really disagree with a lot that has been said here.

[cherokee]

I would think that the following would be just fine:

"Improved Touring-spec cars are eligible to run at National events in the Production and the Prepared classes as follows - ITR to DPrep, ITS to EProd, ITA to FP and ITB to GP and ITC to HP"

Would some Production cars get whooped? You bet - but not because the deck was stacked against them. Ain&#39;t no way in an apples to apples scenario that the IT cars win so they should have nothing to worry about except getting beaten by a better driver in a better prepared car. Car count issues would fade away.
[/b]

I like this layout, I would not see why anyone would be opposed to something along these lines. Leave the IT class the way it is, Make the IT cars that want to run in prod have fuel cells and what not. What would the down side to this be? And I think you are right, car count issues in prod would go away.

[planet6racing]

One of the other things that I have learned is that Prod had their chance with including IT cars. I guess they didn&#39;t want us so it seems disingenuous to complain about car counts in BP/DP...I didn&#39;t know this when I wrote my letter. Besides, I think an ITR car can be a damn fast car in DP...

I would think that the following would be just fine:

"Improved Touring-spec cars are eligible to run at National events in the Production and the Prepared classes as follows - ITR to DPrep, ITS to EProd, ITA to FP and ITB to GP and ITC to HP"

Would some Production cars get whooped? You bet - but not because the deck was stacked against them. Ain&#39;t no way in an apples to apples scenario that the IT cars win so they should have nothing to worry about except getting beaten by a better driver in a better prepared car. Car count issues would fade away.
[/b]

Ding Ding Ding!!! We have a winner!!!

But, there should also be a "No guarantee of competitiveness" clause for the IT cars. If they want to be competitive in Prod, they have to get classified in Prod.

[Brian Holtz]

you&#39;re (the BOD) paying lip service to the people that believe a participation rule is healthy by creating it, then when it becomes &#39;inconvienent&#39; striking the old rule and lowering the standards. you&#39;re also creating a problem for yourself with the addition of what, 4 new classes without any sort of plan for consolidation or elimination of other classes. maybe the BOD has one, but i don&#39;t see allowances made in the runoffs schedule for 4 more classes either. what are we at now, 29?

where the BOD screwed up is reneging on their "top 25 go to the runoffs/min 3.5 (or 3) avg entrants to keep national status."

brian, thank you for taking the time to volunteer your time and post on this board, and realize that when i say "you" i really mean the BOD as a whole. i just really disagree with a lot that has been said here.
[/b]

Travis,

I don&#39;t know what you mean by striking the old rule participation rule and lowering the standards. The number was changed from 3.5 to 2.5, however it is now averaged across the country, not just in the top five divisions. See the BOD minutes in January&#39;s FASTRACK. The Runoffs schedule is still at 25 classes for this year and 24 next year. I think you need to revisit the rule as it is written. We now have 29 national classes. The four new ones are not eligible for this year&#39;s Runoffs. For the 2008 Runoffs only the top 24 classes from this year&#39;s pariticipation numbers will be eligible. This is why we now have classes competing against each other for Runoffs spots. I understand that you are taking issue with some of the things that the BOD has done. Please note that in my original post I was only speaking for myself. Also please note that I voted against the 24 class rule. My main issue at the time was the same as yours, as lack of planning for class consolidation.

Brian

[Bill Miller]

Brian,

Think about it from an outsider&#39;s perspective. You don&#39;t even have to have enough cars to fill the podium, yet the class retains National status. How do you explain to someone outside the SCCA how that qualifies as a race? Since Topeka now keeps track of Regional results, it would be interesting to see the average participation numbers for the IT classes from &#39;06.

[JeffYoung]

?????

Perhaps Ron Earp or Jeff Young might want to chime in here and tell me I&#39;m full of it, cuz&#39; they run some old British cars....
[/b]

Sorry guys, just picked up this thread.

We have that issue with the Jensen. A bunch of different cams were used, and there are no real cam specs in what Jensen laughably called a manual. You should see it, it is basically a bunch of photocopied pages with some notes and things and it WAS the factory manual. Cherokee, you are probably right, with an extreme amount of work involving field trips to various small speciality shops that handled the cars when new you MIGHT be able to get paperwork for them.

But, I think the JH is in an extreme minority due to the nature of the manufacturer. Jensen was very small. Opel and Triumph/British Leyland were large companies, and the shop manual I have for the TR8 is very comprehensive.

So I think you guys are both right. Jake, you are technically right that some oddballs will have a hard time finding shop specs. Cherokee is right practicially that for almost all cars, except maybe ONLY the Jensen, the specs are available if you look hard enough (or even if you don&#39;t, the TR8 stuff is easy to find).

[RSTPerformance]

I would think that the following would be just fine:

"Improved Touring-spec cars are eligible to run at National events in the Production and the Prepared classes as follows - ITR to DPrep, ITS to EProd, ITA to FP and ITB to GP and ITC to HP"

[/b]

Greetings from Tremblant, Quebec... Andy I like it... are we writting letters yet???


Raymond

[cherokee]

Greetings from Tremblant, Quebec... Andy I like it... are we writting letters yet???
Raymond
[/b]

I think this is a good idea I might write a letter myself.

I was thinking about this over the weekend, and thaught that something along these lines is what LP should have been. An IT car with prod safety and slicks....thats it. Sounds a lot more "limited prep" then what there is now, the only way an LP car would have anything change is if it changed in IT (like computers).

The things that pop into your mind while putting up a windmill.

[lateapex911]

The Prod folk have rejected IT cars coming into Prod with the appropriate safety mods at every turn.

The publicly stated issue seems to be that they reject having that level of prep in the category. You have to remember, there are huge battles in the Prod community over cars getting 25 pound weight additions or breaks, or specific car allowances like slightly larger brakes, etc.

Allowing cars into classes based on a plan like ITX goes to Prod Y will possibly work, but ONLY if the Prod community feels there is NO chance that any IT car could be prepped well enough to have a snowballs chance in hell at being competitive..even with the mid packers.

Thats just my feeling, maybe I&#39;m wrong, but years of watching the intercategory feuding makes me think that they have little interest in bigger picture concepts.

[cherokee]

I agree with you 100%, that was more of an "if I was king" kind of statement. Look how badly they have screwed up LP. That is an "in for a penny in for a pound" kind of deal, there is not too much limited about limited prep.

However IF, and that is a big IF, It would solve the entire IT national issue, if you want to run you ITx car in prod put a xP sticker on and some slicks and go have fun. Pull the slicks off put the ITx sticker on the side and run the IT race. Too good for us, we get to go run at a national level if we want, or run at a regional level just like IT is now, with zero change to IT. Prod guys would get car counts up the wazzu, and some fresh meat to their races. Have the same thing for prod cars that want to go to GT, and so on. Sure there would be bugs, but the key to the deal would be zero changes to the car from the lower class, change one thing and it is a Full prep car, or a GT car, or whatever. And when you want to move up in your prep level you already have your feet wet in the class. I know that this is the wrong forum for this but I think that prod is going to be one of those classes that is going to start hurting in the near future, IF they keep to the best subscribed classes go to the big show.

I guess this is one of those great ideas that will never happen as it is just too good an idea, that seamless transion from class to class is just a pipe dream.

[seckerich]

Just don&#39;t show up in prod with the dreaded "X" bar. You could die a slow horrible death. Wonder why this does not get clarified in prod. :rolleyes: Keeps the rif-raff out I guess.

[Andy Bettencourt]

My proposal to the CRB was to allow IT cars IN IT PREP. No additional allowances for slicks, no additional mandates for fuel cells. In order for this to work, a seemless trial must be available.

I know I would run a National or 2 in my ITA car in FP - if I could plug and play. There is no doubt in my mind that my mid-mounted plastic gas tank is safer than 90% of cell installs anyway. Take us the way were are if you want to get us exposed to the Prod world. There is no harm in it from any angle.

[RSTPerformance]

My proposal to the CRB was to allow IT cars IN IT PREP. No additional allowances for slicks, no additional mandates for fuel cells. In order for this to work, a seemless trial must be available.

I know I would run a National or 2 in my ITA car in FP - if I could plug and play. There is no doubt in my mind that my mid-mounted plastic gas tank is safer than 90% of cell installs anyway. Take us the way were are if you want to get us exposed to the Prod world. There is no harm in it from any angle.
[/b]

Slicks or no slicks, if I could run my IT car in a National Production class I would at least do 1 or 2 races... The Northeast fields are so small in Prod, that I would probably even qualify for and run the National Runoffs (if they are located closer to the northeast in a few years) if I could afford the travel expences... No I wouldn&#39;t win, but I think it would be fun to run with the prod guys for a mid pack result with my IT car.

I would imagine that the National office is alwso worried about "worn" cars showing up and bringing down the image of the field that currently at least looks a bit more professional than the mid IT fields. While I think some cars do look rough on the edges most are acceptable from 50&#39; (thus would look ok on TV ;) )

Also I have herd Prod guys complain about racing with big bumpers vs. no bumpers and a fear for less experience and invested drivers taking them out.

All in all I do think it is the best for the club and the members as a whole to allow all IT legal cars in a Production class. And I think it should be simple as stated in earlier posts ITx = Px class. It should not be done by making a specific car = Px class.

Raymond "The truth hurts sometimes" Blethen

[Joe Harlan]

Slicks or no slicks, if I could run my IT car in a National Production class I would at least do 1 or 2 races... The Northeast fields are so small in Prod, that I would probably even qualify for and run the National Runoffs (if they are located closer to the northeast in a few years) if I could afford the travel expences... No I wouldn&#39;t win, but I think it would be fun to run with the prod guys for a mid pack result with my IT car.

I would imagine that the National office is alwso worried about "worn" cars showing up and bringing down the image of the field that currently at least looks a bit more professional than the mid IT fields. While I think some cars do look rough on the edges most are acceptable from 50&#39; (thus would look ok on TV ;) )

Also I have herd Prod guys complain about racing with big bumpers vs. no bumpers and a fear for less experience and invested drivers taking them out.

All in all I do think it is the best for the club and the members as a whole to allow all IT legal cars in a Production class. And I think it should be simple as stated in earlier posts ITx = Px class. It should not be done by making a specific car = Px class.

Raymond "The truth hurts sometimes" Blethen
[/b]

Not an issue Raymond, The Natioanl office is worrried about attendance not quality. If we were worried about the quality of the competition we would have left it at the top 3 qualifiers per division and enforce the 120% rules..
YOu would be welcome in any ole hotrod or jealopy that could get around the track.

[RSTPerformance]

Not an issue Raymond, The Natioanl office is worrried about attendance not quality. If we were worried about the quality of the competition we would have left it at the top 3 qualifiers per division and enforce the 120% rules..
YOu would be welcome in any ole hotrod or jealopy that could get around the track.
[/b]


Personaly I think that is the new SCCA, and I must say that it is good to hear... good attendance certainly brings good racing!!! :023:

Raymond

[PSherm]

I know I would run a National or 2 in my ITA car in FP - if I could plug and play. There is no doubt in my mind that my mid-mounted plastic gas tank is safer than 90% of cell installs anyway. Take us the way were are if you want to get us exposed to the Prod world. There is no harm in it from any angle.
[/b]

I would definitely do the same, provided the cars went into Prod as you proposed earlier (or maybe on the Prod board), NOT where they are currently classed... :happy204: