IT Cars in Prod

[Andy Bettencourt]

April Fast Track:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>If this is something that you support, drop the CRB a line at "CRB at SCCA.COM"

</span>

[jhooten]

It would be an improvement but still leaves my 85 ITE (SWDiv ITE is an under 3L class) out of the running.

[IPRESS]

Andy,
That sounds good especially in our DIV as there are a lot of one race weekends for IT.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am sorry Jerry, but the proposal can only include GCR-based classes. ITE is very inconsistant throughout the country so there is no way to include cars like that in a lump.

[mbuskuhl]

Andy,
That sounds good especially in our DIV as there are a lot of one race weekends for IT.
[/b]


Second that. The SOWDIV has a weak regional program. As one SCCA racer/worker put it recently a "piss poor Regional program". The only problem is I need 4 more races to get my National License, that&#39;s a challenge in itself finding the regionals to get this done. My fault for not researching this when I got started.

I&#39;m still confused on this 1990 rule, even though I have a 1986 by VIN my 2nd Gen looks like a 89-91 model. It&#39;s no piece of junk either and was built with a complete disregard for any type of budget. So, I&#39;m not sure with a National license this is going to help the cause. Maybe I&#39;m forced to convert to EP if I want to race.

In any case, I support more time for IT on the track. The FasTrack announcement was a good start, Andy&#39;s proposal takes it further. Since I don&#39;t know the politics yet and there seems to be an abundance with SCCA, what&#39;s the best way to email the CRB and support this proposal? Email them and re-write it or simply state that one is in support of the proposal submitted by Andy Bettencourt?

[Andy Bettencourt]

I&#39;m still confused on this 1990 rule, even though I have a 1986 by VIN my 2nd Gen looks like a 89-91 model. It&#39;s no piece of junk either and was built with a complete disregard for any type of budget. So, I&#39;m not sure with a National license this is going to help the cause. Maybe I&#39;m forced to convert to EP if I want to race. [/b]

We confirmed on the ITAC call with CRB members that any car that&#39;s spec line encompasses 1990+ will be eligible. The ITS 86-91 RX-7 example is a perfect one.


In any case, I support more time for IT on the track. The FasTrack announcement was a good start, Andy&#39;s proposal takes it further. Since I don&#39;t know the politics yet and there seems to be an abundance with SCCA, what&#39;s the best way to email the CRB and support this proposal? Email them and re-write it or simply state that one is in support of the proposal submitted by Andy Bettencourt? [/b]

Since this is just support for a proposal, you could e-mail them and reference my "IT cars to Prod" proposal. Maybe include your plans to run Nationals and how it would help you due to low race options in your area like you described above. Conversely, if this idea isn&#39;t to your liking, reference the proposal and indicate your NON support.

[RSTPerformance]

I don&#39;t support the 1990 or newer proposal. What is a realistic reason for this? If it is to keep the junkers out well then I would be even more unimpressed as some of the best looking IT cars are from the 70&#39;s from what I have seen.

Raymond

[mustanghammer]

Andy,

Does your porposal also place a restriction on pre 1990 IT cars like the Prepared proposal does?

I understand why the Prepared proposal restricts pre-1990 IT cars because this is a restriction applied to all cars in Prepared. However I don&#39;t see the need for this with respect to IT cars in Production.

[Andy Bettencourt]

My proposal does NOT have a pre-1990 restriction. Please note that in your letter. I believe it was a put there in fear of &#39;junkers&#39;...so drop your note and make sure they know that you would ike to explore the world of Nationals/Production in your WHATEVER year IT car. I do not support this limitation either.

[R2 Racing]

ITC --> HP</span>[/b]
Isn&#39;t this all pretty much already true in the world of "LP Prod" cars? I know that the ITS Prelude&#39;s, Integra&#39;s, Civic&#39;s, RX-7&#39;s, 240&#39;s, etc are all already classified as LP EP cars. Then the ITA CRX, Integra&#39;s, Miata, and others are LP FP cars. ITB Si Honda&#39;s are LP GP. So on and so forth. However, yes, I know that to even show up and race as a LP Prod car you&#39;d have to do some things to your car like fuel call, light removal, etc. But, you also get to build more engine and shed a lot of weight. So is the purpose of this to eliminate those "legaility" mods (like fuel cell and lights) in exchange for not being able to build more engine and having to run at portly IT weights?

Yea, you&#39;d stand no chance of winning. Ever. But I suppose if I could take my ITA Integra as it sits right now and enter it into a national FP race, I&#39;d think about it. It would give me a benchmark of where the car sits now (as a top ITA example) and could help make or break my decision if I was thinking about going full out LP FP with the car. I sure wouldn&#39;t make a habit of it though.

Kind of makes you feel used in a way. Like dangling a carrot in front of a rabbit and saying "Here, you IT guys want to be national? Come, race here in Prod and boost our low numbers and take away from what you guys have built up quite nicely on your own in order to save our dying classes, because, well, they&#39;re national, and they&#39;re important." :rolleyes: If the SCCA needs IT cars to save their national classes/races, there seems like a pretty easy solution to me. (Not that I would necessarilly agree with or support the idea, but that&#39;s a whole nother topic.)

[jhooten]

On a side note, When I asked to have the ITS 85 Supra classed in Prod it was denied. The reason "Engine too big". If this passes would all ITS legal cars be allowed or would there be exceptions?

I do have another Supra to build into an ITS car.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Isn&#39;t this all pretty much already true in the world of "LP Prod" cars? I know that the ITS Prelude&#39;s, Integra&#39;s, Civic&#39;s, RX-7&#39;s, 240&#39;s, etc are all already classified as LP EP cars. Then the ITA CRX, Integra&#39;s, Miata, and others are LP FP cars. ITB Si Honda&#39;s are LP GP. So on and so forth. However, yes, I know that to even show up and race as a LP Prod car you&#39;d have to do some things to your car like fuel call, light removal, etc. But, you also get to build more engine and shed a lot of weight. So is the purpose of this to eliminate those "legaility" mods (like fuel cell and lights) in exchange for not being able to build more engine and having to run at portly IT weights?

Yea, you&#39;d stand no chance of winning. Ever. But I suppose if I could take my ITA Integra as it sits right now and enter it into a national FP race, I&#39;d think about it. It would give me a benchmark of where the car sits now (as a top ITA example) and could help make or break my decision if I was thinking about going full out LP FP with the car. I sure wouldn&#39;t make a habit of it though.

Kind of makes you feel used in a way. Like dangling a carrot in front of a rabbit and saying "Here, you IT guys want to be national? Come, race here in Prod and boost our low numbers and take away from what you guys have built up quite nicely on your own in order to save our dying classes, because, well, they&#39;re national, and they&#39;re important." :rolleyes: If the SCCA needs IT cars to save their national classes/races, there seems like a pretty easy solution to me. (Not that I would necessarilly agree with or support the idea, but that&#39;s a whole nother topic.) [/b]

All good points Kevin - but I believe they support my proposal from a 10,000 ft view. Most of the cars in the class structure I mention would transfer in Limited Prep form - but not all so it isn&#39;t a class to class opportunity like I suggest. But because most of these cars are so similar, it would give yuo an idea of what pieces and parts you would need to get into Prod. For me, the 1.8 Miata is an EP car, not an FP car.

I don&#39;t see it as being used. We all know IT is Regional only. &#39;Entry Level&#39; to some. We knew it going in. While *I* would like IT to go National, I see the legitimate points against it. I believe our position on THAT issue has to do with the current state of IT you the areas we run.

This is about creating a smooth transitional opportunity for racers from IT to Prod. I think Prod should be doing a similar think with GT if they can as well. This is also not an &#39;us vs. them&#39; thing. It&#39;s about a tweak to the system that creates some &#39;flow&#39; based in ease and logic. (I hope) :)




On a side note, When I asked to have the ITS 85 Supra classed in Prod it was denied. The reason "Engine too big". If this passes would all ITS legal cars be allowed or would there be exceptions?

I do have another Supra to build into an ITS car. [/b]

All cars IT would be legal. The reason would be that they have to be at IT prep. If you built your 3.0L I6 to full prep Prod rules, then you have something that they don&#39;t perceive to be fair. An ITS Supra, prepped to ITS specs, has no more capability than any other ITS car.

[shwah]

Why bother if the cars will be placed in a class they have no chance in hell of competing in?

The ITB Golf is already an LP GP car. It cannot be a front runner. The one at the runoffs is about as quick as you will see. So why the heck would I run an ITB Golf in GP to only go slower? The ONLY reason for me may be to go to the June Sprints, but I would not even consider running national events in general. Of course I already have the option to run full prep FP if I like, so that probably changes my view a bit compared to others that are shut out of Nationals.

Maybe start with ITA in HP and go from there...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Why bother if the cars will be placed in a class they have no chance in hell of competing in?

The ITB Golf is already an LP GP car. It cannot be a front runner. The one at the runoffs is about as quick as you will see. So why the heck would I run an ITB Golf in GP to only go slower? The ONLY reason for me may be to go to the June Sprints, but I would not even consider running national events in general. Of course I already have the option to run full prep FP if I like, so that probably changes my view a bit compared to others that are shut out of Nationals.

Maybe start with ITA in HP and go from there... [/b]

It&#39;s not about competing for the win, it&#39;s about getting a taste for National competition, National events, getting a look at real Prod cars, teams and efforts, and creating a smooth path amongst our classes as a whole.

[R2 Racing]

All good points Kevin - but I believe they support my proposal from a 10,000 ft view.[/b]
:D Yes, that&#39;s a good way of putting it. In all, I support the idea for the same reasons you gave....



This is about creating a smooth transitional opportunity for racers from IT to Prod. I think Prod should be doing a similar think with GT if they can as well. This is also not an &#39;us vs. them&#39; thing. It&#39;s about a tweak to the system that creates some &#39;flow&#39; based in ease and logic. (I hope) :)[/b]

I don&#39;t see how that could be a bad thing. If someone is thinking about moving into another class, this would be a good way to try it out, test out the atmosphere of the class, get a good gauge of how they might be able to fair in it, and be able to do it without having to go out and build an entirely new car. No, you won&#39;t win with it, but it should certainly be able to aid in your decision to go after it if you want to.

Yet, if a person isn&#39;t interested in it, no harm, no foul. Just don&#39;t do it.

[Gary L]

The key point to my proposal, outside the framework, is the inclusion of IT cars - AS THEY ARE. Legal for IT, legal for this jump. No changes.</span>[/b]
At the risk of being accused of rules creep advocacy, even before there are rules... :(

What about rubber? Wouldn&#39;t the allowance of "real" racing rubber be best for everyone concerned and make this an easier sell, based on less disparate cornering speeds, IT vs Prod?

[tnord]

Kind of makes you feel used in a way. Like dangling a carrot in front of a rabbit and saying "Here, you IT guys want to be national? Come, race here in Prod and boost our low numbers and take away from what you guys have built up quite nicely on your own in order to save our dying classes, because, well, they&#39;re national, and they&#39;re important." :rolleyes: If the SCCA needs IT cars to save their national classes/races, there seems like a pretty easy solution to me. (Not that I would necessarilly agree with or support the idea, but that&#39;s a whole nother topic.)
[/b]

well done kevin. this is exactly why i&#39;m against it, as it feels like a band-aid fix to the real problem at hand. while i do agree that a smooth transition and low risk opportunity to try national racing is a good thing, i feel that this allowance would do away with the possibility of the real change i would like to see happen.....which is the elimination of the distinction between national and regional classes altogether.

i feel like as a whole, this is a &#39;zero sum proposal.&#39; prod has problems and is somewhat unhealthy, IT is doing well and is healthy. so lets scavenge some entries and cars from IT to fix our prod problem? now you&#39;ve got 2 moderately succesful classes instead of addressing the real issue with a real solution.

real issue? undersubscribed classes.
real solution? elimination of these classes from "national" status if you can&#39;t make #&#39;s for 2 years. if we do away with the distinction of "national" then those that don&#39;t make the numbers are left out of the big show.

[AntonioGG]

Why bother if the cars will be placed in a class they have no chance in hell of competing in?

The ITB Golf is already an LP GP car. It cannot be a front runner. The one at the runoffs is about as quick as you will see. So why the heck would I run an ITB Golf in GP to only go slower? The ONLY reason for me may be to go to the June Sprints, but I would not even consider running national events in general. Of course I already have the option to run full prep FP if I like, so that probably changes my view a bit compared to others that are shut out of Nationals.

Maybe start with ITA in HP and go from there...
[/b]

I think for those IT guys in areas like SOWDIV with a "piss poor regional program" (credit to Chris Taylor for the quote), you could have more IT guys entering R/N weekends. You wouldn&#39;t have to race against the production cars necessarily, but if enough IT guys enter the N groups you could have your own little race within a race. It would solve the problem of trying to schedule R/RR/N weekends with not enough time. It would also solve the problem of low production car counts. The only issue I see is that Stretch driving his 240 would probably do top 5 at the Runoffs in FP and some people might not like that. :D

[gran racing]

I&#39;m still having a hard time understanding the true reasoning behind this whole thing. In other threads there have been talks that this is being done to bolster Prod numbers because turnout is low and it would be good for the Runoffs. Being an IT guy, sure I may quickly react that way but do not actually believe that is the true reasoning.


you could have more IT guys entering R/N weekends. [/b]

O.k. That I can understand but again, am not convinced that isn&#39;t just a by product and wasn&#39;t the objective of this change.


This is about creating a smooth transitional opportunity for racers from IT to Prod.[/b]

This is probably the best rationale I&#39;ve heard for this. If this is the primary motivation for the proposed change, is there really a desire from IT racers to get into Prod? Or is it because some are still hung up on the distinction between National and Regional events and want people to transition into the National level? I&#39;m just trying to figure out what issue we are trying to resolve before I can make a decision on what I believe is best for the club and our category. (I&#39;m looking for well thought out / real reasons, not reactions that we&#39;ve already been through 100 times.)

[benspeed]

I think the idea is spot on. I would have kept my ITS RX7 as I was planning to try and double dip on race day by running ITS and then EP. I would have had to make too many modifications to my car and bailed out on the idea.

SCCA should take a very hard look at transitioning cars from IT to Prod to GT - the progression is logical and somebody could hang onto a car for a long time while they improved skills and their car.

[cherokee]

I can give you my reason for supporting this. I want to run national events. I want to run national events in my car. I want to go to the runoffs, I want to go to the sprints. I know my car would get top 5 finishes in the proposed prod class in my area....if it stays running, already sounds like a prod car. :)

I asked the question about slicks vs. DOT tires and the folks on the prod site did not think that the difference would be that great as tire tech has come a long way in DOT tires in the last few years.

I also would not worry about car counts in IT, if it is true that most of the IT drivers like IT just the way it is then most of the IT drivers will still run in the IT class. This seems like a win/win if you do not want IT national and only want to build a car to IT prep and you want to run national events you now have a place to go. If you want to try it with your current car, you have a place to go without spending one dime. We did not have a fit about Spec Miata taking away all the Miatas from IT did we, and those guys can run in a national class or region class, they have the option, 1990 and up IT cars have an option, why not the rest.

The only thing I would worry about is it getting goofed up like the LP project did. IMHO this is what LP should have been, an IT car running in prod with no changes other then a cell, clips and such. No changes to the car that would take it out of IT trim, if the car has ONE thing done to it that is not IT legal then it is a full prep prod car, the only change I would support would be a wheel/tire change, and only if NOTHING else had to change. I would also say that IF it is successful it could water down prod quite a bit. A prod car can a finicky little thing, and if it looks like you can have the same amount of fun in something a little less....finicky it just might find some other converts. Is that a good thing, will it happen? Only time will tell.

So I support the idea, and will write my first ever letter supporting it. Not because it will help a class or hurt a class but it is what I want to do, and I can get there faster, and much cheaper, I was going to do LP but even Albin says LP is not cheaper, and I think it is harder to have success, so what is the point of LP. Who knows, full prep prod cars are not the stongest things out there, an IT car in prod has a chance. A better chance then some IT cars have in their classes now if for no other reason other then attrition.

[IPRESS]

What AG said. Actually there are good reasons for going in this direction no matter if you are in a "strong regional program" region or in a weak one (like ours.)

Come on guys.... it is another group to get some racing in. We may not have a chance in hell to win, but by having the chance to compete it will make me that much better in the IT race. I can get the extra practice + a longer race + I have a reason to go for an entire weekend.

I don&#39;t see it as taking anything away from IT (regional racing.)

Mac

[JeffYoung]

Andy, I see no downside to this and think the idea of giving IT guys a taste of national racing is a good one (and will cause most of them to come running back to regionals!).

That said, I want to raise the point the guy with the Supra did above. The Doyles in the Midwest also race ITS TR8s and tried to get the car classed LP in Production and were told, essentially, too much displacement. I understand the wording of your proposal, but I think there is some fear on the CRB of too much displacement in Prod regardless of prep level. Just my 2 cents, I will try to remmeber to drop a note to the CRB on this this evening. I do support it.

[gran racing]

Got it now. Submitted an e-mail supporting what Andy stated.

[mbuskuhl]

My email in support of Andy&#39;s proposal has been submitted. Let me race!!!!

[shwah]

It&#39;s not about competing for the win, it&#39;s about getting a taste for National competition, National events, getting a look at real Prod cars, teams and efforts, and creating a smooth path amongst our classes as a whole.
[/b]

That might be fine for some, but when I wanted to see what National Competition and real Prod cars were like, I got involved in the enigneering an crewing of a real prod car. I personally won&#39;t be going just to see what its like. I thought the question was to see what each individual thought of the proposed &#39;cross-classing&#39;.

I understand, and agree with the theory. However for it to make any sense on a larger scale, then we need to start competitively classing IT cars into Prod as LP cars. This would create an actual smooth path between classes because those that want to can &#39;test the waters&#39;, and if they like it, they can modify their car to a competitive entry in Production.

Unfortunately the LP concept is a bust. It costs the same $$ to fully develop an LP car as a full prep, yet the suspension restrictions are designed to make LP cars slower in the corners, while the limited engine prep and weight combinations often result in a car that is slower on the straights. To quote an LP competitor at the tent meeting at the 06 runoffs "when exactly are we allowed to go fast?".

Fix the LP concept and execution, start classifying popular IT cars in Prod classes competitively and then this makes a lot more sense to me.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I have talked with a few people off-line about this and I want to make something clear...this is NOT about IT cars running in two classes at a Regional. It is about IT cars being allowed to run in a specific Prod class during a National race weekend. So for those of us whose Regional weekends are too big to include a National race, we would be in IT only. For those who run Regional and Nationals in the same weekend, it would be possible. The idea is to get IT cars and drivers involved with National races in classes that include cars similar to their own, with little to no aditional expense to the cars.

[RacerBill]

When I first started reading this thread, I thought &#39;Why would I support this? My car is already classed in ITA, FP (lp) EP (full prep) and GT3&#39;. I can go anywhere my wallet can take me. But then I thought, hey, why not. Add to the list FP (IT prep). IT prep meaning full IT legal. One of the big pros for progressing to Prod is the availability of stock parts. Once they are gone (and many for my car are already) my only option is putting in junk from the rust yard, and how safe or reliable is that. With various levels of progression, I can keep the same car and not have to take a quantum leap.
The down side is having cars with racing slicks racing with cars with DOT tires (although you can argue that we have that now when they mix Prod and IT classes in the same group.

Gee, no body&#39;s shot at me yet. Oh, haven&#39;t pressed the &#39;send&#39; key!

[Bill Miller]

I have talked with a few people off-line about this and I want to make something clear...this is NOT about IT cars running in two classes at a Regional. It is about IT cars being allowed to run in a specific Prod class during a National race weekend. So for those of us whose Regional weekends are too big to include a National race, we would be in IT only. For those who run Regional and Nationals in the same weekend, it would be possible. The idea is to get IT cars and drivers involved with National races in classes that include cars similar to their own, with little to no aditional expense to the cars.
[/b]


Andy,

Do I understand this correctly? If your proposal is approved, and IT cars are allowed to run, at their IT prep levels, in Prod, are you saying that you would not be allowed to run it in Prod at a &#39;traditional&#39; Regional (e.g. MARRS race)? If that&#39;s what you&#39;re saying, I don&#39;t know how you do that. Either a car is eligible to run in a certain class (or classes), or it&#39;s not.

[AntonioGG]

I think Andy&#39;s stating that the goal of his proposal is not to get to run two classes during a regional weekend. It will be a bonus right?

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Do I understand this correctly? If your proposal is approved, and IT cars are allowed to run, at their IT prep levels, in Prod, are you saying that you would not be allowed to run it in Prod at a &#39;traditional&#39; Regional (e.g. MARRS race)? If that&#39;s what you&#39;re saying, I don&#39;t know how you do that. Either a car is eligible to run in a certain class (or classes), or it&#39;s not. [/b]

Well it would be real simple. The inclusion would be only allowed at Nationally sanctioned events.

Now having said that, the way I read the rule was that IT cars would be allowed to run in DP only at National events. I think I read it wrong because they threw the intent of the allowance in the March FastTrack right after the allowance itself. Reading it s l o w e r...I believe that running DP at a Regional or a National is allowed...and therefor would be allowed in my &#39;ladder&#39; system. My proposal had no specifics on the Regional/National seperation so from that point it&#39;s moot WRT supporting it.

:)

[dj10]

Well it would be real simple. The inclusion would be only allowed at Nationally sanctioned events.

Now having said that, the way I read the rule was that IT cars would be allowed to run in DP only at National events. I think I read it wrong because they threw the intent of the allowance in the March FastTrack right after the allowance itself. Reading it s l o w e r...I believe that running DP at a Regional or a National is allowed...and therefor would be allowed in my &#39;ladder&#39; system. My proposal had no specifics on the Regional/National seperation so from that point it&#39;s moot WRT supporting it.

:) [/b]

Andy, excuse me for asking but, what is this going to accomplish? The regional cars will just be a whipping post for the true DP cars, don&#39;t you think? Is this an attempt to give the DP cars a few more cars to run against (and it really wouldn&#39;t or shouldn&#39;t be against)? A WC prepared BMW is about 8 to 10 secs. a lap faster than a Top ITS car at Mid Ohio, or should be. :D

[RSTPerformance]

Andy-

I support your proposal as you have clarified a couple things...

1) All IT cars (no 1990 year restriction)
2) No regional/national event restriction... That is great as it will allow two people on a limited budget to share 1 car at a regional event and be at least mid pack potential.

what was the deal on the tires? where did that come from? an IT car now has to run DP with DOT legal tires right? Also is thier any curent restriction that says an IT car has to have fuel cell, fire system, etc. to run in DP? Basically will any IT legal car be able to run prod in your proposal or is it any IT car meeting prod safety requirements may run? If it is the later, what are the safety requirements that are not required in IT?

Raymond

[JoshS]

Also is thier any curent restriction that says an IT car has to have fuel cell, fire system, etc. to run in DP? Basically will any IT legal car be able to run prod in your proposal or is it any IT car meeting prod safety requirements may run? If it is the later, what are the safety requirements that are not required in IT?
[/b]

I can&#39;t figure out why this keeps coming up.

The proposal is like the one that was published in the last Fastrack for Prepared.

Any car that&#39;s legal for IT would be allowed in the P class. Any car that&#39;s legal for IT. ANY CAR THAT&#39;S LEGAL FOR IT. No changes required (and nothing that&#39;s not legal in IT would be allowed.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I can&#39;t figure out why this keeps coming up.

The proposal is like the one that was published in the last Fastrack for Prepared.

Any car that&#39;s legal for IT would be allowed in the P class. Any car that&#39;s legal for IT. ANY CAR THAT&#39;S LEGAL FOR IT. No changes required (and nothing that&#39;s not legal in IT would be allowed.)

[/b]

Exactly - and that means NO SWAPPING RULES. No slicks. As is. The original post says this.






Andy, excuse me for asking but, what is this going to accomplish? The regional cars will just be a whipping post for the true DP cars, don&#39;t you think? Is this an attempt to give the DP cars a few more cars to run against (and it really wouldn&#39;t or shouldn&#39;t be against)? A WC prepared BMW is about 8 to 10 secs. a lap faster than a Top ITS car at Mid Ohio, or should be. :D

[/b]

Check the rules Dan. All DP cars are running SIR&#39;s limiting them to a target 250hp.

And under my proposal, only ITR cars would be in DP. And AGAIN, this isn&#39;t so people can WIN Nationals, it&#39;s so they can get a taste without feeling they will be a moving chicane. I am not trying to create a 2nd place for IT guys to take home wood. I am trying to tie the classes together in a more cohesive way that allows for easy and logical transition should people be interested.

[JoshS]

Check the rules Dan. All DP cars are running SIR&#39;s limiting them to a target 250hp.
[/b]

Doesn&#39;t really matter ... any currently-legal WC ST car would be legal in DP, and those are the cars running many seconds faster than ITS. ITR cars will also be multiple seconds off.

But I get the point (and understand it) -- if we wanted IT cars to be have a chance of being competitive in their assigned P classes, then you&#39;d have to go down one more class -- ITR->EP, ITS->FP, ITA->GP, ITB->HP, and ITC is just out of luck. They&#39;d have to be backmarkers in HP.

[RSTPerformance]

I can&#39;t figure out why this keeps coming up.

The proposal is like the one that was published in the last Fastrack for Prepared.

Any car that&#39;s legal for IT would be allowed in the P class. Any car that&#39;s legal for IT. ANY CAR THAT&#39;S LEGAL FOR IT. No changes required (and nothing that&#39;s not legal in IT would be allowed.)
[/b]

Thanks for the clear reply

Raymond

[Andy Bettencourt]

Doesn&#39;t really matter ... any currently-legal WC ST car would be legal in DP, [/b]

And have to run an SIR...

[billf]

Andy,

One possible solution that I see to the multifacited question of IT in national racing :dead_horse: might be this:

As it stands now (I believe): is that IT is denied National Racing by virtue of the wording of the rules. Therefore, the way to make it happen is to simply allow IT prepped cars into the classes you described with racing tires replacing DOT tires. Therefore, they no longer classify as IT under the rules, and you can call them anything you want to (since they no longer qualify as IT, don&#39;t call them IT cars). They will be capable of running mid pack, and be more at par with Production cars in the corners, quieting any complaints of "slow in the corners" by those "pesky" Production jockeys.

Personally, I have no ambition to run Nationals due to the schedule and cost required. IT provided LOTS of racing in large fields, multi tracks to practice on, better scheduling with my life style and great talent on the track. IMHO

Your thoughts?

Good racing

Bill :024:

[Knestis]

It&#39;s not about competing for the win, it&#39;s about getting a taste for National competition, National events, getting a look at real Prod cars, teams and efforts, and creating a smooth path amongst our classes as a whole.[/b]

It&#39;s the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause that&#39;s arguably created the need for these work-arounds to help give IT entrants an entre into National events. The above position just creates another variation on that problem. Either (1) Andy&#39;s intent gets codified and becomes a point of contention, or (2) it doesn&#39;t, and we waver through a long process to get "ITP" Production cars equitably listed...

...and THAT is going to be a challenge, with push-back from the "real" Prod entrants AND LP guys and gals, as they try to establish their own competitive positions. Argh.

If it&#39;s really a priority to get IT listed as a National class, how about pursuing that option directly?

K

[JoshS]

And have to run an SIR...
[/b]
No ...

Vehicles meeting one of the followingg 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 sheet
Note: Competitors are responsible for providing the up-to-date VTS.
• GCR listed IT cars, 1990 and newer, under the current IT
specifications.

Cars from the first bullet need an SIR, but not the 2nd one.

[Andy Bettencourt]

It&#39;s the "no guarantee of competitiveness" clause that&#39;s arguably created the need for these work-arounds to help give IT entrants an entre into National events. The above position just creates another variation on that problem. Either (1) Andy&#39;s intent gets codified and becomes a point of contention, or (2) it doesn&#39;t, and we waver through a long process to get "ITP" Production cars equitably listed...[/b]

This isn&#39;t a &#39;work- around&#39;. It&#39;s exactly what you quoted me as saying.

...and THAT is going to be a challenge, with push-back from the "real" Prod entrants AND LP guys and gals, as they try to establish their own competitive positions. Argh.[/b]

I see no reason for Prod - limited Prep or otherwise to have a beef. This &#39;ladder&#39; is not intended to slot cars in at the pointy end of the grid. Just well enough to have some fun and check out the scene.


If it&#39;s really a priority to get IT listed as a National class, how about pursuing that option directly?

K [/b]

It&#39;s not.

[tnord]

If it&#39;s really a priority to get IT listed as a National class, how about pursuing that option directly?

K
[/b]

i&#39;m with kirk, sortof.

I agree that a smooth transition from class to class is a good thing, at least for the next class "up" in prep. i don&#39;t see that as an IT problem to solve though, that&#39;s a Prod problem. If they don&#39;t want to find a way to make it easy....no biggie, their class might just lose entrants and be removed from the runoffs IF.......

....we take the top 24 classes and remove this distinction between regional and national races, which imo will not happen if we make this allowance for IT cars in Prod, prepared, or whatever other BS class the BOD decides to create next year.

[Andy Bettencourt]

No ...

Vehicles meeting one of the followingg criterion may compete in the
Prepared category;
• Cars built specifically under these Prepared rules
• Currently classified World Challenge cars, using the vehicle&#39;s most
recent VTS sheet
Note: Competitors are responsible for providing the up-to-date VTS.
• GCR listed IT cars, 1990 and newer, under the current IT
specifications.

Cars from the first bullet need an SIR, but not the 2nd one. [/b]

Josh, while I admit I find the Prepared rules very hard to read, I can&#39;t find anywhere where the WC cars are exempt from the SIR.






i&#39;m with kirk, sortof.

I agree that a smooth transition from class to class is a good thing, at least for the next class "up" in prep. i don&#39;t see that as an IT problem to solve though, that&#39;s a Prod problem. If they don&#39;t want to find a way to make it easy....no biggie, their class might just lose entrants and be removed from the runoffs IF.......

....we take the top 24 classes and remove this distinction between regional and national races, which imo will not happen if we make this allowance for IT cars in Prod, prepared, or whatever other BS class the BOD decides to create next year. [/b]

Trav - how is Prod supposed to make it easy for IT? It&#39;s an SCCA problem...not a class problem.

[JoshS]

Josh, while I admit I find the Prepared rules very hard to read, I can&#39;t find anywhere where the WC cars are exempt from the SIR.
[/b]
You are looking for the wrong thing. There is no rule that requires them to add one. Once your car qualifies for either the 2nd (WC-legal) or 3rd (IT-legal) quoted bullet, then you get to skip the entire rest of the GCR Prepared rules, including the one that makes you put in an SIR.

EDIT: incidentally, that means that any WC car or IT car gets to skip the rule that limits DP to 3000cc. So Tommy Archer could enter his WC Viper in DP! I wrote a letter about that one. But the point is that if IT cars don&#39;t have to add a restrictor, then neither do WC cars!

Or, perhaps you are saying that the WC rules (as opposed to our GCR) require an SIR (I&#39;m clueless about WC rules). Well, if so, those SIR-equipped cars are running lap times that are WAY out of reach of an ITR car. Last year at Laguna Seca they ran 1:37.0 in qualifying. I can&#39;t believe we&#39;ll ever see an ITR car below 1:42. Unfortunately our region website is down so I can&#39;t find the track records for SCCA classes.

[ddewhurst]

One mans view from 10,000 feet.

***So I saw a natural progression for the rest of IT that won&#39;t rock the world that is Production. I posted it before but here it is again:

ITR --> DP

ITS --> EP

ITA --> FP

ITB --> GP

ITC --> HP

I see the benefits as many. A feeder system develops of IT drivers getting a looksie into the work of top-prep Prod cars, the Prod guys get short-term boosted car counts as well as potential long-term growth - and we all get to taste National events. Will our cars win? No - but a top program could run at the front of the mid-pack making it fun for most.****

The key point to my proposal, outside the framework, is the inclusion of IT cars - AS THEY ARE. Legal for IT, legal for this jump. No changes.

Another mans view from closer than 10,000 feet.

***that won&#39;t rock the world that is Production***

If you don&#39;t think this will rock the Production car world why don&#39;t you look for some support on that site. They&#39;ll laugh their asses off.

***ITS --> EP

ITA --> FP

ITB --> GP

ITC --> HP***

Slip the IT classes one slip lower so that IT is in a real world.

***A feeder system develops of IT drivers getting a looksie into the work of top-prep Prod cars,***

Many of we IT guys are assocated with a top Production car today so your proposed view is not required.

***the Prod guys get short-term boosted car counts as well as potential long-term growth***

The Production folks get to use the IT cars to save H & G Production.

***we all get to taste National events.***

Is there a difference between an ITA getting passed by a Production car in qualifying versus getting passed by a ITS car in qualifying.

***Will our cars win? No - but a top program could run at the front of the mid-pack making it fun for most.****

Why sell the IT cars a bill of goods when if IT cars were made National the ITs & ITA cars may have the numbers to make their own invite to the Runoffs. It&#39;s the 21st century. How about the SCCA allow IT cars be National.

Some factual stats for year 2006 & Production cars. How about getting some factual stats for IT cars for year 2006 for a compare.

EP- 120 drivers entered at least 1 race. A total of 65 entered 4 or more.
Highest Division tie SE & CEN with 22.

FP- 112 drivers entered at least 1 race. A total of 46 entered 4 or more.
Highest Division SE with 26.

GP- 67 drivers entered at least 1 race. A total of 37 entered 4 or more.
Highest Division CEN with 17. BTW- SW had 0.

HP- 67 drivers entered at least 1 race. A total of 36 entered 4 or more.

CEN Div had a total of 82 prod drivers/ next SE with 77. Lowest SW- 22.

One more fact from year 2006.

When a request was made to class the 1st gen Mazda RX-7 non-ported in G Production the Fastrack response was the following. "Another level of prep is not consistant with the Production car philosophy".
Thank you go away from the PAC & the CRB.

Production had a total of 184 different cars that raced 4 or more events during year 2006. Mr. ITAC member how many different cars did IT have raced 4 or more events during year 2006? Why is our ITAC member is trying to sell IT to the low non bidder who don&#39;t want us to begin with. The non bidder would be the PAC & the CRB..........

Before selling to the low non bidder has the process to remove the words "Regional Only" from GCR rule 9.1 been exhausted ? How about having IT be a class that the owners/drivers can select to race Regional, National or both & if the numbers warrent an IT class or more may be invited to the Runoffs. Before someone tells me IT can&#39;t be National please tell me why did the prepared class come into existance over the IT class & then invite 1990 & newer IT cars to race in their race class to bolster their numbers ?

I propose that we IT folks skip the red headed step child deal & that we get ourselves reclassed to be a National class wher we may make a choice (race Regional or National) as do all the other National classes.

As I said at the get go, another mans view from closer than 10,000 feet.

[Andy Bettencourt]

You are looking for the wrong thing. There is no rule that requires them to add one. Once your car qualifies for either the 2nd (WC-legal) or 3rd (IT-legal) quoted bullet, then you get to skip the entire rest of the GCR Prepared rules, including the one that makes you put in an SIR.

EDIT: incidentally, that means that any WC car or IT car gets to skip the rule that limits DP to 3000cc. So Tommy Archer could enter his WC Viper in DP! I wrote a letter about that one. But the point is that if IT cars don&#39;t have to add a restrictor, then neither do WC cars!

Or, perhaps you are saying that the WC rules (as opposed to our GCR) require an SIR (I&#39;m clueless about WC rules). Well, if so, those SIR-equipped cars are running lap times that are WAY out of reach of an ITR car. Last year at Laguna Seca they ran 1:37.0 in qualifying. I can&#39;t believe we&#39;ll ever see an ITR car below 1:42. Unfortunately our region website is down so I can&#39;t find the track records for SCCA classes. [/b]

I am not with you. Here is the opening statement:

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE</div><div class='quotemain'>But I know you know this...Some WC Touring cars are making WELL over 250hp. It doesn&#39;t make sense to allow them that HP level.</span>







</span></span></span></span>

[Andy Bettencourt]

Another mans view from closer than 10,000 feet.

***that won&#39;t rock the world that is Production***

If you don&#39;t think this will rock the Production car world why don&#39;t you look for some support on that site. They&#39;ll laugh their asses off.[/b]

And why would that be? It HAS been posted on the Prod forum David...and not many people were laughing. Most thought it was a decent idea. Some even claimed they had requested it years back. See the words here: http://prodracing.com/prodcar/viewtopic.ph...der=asc&start=0 (http://prodracing.com/prodcar/viewtopic.php?t=7482&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=0)


Slip the IT classes one slip lower so that IT is in a real world.[/b]

THEN they will have a bird. If you put an IT car at the front of a Prod grid, it&#39;s not fair to them.


***A feeder system develops of IT drivers getting a looksie into the work of top-prep Prod cars,***

Many of we IT guys are assocated with a top Production car today so your proposed view is not required.[/b]

This is more of a 10ft view, not a 10,000 foot view. Just because you are involved, doen&#39;t mean the vast majority is. We have some of the biggest IT fields in the country up here and I can&#39;t think of more than a handful that have their hands in anything but IT. It&#39;s tough enough for most.


***the Prod guys get short-term boosted car counts as well as potential long-term growth***

The Production folks get to use the IT cars to save H & G Production. [/b]

If it&#39;s done properly, everyone would have a chance to see more cars.


***we all get to taste National events.***

Is there a difference between an ITA getting passed by a Production car in qualifying versus getting passed by a ITS car in qualifying.[/b]

If you have to ask this, you don&#39;t understand the whole crux of the proposal...hell, maybe it doesn&#39;t make sense.


***Will our cars win? No - but a top program could run at the front of the mid-pack making it fun for most.****

Why sell the IT cars a bill of goods when if IT cars were made National the ITs & ITA cars may have the numbers to make their own invite to the Runoffs. It&#39;s the 21st century. How about the SCCA allow IT cars be National.[/b]






Production had a total of 184 different cars that raced 4 or more events during year 2006. Mr. ITAC member how many different cars did IT have raced 4 or more events during year 2006? Why is our ITAC member is trying to sell IT to the low non bidder who don&#39;t want us to begin with. The non bidder would be the PAC & the CRB..........

Before selling to the low non bidder has the process to remove the words "Regional Only" from GCR rule 9.1 been exhausted ? How about having IT be a class that the owners/drivers can select to race Regional, National or both & if the numbers warrent an IT class or more may be invited to the Runoffs. Before someone tells me IT can&#39;t be National please tell me why did the prepared class come into existance over the IT class & then invite 1990 & newer IT cars to race in their race class to bolster their numbers ?

I propose that we IT folks skip the red headed step child deal & that we get ourselves reclassed to be a National class wher we may make a choice (race Regional or National) as do all the other National classes.

As I said at the get go, another mans view from closer than 10,000 feet.

[/b] Then write in. I truly believe half would want it and half wouldn&#39;t. We have had that discussion before here. If you look at it a little more openly, you might consider this an intermediary move instead of settling. The BoD may need to walk before they run on IT as a National class. And again, I am not sure it is what IT wants - it may be what YOU and I want, but all of IT, I think not.

[JoshS]

I am not with you.

The rule that requires them to use one is there: For GT...
[/b]

But that&#39;s not the rule for GT, that&#39;s the rule for BP! REAL GT cars get to skip the whole thing, just like IT cars get to skip it. The BP ruleset is GT-based, but they do not apply to real GT cars due to the eligibility statement that says that cars that conform to their WC VTS are legal as-is.

Perhaps the intent is as you say, but that&#39;s just not what the rules actually say.

[mustanghammer]

Andy,

Ultimately I want IT to have National Status and I am not sure if your proposal helps that effort. For example, lets say that the CRB and BOD buys your proposal lock, stock and barrel. Then, after a little fan fair, few if any IT drivers take advantage of the "opportunity." What does that say to the CRB/BOD? Couldn&#39;t they use that against a proposal for IT National Status?

Further, I believe that adding IT cars to the Prod ranks will mask a problem that they have and are not addressing properly; they are not actively classing cars. From our perspective there is a benefit to exposing IT cars and drivers to the national racing crowd. However, I am concerned that all they would be focused on are the extra participation numbers and getting and the impact that it has on participation in the next Run Offs. In short, if IT field-fillers boost their numbers they don&#39;t have to fix any of the real issues they have.

By the way, in MiDiv we solved the issue of only one race for IT on our Regional/National weekends. It&#39;s called a Restricted Regional and these are held on Sunday in conjuction with the National Races. Only IT cars are allowed to run in this race and is run as a Regional length race. So with the exception of events at HPT I can go to a National Race and get very good track time.

I think your intentions are pure and it will be interesting to see what happens. However I don&#39;t want to stray too far off focus. NATIONAL STATUS FOR IT.

[tnord]

Further, I believe that adding IT cars to the Prod ranks will mask a problem that they have and are not addressing properly; they are not actively classing cars. From our perspective there is a benefit to exposing IT cars and drivers to the national racing crowd. However, I am concerned that all they would be focused on are the extra participation numbers and getting and the impact that it has on participation in the next Run Offs. In short, if IT field-fillers boost their numbers they don&#39;t have to fix any of the real issues they have.
[/b]

Scott, i usually disagree with you when it comes to IT going national.....but i think this comment is dead on. :happy204:

do away with Regional vs national status and top 24 classes go to the show or bust........ :026:

[Andy Bettencourt]

But that&#39;s not the rule for GT, that&#39;s the rule for BP! REAL GT cars get to skip the whole thing, just like IT cars get to skip it. The BP ruleset is GT-based, but they do not apply to real GT cars due to the eligibility statement that says that cars that conform to their WC VTS are legal as-is.

Perhaps the intent is as you say, but that&#39;s just not what the rules actually say.
[/b]

What I was trying to say was that BP is the place for GT category WC cars. DP is for Touring category cars. Says it right in the rules.

The eligibility statement says that the class is a place that they can go with limited mods - I didn&#39;t see where the rules say &#39;as is, no changes&#39;.

Either way, I can&#39;t get my hands around the rules...

[mbuskuhl]

I propose that we IT folks skip the red headed step child deal & that we get ourselves reclassed to be a National class wher we may make a choice (race Regional or National) as do all the other National classes.

[/b]

Well said, I sometimes think of myself as a second class citizen rather than the red headed step child but either works. I&#39;ll take what I can get as Andy&#39;s proposal is a step in the direction of more track time. Ultimately, I am 100% in favor of ITS as National class.

There is a R/N coming up in 2 weeks in the SOWDIV. IT is group 1 and has to race before lunch on Saturday. Nothing on Sunday. Do I really want to make the 5 hr each way drive to qualify at 8:00am and then race at 11:00am and be done for the weekend by 11:30am on Saturday? This is how IT is treated in my part of the country.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

Ultimately I want IT to have National Status and I am not sure if your proposal helps that effort. For example, lets say that the CRB and BOD buys your proposal lock, stock and barrel. Then, after a little fan fair, few if any IT drivers take advantage of the "opportunity." What does that say to the CRB/BOD? Couldn&#39;t they use that against a proposal for IT National Status?[/b]

I would never say never but it&#39;s apples and oranges IMHO. *I* wouldn&#39;t jump ship to Prod...that doesn&#39;t mean I don&#39;t want IT to be National. It&#39;s about the IT ruleset being the most popular in Club Racing...and sending THAT class National. Again, this isn&#39;t about IT going National...it&#39;s about a pathway opening up for guys who have never seen that world.


Further, I believe that adding IT cars to the Prod ranks will mask a problem that they have and are not addressing properly; they are not actively classing cars. From our perspective there is a benefit to exposing IT cars and drivers to the national racing crowd. However, I am concerned that all they would be focused on are the extra participation numbers and getting and the impact that it has on participation in the next Run Offs. In short, if IT field-fillers boost their numbers they don&#39;t have to fix any of the real issues they have[/b]

But again, that is an SCCA issue, not a Prod issue. It has been said many times here that even the ITAC doesn&#39;t actively class cars - it&#39;s by request...and if you get guys in IT trying National races, they may be into the slicks, the cams, the cells, no washer bottles, no heater cores, the speed, etc...and then they would ask to have their cars classified...just like in IT. As far as boosted numbers, if they do this right across the categories, all the numbers will get a little bump - and there still will be a &#39;bottom&#39; that won&#39;t get to run for the Wood in Topeka.


By the way, in MiDiv we solved the issue of only one race for IT on our Regional/National weekends. It&#39;s called a Restricted Regional and these are held on Sunday in conjuction with the National Races. Only IT cars are allowed to run in this race and is run as a Regional length race. So with the exception of events at HPT I can go to a National Race and get very good track time. [/b]

Our Nationals are too big to hold a RR.


I think your intentions are pure and it will be interesting to see what happens. However I don&#39;t want to stray too far off focus. NATIONAL STATUS FOR IT.


[/b]

Then write a letter!!! If this is what you want, you need to go for it! Why are you waiting?






Scott, i usually disagree with you when it comes to IT going national.....but i think this comment is dead on. :happy204:

do away with Regional vs national status and top 24 classes go to the show or bust........ :026: [/b]

Travis - I thought you were AGAINST IT going National?

[tnord]

i am against IT going national as a single action point. but as i&#39;ve said for a while now, i&#39;m ok with it as long as that happens via the complete structural overhaul of removing the distinction between regional and national classing and allowing the top 24 participating classes runoffs spots.

i don&#39;t want IT to go national......but i do want the BS to stop in the club with regards to coddling undersubscribed classes. "trimming the fat" is more important to me than IT staying regional.

[Andy Bettencourt]

i am against IT going national as a single action point. but as i&#39;ve said for a while now, i&#39;m ok with it as long as that happens via the complete structural overhaul of removing the distinction between regional and national classing and allowing the top 24 participating classes runoffs spots.

i don&#39;t want IT to go national......but i do want the BS to stop in the club with regards to coddling undersubscribed classes. "trimming the fat" is more important to me than IT staying regional. [/b]

I&#39;m feelin&#39; that.

[IPRESS]

I was talking to Shannon McMasters yesterday about IT and some of you guys wanting it to be a national class. Shannon is the guy who started Spec Miata (along with DDG.) He just shook his head and repeated what he said in 99, "In the long run SM would be better off to be a regional class with a national set of rules like IT." Sure IT is expensive in some venues, but in others it is not. Going national will make it expensive everywhere. You may think that you will be racing the same car in nationals that you run in regionals, but you are sadly mistaken. The fast SM guys who are doing that are midpack now. (This last Texas Nat. I know two former series winners who were no better then 25th. (Both races!) They are as fast as anybody, they just have not spent the money (big$$) needed to be up front. IT doesn&#39;t need that.
I learned this the hardway as I was one of the SM guys that browbeat the CRB to make sure the "regional forever" wording did not go into the GCR for SM. Shannon warned me. But all things have silver linings, now I am having a blast in IT & I run SM in Enduros.

Andy&#39;s proposal is good because it will help Production with larger class numbers & it will help IT racers by adding opportunity.

Mac

[shwah]

Sorry, the more I read, the less I like the proposal.

Production needs to fix Production. They screwed up the LP concept, but it can be corrected, just like IT was able to correct our classifications. All it takes is commitment and effort on their part, coupled will less turf protection - which should be easier to accomplish since the turf may not exist in the future without changes.

Once the LP concept is fixed, then WITHOUT WAITING FOR REQUESTS, the top 10 cars in every IT class should be classified as LP cars, wherever their process puts them (rather than a straight B->G, A->F, etc.).

After those things happen, this makes a lot of sense. Then there is a logical reason for an IT racer to want to get a &#39;taste&#39; of National Production Class racing before taking the plunge. Then there will be a real avenue available for IT racers to move into Production as competitors, rather than field fillers, and there will be an existing supply of cars available to make such a move. The end result would be stronger competition and larger fields in Production racing across the board - which is what really assures you a runoffs spot.

Hey if we want to &#39;try National racing&#39; with no chance in hell of competing, we can already go run DP. What then is the logic in creating exactly the same situation in 4 other classes? It just does not make sense.

[PSherm]

Andy&#39;s proposal is good because it will help Production with larger class numbers & it will help IT racers by adding opportunity.

Mac
[/b]

What good is helping Production class numbers? Let them die or consolidate if they aren&#39;t being subscribed to. I&#39;m still not sure about IT getting National status, but it sure chaps my hide if the BOD, CRB, et al, just use IT for National classing field filler... :mad1:

[ddewhurst]

Andy, I am attempting to treat your proposal/thoughts with respect as you are mine. BUT you left the following out of your response.

***When a request was made to class the 1st gen Mazda RX-7 non-ported in G Production the Fastrack response was the following. "Another level of prep is not consistant with the Production car philosophy".
Thank you go away from the PAC & the CRB.***

If the PAC/CRB comes across with this ^ sort of response for ONE car why do you think they will come across with a favorable response to bring a whole bunch of cars to Production with out fuel cells, with glass & what ever else don&#39;t meet the Production car rules. I understand the IT cars in Prepared so please don&#39;t go there.

As far as my car I can convert to a cheap non-ported E Production car, get my a$$ whipped on a regular basis, make the top 10 in the CenDiv with an invite to the Runoffs. Is that like the days when the top 3 were invited to the Runoffs. NOPE, but it is what it is. ;)

[Knestis]

... Hey if we want to &#39;try National racing&#39; with no chance in hell of competing, we can already go run DP. What then is the logic in creating exactly the same situation in 4 other classes? It just does not make sense.[/b]
Exactly. This is why I&#39;m trying to understand what the driving intent of the proposal actually is. WHY is it a good idea to give IT drivers a taste of a National event, listed in a class where they are somewhere between "snowball&#39;s chance" and "competitive?" What&#39;s the motivation for allowing this?

K

[cherokee]

Going national will make it expensive everywhere. You may think that you will be racing the same car in nationals that you run in regionals, but you are sadly mistaken.
[/b]

I am just not going to buy that IT costs are going to skyrocket. I will run the same car that I run in regionals, and will slowly spend money and time on the car. There is a yellow VW that runs in my region that is darn fast, I would doubt that his expenses would go up. I would also bet that he would still finish very well. That car is fast because of the driver, the time spent on the car and the money spent on the car, in that order. My finishing spot might change because more people will have the reason of going to the runoffs, so they will develope their car, their driving. And that is the only reason I can think of why my finishing spot would change. Better prepped cars to run against and better prepped drivers in those cars. If there are other reasons why my finish would change please let me know. Perhaps I am naive, but I bet that VW would love to have someone up there fighting for the win every race, I think it would get old winning by a lap everytime.

I like Andy&#39;s proposal, but I think it will put the final nail in the IT National coffin. If you want to run national go run your IT car in this prod class over here. I would like to see prod fix their own problems and by adding IT cars to their counts is just going to mask car count problems, and that IS the bottom line problem. Next thing we will see is IT cars running in GT classes. The proposal makes me think of IT as food for other classes, they get to get fat off of IT then when they are done with us poop IT out, and IT gets nothing for the effort.

I realy think that the only reason that they do not do away with the regional classes is IT, IT would make some of the pet classes look pretty bad, car count wise.

But bottom line if IT is never going to go national Andy&#39;s proposal is the next best thing, short of putting IT in prod classes where they have a chance.

I don&#39;t know would an ITB car be a class killer in HP, would an ITA car be a killer in GP..... in IT trim stem to stern? IF not what would it hurt to bump the classes down one knotch.

Know I gotta get back to work, anybody know anything about SMS.

[tnord]

I am just not going to buy that IT costs are going to skyrocket. I will run the same car that I run in regionals, and will slowly spend money and time on the car. There is a yellow VW that runs in my region that is darn fast, I would doubt that his expenses would go up. I would also bet that he would still finish very well. That car is fast because of the driver, the time spent on the car and the money spent on the car, in that order. My finishing spot might change because more people will have the reason of going to the runoffs, so they will develope their car, their driving. And that is the only reason I can think of why my finishing spot would change. Better prepped cars to run against and better prepped drivers in those cars. If there are other reasons why my finish would change please let me know. Perhaps I am naive, but I bet that VW would love to have someone up there fighting for the win every race, I think it would get old winning by a lap everytime.

[/b]

Well, Chris &#39;races&#39; with us A cars most of the time. and yes, i bet he would like someone to run against. and if ITB were to go national he most certainly would. and ya know what would happen once someone got close to beating him? he&#39;d go develop the car some more, spend more time testing, and ultimately burn more $. Well the new guy isn&#39;t going to be left behind, so now he goes and gets a new pro motor.......and the war is on.

YOU may run the same car you always have. but it ABSOLUTELY will cost more to WIN if IT goes national. i&#39;ve watched it happen from the inside.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Once the LP concept is fixed, then WITHOUT WAITING FOR REQUESTS, the top 10 cars in every IT class should be classified as LP cars, wherever their process puts them (rather than a straight B->G, A->F, etc.).

[/b]

This I like.




Andy, I am attempting to treat your proposal/thoughts with respect as you are mine. BUT you left the following out of your response.

***When a request was made to class the 1st gen Mazda RX-7 non-ported in G Production the Fastrack response was the following. "Another level of prep is not consistant with the Production car philosophy".
Thank you go away from the PAC & the CRB.***

If the PAC/CRB comes across with this ^ sort of response for ONE car why do you think they will come across with a favorable response to bring a whole bunch of cars to Production with out fuel cells, with glass & what ever else don&#39;t meet the Production car rules. I understand the IT cars in Prepared so please don&#39;t go there.

As far as my car I can convert to a cheap non-ported E Production car, get my a$$ whipped on a regular basis, make the top 10 in the CenDiv with an invite to the Runoffs. Is that like the days when the top 3 were invited to the Runoffs. NOPE, but it is what it is. ;)

[/b]

I appreciate the response. I ignored it becasue I can&#39;t speak to Production requests/acceptance/rejections. All I can do is put forth an idea I think has merit for the good of the SCCA with IT in mind. Sucky idea or not, I write in, as you have over the years.

[shwah]

I don&#39;t know would an ITB car be a class killer in HP, would an ITA car be a killer in GP..... in IT trim stem to stern? IF not what would it hurt to bump the classes down one knotch.
[/b]
The reality is that even down a notch, the IT cars will not even be able to catch a whiff of the 112 octane from competitve P cars.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Exactly. This is why I&#39;m trying to understand what the driving intent of the proposal actually is. WHY is it a good idea to give IT drivers a taste of a National event, listed in a class where they are somewhere between "snowball&#39;s chance" and "competitive?" What&#39;s the motivation for allowing this?

K [/b]

To facilitate a progression throughout the classes SCCA has to offer. The Prod committee is doing a category-wide rewite of their rules as we speak. Part of their goal is to smooth the transition from IT-prep to Prod-prep. This idea, I believe, will take the hardware component they are working on and couple it with a simpler &#39;path&#39; thereby making it easier to &#39;test the waters&#39;.





The reality is that even down a notch, the IT cars will not even be able to catch a whiff of the 112 octane from competitve P cars. [/b]

The track record in GP at LRP is 1:01.190. The ITA track record is 1:01.453. Sniff - Sniff...

[cherokee]

Well, Chris &#39;races&#39; with us A cars most of the time. and yes, i bet he would like someone to run against. and if ITB were to go national he most certainly would. and ya know what would happen once someone got close to beating him? he&#39;d go develop the car some more, spend more time testing, and ultimately burn more $. Well the new guy isn&#39;t going to be left behind, so now he goes and gets a new pro motor.......and the war is on.

YOU may run the same car you always have. but it ABSOLUTELY will cost more to WIN if IT goes national. i&#39;ve watched it happen from the inside.
[/b]

You have watched it from the inside of Spec Miata, that is not the same as IT.

As far as the war, goes I don&#39;t know the in&#39;s and out&#39;s of the car in question, but I would bet I would be safe to say that is a very well developed VW, and I would bet that it would be hard to find one that is better prepped,and better driven. There is a point where the car is preped to its limit, then where do you spend the money?
A pro motor, what is that in IT? As I understood things that is a problem in SM, but having a "pro" shop do a LEGAL IT motor is not that crazy $$ wise, at least it was not for me. Not much more the the last "normal" rebuild I had done. I just did an Opel motor for the wifes street car and had a all out IT motor done for the race car, there was not that much difference.

[cherokee]

The track record in GP at LRP is 1:01.190. The ITA track record is 1:01.453. Sniff - Sniff...
[/b]

That is good info, so on the best day the best car with the best driver the IT car was still slower then the prod car. The IT car would have a chance, but if the best of the best was there it would still loose....based on this single example. IF all the records where like this I would love to see everything bumped down one level, but I bet the prod guys would scream bloody murder.

But what are the prod guys going to say IF IT gets national status and bumps their runoff spot.
What would be better, GP at the runoffs with an ITA car in the top 3 or no GP at the runoffs, and an ITA field with 30+ good cars in it.

[jhooten]

Put some of the new stickier DOT "Slicks" on the IT car and try it again. I&#39;d be willing to bet that .263 second gap would be a lot smaller.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Put some of the new stickier DOT "Slicks" on the IT car and try it again. I&#39;d be willing to bet that .263 second gap would be a lot smaller. [/b]

What tires are you talking about?

[JoshS]

The track record in GP at LRP is 1:01.190. The ITA track record is 1:01.453. Sniff - Sniff...
[/b]
Wouldn&#39;t work here either. ITA has a faster record than GP at all three of our tracks.

At our three tracks, these are the records. Times are comparable, track config did not change. But I think Laguna Seca and Thunderhill have gotten faster recently due to curbing and runoff changes.

Thunderhill:
EP: 1:58.930 Pratt Cole, Miata, 2006
FP: 2:02.156 Joe Huffaker, ????, 1999
ITS: 2:05.166 John Norris, BMW, 2004
ITA: 2:05.876 Bob Bradfield, RX7, 2006
GP: 2:07.286 Neil Verity, MG, 2006
HP: 2:08.905 Larry Oka, Datsun, 2001
ITB: 2:11.584 Jeff Francis, BMW, 2004
ITC: 2:14.079 Bobby Carter, Datsun, 2001

Laguna Seca:
EP: 1:40.268 Mark Brannon, Courier, 1996
FP: 1:39.280 Joe Huffaker, MG, 1996
ITS: 1:42.742 Steve Borlik, RX7, 2006
HP: 1:43.957 Brian Linn, Sprite, 1997
ITA: 1:44.522 Donna Gilio, Acura, 2006
GP: 1:45.767 Dan Huntsman, Midget, 1996
ITB: 1:50.211 Jeff Francis, BMW, 2005
ITC: 1:51.472 Barry Hartzel, Datsun, 1996

Infineon/Sears Point:
EP: 1:49.742 Bruce Ackerman, Volvo, 2006
FP: 1:50.143 Mark Hotchkis, Porsche, 2004
ITS: 1:51.796 Randy Evans, RX7, 2004
ITA: 1:54.039 Ron Carroll, Acura, 2005
GP: 1:56.316 Tom Sherrill, Datsun, 2006
HP: 1:58.038 Mike Cummings, Sprite, 2006
ITB: 1:58.351 Jeff Francis, BMW, 2004
ITC: 2:00.907 Tom Sherrill, Datsun, 2004

[cherokee]

More good info, but it would be intresting to know when and by what the records where set, and if the track config was the same. But they are very close in ITA, all the other IT classes where a little slower in the above example.

[Bill Miller]

The track record in GP at LRP is 1:01.190. The ITA track record is 1:01.453. Sniff - Sniff...
[/b]


There&#39;s really so much good stuff here to comment on. I&#39;ll comment on this one first.

Summit Point:

GP: 1:26.155 April, 1997
ITA: 1:28.162 April, 2005

HP: 1:27.801 April, 2003
ITB: 1:30.499 Sept., 1997

FP: 1:22.936 April, 1996
ITS: 1:24.886 Aug., 2003

EP: 1:22.719 April, 2002


I&#39;m confident that you won&#39;t find a track in the country where the records will be &#39;upside down&#39;, and I&#39;d bet that most have that 2-3 second gap.

Doing a straight cross-over (ITS>EP, etc.) benefits no one EXCEPT the Prod guys. Doing the staggered cross-over (ITS>FP, etc.) hardly slots the IT cars in at the pointy end of the Prod grids. Andy, you asked if IT going National was what the IT community wanted. Do you really think they&#39;d rather be cannon fodder? Most of the folks I know are racers, and are not going to be content w/ paying higher entry feeds just to parade around and finish down lap(s) to the winners. It really smacks of what was pulled on the small-bore l-p cars when they were first introduced.

As was pointed out, many of the IT cars could go run Nationals as DP cars w/o changing anything. The only thing the Prod x-over proposal would do is allow the older IT cars to run as Prod cars. Where&#39;s the ROI there?

And guess what? When you start artificially propping up Prod numbers w/ IT cars, and they bump some other class from the Runoffs, you can count on the folks running that class to cry foul. And rightly so. Why not let the old Spec Renaults run as DSR or S2 cars?

David (Dewhurst),

Your post was spot on the money.

And to the guy that said it would cost more to win if IT were National than it does now, the only answer to that is that you&#39;re winning now w/ a less than full-tilt car. As someone else pointed out, where do you spend the extra money if the car is already that good? Maybe Greg Amy would share w/ us where he could spend more money on his car to make it better. Andy, you hold the ITA lap record at LRP, where could you spend money to make your car faster? Running at the pointy end of ANY competitive field costs money.

Andy,

I&#39;m really not picking on you, but please tell us how your proposal would benefit IT as a category.



Wouldn&#39;t work here either. ITA has a faster record than GP at all three of our tracks.

At our three tracks, these are the records:

Thunderhill:
EP: 1:58.930
FP: 2:02.156
ITS: 2:05.166
ITA: 2:05.876
GP: 2:07.286
HP: 2:08.905
ITB: 2:11.584
ITC: 2:14.079

Laguna Seca:
EP: 1:40.268
FP: 1:39.280
ITS: 1:42.742
HP: 1:43.957
ITA: 1:44.522
GP: 1:45.767
ITB: 1:50.211
ITC: 1:51.472

Infineon/Sears Point:
EP: 1:49.742
FP: 1:50.143
ITS: 1:51.796
ITA: 1:54.039
GP: 1:56.316
HP: 1:58.038
ITB: 1:58.351
ITC: 2:00.907
[/b]


Josh,

You must have entered this while I was typing. Couple of points. ITS and ITA are w/in .75 of a second on a 2+ minute lap at Thunder Hill? Something&#39;s up w/ that. HP is almost 2 seconds a lap faster than GP at Laguna Seca, and HP is faster than ITA. So you can&#39;t look at the ITA/GP times in isolation.

[ddewhurst]

With the conversation within this thread about IT cars to Production & the Restricted Suspension Production cars. Here is a quote from Sportscar of Sept. 1997 article on Back to the Basics.

"What the Comp Board has created, it hopes, is a car that the average person can build and maintain in his garage and then run as a serious challenge in National club races".

IMHJ they had the correct thought process going until they forgot to hold the rules in line with their original thought process. ANY strut, ALTERNATE control arm, to name two items that let the rule control fly out window. These two rules alone ruined the Restriced Suspension theroy. I hope I live as long as it takes to put this Genie back in the bottle.

The Comp Board back in 1997 had the correct things going with almost IT cars (suspension & motors) being in Production. Since 1997 slowly everthing is sliding down the slippery rule slope back to Full Prep.

Ya say to yourself, what is all this ^ about. Nothing just ramblings about almost haveing IT cars in Production since 1997.

[JoshS]

As was pointed out, many of the IT cars could go run Nationals as DP cars w/o changing anything.
[/b]

This is only true if the March Fastrack item remains in effect, but they&#39;ve gotten a lot of feedback about the way that decision was made and it sounds like this could be reconsidered. If it gets reconsidered, then IT cars could run DP under the DP ruleset, which means we&#39;d have to make some changes (SIR required, for one). In my ITR car, I&#39;d also have to get smaller wheels, and add hood pins and windshield clips.



You must have entered this while I was typing. Couple of points. ITS and ITA are w/in .75 of a second on a 2+ minute lap at Thunder Hill? Something&#39;s up w/ that. HP is almost 2 seconds a lap faster than GP at Laguna Seca, and HP is faster than ITA. So you can&#39;t look at the ITA/GP times in isolation.
[/b]
I will update that post with dates after I finish this. Those anomolies just prove that you need to look at these things across a large sample set size, not just one or two regions at one or two tracks.

[Bill Miller]

This is only true if the March Fastrack item remains in effect, but they&#39;ve gotten a lot of feedback about the way that decision was made and it sounds like this could be reconsidered. If it gets reconsidered, then IT cars could run DP under the DP ruleset, which means we&#39;d have to make some changes (SIR required, for one). In my ITR car, I&#39;d also have to get smaller wheels, and add hood pins and windshield clips.

[/b]

If that&#39;s the way it ends up going, they won&#39;t get enough IT cars running DP to make a difference.

[JoshS]

More good info, but it would be intresting to know when and by what the records where set, and if the track config was the same. But they are very close in ITA, all the other IT classes where a little slower in the above example.
[/b]
I edited my post to add names, cars, years. Also, these track configs were all the same, although there have been changes to curbing and runoffs areas over the years.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Guys, the proposal isn&#39;t about IT as a category. It&#39;s about an IT to Prod &#39;smoothing&#39;. It&#39;s not about mounting a serious points challenge for a go at the Runoffs. It&#39;s about taking something we are familiar with and helping design a better framework for Club Racing. If you don&#39;t think it does, no problem...but whether or not you do, it really doesn&#39;t hurt IT in any way I can see. For me, I see myself doing 1 or 2 Nationals - ever, just to get a feel for the event. Then I would either stay in IT and push for it to go National or buy a Touring car.

For those who want IT to be National, now is the time to mount an attack. For those that do not, counter attack. I don&#39;t believe this will pigeon-hole IT even further, but I have been wrong before.

[jhooten]

What tires are you talking about?
[/b]


Any of the new softer compound DOT approved tires that have the tread pattern painted on and after the first two hot laps are as smooth as real racing slicks. My big ole fat pig is about 6/10th faster on Kumho 710 stickers than it is on shaved heat cycled 700s on a 1.8 mile course. Or was that just a placebo effect?

[shwah]

I get what you are saying Andy. I just think the LP issue needs to be addressed first. I would also like to point out that SOME LP cars are right. Heck some are national champs, but others look like they need to move down a class. What probably needs to happen is the PCS rewrite needs to include a classification process similar to the one that the ITAC created for us, and a review of all classed cars. Then proceed with classifying popular IT cars.

I don&#39;t think many IT racers expect to contend for a national title with their IT car in Production, but there is a lot of space on the continuum between contending, and getting your ass handed to you. There is quite a range of prep level in IT and Prod, I would expect a top flight IT car to be an upper/middle pack competitor in the national scene. If the best IT effort will be slotted to bottom half finishes, imagine how crappy it will be for the average IT effort.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Any of the new softer compound DOT approved tires that have the tread pattern painted on and after the first two hot laps are as smooth as real racing slicks. My big ole fat pig is about 6/10th faster on Kumho 710 stickers than it is on shaved heat cycled 700s on a 1.8 mile course. Or was that just a placebo effect? [/b]

I would venture to guess that all the IT track records have been set on the Hoosier and Goodyear-type tires you speak of. I know the ITA record at LRP was that I referenced... :P


I get what you are saying Andy. I just think the LP issue needs to be addressed first. I would also like to point out that SOME LP cars are right. Heck some are national champs, but others look like they need to move down a class. What probably needs to happen is the PCS rewrite needs to include a classification process similar to the one that the ITAC created for us, and a review of all classed cars. Then proceed with classifying popular IT cars.[/b]
Your vision is shared by some CRB members I know. Send in your support.


I don&#39;t think many IT racers expect to contend for a national title with their IT car in Production, but there is a lot of space on the continuum between contending, and getting your ass handed to you. There is quite a range of prep level in IT and Prod, I would expect a top flight IT car to be an upper/middle pack competitor in the national scene. If the best IT effort will be slotted to bottom half finishes, imagine how crappy it will be for the average IT effort. [/b]

While you are right, you can never classify based on an average effort - ever.

[shwah]

While you are right, you can never classify based on an average effort - ever.
[/b]

Agreed. But assuring that a top effort cannot compete makes it laughable for an average effort. Classify based on making a top effort more than a field filler.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Agreed. But assuring that a top effort cannot compete makes it laughable for an average effort. Classify based on making a top effort more than a field filler. [/b]

So what would you do? We already have 3-4 examples of ITA running with or faster than GP.

[tnord]

You have watched it from the inside of Spec Miata, that is not the same as IT.

As far as the war, goes I don&#39;t know the in&#39;s and out&#39;s of the car in question, but I would bet I would be safe to say that is a very well developed VW, and I would bet that it would be hard to find one that is better prepped,and better driven. There is a point where the car is preped to its limit, then where do you spend the money?
A pro motor, what is that in IT? As I understood things that is a problem in SM, but having a "pro" shop do a LEGAL IT motor is not that crazy $$ wise, at least it was not for me. Not much more the the last "normal" rebuild I had done. I just did an Opel motor for the wifes street car and had a all out IT motor done for the race car, there was not that much difference.
[/b]

really? it&#39;s not? why?

the hp levels may vary less making each hp less significant, but that&#39;s not what i was arguing. i was saying it&#39;s going to cost you more to win at nationals than it does today in regionals.

what&#39;s a pro motor in IT? i&#39;m not trying to be a jerk here, as you&#39;re in KC just like i am and we&#39;ll likely run into each other at some point.....but i got news for you, anything that&#39;s legal in SM is legal in IT. that means you can take those $7000 pro SM motors, spend some MORE money on them in terms of overbore and porting and drop it in your IT car. it&#39;s not just mazda&#39;s either...the same treatment can be applied to any nissan, honda, vw, bmw, or whatever you want. ie Rebello, Serra, Bimmerworld, etc.

now, you don&#39;t have to do the parts-bin-blueprinting method used in SS based classes, which makes things a little cheaper. but i would still expect any serious IT motor to cost $5k+.

i promise it&#39;s going to cost a BUNCH more to win in MiDiv if IT goes national.

[tnord]

And to the guy that said it would cost more to win if IT were National than it does now, the only answer to that is that you&#39;re winning now w/ a less than full-tilt car. As someone else pointed out, where do you spend the extra money if the car is already that good? Maybe Greg Amy would share w/ us where he could spend more money on his car to make it better. Andy, you hold the ITA lap record at LRP, where could you spend money to make your car faster? Running at the pointy end of ANY competitive field costs money.
[/b]

didn&#39;t Amy just win the ARRC then develop the car some more over the winter, take it to the dyno and make a good bit more power? even if he didn&#39;t do anything since the ARRC, i know i saw him say somewhere that he thought he still had room to make more power.

Bill you know this better than i do......but i think "full prep" will be more of a moving target if IT goes national. Perfect example is the $1200 clutch from last year in SM. The $400 BSI unit was full prep at the time, then comes this $1200 piece that&#39;s an extra 2lbs lighter. or how about "the engine of the month club?" we went from sunbelt, to Race Engineering, to Rebello, and now it looks like we may be back to Sunbelt. We&#39;ve had a few different designs of swaybar endlinks be the hot setup, a couple intakes, and who knows what else they&#39;re doing. The point is that what&#39;s "full prep" today is not necessarily "full prep" tomorrow. While this is somewhat true in IT today, the effect will be amplified if IT goes national.

then there&#39;s the extra $ spent on testing and tire management.......

[cherokee]

The best thing to do is get rid of the national, regional seperation and let every class stand on its own. The Oliver Stone in me thinks this will never happen.

As far as your proposal, if you don&#39;t give the IT cars a chance, what is the point. But I will bet you one thing if this passes there will be IT cars in prod classes at the runoffs in the near future, I also think if this passes it will be the end of IT going national.

As far as the ITA into GP, get more data. Look at times everywhere, look at lap records at HPT in its current config, they love to use the runoffs as the yard stick, see if ITA cars are faster there then GP cars, this last year is out as it was a rotten weekend, but pull the qual and race numbers from the summer 108 deg national, IT cars where there at the same time, if my feeble memory serves there was an early summer late spring nat at HPT also, look at the times from those races. The track conditions should be very close to the same, I think the IT cars ran the same day the the nat cars did that first year, this might be the best source for data with track conditions as close as you can get them without both types of cars on the track at the same time. If the ITA cars are still faster with a larger group of samples, then I would put them in anyway and see how everything shakes out. It just might not be the end of everything as we know it. If it ends up that ITA cars are killers, well......

They love to adjust on prod cars. ;)

[cherokee]

what&#39;s a pro motor in IT? i&#39;m not trying to be a jerk here, as you&#39;re in KC just like i am and we&#39;ll likely run into each other at some point.....but i got news for you, anything that&#39;s legal in SM is legal in IT. that means you can take those $7000 pro SM motors, spend some MORE money on them in terms of overbore and porting and drop it in your IT car. it&#39;s not just mazda&#39;s either...the same treatment can be applied to any nissan, honda, vw, bmw, or whatever you want. ie Rebello, Serra, Bimmerworld, etc.

now, you don&#39;t have to do the parts-bin-blueprinting method used in SS based classes, which makes things a little cheaper. but i would still expect any serious IT motor to cost $5k+.

i promise it&#39;s going to cost a BUNCH more to win in MiDiv if IT goes national.
[/b]

My wife and I talked to you a while back, if I am remembering cars correctly, Red Miata...I can&#39;t remember names, but I can remember cars, if that is not you, describe the car. My tow rig kinda stands out, I have a wind turbine that I put ontop to charge RV batts. It is a conversation starter most times, I get lots of folks stopping by asking about it.

I think the reason that a pro SM motor costs $7K+ is because of the parts bin blueprinting. That is so labor intensitive it is crazy. But I do not know the SM world I could be very wrong. If I am I am sorry.

I just know my own little world, and know that getting Opel 9:1 pistons cost a heck of a lot more then the average Toyota part. So much so, that is why I already build a prod motor. The trick go fast parts where cheaper. But when it gets down to machining the chunks of iron there is not that much difference....It was not for me, and I shipped stuff all over the country to get it done. I am into my current IT motor for 4.5K, and I got a deal. The rebuild for the wifes street car was less, quite a bit less but she did not put in over (I don&#39;t want to think about $$$, my wife might read this :) ) in just pistons, plus There was other things that had to be sourced from the fatherland that drove prices up. But the machine work, gaskets and what not are all the same.

My point is, and I never come across correctly when I type if I sound a jerk it is not my intent.

Is you could spend all that money before, nothing in the rules changed to open up a money pit. If a given car was a top 5 car and not going 10/10 in his car prep or his driver prep, then that driver and car should count himself lucky. All going national did for SM is put a big spot light on it, there where some pretty big names that where in the runoffs in SM, and yes I agree they are going to field a car that is prepped to the 10/10 and leave nothing on the table, thats racing....thats any sport. I for one will never be upset that someone out spends me, and there for out prepps me. It is part of racing. Now if he is doing something less then legal, then that is something different all together.

But WHEN you beat them it is going to be just a little better that you bested the best.

Sorry if I PO&#39;d you that was not my intent. This is all just healthy debate, and if only one word that I have ever typed on this site did one bit of good that is a good thing. If it made someone think of something else that is a good thing. It is all just debate.

[mustanghammer]

HPT Lap Records - these include records set at the Runoffs

EP - 1:53.331 - Greg Ira (240Z)
FP - 1:54.233 - Steve Sargis (Spitfire)
GP- 1:58.646 - Chuck Mathis (Rabbit)
HP - 1:58.303 - Tom Feller (Spitfire)
SM - 2:01.772 - Charlie James

ITS - NA
ITA - 2:05.416 - Bob Stretch (Miata)
ITB - 2:08.161 - Chris Albin (Golf)
IT7 - 2:09.866 - Nadeem Bari

Observations:

The weather conditions were very different when these times were posted - much warmer for the IT cars. I included SM because this is where a good ITA car should be. I would wet my pants if I posted a 2:05!

HPT is a handling track with allot of lower speed corners. Real racing tires do better in this environment and in the colder fall weather allot of prod car drivers went out on REALLY soft tires in qualifying. DOT tire drivers don&#39;t have the option of putting on a softer tire. I raced a long time on real racing tires in Solo II. The new DOT&#39;s are great but they are not better than real racing tires.

Over the summer I was able to observe some real heavy hitters at HPT. One of the things that I noticed is that everyone of them ran MUCh faster at the runoffs than they did in the Regional National events prior to that. Sort of explains why the CRB looks so closely at the Runoffs.

[Bill Miller]

didn&#39;t Amy just win the ARRC then develop the car some more over the winter, take it to the dyno and make a good bit more power? even if he didn&#39;t do anything since the ARRC, i know i saw him say somewhere that he thought he still had room to make more power.

Bill you know this better than i do......but i think "full prep" will be more of a moving target if IT goes national. Perfect example is the $1200 clutch from last year in SM. The $400 BSI unit was full prep at the time, then comes this $1200 piece that&#39;s an extra 2lbs lighter. or how about "the engine of the month club?" we went from sunbelt, to Race Engineering, to Rebello, and now it looks like we may be back to Sunbelt. We&#39;ve had a few different designs of swaybar endlinks be the hot setup, a couple intakes, and who knows what else they&#39;re doing. The point is that what&#39;s "full prep" today is not necessarily "full prep" tomorrow. While this is somewhat true in IT today, the effect will be amplified if IT goes national.

then there&#39;s the extra $ spent on testing and tire management.......
[/b]

Travis,

I&#39;m waiting for Greg to comment about his effort. I asked the question because I don&#39;t know the answer. And you should know that you can&#39;t compare the development costs for a spec class to one that&#39;s a little more open, like the IT classes. Another aspect is that the SM parts supply chain is still under development. Will you have to up your game if you want to run at the front? Probably, if you don&#39;t already have a Serra level effort. But if you&#39;re winning w/o a Serra level effort, it&#39;s because you&#39;re not running against top efforts.

[shwah]

So what would you do? We already have 3-4 examples of ITA running with or faster than GP.
[/b]
I am wary of using on track results to decide this. There are parts of the country where GP is weak or non-existant. What would happen there if the top 10 in GP showed up? My bet is a shattered record. Find a track with weak production turnout and strong IT turnout and you will find this every time.

I guess I would still start with getting IT models classified properly in Production (some already are - I am lucky in this regard), then it makes more sense for someone to come out and run an IT car to get a taste regardless of competitiveness.

There are some tracks that have records set by the fastest GP cars in the country, and some very fast ITB cars, as well as one of those IT drivers running an LP version of the ITB VW. Here are how the times shake out:

Heartland Park - 2.5 mile course
ITB record - Chris Albin - 7/16/06 - 2:08.161
GP record - Andy Detherage - runoffs qualifying - 1:55.555 (race lap is Mathis at 1:56.835 - 9/3/06)
GP - Chris Albin - best race lap - 9/3/06 - 1:58.115
just as another reference point ITA record - Bob Stretch - 7/15/06 - 2:05.416

So we can just pick individual venues and competitor groups all day to support one side or the other. In the end we all know the data has too many variables to become a classification tool.

Edit - Mustanghammer posted while I was typing. FYI the MidDiv track record pages are not up to date. The GP record was set by Chuck in June and reset in September.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I am wary of using on track results to decide this. There are parts of the country where GP is weak or non-existant. What would happen there if the top 10 in GP showed up? My bet is a shattered record. Find a track with weak production turnout and strong IT turnout and you will find this every time.

I guess I would still start with getting IT models classified properly in Production (some already are - I am lucky in this regard), then it makes more sense for someone to come out and run an IT car to get a taste regardless of competitiveness.

There are some tracks that have records set by the fastest GP cars in the country, and some very fast ITB cars, as well as one of those IT drivers running an LP version of the ITB VW. Here are how the times shake out:

Heartland Park - 2.5 mile course
ITB record - Chris Albin - 7/16/06 - 2:08.161
GP record - Andy Detherage - runoffs qualifying - 1:55.555 (race lap is Mathis at 1:56.835 - 9/3/06)
GP - Chris Albin - runoffs qualifying - 1:58.824 (best race lap 1:58.115 in 9/3/06)
just as another reference point ITA record - Bob Stretch - 7/15/06 - 2:05.416

So we can just pick individual venues and competitor groups all day to support one side or the other. In the end we all know the data has too many variables to become a classification tool. [/b]

I think it was explained why those numbers are low. NO WAY Stretch&#39;s ITA car is 4 seconds slower than the SM record. The point that lap times are tough to use cuts both ways. Who is to say the IT records are strong? If you can question the Prod times, you have to question them all. Look at Josh&#39;s examples way above. It&#39;s about PERCEPTION. If the Prod guys feel that an ITA prep car could possible screw them up at the front of GP, then all hell will break loose. Let&#39;s not try and make this about winning, just participating...with an eye at facilitating smooth transitions. It&#39;s about trying it once or twice and seeing if you want to make the jump - not about giving IT guys two legitimate spots to play.

BTW: My ITA car would have podiumed at the Lime Rock National in 2006 in GP - and would have had a chance to win FP.

[shwah]

Then we obviously agree that the on track numbers are not a valid point.

This has been an enjoyable discussion. I am writing my letter in opposition to the proposed &#39;cross-classing&#39; until after the PCS changes.

The shame is that I have a huge interest in GP continuing as a healthy class, and this idea would probably give it a shot in the arm for a year or so. I just don&#39;t think this is the best thing for the Production classes or the club. My prediction is that H and G will be one class before 2007 is over.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Then we obviously agree that the on track numbers are not a valid point.

This has been an enjoyable discussion. I am writing my letter in opposition to the proposed &#39;cross-classing&#39; until after the PCS changes.

The shame is that I have a huge interest in GP continuing as a healthy class, and this idea would probably give it a shot in the arm for a year or so. I just don&#39;t think this is the best thing for the Production classes or the club. My prediction is that H and G will be one class before 2007 is over. [/b]

Any letter is a good letter. The club needs to hear from us.

If you think that this idea may give GP a shot in the arm, why wouldn&#39;t you think that some IT guys may cross over as a result of the exposure?

[cherokee]

It&#39;s about PERCEPTION. If the Prod guys feel that an ITA prep car could possible screw them up at the front of GP, then all hell will break loose. Let&#39;s not try and make this about winning, just participating...with an eye at facilitating smooth transitions. It&#39;s about trying it once or twice and seeing if you want to make the jump - not about giving IT guys two legitimate spots to play.
[/b]

I just read a thread over on the prod site "GP - Where are you"
If they are "sucking wind" then perhaps their perception needs to change. IT cars going over there are going to help their car counts no question about it. The poster states that GP is in second to last place.

IT cars are going to go to prod it seems that we should be able to make the choices to where the IT cars would fall, IT cars going into GP will boost that class from last place, and if the world worked as it is written in the rules IT cars would save GP&#39;s runoff spot.

This has the potential to be the best of both worlds for IT and prod.

IT drivers get to run in a national class with no more money spent on their cars, and in a class that they have a chance.

Those that think IT going national will be the end of the world, will be able to keep IT as a region only class.

Prod will get tons of new cars into their ranks.

The only bug in the works is this perception deal, the worry about messing up prod drivers worlds. It is their class they can say yea or na, but in looking at that one post over on the prod site at least one driver sounded worried, I know you started a thread over there a while ago, I wonder what the responce would be now.

One last question, is it possible to do, put IT and prod cars in to the classes as a test for a season, put the ITA cars in GP, ITB cars in HP and such. Just to see how the cars match up? IF this would be possible it would answer a lot of questions about how the cars are measured against each other. Let the IT drivers have any wins they might get, and during the test period the IT cars would not be eligible for a runoff spot.
I think it would be a good test.

[charrbq]

The shame is that I have a huge interest in GP continuing as a healthy class, and this idea would probably give it a shot in the arm for a year or so. I just don&#39;t think this is the best thing for the Production classes or the club. My prediction is that H and G will be one class before 2007 is over.
[/quote]

Agreed, but I give it a year longer. By this time next year, it will be announced in Fastrack that, as of 1/1/09, G & H Production will be one and be on probation for inclusion in the National Championships. And, also, I have a huge interest in HP remaining strong.

Whereas it would be great to be able to run both days even if it was for two classes, my car is too old to fit Andy&#39;s proposal. That aside, I just can&#39;t see people thrashing around at the back of the field waiting to get lapped just so another class remains viable. My car is very competitive with the faster ITC cars, but runs nowhere near a good HP car.

[ddewhurst]

My thoughts including reading the previous 5 pages.

A. Anyone may write a letter at any time.

B. The number in H & G Production are sucking air real BAD. (As I posted in an earlier post within this thread H & G had approx 36 cars each that ran 4 or more races during 2006. They may be starting to slightly open the door but only because their asses will be history if they don&#39;t plead for help. This low car count in H & G has been an issue starting IIRC approx the same time the Production site started maybe 8 years ago.)

C. Agreement with someone else that the PCS/Restricted Suspension/Limited Prep motors needs MEAN what the thoughts were in 1996 when the RS/LP rules were FIRST introduced.

D. I am in agreement with Chris that H & G will be combined by year 2008.

E. Why would IT people want to WHOOOS up to some FAILING classes to help save their EGOS. Keep in mind that MANY of these Production car people fancy the Production car philosophy as DEVELOPMENT CLASS. Any thought that the SCCA demographics has changed ruffles their feathers.

As I stated anyone may write a letter any time. ;)

[Drew Aldred]

As a driver in HP, a class that is "sucking wind/air" right now I thought I&#39;d chime in. No doubt H and G are in trouble and probably will be consolidated in the next year or so. I&#39;m all for classing new cars and having more cars to race with. I&#39;d MUCH rather battle it out with 3 cars for 7th place, than take a Sunday drive for 2nd !! That said, I&#39;d love to see more cars classed in HP. However IT has a good to great thing going. I&#39;m not sure if I was an IT driver I&#39;d be anxious to grab the Prod lifeline and climb aboard. There is a TON of politics and BS when it comes to classing cars and modifying performance of cars. I don&#39;t know how it works exactly with IT cars getting classed, but it can&#39;t be more convoluted and backdoor dealing than Prod.

Having said all this, I will do whatever I can to keep HP a viable class. But if the interest isn&#39;t there, then things have to change. If that means finding a different car to play with, then that&#39;s what I&#39;ll do. But there are alot of people in Prod who don&#39;t want their boat rocked, as they have spent alot of time and money to get where they are.

I&#39;m not saying the IT cross-over into Prod is a bad idea at all, just make sure to look down the road and be sure of what you are getting into.

[Bill Miller]

Let&#39;s not try and make this about winning, just participating...with an eye at facilitating smooth transitions.[/b]

Andy,

Again, I&#39;m not trying to pick on you, but do you read what you post? "Hey, bring your cars and your $$$ and come play, but don&#39;t get in the way." If you want to make it attractive for the IT folks, classify the cars w/ a chance to be competitive. The Prod folks don&#39;t have a lot of room to squawk if it&#39;s that or consolidation/loss of Runoffs&#39; slot.

And one of the reasons that the Prod lap records may not be that impressive is that for a long time, all a lot of those folks have worried about is 1 race a year. The idea of people running mule motors did not spring out of thin air.

[cherokee]

Drew, would you be infavor of ITB and ITC cars running in HP? NO changes to the IT cars what so ever. Does the glass and no fuel cell worry you, do IT cars on DOT tires worry you? I would like to hear from one of the prod people that could be effected.

I also agree that LP should be fixed, but that is not going to happen, as been said they love to tweek on their car rules a great deal, and even if it was set back to base one, it would get changed over the years again. The beauty of having an IT car in prod with the IT rule set is that the IT car has to keep legal to the IT rules. As I understand things the prod folks have no say in what happens in IT, so a car will not be subject to prod type adjustments. If an rule changes in IT (ECU for example) then the IT car in prod can take advantage of that rule.

I don&#39;t want to look at is as saving egos, I like to look at it as saving an investment. I read on the prod site that one driver will most likely leave the SCCA if HP and GP combine. That is not a good thing even if he is just blowing off steam.
Where is the down side to an ITB driver that runs in HP with his car? I could be out of my mind, but I think that there would be quite a few people that would give it a go. IT drivers would get the option to run in national events with national rewards....and pitfalls. IT drivers that choose not to run in prod would have nothing change.

[Bill Miller]

The beauty of having an IT car in prod with the IT rule set is that the IT car has to keep legal to the IT rules.[/b]

And isn&#39;t that one of the arguements that&#39;s been put up opposing IT going National, that the IT specs would be too hard to police? Put IT cars in a position where they could actually push some Prod cars down on the grid and wait for the squawking to start. And you might see that even if you don&#39;t put them in a position to be competitive. They may do it by virtue of just showing up. Look at the Nationals out there where you have 2 or 3 (or 1 or none) cars in a given class show up. If you have a couple of IT cars show up, there&#39;s a good chance that they&#39;ll be on the podium. Given the large number of National Prod folks that only run the min. # of required races (4), you&#39;ve got the potential to push some of those guys out of the top-10.

[cherokee]

And one of the reasons that the Prod lap records may not be that impressive is that for a long time, all a lot of those folks have worried about is 1 race a year. The idea of people running mule motors did not spring out of thin air.
[/b]

I know this is true, as I talked to more then one driver while researching my prod effort. They run a "warm" IT motor during the season. A little cam and a little compression. They save the custom one off high $$ motor for the big show, the sprints and the runoffs. They told me I would easy qualify for a runoff spot with a IT motor. That struck me as odd, but my car goes on a big diet when it goes to FP, and gets stuff like disc brakes. I figured that alone would make me do well enough to get to the show with an IT type motor, Thats why I have an FP and IT motor on stands in my shop.

I got a handfull of prod guys telling me this, at the runoffs no less, and the summer nat at HPT.

Edit: To add a response to Bill&#39;s note

I don&#39;t think that IT cars are hard to police. I think this is another perception, I also think this has been used as an excuse to open some items up. One other good thing about a "test" season, run it and see the problems that develope.

[Bill Miller]

I don&#39;t think that IT cars are hard to police. I think this is another perception, I also think this has been used as an excuse to open some items up. One other good thing about a "test" season, run it and see the problems that develope.[/b]

I don&#39;t think they&#39;re hard to police either, I was only stating one of the arguements I have heard.

[Andy Bettencourt]

This has the potential to be the best of both worlds for IT and prod.

[/b]

I agree. I am just trying to avoid a massive "NO!" from Prod guys because the bracketry hit&#39;s too close to the bulls eye...and they stop the thing cold. Yes, you can say &#39;tough crap&#39; to them because they are teh ones who need the numbers but we lose out too. I DO believe that it COULD work like this:

ITS -> FP

ITA -> GP

ITB/ITC -> HP

But will the Prod guys accept it? If they don&#39;t, it&#39;s all moot.






Andy,

Again, I&#39;m not trying to pick on you, but do you read what you post? "Hey, bring your cars and your $$$ and come play, but don&#39;t get in the way." If you want to make it attractive for the IT folks, classify the cars w/ a chance to be competitive. [/b]

Bill, you haven&#39;t read the intent of my idea. Why would Prod guys want a car that cost somebody WAY less, with WAY less prep, with a TON more reliability - to be competitive with their stuff. Remember back to the Limited Prep outcry and triple that. Everyone will just build IT cars to run in two classes.

The original ladder would have a top-prep IT car running at the front of the mid - and I bet close to the podium. Move it one down and the potential for IT cars winning gets exponentially better. And that is not the intent of the idea, like it or not.

I was looking at some of the results from Nationals posted to the Prod site...5 seconds per fast lap seperating the top THREE in all the Prod classes. Pitiful.

[Drew Aldred]

I would gladly accept any "new" car that wants to be classed in Prod. As far as the glass, tires, and fuel cell goes that&#39;s not a big deal to me. You can run the stock windshield now, maybe some clear tape on the front lights and let&#39;s go to the grid !!

DOT tires don&#39;t bother me either, depending on what Division you run in prod is grouped with T2, T3, SS, SM, or SRF. You get used to running with different cars that have different abilities. I&#39;m more concerned about my opinion of how a particular driver is on track, than about their car/tire combo. B)

[Knestis]

So, of those interested in this idea, how many would still be if there were an EXPLICIT clause in the allowance, as follows:

It is accepted that Improved Touring cars, as allowed to run in National events in the Production category, are intentionally classified such that there is no expectation that they will ever be competitive. Such listing is intended only to allow owners of IT cars to experience running National events. As such, requests for reclassification or adjustment will not be considered for IT cars running in the Production category under this rule.

Andy - you&#39;d be OK including something like that?

K

[RSTPerformance]

So, of those interested in this idea, how many would still be if there were an EXPLICIT clause in the allowance, as follows:

It is accepted that Improved Touring cars, as allowed to run in National events in the Production category, are intentionally classified such that there is no expectation that they will ever be competitive. Such listing is intended only to allow owners of IT cars to experience running National events. As such, requests for reclassification or adjustment will not be considered for IT cars running in the Production category under this rule.

Andy - you&#39;d be OK including something like that?

K
[/b]


K-

I would ok with it, and it would be clear to those people that will want make adjustments 10yrs from now...

Raymond

[Charlie Broring]

You guys are dreaming! I spent the last 4 years trying to get my ITB Volvo 142 competitively classed in Production. They don&#39;t want it. I guess it&#39;s too big or something. I built a F/P car, raced it in National races and wrote a ton of letters to the CRB. Still. the care is hopelessly classed in F/P at an unattainable low weight. I gave up and parked it and I&#39;m going back to racing my ITB car.

The Production Advisory committee is too afraid of letting in an "Overdog" to ever let IT cars race in anything but a totally uncompetitive classification.

And they don&#39;t like bigger cars. Look at the poor ITB mustang classed in E/P Limited Prep.

You all are right to promote this. It would be good for IT and the SCCA. But the Production rule makers will never let it happen.

Charlie Broring

[tom91ita]

i could not figure out why this looked so familiar and then i realized that i had commented in the PROD forum.

i am basically pursuing this for the price of a fuel cell and fire system. i want the flexibility of running at different tracks on different weekends and at closer tracks.

i am in favor of the IT to Prod as is but it should drop one level. my ITB honda has been proposed to go to HP and i wrote a letter supporting that with comments that the weight is still too high!

i plan to be on track with my ITB car and a box of headlights and crap in that will say ITB on it. and i will likely have another box that will NASA H5 on it.

my car can move back and forth real easy between Honda Challenge and PROD. it takes more effort to go from that dual purpose configuration back to ITB.

so if i will be able to run PROD at nationals, regionals or Honda Challenge with NASA. this could give me five weekends at a single track this summer about 45 minutes from home.

who knows, with the money i save in fuel / motels, i may convert to ITB in the fall and go to the ARRC.

[Knestis]

...The Production Advisory committee is too afraid of letting in an "Overdog" to ever let IT cars race in anything but a totally uncompetitive classification. ...[/b]
But the idea proposed here is to purposefully classify them where they will NOT be competitive, and leave them that way.

K

[Charlie Broring]

But the idea proposed here is to purposefully classify them where they will NOT be competitive, and leave them that way. [/b]

Being uncompetitive and a back marker in a National race gets old real fast. Production should be welcome IT drivers who want to move up to National Racing or competitive Regional Prod racing . The IT cars should be made competitive enough that the drivers would be encouraged to farther develop their cares into Production cars if they find the racing to their liking.

This discussion shows plenty of interest in IT drivers exploring production racing. However, in my experience, the production car rule makers haven&#39;t been very enthusiastic about bringing in IT cars, especially larger ones. IT rules are fair and well administered. Production rules are mess and much more difficult to deal with than I expected when I first ventured into that world. Production is much better at adding 50# to last years Runoffs winner than classifying "new" cars.

I hope that everybody who posted in this discussion also sends their suggestions to the CRB and maybe a smoother transition from IT into Prod or Prepared or GT will evolve.

Charlie

[Bill Miller]

The original ladder would have a top-prep IT car running at the front of the mid - and I bet close to the podium. Move it one down and the potential for IT cars winning gets exponentially better. And that is not the intent of the idea, like it or not.[/b]

I will say one thing Andy, and I give you credit for this. You make no bones about the fact that the only intent of your proposal is to boost Prod numbers. As someone said before, your proposal essentially asks the IT community to prop up Prod so they don&#39;t lose their National status or their Runoffs&#39; slots.


I was looking at some of the results from Nationals posted to the Prod site...5 seconds per fast lap seperating the top THREE in all the Prod classes. Pitiful.
[/b]

Please see the earlier comments regarding mule motors. For the most part, these folks only care about 1 (maybe 2) race(s) a year.

And you know what? IF the Prod folks had a classification process similar to what IT has, it would be pretty easy to figure out what cars went in which classes. :o

[charrbq]

I&#39;ve already heard screaming from the Prod guys I know. They&#39;re saying this is the first of many steps to get rid of production car racing and move national club racing closer to professional racing. I know of one who has given it up and dropped out of the club due to the LP rules. Another is selling his national championship winning car and going to SRF to find more stable rules. Another has built a LP Spridget and is dying at the thought that is will be made non competitive in less than a year due to the probable consolidation of the classes.

As it is, within a short time, there may not be any production classes for IT to play with. Those guys would rather park their cars than allow us into their party.

[Andy Bettencourt]

So, of those interested in this idea, how many would still be if there were an EXPLICIT clause in the allowance, as follows:

It is accepted that Improved Touring cars, as allowed to run in National events in the Production category, are intentionally classified such that there is no expectation that they will ever be competitive. Such listing is intended only to allow owners of IT cars to experience running National events. As such, requests for reclassification or adjustment will not be considered for IT cars running in the Production category under this rule.

Andy - you&#39;d be OK including something like that?

K [/b]

Absolutely.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I will say one thing Andy, and I give you credit for this. You make no bones about the fact that the only intent of your proposal is to boost Prod numbers. As someone said before, your proposal essentially asks the IT community to prop up Prod so they don&#39;t lose their National status or their Runoffs&#39; slots.

And you know what? IF the Prod folks had a classification process similar to what IT has, it would be pretty easy to figure out what cars went in which classes. :o

[/b]

2 final thoughts. First one Bill, I have NEVER sais that the only intent is to boost Prod numbers. I have said that it is a side benefit to the Prod guys. The main intent of the proposal, which has been stated many times, is about creating a smooth transitional opportunity for racers from IT to Prod. Prod should have one to GT as well (if at all possible - not sure). I don&#39;t think IT drivers will flock to National races to run in Prod. I personally will try 1, maybe 2 - at LRP where my car is strong - then I will be done unless I like the scene so much I will build an EP or FP Miata. I doubt it but I am sure there are some guys out there who will be interested enough to make the jump. A jump they would never had made without this idea making it easy to try it out - at least that is my theory and the real basis for the proposal. A logical feeder system if you will. The entire health of Club Racing is my concern.

Second, I think you will find that the Prod committee and the CRB are working VERY hard right now to make similar changes that IT has made over the past few years. I wish them luck, they have a much harder road ahead of them than we did.

[Bill Miller]

2 final thoughts. First one Bill, I have NEVER sais that the only intent is to boost Prod numbers. I have said that it is a side benefit to the Prod guys. The main intent of the proposal, which has been stated many times, is about creating a smooth transitional opportunity for racers from IT to Prod. Prod should have one to GT as well (if at all possible - not sure). I don&#39;t think IT drivers will flock to National races to run in Prod. I personally will try 1, maybe 2 - at LRP where my car is strong - then I will be done unless I like the scene so much I will build an EP or FP Miata. I doubt it but I am sure there are some guys out there who will be interested enough to make the jump. A jump they would never had made without this idea making it easy to try it out - at least that is my theory and the real basis for the proposal. A logical feeder system if you will. The entire health of Club Racing is my concern.

Second, I think you will find that the Prod committee and the CRB are working VERY hard right now to make similar changes that IT has made over the past few years. I wish them luck, they have a much harder road ahead of them than we did.
[/b]

Andy,

What I see as the fault w/ your logic is that it&#39;s based on the assumption that this &#39;smooth transitional opportunity for racers from IT to Prod&#39; is a needed (or wanted) thing. I&#39;m not convinced that this &#39;feeder system&#39; that you mention is something that Club racers want, as a whole. And if it is, you need to look at all of the sedan categories as a whole and re-define the whole thing. There needs to be a big-picture, strategic approach to it. Right now, there&#39;s no easy transition from SS/T to IT, and there&#39;s no easy transition from Prot to GT. I&#39;m also not convinced that IT folks necessarily want somewhere to move to. Look at a lot of the Prod guys out there. They&#39;ve been running Prod for years. They could have made the move to GT if they wanted to. I can see people starting out (or moving to) IT and being happy there. Look at the amount of people that race IT that could certainly afford to race Prod or GT.

If IT were a National category, w/ the chance to compete for Runoffs&#39; slots, I sure don&#39;t see where you&#39;d have a large group of people that would worry about transitioning to Prod. At least no more than you do today, and those folks already know what&#39;s required to make the transition.

And quite honestly, I don&#39;t see how your proposal provides this &#39;smooth transition&#39; from IT to Prod. Especially in light of your agreement w/ Kirk&#39;s proposal. Sure, you get to take your IT car to a National. Given the number of Prod cars that will probably show up, you might stand a chance at a podium based solely on attrition. Regardless, how does it &#39;smooth&#39; the transition to Prod? You&#39;re not going to adjust the IT cars. You can&#39;t mix and match across the rule sets. If you want to go to Prod, it&#39;s no different than it is now, you have to build your car to Prod specs (that is, unless you&#39;re happy just doing laps). You could get that same taste of a National race buy renting or borrowing a National car. I&#39;ve been to Nationals and Regionals, besides the longer races at a National there&#39;s really no difference. There&#39;s no big mystery at a National.

So let&#39;s be realistic here, the main upside to your proposal is the propping up of the Prod numbers.

[fastbenz]

It&#39;s not about competing for the win, it&#39;s about getting a taste for National competition, National events, getting a look at real Prod cars, teams and efforts, and creating a smooth path amongst our classes as a whole.
[/b]

I for one would welcome any new cars / drivers to the production classes.

Don&#39;t kid yourselves though your costs will surely escalate.

Please don&#39;t look at Prod cars, drivers, or teams like we are something special. Those who are willing to invest the time, have the financial resources, have some talent and make the right choices will always do better than the guys or gals who bring their clapped out piece of shit and can&#39;t drive a nail. We all belong to the same club !

Bring on the new cars from IT. :happy204:

[924Guy]

I&#39;ve been watching the discussion, trying to figure out what I thought of this... I guess I can best sum up my feelings as follows:

I like IT. I want to race IT. Nothing about Prod, specifically, appeals to me, from what I&#39;ve heard or seen, certainly not enough to investigate further - not rule set, not car types, not rule making, not competition, nothing.

If I have more opportunities to race IT and/or at a higher level, GREAT, I&#39;m all for it.

If I have to switch gears to maintain/get better competition or maintain/increase number of racing opportunities: I&#39;m gonna seriously re-think what I want to race. Maybe I&#39;d want to go SM; maybe I&#39;d rather do an open-wheel class. Even if I wanted to keep racing a 924 - I&#39;d sell my current one, as competitive as it is, and start from scratch.

So, in light of the above considerations - I don&#39;t see much benefit to me, personally, from this proposal. I don&#39;t think I&#39;d go so far as to say I would vote against it - I just don&#39;t see it affecting me or my desired racing path, so I am ambivalent.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Andy,

What I see as the fault w/ your logic is that it&#39;s based on the assumption that this &#39;smooth transitional opportunity for racers from IT to Prod&#39; is a needed (or wanted) thing. I&#39;m not convinced that this &#39;feeder system&#39; that you mention is something that Club racers want, as a whole. And if it is, you need to look at all of the sedan categories as a whole and re-define the whole thing. There needs to be a big-picture, strategic approach to it. Right now, there&#39;s no easy transition from SS/T to IT, and there&#39;s no easy transition from Prot to GT. I&#39;m also not convinced that IT folks necessarily want somewhere to move to. Look at a lot of the Prod guys out there. They&#39;ve been running Prod for years. They could have made the move to GT if they wanted to. I can see people starting out (or moving to) IT and being happy there. Look at the amount of people that race IT that could certainly afford to race Prod or GT.

If IT were a National category, w/ the chance to compete for Runoffs&#39; slots, I sure don&#39;t see where you&#39;d have a large group of people that would worry about transitioning to Prod. At least no more than you do today, and those folks already know what&#39;s required to make the transition.

And quite honestly, I don&#39;t see how your proposal provides this &#39;smooth transition&#39; from IT to Prod. Especially in light of your agreement w/ Kirk&#39;s proposal. Sure, you get to take your IT car to a National. Given the number of Prod cars that will probably show up, you might stand a chance at a podium based solely on attrition. Regardless, how does it &#39;smooth&#39; the transition to Prod? You&#39;re not going to adjust the IT cars. You can&#39;t mix and match across the rule sets. If you want to go to Prod, it&#39;s no different than it is now, you have to build your car to Prod specs (that is, unless you&#39;re happy just doing laps). You could get that same taste of a National race buy renting or borrowing a National car. I&#39;ve been to Nationals and Regionals, besides the longer races at a National there&#39;s really no difference. There&#39;s no big mystery at a National.

So let&#39;s be realistic here, the main upside to your proposal is the propping up of the Prod numbers. [/b]

We see it differently.






So, in light of the above considerations - I don&#39;t see much benefit to me, personally, from this proposal. I don&#39;t think I&#39;d go so far as to say I would vote against it - I just don&#39;t see it affecting me or my desired racing path, so I am ambivalent. [/b]

Exactly. You or I may not seek to take advantage, but I am SURE there are guys out there who would. Most people don&#39;t understand the mentality of the mid-pack. Some of the resistance here has been &#39;who wants to run around with no chance of winning?&#39; Guess what? 75% of every grid in every racing organization is the SAME WAY. People race to have fun, and fun is defined much differently for all of us. Why does that guy who comes in the bottom 1/4 in your class keep coming back week after week? Because he loves his car, loves the people and loves the sport I would bet...

[Knestis]

Absolutely.
[/b]
Thanks, Andy - that&#39;s helpful. And it&#39;s going to be important that you stay on-message there, since it&#39;s clear from responses to your initial question that there are a lot of other intentions sneaking into the conversation.

I&#39;m still not sure it&#39;s needed but at least it passes the "muddle" test - at least initially. :)

K

[AntonioGG]

Guess what? 75% of every grid in every racing organization is the SAME WAY. People race to have fun, and fun is defined much differently for all of us. Why does that guy who comes in the bottom 1/4 in your class keep coming back week after week? Because he loves his car, loves the people and loves the sport I would bet...
[/b]

Amen brother!

As long as there&#39;s another mid/backpacker to race with I&#39;m ecstatic. I see too many front runners forgetting to have fun.

(This is not to say I don&#39;t work to get faster or tinker with my car, but my weekend/season is not blown if i keep coming in on the last half of the field.)

Antonio

[tnord]

Travis,

And you should know that you can&#39;t compare the development costs for a spec class to one that&#39;s a little more open, like the IT classes. Another aspect is that the SM parts supply chain is still under development. Will you have to up your game if you want to run at the front? Probably, if you don&#39;t already have a Serra level effort. But if you&#39;re winning w/o a Serra level effort, it&#39;s because you&#39;re not running against top efforts.
[/b]

....out of town all weekend.

you&#39;re right, i don&#39;t have a top level effort. and i&#39;m guessing 90+% of all IT racers don&#39;t. but that&#39;s not my point. my point is that it&#39;s going to cost us all more to maintain our current finishing positions if the class goes national whether you&#39;re at the front or at the back.

TOP TOP TOP level SM cars cost $25-30k. i bet the same level of prep would cost at least that much in ITA.

[tnord]

My wife and I talked to you a while back, if I am remembering cars correctly, Red Miata...I can&#39;t remember names, but I can remember cars, if that is not you, describe the car. My tow rig kinda stands out, I have a wind turbine that I put ontop to charge RV batts. It is a conversation starter most times, I get lots of folks stopping by asking about it.

I think the reason that a pro SM motor costs $7K+ is because of the parts bin blueprinting. That is so labor intensitive it is crazy. But I do not know the SM world I could be very wrong. If I am I am sorry.

I just know my own little world, and know that getting Opel 9:1 pistons cost a heck of a lot more then the average Toyota part. So much so, that is why I already build a prod motor. The trick go fast parts where cheaper. But when it gets down to machining the chunks of iron there is not that much difference....It was not for me, and I shipped stuff all over the country to get it done. I am into my current IT motor for 4.5K, and I got a deal. The rebuild for the wifes street car was less, quite a bit less but she did not put in over (I don&#39;t want to think about $$$, my wife might read this :) ) in just pistons, plus There was other things that had to be sourced from the fatherland that drove prices up. But the machine work, gaskets and what not are all the same.

My point is, and I never come across correctly when I type if I sound a jerk it is not my intent.

Is you could spend all that money before, nothing in the rules changed to open up a money pit. If a given car was a top 5 car and not going 10/10 in his car prep or his driver prep, then that driver and car should count himself lucky. All going national did for SM is put a big spot light on it, there where some pretty big names that where in the runoffs in SM, and yes I agree they are going to field a car that is prepped to the 10/10 and leave nothing on the table, thats racing....thats any sport. I for one will never be upset that someone out spends me, and there for out prepps me. It is part of racing. Now if he is doing something less then legal, then that is something different all together.

But WHEN you beat them it is going to be just a little better that you bested the best.

Sorry if I PO&#39;d you that was not my intent. This is all just healthy debate, and if only one word that I have ever typed on this site did one bit of good that is a good thing. If it made someone think of something else that is a good thing. It is all just debate.
[/b]

no no no....you didn&#39;t piss me off, don&#39;t worry about that. and yes, that was probably me you talked to (red 38), though there are a lot of red miatas out there.

i guess i don&#39;t see a huge difference between the $4.5k you said you spent on your motor, and $7k for a miata motor. neither are cheap, and if you&#39;re building a full-out national effort, that $2500 is <10% of your initial build. also, i bet the "top" pro IT motor is closer to $7k than you might think; nissan, honda, mazda, BMW, whatever.

lucky or not, bottom line is it&#39;s going to cost us all more to maintain our current finishing position if IT goes national, no matter our current prep level. 10/10ths today is not 10/10ths tomorrow, and can be a very rapidly moving target. it costs a lot of coin to keep up.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The thing is, IT getting more expensive if it goes National doesn&#39;t just HAPPEN. It will take time. Take Trav&#39;s area. It could stay the same for years without an impact. As soon as ONE guy brings a full-tilt car to the series, everyone gets shuffled down a spot. Now there is nothing keeping that from happening now, the theory is that if IT were National, it would be more popular therby exponentially increasing the probablility that full-tilt (or multiple) car shows up/gets built.

As we have said before, in some ares of the country, an influx of 1 or 2 or 10 cars like that would have no impact on what the existing people spend because the competition is so plentiful that the money is already spent WRT to prep.

I guess understanding how it would affect your own patch - and then weighing the pros and cons - is how you determine if you are for it or against it. So many of you say that you are sick and tired of being the &#39;step child&#39;...you have to ask yourself - do you really want to be adopted?

:Raises hand: I do.

[tnord]

The thing is, IT getting more expensive if it goes National doesn&#39;t just HAPPEN. It will take time. Take Trav&#39;s area. It could stay the same for years without an impact. As soon as ONE guy brings a full-tilt car to the series, everyone gets shuffled down a spot. Now there is nothing keeping that from happening now, the theory is that if IT were National, it would be more popular therby exponentially increasing the probablility that full-tilt (or multiple) car shows up/gets built.

As we have said before, in some ares of the country, an influx of 1 or 2 or 10 cars like that would have no impact on what the existing people spend because the competition is so plentiful that the money is already spent WRT to prep.

I guess understanding how it would affect your own patch - and then weighing the pros and cons - is how you determine if you are for it or against it. So many of you say that you are sick and tired of being the &#39;step child&#39;...you have to ask yourself - do you really want to be adopted?

:Raises hand: I do.
[/b]

the NE isn&#39;t immune Andy. now i know i don&#39;t live there, raced with, or ever been to a race in that area....but my somewhat educated opinion is;

because it&#39;s an official championship...
because it&#39;s on TV...
because the sponsorship potential is greater...
because the contingency program is greater...
because of the public perception that it&#39;s a higher level of racing...

...you&#39;re going to spend more $ than you are today. Greg, Alex, Kevin, Joe, Evan, Andy, VS, Trevor, etc etc will all be prepping/testing to a higher level, even if you don&#39;t think you can at this point today.

and i don&#39;t think the "winning with a less than 10/10ths" effort will last any more than 1yr, even in my area. people might not spend the money the first year, but they&#39;ll show up at the runoffs and get whooped....wallets will open.....people will inflow from other classes....game over.

just my prediction though.

[924Guy]

I guess understanding how it would affect your own patch - and then weighing the pros and cons - is how you determine if you are for it or against it. So many of you say that you are sick and tired of being the &#39;step child&#39;...you have to ask yourself - do you really want to be adopted?

:Raises hand: I do.
[/b]

Hrmmm... I can sorta agree with your feelings here, but I guess I&#39;m not ready to jump on board because - I don&#39;t want to be adopted, I like my family perfectly well as it is, and I want it recognized as legitimate in its own right! Why should I have to change my name for "someone" else to take me seriously?

Maybe it&#39;s just a dump and meaningless matter of principle... I dunno. I guess I&#39;m more ready to sign on for the idea of IT itself being made "National" or, better yet, throwing way meaningless obsolete distinctions, than to try to latch on to another grouping...

[Andy Bettencourt]

Hrmmm... I can sorta agree with your feelings here, but I guess I&#39;m not ready to jump on board because - I don&#39;t want to be adopted, I like my family perfectly well as it is, and I want it recognized as legitimate in its own right! Why should I have to change my name for "someone" else to take me seriously?

Maybe it&#39;s just a dump and meaningless matter of principle... I dunno. I guess I&#39;m more ready to sign on for the idea of IT itself being made "National" or, better yet, throwing way meaningless obsolete distinctions, than to try to latch on to another grouping... [/b]

Then my word-play was misleading. I am talking about IT going National on it&#39;s own two legs - on it&#39;s own merits as one of the best rule-sets and best participation. The debate is whether or not it &#39;ruins&#39; IT like some think it did to Spec Miata.






the NE isn&#39;t immune Andy. now i know i don&#39;t live there, raced with, or ever been to a race in that area....but my somewhat educated opinion is;

because it&#39;s an official championship...
because it&#39;s on TV...
because the sponsorship potential is greater...
because the contingency program is greater...
because of the public perception that it&#39;s a higher level of racing...

...you&#39;re going to spend more $ than you are today. Greg, Alex, Kevin, Joe, Evan, Andy, VS, Trevor, etc etc will all be prepping/testing to a higher level, even if you don&#39;t think you can at this point today.

and i don&#39;t think the "winning with a less than 10/10ths" effort will last any more than 1yr, even in my area. people might not spend the money the first year, but they&#39;ll show up at the runoffs and get whooped....wallets will open.....people will inflow from other classes....game over.

just my prediction though.
[/b]

You need to spend some time in other areas. I has some success last year yet I have 5 full test days, 2 full dyno days and 15 sanctioned races on my schedule this year...because the competition never sleeps. The first four full rows of ITA cars in NER can win. While strong, drivers are coming INTO this class because if you can win, you know you really earned it.

There are plenty of areas like this all over the country.

As far as &#39;less than a year&#39; for IT to &#39;blow up&#39; in your area? I wouldn&#39;t argue... :) But is it a bad thing?

[Bill Miller]

....out of town all weekend.

you&#39;re right, i don&#39;t have a top level effort. and i&#39;m guessing 90+% of all IT racers don&#39;t. but that&#39;s not my point. my point is that it&#39;s going to cost us all more to maintain our current finishing positions if the class goes national whether you&#39;re at the front or at the back.

TOP TOP TOP level SM cars cost $25-30k. i bet the same level of prep would cost at least that much in ITA.
[/b]

Travis,

If you expect to win w/o a 10/10ths effort, there&#39;s nothing that I or anyone else can say or do that will change your mind. Point is, and I think this is what Andy was saying, was if a guy moved into your area today, w/o anything else changing, that had a top level effort, and the skill to go w/ it, it would cost you more to stay where you&#39;re currently at.


lucky or not, bottom line is it&#39;s going to cost us all more to maintain our current finishing position if IT goes national, no matter our current prep level. 10/10ths today is not 10/10ths tomorrow, and can be a very rapidly moving target. it costs a lot of coin to keep up.[/b]

Sorry Travis, but that&#39;s just an uninformed opinion. IT has one of the most stable rule sets of any category in the GCR. It&#39;s not a moving target.

And nothing will force you to race Nationals if IT becomes a National class. The big-dollar Prod and GT guys (T and SS as well) don&#39;t run many Regionals, why do you think that would be different for IT?

And as far as SM being &#39;ruined&#39; [sic], you sure wouldn&#39;t know that by looking at the MARRS grids. SM and SSM both have their own run groups, and they&#39;re pretty well full. Hardly what I&#39;d called &#39;ruined&#39;.

[IPRESS]

I don&#39;t think Travis said "ruined". (Although a bunch of fenders get :D ruined!)
Where Travis and I come from (and my SM was the first one Shannon McM. built after his own) is that National classing of SM helped accelerate "the amount of development" in the class. As Travis stated about all the things that come with the Runoffs, The overall price of poker goes up. SM is probably club racings biggest success story in the past few years. It is a great class. It is not the same class as when it was started, but that is not a bad thing. IT has been pretty successful for a long time. I think it has a very healthy niche in club racing. One of the reasons I converted back to ITA (we ran our first SMs in ITA back in 99 & 00 just to introduce the idea to everybody before there was an official class except in Texas) was I prefered the significance of IT as a regional class. At one point if you had a race scheduled all the SMs usually ran. Now lot&#39;s of regional SM races have shorter fields as folks "save" their cars for national races. IT guys don&#39;t seem to be worried bout saving anything, drop the flag and everybody is racing. I like that part of the deal. Now do I like the big stage of ARRC? You bet. It is a class event. But it still has an IT flavor to it. (Maybe thats the kudzu.) :P I really think it is just LOT"S LESS POLITICS then the RUNOFFS. I hope the MO event creates the same type feeling. Do I want to go to the RUNOFFS in an IT car? I doubt it, but I like Andy&#39;s idea of IT running in Prod if they want to, better then IT changing to a national class designation. Just my opinion, based on IT being a good group just like it is. Others as we have seen look at it from a different view.

[ddewhurst]

Whoever said it.

***The debate is whether or not it &#39;ruins&#39; IT like some think it did to Spec Miata.***

From the races viewed at Road America & Blackhawk Farm I don&#39;t beleive Spec Miata has been ruined. The fully preped folks are doing Nationals & those with lesser prep are doing Regionals. < mostly.... There were some well known thought to be supermen in Spec Miatas that got their ass handed to them at the Sprints in year 2006. The only down side is that there are less cars running either series than there were when it was Regional only, but there are still more cars at either than a bunch of other classes. & yes the brothers that handed out the whipping do well at most race tracks.

[Knestis]

Take note, everyone, that there&#39;s more evidence here that there is NO way that conversations about listing IT cars in Prod so people can "test the waters" stay limited to that agenda. Mission creep or "transformation of intentions" WILL take over if that gets on the books.

If you want IT to go National, work to make it happen but a few thoughts...

** One person&#39;s "ruined" is another&#39;s "successful" - we have different goals and priorities so different outcomes are seen differently by every player. Big grids of highly developed cars is either a good thing or a bad thing, depending on one&#39;s orientation.

** IPRESS&#39;s point about politics at the RubOffs is a good one. Bill&#39;s point about IT not being a moving target is equally good and we may be in very real risk of losing what we have, should we get called up to the Big Show. (My definitions of "ruined" and "successful" are showing there, huh?)

Grist for the mill.

K

[tnord]

Travis,

If you expect to win w/o a 10/10ths effort, there&#39;s nothing that I or anyone else can say or do that will change your mind. Point is, and I think this is what Andy was saying, was if a guy moved into your area today, w/o anything else changing, that had a top level effort, and the skill to go w/ it, it would cost you more to stay where you&#39;re currently at.
Sorry Travis, but that&#39;s just an uninformed opinion. IT has one of the most stable rule sets of any category in the GCR. It&#39;s not a moving target.

And nothing will force you to race Nationals if IT becomes a National class. The big-dollar Prod and GT guys (T and SS as well) don&#39;t run many Regionals, why do you think that would be different for IT?

And as far as SM being &#39;ruined&#39; [sic], you sure wouldn&#39;t know that by looking at the MARRS grids. SM and SSM both have their own run groups, and they&#39;re pretty well full. Hardly what I&#39;d called &#39;ruined&#39;.
[/b]

when did i ever say i EXPECT to win with a less than 10/10ths effort? it sure is nice to not have to spend the money and at least be sniffing the front, but i&#39;m no idiot. if i take my rebadged ITA car back to SM, i get my ass kicked.

either way, this argument is not about me in the least....it&#39;s about everyones expectations as to what will happen if IT goes national. my personal opinion is that it is going to cost you more to maintain your current finishing position no matter what division you are in, no matter who you are.

a stable ruleset != no development. ie $1200 clutches in SM.

[cherokee]

SM is probably club racings biggest success story in the past few years. It is a great class. It is not the same class as when it was started, but that is not a bad thing. [/b]

You are making part of the point for IT going national, or doing away with the regional/national seperation.

Few could debate that SM is a success story. But why is it a success story.

Is it a popular car? Yep but it is a "spec" series and only one car. That would take some people out that just want to run something different, thats why there are IT Hondas, VW&#39;s Triumphs and Opels... difference, take a car you like for one reason or another...and some people are a little crazy :)

As far as getting a top 10 IT car on the track it is pretty cheap, and would stay cheap when looked at line by line with a prod, touring, GT, or SS car. If you look at what else you have to run to get into SCCA racing and have a "sedan" type car the price is crazy, I would think that any other "fender" class is going to be more then SM, and IT would be the most cost friendly of them all, and would stay that way, depending on car choice.

The SM cars are pretty easy to take care of, they do not require the work of a prod or GT car. The only thing that I think would require less time wrenching on is a SS car, as far as fender cars go. A touring car is Big $$ and a SS car is pretty darn spendy also.

IT has cost, variaty, relitive ease of car prep, stable rule set, and a vast driver base to draw from, that is why it is so popular.

I think if IT went national the entrys for ITS, ITR, ITA would be neck and neck with SM for car counts, and ITB, ITC would be above GTL, F500, and a few others, I would bet. And this is the reason why the powers at be do not want IT to get national status. Talk about upsetting the apple cart! That is one reason I think it will not happen, but I am a glass half empty kind of guy.

Sure you can buy a Bimmer world or Millege engine but with all the drive line layouts, susp. mods, tires, swaybars, on and on that is different per car.....that a couple of horse power is not as critical as in a spec series. An ITA MR2 is worlds different then an ITA Miata. (not the best example) But the major differences in the IT class is one of its great streangths and one of the things that will make 2HP not that big of a deal, I won a rain race a while back in the MR2, why it could put power down better then any other car on the track, thats the only reason I won and I know it, at the time I was not in a better car or a better driver then the cars and drivers I beat.

The key here is difference, and a small amout of individual car modifications.

If having more cars come into your class, more and better drivers, better prepped cars as a down side then yes I agree, all these things will happen if IT goes national...and your static, stable, always top 10 finishing spot will be harder to keep if you do not up your game. We are the "entry" class and we can stay the entry class, the cost to join is always going to be one of the best buys in SCCA.

That 1987 ITB Toyota Corolla FX-16 in the classifides will still be a mega deal, and I doubt the price would go up.

[mustanghammer]

Travis, IPRESS,

You guys are making the wrong comparison. You are comparing the cost of a regional effort in an IT car to the cost of a National effor in the same IT car. Not the cost of a National IT efort to the cost of a National Production effort.

You are correct, however. Running an IT car in a National Program will cost more and here is why:

* The races are longer - more gas, brake pads, tires, and maintenance - this all adds up.

* The racing will be more competitive so it will require better consumables - Newer Tires

* The racing will be more competitive so it will require better equipment - lighter wheels, better shocks, etc

* The stakes are higher - more metal to metal contact

The comparison that I am making (I think others are too) is the cost of IT (at any level) to the cost of Production (at any level). In this comparison, IT is cheaper and here is what I mean:

* An IT car has more stock parts - Production cars don&#39;t

I parted out two RX7&#39;s over the winter. I now have extra spindles, fenders, doors, engine cores, transmissions, hoods, yada, yada, yada.....All for two cases of beer and my labor. My Production racer friend was able to get a crossmember and an rear end housing out of the deal.

When I need "racing parts" I go to Autozone or buy discounted OEM parts from Mazdaspeed. When my EP racing friend buys racing parts....well he really is buying real expensive racing parts.

My Prather Racing engine cost $4K in 2000. It has never been out of the car and it runs very strong today.

My production friend - Over $10K total and his engine has been out of his car 4 times and had two rebuilds since 2004. And by the way, this is NOT expensive when compared to a full prep Maita effort. In fact this is CHEAP - rotaries rule! Still more smack than my IT motor, however.

* The rules are restrictive so it is VERY hard to build a 2 race hand grenade motor

Now if you over-rev any engine you will kill it. However an IT engine should never have to be raced at the edge of it&#39;s endurance constantly. Compare that to what is happening to a produciton engine. Yes they really do have engines that have to be rebuilt every 4-5 hrs.

* The rules are restrictive enough that after awhile you can run out of stuff to buy

After you buy top of the line shocks, wheels, a pro built motor, a trick clutch and maybe a modded ECU what else are you going to buy? None of this stuff is cheap but certainly you can see that in in IT you can reach a ceiling allot faster than in Production. Read the GCR and add up the go fast parts in a prod car.

* Maintenance

This year my big ticket item was a new drive shaft from Mazdaspeed. I replaces the Koni strut that I ruined at the last race. Plus I rebuilt the calipers, repacked the wheel bearings, built a new strut brace, changed springs and I changed oil/lubes.

The EP car in the shop I work out of......Mandeville engine, dyno time, stainless exhaust, a clutch that is a work of art, Jerico transmission back to Irv Heorr, shocks back to Advance, and fibergalss work. The oil and lubes were also changed!!

So what will a top dog IT effort cost.....probably the $20-30K that it costs to go SM racing. Maybe more, maybe less depending on the car. But frankly for a top notch National effort that ain&#39;t too bad.

[tnord]

i don&#39;t think anyone is debating whether or not IT is cheaper than prod, that would just be foolish.

i don&#39;t think dividing the IT entries in two amongst regional/national is healthy for the class at all. just look how many entries were in SM in St Louis last weekend, what was it, 6? topeka has like 4 SMs registered for this weekend. which is why the only scenario where i&#39;m ok with IT going national is the elimination of the distinction between regional/national classes/races.

[Andy Bettencourt]

i don&#39;t think anyone is debating whether or not IT is cheaper than prod, that would just be foolish.

i don&#39;t think dividing the IT entries in two amongst regional/national is healthy for the class at all. just look how many entries were in SM in St Louis last weekend, what was it, 6? topeka has like 4 SMs registered for this weekend. which is why the only scenario where i&#39;m ok with IT going national is the elimination of the distinction between regional/national classes/races. [/b]

And to me, you have a couple scenarios that play out:

1. If IT goes National and Regional and National weekends stay as is, then there will be some dillution of the Regional programs over time. Some new drivers will come in but people running serious National programs will not do as many Regionals.

2. If you just drop the designation and everyone is &#39;National&#39;, you will lose that Regional place to play where prep level and seriousness are reduced. Just look at most cars at a Regional from a National class...SM will get there. Guys are doing double duty now, but they won&#39;t forever.

[tnord]

2. If you just drop the designation and everyone is &#39;National&#39;, you will lose that Regional place to play where prep level and seriousness are reduced. Just look at most cars at a Regional from a National class...SM will get there. Guys are doing double duty now, but they won&#39;t forever.
[/b]

yeah, this realization came to me a little while ago, and i&#39;m not sure what i think just yet.

a couple of questions.....

1) do you think that because there is no more &#39;regional&#39; class that people who currently run regionals only will get out of racing?

2) Will the people who used to run regionals with lower prep efforts now running in the same group with all the former national entries decide to develop the car further because they are now running further back?

3) will new drivers be intimidated by this structure because there is no &#39;lower tier&#39; regional racing to get started in?

my answers;
1) no
2) sometimes, but there will still be people who keep the same level of prep and don&#39;t care about runoffs.
3) because of my answer to 2, i think new drivers will be just fine. the disparity in lap times may be greater, but the groups are larger, and as long as my answer to 1 is true, there should be just as many people to race with.

i agree, people will not do double-duty very long in SM. I think the number of people doing so right now is pretty low compared to the beginning of last year.

[seckerich]

I would like to see IT cars at the runoffs as much as anybody but worry about the effects it would have on regional races. In many areas if we dilute the market any more we will not be able to afford to run the races. IT classes carry most of the races in the southeast and could be the breaking point if these entry fees are lost. If IT were national it would require some big changes in the way we structure our events. Just let the top 3-5 (or whatever number works) from every division go to the runoffs and leave it regional--make one hell of a show with full fields instead of the pitiful parade we see in some classes now.

[DavidM]

yeah, this realization came to me a little while ago, and i&#39;m not sure what i think just yet.

a couple of questions.....

1) do you think that because there is no more &#39;regional&#39; class that people who currently run regionals only will get out of racing?

2) Will the people who used to run regionals with lower prep efforts now running in the same group with all the former national entries decide to develop the car further because they are now running further back?

3) will new drivers be intimidated by this structure because there is no &#39;lower tier&#39; regional racing to get started in?

my answers;
1) no
2) sometimes, but there will still be people who keep the same level of prep and don&#39;t care about runoffs.
3) because of my answer to 2, i think new drivers will be just fine. the disparity in lap times may be greater, but the groups are larger, and as long as my answer to 1 is true, there should be just as many people to race with.

i agree, people will not do double-duty very long in SM. I think the number of people doing so right now is pretty low compared to the beginning of last year.
[/b]

1. No
2. I think part of racing is tinkering with the car so I would expect some people to tinker more.
3. No. If anything, going to the runoffs would be something of a carrot. We may be amateurs, but knowing that something like the runoffs exist if you get good enough is cool.

I don&#39;t think dropping the regional classification for IT will have a whole lot of effect on the classes. It&#39;s still going to be the same people driving the same cars. It&#39;s just that now people would have the opportunity to go to the runoffs. Sure, over time the class will probably attract more full-built efforts, and more cars in general, because of the runoffs opportunity, but is that bad? 30 car IT fields would be great. So what if you&#39;re now racing for 20th instead of 10th position. More cars = more people to race.

My concern would actually be for the regional type series like the SARRC and ECR. I like these series and hope they would be kept around in some form.

David

[zenbutcher]

As someone who has raced in GP the past 6 years, more regionally than nationally, I thought I&#39;d weigh in, because I&#39;m on the fence. I spent this winter parting out my prod car and building an ITA car. I could&#39;ve built 8 ITA cars for what I got for my GP car. Why did I choose IT? 1) Rules consistency. 2) High number of race entrants (ie. more competition). 3) Cost. In that order.

Whether racing nationally or regionally there still is the core of decent fun people to be around. Regional racers I feel are more grounded and aware that this is amature racing, you know, a hobby. I guess that weighed in on my decision to switch to IT. There are still buku $$ efforts in regional racing though.

If you want to try national racing I&#39;d have to say rent a ride in whichever national class you want to dip your toes into.

I do not have any problem with losing the national vs. regional distinction. That may happen anyways when 2-3 national classes die.

Do I have any intent, want, desire, to race my ITA car in G or F prod? No way.

But at this point I&#39;m not against anyone who may think it could be more fun. The grass is always greener, you know.

Peter Baumgartner
ITA Fiero

[dj10]

As someone who has raced in GP the past 6 years, more regionally than nationally, I thought I&#39;d weigh in, because I&#39;m on the fence. I spent this winter parting out my prod car and building an ITA car. I could&#39;ve built 8 ITA cars for what I got for my GP car. Why did I choose IT? 1) Rules consistency. 2) High number of race entrants (ie. more competition). 3) Cost. In that order.

Whether racing nationally or regionally there still is the core of decent fun people to be around. Regional racers I feel are more grounded and aware that this is amature racing, you know, a hobby. I guess that weighed in on my decision to switch to IT. There are still buku $$ efforts in regional racing though.

If you want to try national racing I&#39;d have to say rent a ride in whichever national class you want to dip your toes into.

I do not have any problem with losing the national vs. regional distinction. That may happen anyways when 2-3 national classes die.

Do I have any intent, want, desire, to race my ITA car in G or F prod? No way.

But at this point I&#39;m not against anyone who may think it could be more fun. The grass is always greener, you know.

Peter Baumgartner
ITA Fiero

[/b]

Great post :023:

[IPRESS]

IT seems to have a stable set of rules at this point. One thing to consider is what would going national do to this stability?
Andy, how many rules "massages" have been made since National first adopted the SM rules nationally? It seems quite a few.
There seems to be a great many little things that start changing the class when it moves from regional to national. Some of them may be positive.... others not so much.
Peter&#39;s suggestion of renting a national ride sort of says a lot. If the RUNOFFS is your be all end all race there are 24+ classes to run in to get there. Some folks after being there may decide that it wasn&#39;t worth the time, $$, and other stuff that goes with it.
It is sort of funny that tnord and myself see IT as just fine like it is. We both are not in areas that have many DBL REG. weekends. We have shorter races then national classes and we have less practice time. Those being negatives I still see IT as it is as being the right niche for a big group of budget racers. You guys in the SE & NE and Left Coast have it double good as there are many DBL REG weekends to enjoy in those areas. (Heck if I lived in one of those areas I would really be against IT going National! As it is if most folks want it I could grin and bear it.)

This thread is pretty good as it shows lots of differnt views and opinions. I&#39;m already looking at it from a different take.

Mac

[ddewhurst]

***This thread is pretty good as it shows lots of differnt views and opinions. I&#39;m already looking at it from a different take.***

The fun part is that many of us have cars that are classed in National at this time & doing a National race is no big deal. Presuming cell is in car, NASCAR bars /side glass gone, remove front parking/side bulbs/lenses, change decals & go racing.

My bet is that when all this thread is history, Andy has written his letter , above ^ is the ONLY way IT cars will race within a National Production race group. :D

[EarlinFla]

I agree with Dave Gran that this proposal is an attempt to prop up National attendance.

Earl Clemenson, ITC, CFR Region

[dj10]

I agree with Dave Gran that this proposal is an attempt to prop up National attendance.

Earl Clemenson, ITC, CFR Region [/b]



Even if this is true, there is nothing wrong with changing your business plan. I would have to scratch my head if the SCCA didn&#39;t make changes. It&#39;s a matter of survival, lead, follow or get out of the way. If I were the SCCA, I would not distingust between national and regional, it would be only SCCA National Racing. I mean every class. For the runoffs, I get, as an example the 15 most popular and exciting racing classes (invite them by points) and let them go for championships. This way, just because I have a National car (except ITE and catch all groups) doesn&#39;t mean I have to go the the runoffs, if ITR was selected. Hell, everyone would be a national car. You would be the biggest fields and the best racing. IMO. No matter what, the cream will always rise to the top. Don&#39;t be to fast to criticize this plan, I just thought of it as I am typing. If you think about IT racing, most of the top IT drivers could even race PRO, and some do, if they had a chance. So don&#39;t tell me there is not enough talent in IT racing to make the SCCA Nationals more exciting. B)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I agree with Dave Gran that this proposal is an attempt to prop up National attendance.

Earl Clemenson, ITC, CFR Region [/b]

Well, you would be wrong. As the originator of the proposal, it may be a concequence but it is not the primary or even secondary reason. I would think the only benefit to that aspect would be less resitance fom the Prod community.

[cherokee]

Costs seem to be the #1 reason brought up as to why IT should not go national, and I think that is grabbing for straws. That was the reason for the huge note reguarding costs that I posted a page or so back.

Our rules are stable because of the way IT is setup. I don&#39;t see IT going to plastic fenders (except for Fiero&#39;s) :) and crazy cams, carbs, and mondo FI systems. The core set of rules make that not possible. If the day comes that I can&#39;t get a stock cam, or whatever then the days of running IT in that car are over. The core of IT is an OEM susp, drive line and body pannels.

If we keep high $$ fuel injection, fenders made of alternate material, trick trannies and such out of IT I think we will have a stable rule set.

But I have to agree, I also fail to see how running your existing IT car in prod is going to give you a taste of anything. You are running an IT car, want a taste of prod rent one and see what it is like to run on slicks with trick trannies and all the goodies. I see it as not giving IT a taste of prod racing I see it as giving prod a taste of IT&#39;s car counts. Prod gets all the good and we get to motor around the same track, in the same car, how does that tell me about the experence of driving a car with a prod setup, the cars are different as can be.

To make my opinion clear, I do support Andy&#39;s position....only if IT cars are classed competitively. Or IT as a national class.

[RSTPerformance]

Well, you would be wrong. As the originator of the proposal, it may be a concequence but it is not the primary or even secondary reason. I would think the only benefit to that aspect would be less resitance fom the Prod community.
[/b]


I agree with Andy that it is not the intent but it sure is a great benefit/result for other people outside the IT community (IE: SCCA as a whole).

Raymond

[Knestis]

There IS something to the idea of giving other stakeholders something that they see as valuable, to further one&#39;s own agenda. If Andy&#39;s idea gets support (or at least, avoids push-back) from existing Prod folks BECAUSE they perceive that it helps save their class, then that potentially eliminates challenges to the policy.

That said, cherokee raises a good, fundamental question: Precisely what is it that an IT guy/gal would be "tasting," by running as a Production entry? Bigger trophies? More track time? I&#39;m ignoring that someone could double up on a Reg/Nat weekend because there are opportunities to do that in many Regional-only schedules.

Andy?

I&#39;m back to thinking that there&#39;s an alternative agenda embedded here. The old saw comes to mind, about how once the camel gets its nose under the tent flap, you are destined to have the whole animal in there with you. Once IT cars are listed UN-competitively in Prod, it will be politically impossible to get rid of them and internal pressure will eventually get them adjusted more favorably...?

K

[Andy Bettencourt]

There IS something to the idea of giving other stakeholders something that they see as valuable, to further one&#39;s own agenda. If Andy&#39;s idea gets support (or at least, avoids push-back) from existing Prod folks BECAUSE they perceive that it helps save their class, then that potentially eliminates challenges to the policy.

That said, cherokee raises a good, fundamental question: Precisely what is it that an IT guy/gal would be "tasting," by running as a Production entry? Bigger trophies? More track time? I&#39;m ignoring that someone could double up on a Reg/Nat weekend because there are opportunities to do that in many Regional-only schedules.

Andy?

I&#39;m back to thinking that there&#39;s an alternative agenda embedded here. The old saw comes to mind, about how once the camel gets its nose under the tent flap, you are destined to have the whole animal in there with you. Once IT cars are listed UN-competitively in Prod, it will be politically impossible to get rid of them and internal pressure will eventually get them adjusted more favorably...?

K [/b]

Well first off, I don&#39;t know how there can be an imbedded agenda. It&#39;s my idea from inception. Now I culd never gurantee anyone that this idea won&#39;t hurt IT ever going National but I doubt it. I am also confident the current BoD isn&#39;t up on that specific idea. Going National that is.

What I perceive that person would be &#39;tasting&#39;, is the speed of a National car, prep level of a National car, the people in the National program, the duration and scheduling of a National race, etc. Basically (again) opening up a smooth and logical path between categories.

[cherokee]

What I perceive that person would be &#39;tasting&#39;, is the speed of a National car, prep level of a National car, the people in the National program, the duration and scheduling of a National race, etc. Basically (again) opening up a smooth and logical path between categories.
[/b]

The taste of speed? I can get the same taste of speed getting run over by an ITE Viper or 911 turbo better then getting run over by an Prod Honda.

The tast of the prep level? I am doing nothing to my car, I can get a better idea of prod car prep by hanging out with one and being an crew guy for a race or two. They seem pretty receptive to having another set of hands.

The taste of the people (that sounds wrong :) ) See above, talking to them letting them know you are intrested opened doors for me. I doubt you would see any driver in any class say no I think you should stay where you are.

I do agree with the smooth and logical path between catagories, but I think if the objective of getting people a taste of anything what you are proposing will not do it.

Put the IT cars in on slicks and if applicable wider wheels, make them do all the mods that are legal in both IT and prod. Make it to where any adjustment to anything on the car is not possible unless there is a rule chance in IT, these are IT cars running in prod, they follow IT rules on computers, sensors, susp. engine....

This will give them a taste of speed. You will be faster on slicks, at least in the corner, I would think.

This will give you a taste of prep level. Putting in cells, windshield clips, and new wheels and tires will open the door to what you have to do.

And if it does not work out, sell the wheels and tires and go back to IT. Sounds perfect to me. Even on slicks an ITB car is going to have a hard time in the class you suggested. But it would give them more of the taste you are after, and should not send the prod world spinning into the sun.

[Andy Bettencourt]

The taste of speed? I can get the same taste of speed getting run over by an ITE Viper or 911 turbo better then getting run over by an Prod Honda.

The tast of the prep level? I am doing nothing to my car, I can get a better idea of prod car prep by hanging out with one and being an crew guy for a race or two. They seem pretty receptive to having another set of hands.

The taste of the people (that sounds wrong :) ) See above, talking to them letting them know you are intrested opened doors for me. I doubt you would see any driver in any class say no I think you should stay where you are.

I do agree with the smooth and logical path between catagories, but I think if the objective of getting people a taste of anything what you are proposing will not do it.

Put the IT cars in on slicks and if applicable wider wheels, make them do all the mods that are legal in both IT and prod. Make it to where any adjustment to anything on the car is not possible unless there is a rule chance in IT, these are IT cars running in prod, they follow IT rules on computers, sensors, susp. engine....

This will give them a taste of speed. You will be faster on slicks, at least in the corner, I would think.

This will give you a taste of prep level. Putting in cells, windshield clips, and new wheels and tires will open the door to what you have to do.

And if it does not work out, sell the wheels and tires and go back to IT. Sounds perfect to me. Even on slicks an ITB car is going to have a hard time in the class you suggested. But it would give them more of the taste you are after, and should not send the prod world spinning into the sun. [/b]



When I say &#39;taste&#39;, I mean &#39;exposure to&#39;. To what? To a world we have limited access to that we might want to go to some day. Thats it. No hidden agendas.

[zenbutcher]

I agree completely with a smooth and logical transition from IT to Prod. There should be one. The fact that the transition isn&#39;t already in place directly reflects upon the Club powers. I think all IT cars should be classed at some level of prep(full or LP) in Prod already.

But that is where common sense ends. After witnessing years of car classification requests denied because the CRB doesn&#39;t like the color of paint, asinine competition adjustments, or just reclassing cars without any analysis, the fact is - logic is used very sparingly regarding Prod rules.

I&#39;ve seen how the rule makers have hurt Prod, especially GP. Would I trust them with IT?? Not on your life.

So, in my mind the task should be, how do we get them to class IT into Prod? Not run IT with Prod.

Peter Baumgartner
ITA

[lateapex911]

Some may have noticed I&#39;ve been mum on this one, and some would say thats rare.

It&#39;s because I just can&#39;t wrap my brain around it. One one hand, I wonder if I&#39;m not thinking it&#39;s cool because, like Peter, I see Prod as a historically mismanaged category, and I just don&#39;t trust "them". (not the drivers or their driving...)

And for that reason, I personally have no desire to run in Prod, either as a "guest" like this plan, or even as a "equal" if IT cars were classed into the category in a "fair"manner. Why? well, again, I just think that the IT guys might lobby heavily to get a fair classing to begin with, but a year later, the story will be different. Thats the Prod way...constant adjustment.

I&#39;m not trying to dump on my fellow SCCA ad hoc guys, and really, the current ad hoc is inheriting years of history....and in the CRBs defense, they&#39;ve tried to do what the actual Prod drivers have wanted over the years...but I just don&#39;t see a framework in the category that tells me the decisions are being made in a logical and nuetral manner. I HAVE seen the start of that...but I think theres a long way to go.

IT uses a process that uses the cars mechanical aspects to predict it&#39;s performance, and aims that in the end, on an average track, an an average day, with top prep and top divers, we&#39;ll see close finishes. But until very recently, the Prod method used a fine tuning method to adjust their way to parity, and essentially used one track and one event as their major data point. Philosophically, the two methods are worlds apart.

So, I guess, my thoughts are to be decided.

Who would such a plan benefit?
IT drivers? Why?
Prod drivers? Why?
Who would it hurt and why?

In the big picture, is it important to bolster Prods numbers? (Part of me says, no, they&#39;ve made their bed, let them sleep in it., but then I feel Darwin has the right answers for the Prod category....)

And how does this relate to the Prep category?

Honestly, I think an additional class in Prep, where ITS cars would have a real chance makes sense. As the two current Prep classes have, to my understanding, different allowances, why not create a lesser performance class, with lesser allowances? Super IT if you will. Maybe allow engine swaps, but limit displacement. I think where Prod fails is that none of us wants to dork with the car in the way you are forced to in Prod.....anyway, I&#39;m just tossing out ideas.

I &#39;m really on the fence with this one.....

[RSTPerformance]

I like 2 things besides the "taste"


1) The abbility to go to more events on different weekends

2) The abbility to share a car with a friend and run in two realistic classes at a regional event. Sure that option exists now... but realisticly we are not all ITS or ITA drivers (meaning some of us have slow cars :( )... my ITB Audi can run in ITE, but I would be 20 seconds off the pace and have NOBODY to compete against. At least if I was in a prod class I should be able to give the backmarkers a run for their trophy. While not fun to all, I think it would be a blast.


Raymond

[Knestis]

Those are entirely different rationales, Raymond.


What I perceive that person would be &#39;tasting&#39;, is the speed of a National car, prep level of a National car, the people in the National program, the duration and scheduling of a National race...[/b]

Hmm.

I&#39;m with cherokee on this one - none of those tastes are seeming substantive enough to make the idea click for me. "Speed" I just don&#39;t get, I guess. The same range of "prep levels" exists at a National as I see at every Regional - some are downright crappy. I haven&#39;t been to a NC Region National but when I DID hang out at those events, it was all the same people, if not always in the same roles. I run Regionals that are 12 and 13 hours long, so "duration" doesn&#39;t make any sense.

I just don&#39;t see what it is that we&#39;d be sampling but I may be biased, having done that gig before. If you want to see a National, I&#39;m sure there are plenty of drivers looking for help, or corners that need flaggers.

K

[Bill Miller]

Andy,

Please help me understand how your proposal helps smooth or facilitate the transition from IT to Prod. As I said before, you can&#39;t mix and match the rules, you can&#39;t just throw slicks on your IT car, w/o doing all the other things that make it legal for Prod. How would it be any different than it is today, in terms of prep? And what do you do about the IT cars that aren&#39;t classed in Prod (at a Prod prep level)? How do they transition to Prod?

And like I said before, the speed and prep level &#39;taste&#39; is a myth, as you get so few drivers that show up, and many of the ones that do, are running mule motors, old tires, etc. Look at the car counts for the Nationals that have run so far this year. Look at the car counts for the Nationals that ran last year. I&#39;d bet that the vast majority have Prod fields significantly smaller than most of the IT fields. You want to be on track w/ a bunch of cars that are faster than you, and that handle better than you do, go run ITE. If you want it to hold any allure at all for the IT drivers, put the cars where they stand a chance. ITR>EP, ITS>FP, ITA>GP, ITB and ITC (sorry guys) > HP. Otherwise, all you&#39;re giving people a &#39;taste&#39; of is having their doors blown off.

[cherokee]

Sorry Andy I mis-read it, I swore I read taste. I guess that is what 6hrs of reading process papers on dead beat dads, and child abuse will do to you. I actually come and read here for a bit of a rest.

If the IT in cars are tied to the IT rule set then the prod rule making.....procedure will have nothing to do with the IT cars running in prod, these are IT cars not prod cars prod rule makers should have nothing to say about changing them.

Who would such a plan benefit? IT drivers, Prod drivers, and people that watch the races.

IT drivers? It will give them the ability to run national, and will give the ease into prod that is being looked for and still maintain the regional status of IT.

Prod drivers? Car counts, people to race against, classing newer cars as full prep or limited prep might be a little....smoother

Who would it hurt and why? IT, splitting the cars into prod and IT. Prod, watering down the production classes as we know them. Production car owners wondering why a 10k IT car is in the same class as their 100K prod car.

It is up to the folks that know so much more about both classes then I do to make the best decision. I still think it could be a good idea, and might get more people in to SCCA, we need to make some hard decisions to keep up with the NASA&#39;s of the world.

The runoffs is our best public outing, in every one they talk about costs of getting into racing. And every time it is a class that is 20+k to get started. I got started with a 4K car that came with 3 sets of tires. I doubt that an entrry level car would go up in price.

[lateapex911]

Who would such a plan benefit? IT drivers, Prod drivers, and people that watch the races.

IT drivers? It will give them the ability to run national, and will give the ease into prod that is being looked for and still maintain the regional status of IT.
[/b]

Could you expand on the "ease into prod" part? If I understand it, any IT car will be uncompetitive, unless the race entered happens to have sucky Prod cars. (I know, thats a very real possibility, just as IT has sketchy levels of competition across the events all over the country). And there is no plan to absorb IT cars into Prod "as is"....in a competitive way...so, to me, it&#39;s the exact same as it is now...we run with Prod classes in our run group at Regionals...except the races are longer, and, in theory, all the "better" Prod cars are at Nationals.


Prod drivers? Car counts, people to race against, classing newer cars as full prep or limited prep might be a little....smoother
[/b]

That last part is a big maybe...whats the reasoning or the rational behind it? Just curious as to the line of thinking.



Who would it hurt and why? IT, splitting the cars into prod and IT. Prod, watering down the production classes as we know them. Production car owners wondering why a 10k IT car is in the same class as their 100K prod car.
[/b]

An interesting aside there. I&#39;ve watched some Prod cars not sell on ebay for reasonble sums...good cars with known history too. And I have a friend who had a similar situation....he couldn&#39;t get two nickles for his EP car. In the end, parting it out was the best way to recover as much $ as possible. I&#39;d submit any car is worht what it can be sold for...and in that light, many IT cars are actually worth more than many Prod cars.

But, I get your point, and there is a real sense among many Prod drivers that IT drivers will bash their way around the track, destroying the fragile handmade bodywork of the Prod cars.



It is up to the folks that know so much more about both classes then I do to make the best decision. I still think it could be a good idea, and might get more people in to SCCA, we need to make some hard decisions to keep up with the NASA&#39;s of the world.

The runoffs is our best public outing, in every one they talk about costs of getting into racing. And every time it is a class that is 20+k to get started. I got started with a 4K car that came with 3 sets of tires. I doubt that an entrry level car would go up in price.
[/b]

I&#39;m interested in hearing the how and why behind the boldened statement. What mechanism do you see occuring to make that a reality?

[Fi3555]

I&#39;ve been watching this thread for awhile now and have decided to put in my .02 cents.
Last year I ran an ITB Golf in the SARRC, ECR and at the ARRC. I put in a good effort to prepare my car properly never sparing a dollar for prep or tires. I finished 2nd in the SARRC,3rd ECR, 7th ARRC sprint and 4th ARRC enduro. This year I bought a national GP Golf. Although 3 times the money as the ITB car it is of the same caliber. So far this year I have finished third in three National races (sometimes a distant third).
I have spent the same amount of time in prep(brakes, engine,trans. etc.) I have found tires on the GP car to be $30 each cheaper than the ITB tires(Hoosiers). The GP tires also last abit longer. Although the initial expense of the GP was higher the consumable parts are about the same. The difference is in the development. The ITB car could have $ spent in this area but the rules constrain this abit. The GP car on the other hand (even though an LP car) can go through a wad of cash in engine and trans. improvements.
As far as lap times I&#39;ve found an GP car is about 4 seconds faster than an ITB car (both Golfs). At the ARRC(RA)the ITB&#39;s best lap was 1:49.3. Last weekend the GP Golf turned a 1:45.3 at RA. In case you&#39;re wondering the new lap record was set last weekend at a 1:44.752 by Ken Bouquillon in a Datsun 510 (very fast). An ITA Miata turned a 1:43.77 that weekend. What I think you are all missing is that IT and production cars aren&#39;t compatible due to tires: hence a different technique. With the DOT tires one is in a continual slip while cornering. A fraction over the limit of adhesion and bam you are gone, off the track. With the Bias-ply race tires there is a bigger window for maneuvering. Sure,you are sliding but it&#39;s a controlled slide. You are just scrubbing off speed if off line or avoiding an incident. IT cars on DOT tires racing with Prod cars is just asking for problems.
As far as another expense comparison in IT vs. Production one also needs to figure in body damage. Last season I went through 3 fenders,2 doors,lower sill , suspension upright and a rear quarter panel. The prod car lost a bit of paint on the rear bumper so far. Figure the body work in and the costs of running are very similar.

Tim Pitts
#97 ITB Golf
#11 GP Golf

[JoshS]

What I think you are all missing is that IT and production cars aren&#39;t compatible due to tires: hence a different technique. With the DOT tires one is in a continual slip while cornering. A fraction over the limit of adhesion and bam you are gone, off the track. With the Bias-ply race tires there is a bigger window for maneuvering. Sure,you are sliding but it&#39;s a controlled slide. You are just scrubbing off speed if off line or avoiding an incident. IT cars on DOT tires racing with Prod cars is just asking for problems.
[/b]
What problems? Slicks and DOT tires are on track together in lots of our race groups out here on the left coast. Sure, they aren&#39;t in the same class, but so what? Some classes have cars that vary wildly in their cornering ability. T2 has the Lotus Elise and the Chevy Camaro. Makes a DOT-shod Golf look almost identical to a slick-shod Golf.



As far as another expense comparison in IT vs. Production one also needs to figure in body damage. Last season I went through 3 fenders,2 doors,lower sill , suspension upright and a rear quarter panel. The prod car lost a bit of paint on the rear bumper so far. Figure the body work in and the costs of running are very similar.
[/b]
So therefore all IT cars have to do more bodywork than all Prod cars? Maybe it&#39;s the difference between regional and national drivers. In my last two seasons in SS and T in national races, I saw very few car-to-car incidents. In fact, I don&#39;t know anyone who had to do half as much bodywork as you in a single season.

[240zdave]

I&#39;ve only been racing in the SCCA for six years, but here is my opinion, for what it&#39;s worth. For the SCCA to survive and grow, we need to attract new competitors. I don&#39;t have any facts and figures to back this up, but I would venture to say that most new competitiors that get into SCCA racing for the first time are doing so in IT. Therefore, anything that has the potential of making IT more expensive has the potential of having a detrimental effect on future membership and club viability. I can see letting IT cars run with the Prod cars as opening the door to that possibility.

Firstly, it will probably reduce the car counts in the regional IT races, thereby reducing the car counts for regional events, consequently raising the entry fees for regional events to keep them from losing money. Not a good scenario for attracting new members, or for keeping existing members operating on low budgets.

Secondly, as soon as IT cars are allowed to run with the Prod cars, the bitchin&#39; and moanin&#39; will start about how they (IT) are not competitive, and then one of two things will happen. Either the IT guys will stop entering the Prod races and go back to their regional ones, meaning we are back where we started, or the IT rules will start to be rewritten to make the cars more competitive with Prod, meaning more expense, and possibly 2 levels of IT in SCCA, regional and more expensive national.

On the other hand, if the national/regional class structure was dumped, making all classes eligible to make the Runoffs based on average car counts, IT could continue running as it does now, keeping the same rule set, with no temptation to modify the rules to keep up with some other class, and it would be up to the competitor whether he was willing to spend the dollars necessary to tow to all the tracks and enter the number of races it would take to get a shot a going to the Runoffs. To acquire/prep an IT car would not cost any more than it does now, just the added expense of competing at the "national" level. IT would still be available as the least costly starting point for new members wanting to get into low-budget racing.

OK, I&#39;m done for now. Flame away at will.

[JohnRW]

Secondly, as soon as IT cars are allowed to run with the Prod cars, the bitchin&#39; and moanin&#39; will start about how they (IT) are not competitive, and then one of two things will happen. Either the IT guys will stop entering the Prod races and go back to their regional ones, meaning we are back where we started, or the IT rules will start to be rewritten to make the cars more competitive with Prod, meaning more expense, and possibly 2 levels of IT in SCCA, regional and more expensive national.[/b]


A gold star for Dave. While no one can predict the future, everything has consequences.

Andy gets the &#39;Bent, Tire-scuffed Medal of Honor&#39; for taking all the shell-fire on this subject. I&#39;ll bring him a beer at LRP in late May.

I don&#39;t necessarily agree with the view that IT in Prod will suck some of the life out of IT in Regionals. Why ? Regional Championships...like MARRS, SARRC, NARRC, NYSRRC etc...will continue to hold a greater importance to many racers than running Nationals with a view toward the RunOffs. Not a different level of commitment...just a different level of focus.

A broad view from here: I still feel that there is something disingenuous about Prod inviting IT cars to fill their ranks to prop their numbers, while at the same time making damn sure that IT cars will never be truly competitive in Prod. How&#39;s that for a &#39;leading statement&#39; ? Good thing I&#39;m not a lawyer.....

[IPRESS]

Andy,
I know this isn&#39;t the whole IT world (only a small sample), but it appears that what you are selling either needs tweaking from the IT standpoint (which will kill it with the Prod side) or just dropping it all together. There have been some pretty good points brought up both ways, but the one thing that is probably the biggest factor, is HAVING A CHANCE in the race. The more I think about it the more I agree on that point. I doubt the Prod guys want IT cars to have a snowballs chance.

[lateapex911]

Andy,
. I doubt the Prod guys want IT cars to have a snowballs chance. [/b]

Had to laugh at that.....I love reading the Prod requests in Fastrack..."Add weight to the Mazda Miata in EP, thankyou, John Doe, Nissan Z car, CenDiv."...then the next request, "Add weight to the Nissan Z car in EP, thankyou, Bob Smith, Mazda Miata, CenDiv"...

Heck, the Prod guys don&#39;t want their own to have a chance! IT cars?? LOL.....

[Drew Aldred]

Heck, the Prod guys don&#39;t want their own to have a chance! IT cars?? LOL.....
[/b]

I was kinda trying to say this a few pages earlier. It&#39;s not that prod guys don&#39;t want you to have a chance, they just don&#39;t want it handed to you. (By "they" I include myself, not trying to throw Prod guys under the bus) It&#39;s a long and slow process to make adjustments to cars in Prod - that&#39;s by design. There is a great fear of creating an overdog by making large changes to a single car. The logic being what if an uber driver/engineer built this combo, would it be a runaway winner at the Runoffs.

I don&#39;t think many IT racers would be happy running forever with little chance of winning and no adjustments available. IF the IT cars are classed for Prod, I would expect a change in the rules to allow for some competition adjustments. Understand it doesn&#39;t happen quickly, or it might happen without anyone seemingly requesting a change........... Sounds like fun right ???

Again, I would love to have more cars on track racing in Prod but I think IT has a pretty good thing going. But it&#39;s not like IT is going away, if the Prod "experiment" doesn&#39;t work out then you can still run in IT. I don&#39;t see alot of guys switching over full time from IT to Prod, but that&#39;s my opinion.

[cherokee]

In resopnse to Jake&#39;s questions on the other page:

Could you expand on the "ease into prod" part?

Sure, if you make the IT car in prod have slicks and all the safety stuff required in prod but only “recommended” in prod the car is almost there. He is running in prod, if he wanted to go full prep he can pull lights and lenses and such, slap an FP sticker on his car and go, he has tires, wheels, safety prep already done. As he gets more experience he can start fiddling with the motor and suspension upgrades.
Easing into prod from an IT car is just not possible, there is so much to buy and so much to learn. If he decides I am going to take my ITB car and go FP, there is nothing easy about it, and it is a hard road to go back if you don’t like the other side of the fence.

That last part is a big maybe...whats the reasoning or the rational behind it? Just curious as to the line of thinking.

My thoughts are, if they see the newer IT cars out there, running in IT trim and seeing how fast they are, they might be a little quicker to class them, perhaps a little more receptive to the request to class the 2002 Wombat if that car had been with the prod guys. It is a long shot but it might help. They might do something like IT did with the New Beetle, not the best example but it might help a tiny bit.

I&#39;m interested in hearing the how and why behind the boldened statement (might get more people in to SCCA). What mechanism do you see occuring to make that a reality?

Getting new people into the SCCA, or Secret Car Club of America, is a hard one. Last year I worked the SCCA booth at a local car show and you would be amazed how few “enthusiasts” even knew about autocross, how to get started….anything. I will not even talk about club racing.

For what it is, the TV coverage is the best exposure to the general public that the SCCA gets and IF IT gets TV coverage I think it would go a long way. We have the most cost effective class out there. IF a lowly IT car got TV time or heaven forbid a feature spot the door could open big time. I think part of the success of SM is the TV exposure from the pro series, there are other reasons out there and better reasons, but Miatas on TV is not hurting.

[zenbutcher]

QUOTE(IPRESS @ Mar 29 2007, 08:25 AM)
Andy,
. I doubt the Prod guys want IT cars to have a snowballs chance.


Had to laugh at that.....I love reading the Prod requests in Fastrack..."Add weight to the Mazda Miata in EP, thankyou, John Doe, Nissan Z car, CenDiv."...then the next request, "Add weight to the Nissan Z car in EP, thankyou, Bob Smith, Mazda Miata, CenDiv"...

Heck, the Prod guys don&#39;t want their own to have a chance! IT cars?? LOL.....[/b]

Perfectly stated! LOL.....sad, but really, really true.

Peter B.

[lateapex911]

For what it is, the TV coverage is the best exposure to the general public that the SCCA gets and IF IT gets TV coverage I think it would go a long way. We have the most cost effective class out there. IF a lowly IT car got TV time or heaven forbid a feature spot the door could open big time. I think part of the success of SM is the TV exposure from the pro series, there are other reasons out there and better reasons, but Miatas on TV is not hurting.
[/b]

I&#39;m right with you in regards to the Runoffs being a geat marketing chance for the club...and I&#39;ve long beaten the drum that we present ourselves to the uninitiated...the very people we want to get involved, and we don&#39;t showcase our entry level category...IT. (Ignoring for a second the SM entry level category...)

So there we are on TV, saying, "Come join us, it&#39;s easy!", and we don&#39;t show a great way to do it. Sad.

But.....I don&#39;t see how this plan...allowing IT cars into Prod, will result in IT getting TV exposure. Even IF some guy found the right division to score enough points in his ITA car, I don&#39;t think he&#39;d stand a snowballs chance at the Runoffs as he&#39;s essentially classed one up from where the car could be competitive. Even if the fields in Prod are thin at the Runofffs, the front few rows are still pretty quick.

Maybe the guy would get the "human interest" angle, but it&#39;s not going to attract newbies who have dreams of running near the front.

I could be wrong on all this, as I said earlier....someone help me see the light!

[JIgou]

Through all of these pages, to me there&#39;s a very important point needs to be remembered: it&#39;s not a requirement that you run your IT car in its "allowed" Prod class. The IT class remains where it is, with the same cars and same drivers you&#39;ve come to love (or hate :P ).

If the proposal were passed, I believe IT can (and would) remain exactly as it is today. A handful of folks may take advantage of the allowance periodically, but not enough to significantly impact the Prod class numbers.

I guess I just don&#39;t understand the "bad" side to the proposal? (My eyes did start to glaze over at about page 6, so maybe I missed it...)

Jarrod

[gran racing]

For the SCCA to survive and grow, we need to attract new competitors.[/b]

I certainly agree with this statement, but the big thing we need to do is improve the member retention numbers. For the past several years, the amount of new members SCCA gets is just about the same as the number of members the club loses. How many? ~ 10,000 per year. Now granted some of those are members who let their membership lapse and obtain a new member number when they re-sign. It sure is cheaper and easier to focus on member retention.

Seeing IT cars racing at the Runoffs by itself would provide the club exposure and probably help attract new members looking to race on a lower budget. My feeling has been that people with a lot of money who want to race, will find their way into the sport. It&#39;s the middle/upper middle class people that find that road tougher. Would seeing IT cars mixed in with other much faster cars (the whole prod class idea) make people want to look into IT as a budget minded way to start racing? I&#39;m not so sure.

[cherokee]

But.....I don&#39;t see how this plan...allowing IT cars into Prod, will result in IT getting TV exposure. Even IF some guy found the right division to score enough points in his ITA car, I don&#39;t think he&#39;d stand a snowballs chance at the Runoffs as he&#39;s essentially classed one up from where the car could be competitive. Even if the fields in Prod are thin at the Runofffs, the front few rows are still pretty quick.

[/b]

If they where classed in the order that (I think) Bill suggested ITR>EP, ITS>FP, ITA>GP, ITB and ITC > HP, I think that the times are close enough. I also think when runoff times came when the real motors go into prod cars the IT cars would be fighting from about 10th down but still not too far off the pace, during the season when many prod cars have less high strung motors in them it would be a battle at the front.

I doubt it will ever happen, IT will get to stay regional, small bore prod class will combine, and Topeka will come up with yet another new class that they will want to use IT cars to bolster the numbers in.

There is that glass half empty thing going on again.

[240zdave]

If they where classed in the order that (I think) Bill suggested ITR>EP, ITS>FP, ITA>GP, ITB and ITC > HP, I think that the times are close enough. [/b]


Is the above grouping based on IT lap times, or anticipated IT lap times if allowed to run slicks? Does anyone have experience with taking their IT car, putting slicks on it, and running Prod? How many seconds a lap would one expect to gain by this one change? My apologies if this was already discussed on a previous page.

[Andy Bettencourt]

A lot of comments by people who haven&#39;t read the entire thread but:

IT cars would be placed in some Prod class via a structure - with NO changes to IT Prep. That means no slicks, no cells, etc.

Having a chance in the race is not the idea here. This is NOT a dual-classification proposal. There will NEVER be comp adjustments to better fit the IT cars into Prod. That already exsists - its called Limited Prep Production.

This idea is much simpler than people are trying to make it. Prod is in the middle of a big re-write and cleanup.

[Knestis]

And the fact that people keep re-purposing the discussion to other IT-to-Prod models is evidence that...

Oh, never mind. ;)

K

[shwah]

Since we are typing on the internet this might come across as an abrasive comment. It&#39;s not meant that way...

Maybe the other issues keep being raised because many members would like to see our efforts put towards resolving root problems they see with the path (or lack thereof) from IT to Production, rather than giving IT drivers the honor of getting creamed at national races by Production cars for no discernable reason other than it might be neat to try.

[IPRESS]

I certainly agree with this statement, but the big thing we need to do is improve the member retention numbers. For the past several years, the amount of new members SCCA gets is just about the same as the number of members the club loses. How many? ~ 10,000 per year. Now granted some of those are members who let their membership lapse and obtain a new member number when they re-sign. It sure is cheaper and easier to focus on member retention.

Seeing IT cars racing at the Runoffs by itself would provide the club exposure and probably help attract new members looking to race on a lower budget. My feeling has been that people with a lot of money who want to race, will find their way into the sport. It&#39;s the middle/upper middle class people that find that road tougher. Would seeing IT cars mixed in with other much faster cars (the whole prod class idea) make people want to look into IT as a budget minded way to start racing? I&#39;m not so sure.
[/b]

I don&#39;t think someone just starting to look at racing has a clue about the different classes or costs. What I mean is, I doubt a guy looking at an EP miata would think or know it was more expensive then a SM. Yhey might think it was cheaper at first sight. As far as TV, I think it is highly overated as far as being an SCCA calling card. (It probably fits in the whole scheme of Secret Car Club) The playback has been at some bad times in the past and usually up against other sports that kill it as far as viewership. In reality it is US watching US. Now if you could get it in primetime at night you could snag some channel surfers and general sports nuts that might be looking for something other then the 6th Holdem Tournament of the night.
I do see the club moving in the right direction on member retention... how you ask? It is taking time but it seems that you are starting to get some member perks through associated companies that can benefit the member. Nothing huge, but more and more little things that might keep a guy reupping. Somebody working on this tact full time would pay big dividends to the club. It may alredy be in place as I am not exactly a Topeka insider. SM brought in a lot of new members as it was promoted through print media as a starter class that was cheap and simple to get in and get started. Having Mazda behind that made it much easier to get the thing promoted and covered by motorsports writers. IT is that same animal with different makes, yet it is not promoted by SCCA or really anybody else. No articles (well maybe Grassroots has) like one a few years ago in AUTOMOBILE about SM called "Cheap Skates", that sell a cost effective (and simple) way to get into road racing. Nearly every car magazine was putting something about SM, and the results was huge growth to club racing SM grids. TV really was not much of a factor, although the Laguna Race a few years back was pretty neat, it was still US watching US.
If you could get that type of promotion via print articles about IT and how cheap it is and easy it is, you wouldn&#39;t have to worry about joining Prod classes to get to Topeka. IT would be so big that numbers alone would get it on the dance card. Heck they might make Prod join IT!

[Andy Bettencourt]

Since we are typing on the internet this might come across as an abrasive comment. It&#39;s not meant that way...

Maybe the other issues keep being raised because many members would like to see our efforts put towards resolving root problems they see with the path (or lack thereof) from IT to Production, rather than giving IT drivers the honor of getting creamed at national races by Production cars for no discernable reason other than it might be neat to try. [/b]

Again, the CRB is working hard on Prod. There is a re-write of the rules going on right now and I have been contacted to make sure the IT persective is represented (ie: rules that prevent easy crossover).

And I still haven&#39;t seen any letters from anyone asking for IT to go National. Sometimes I think there is resistance just for resistance sake. This may not even be needed if the CRB is doing the job I think they are doing right now...

[Fi3555]

I think many of you have missed the point in allowing IT cars to participate in Production classes. It is an opportunity to move up in the level of competition and also the level preparation of your car. By competition I am talking about the level of driver. Generally a seasoned national driver is more skilled than a regional one. This participation allows a newer driver to hone his driving skills by more "seat time" and learning from more experienced drivers.
By level of preparation I am including the desire to re-engineer or improve the car. Production rules offer many more ways to modify the car. It is just human nature to want to build "a better mousetrap"
Sure, there are exceptions to this theory. One can compare driver ability between the runoffs and the ARRC.(equal in tallent) Or you can compare the high-tech new IT car attributes to some re-engineered 40 year old prod cars. But it&#39;s the same end result: Competing within the confines of the regs. and being faster than the other guy. If an IT owner wants to be more competitive in a Prod class he just has to modify his car to the less restrictive Prod rules. Real simple. If he wants to run IT events just stay IT. Same outcome; a place to compete.


Tim Pitts
S.E. Div.
#11 GP Golf

[Bill Miller]

I think many of you have missed the point in allowing IT cars to participate in Production classes. It is an opportunity to move up in the level of competition and also the level preparation of your car. By competition I am talking about the level of driver. Generally a seasoned national driver is more skilled than a regional one. This participation allows a newer driver to hone his driving skills by more "seat time" and learning from more experienced drivers.
By level of preparation I am including the desire to re-engineer or improve the car. Production rules offer many more ways to modify the car. It is just human nature to want to build "a better mousetrap"
Sure, there are exceptions to this theory. One can compare driver ability between the runoffs and the ARRC.(equal in tallent) Or you can compare the high-tech new IT car attributes to some re-engineered 40 year old prod cars. But it&#39;s the same end result: Competing within the confines of the regs. and being faster than the other guy. If an IT owner wants to be more competitive in a Prod class he just has to modify his car to the less restrictive Prod rules. Real simple. If he wants to run IT events just stay IT. Same outcome; a place to compete.


Tim Pitts
S.E. Div.
#11 GP Golf
[/b]

Tim,

Please provide some evidence to support this.

[shwah]

Again, the CRB is working hard on Prod. There is a re-write of the rules going on right now and I have been contacted to make sure the IT persective is represented [/b]

This is more important than your proposal that started this thread to me. This is a prerequisite to your proposal making sense to me.

IT being national or not isn&#39;t a big driver for me.

[RacerBill]

If an IT owner wants to be more competitive in a Prod class he just has to modify his car to the less restrictive Prod rules. Real simple.
[/b]

This assumes that the IT car is classed in a Production class, as either full prep or limited prep - ie Dodge Shelby Charger = E PROD full prep or F PROD limited prep. Heck, it&#39;s even classed as GT3!

I&#39;m still on the fence deciding which way I would like to see IT go - there are several good proposals on the table but there are many pros and cons to each one. I don&#39;t think that the club can support many more classes, especially at the Runoffs. One thing I am definitely against is the end of the ARRC.

[Fi3555]

Bill,

It&#39;s real simple. Take a Reg/Nat class such as SM. Take the average lap times of Nat vs. Reg. drivers in a single event. Of course there&#39;s a difference. In order to keep a Nat. license one must race more events each season. I&#39;m sure there are many exceptions to this as far as individuals, but we&#39;re talking as a whole.
But all this doesn&#39;t mean a rat&#39;s a$$. Mixing dissmilar cars ina class and adjusting each one to make it competitive isn&#39;t a good idea. If I want to IT race I bring my ITB car. If I want to Prod. race I use my GP.
Different rules , different technique and different strategy. Not better or worse, just different.


Tim Pitts
#97 ITB
#11 GP

[Andy Bettencourt]

Bill,

It&#39;s real simple. Take a Reg/Nat class such as SM. Take the average lap times of Nat vs. Reg. drivers in a single event. Of course there&#39;s a difference. In order to keep a Nat. license one must race more events each season. I&#39;m sure there are many exceptions to this as far as individuals, but we&#39;re talking as a whole.
But all this doesn&#39;t mean a rat&#39;s a$$. Mixing dissmilar cars ina class and adjusting each one to make it competitive isn&#39;t a good idea. If I want to IT race I bring my ITB car. If I want to Prod. race I use my GP.
Different rules , different technique and different strategy. Not better or worse, just different.


Tim Pitts
#97 ITB
#11 GP [/b]

Tim,

I think Bill&#39;s forthcoming point is simple. IT isn&#39;t a Reg/National. So all the best drivers at all the best prep levels are already there. There is no Junior Varsity. If you like the ruleset and the cars, you bring your A game.

And I would be willing to bet that your average Regional IT driver does WAY more racing each year than your average National driver. Here an example: ITA in the NARRC series last season had 98 drivers run at least one race. 27 of those drivers ran 4 or more races. 10 of those drivers ran 8 or more races. If Prod had that kind of participation, there wouldn&#39;t be any complaining about the &#39;top 24&#39;.

[OTLimit]

Okay, now this is strictly from what I have seen since we have run cars in ITB and GP:

Slicks are NOT 4 seconds a lap faster at a track like Gateway (or any other track that we regularly race at). Use of DOT vs slicks doesn&#39;t make that much difference if you are mid-pack to begin with.

Overall, national drivers are NOT "better" then regional drivers. Got to tell you, there are some real squirrels out there who only race 4 races a year, or less, and will get a waiver to hold their national license.

Development is development. It doesn&#39;t cost me any more when Chris takes the G car to the dyno then the B car. Only costs me more if Chris decides he must have a new cam. Building a new motor is just expensive; since Chris does his own assembly, only the machine work is different, and it&#39;s not a deal breaker. Maintenance is the same (actually the IT car is worse because it usually does more races).

The BOB, CRB and Prod Adhoc members responsible for the first LP classifications can say whatever they want. LP cars (at least ours) were not intended to be competitive. The ONLY reason Chris was 3rd last year at the Runoffs was because of the rain AND he&#39;s a good driver, especially in the rain. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional. When we first started with the GP car (not the crossover IT car), there was no way the car was competitve. It has come a long way, but on a dry track at Topeka, if Chris can stay within 2 seconds/lap of the leaders, I will be surprised. In 20 laps, 2 seconds is a LONG time.

Allowing IT cars into Prod is not going to help the problem in the longterm if they go out and get lapped twice in every race. Very demoralizing. Logical classification of more IT cars into Prod is a better way to handle it. Go out and use your car as a "crossover" car the way we did for awhile. It was a lot of fun, but it was also a lot of work.

The fact is that if you want to go to Prod, you will. Just go into it with your eyes open.

BTW, I am solely responsible for the opinions expressed in this post and others within my household may not agree with me.

[charrbq]

Leslie,
Thank you for wading into this nosh-pit of egos as the voice of experience.

[924Guy]

For me, the aforementioned re-working of Prod rules (as mentioned by Andy B) makes me want this thing to go on ice till that sorts itself out.

Though the realistic (aka pessimistic) side of me says since this is Prod we&#39;re talking about, that could be years - and no reason to make IT&#39;ers wait years...

[Andy Bettencourt]

The fact is that if you want to go to Prod, you will. Just go into it with your eyes open.

[/b]

Well I guess the question I need answered is HOW do you go into it with your eyes open? A front running IT car won&#39;t get lapped twice. Take a look at your next set of National results in your area (a collective you, not Leslie) and place the IT track record down in the results. It will give you a idea of how &#39;deap&#39; these National fields are - or AREN&#39;T as the case is. I bet I could podium at the LRP National this year.

Regardless...not many people share my vision. Not a problem! I believe the CRB will do all they can to make it easier to transition to Prod from IT...I just want to make it easy to TRY the scene before you BUY the scene...

[gran racing]

Instead of looking at the IT track record, one should look at the front running IT cars assuming they are well prepped.

Just because it would do well at LRP doesn&#39;t mean it would at other types of tracks (meaning tracks that reward power more such as RA).

[cherokee]

Well I guess the question I need answered is HOW do you go into it with your eyes open?
[/b]

I can tell you how I am doing it, I ask questions of those who have been there before me. I was going to do what Chris did with his car, have it pull double duty. I have changed my mind after asking some questions and am going to build a prod car from scratch however with the overall health of the prod class I might just wait and see how things shake out.

I have found that the prod guys that I have talked to where happy to help you get started, and realistic about what you are going to run into. They where quick to point out all issues...all the way around.
Talk to them....it is that easy.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Instead of looking at the IT track record, one should look at the front running IT cars assuming they are well prepped.

Just because it would do well at LRP doesn&#39;t mean it would at other types of tracks (meaning tracks that reward power more such as RA). [/b]

Dave,

It&#39;s just to give you an idea of the lap times. You could assume that the front running IT cars at that track ARE near the track record...NEAR is the key word.

And track records aren&#39;t all heald by the same type of car...so again, it&#39;s just for an idea of lap potential. Like I stated in one of my examples, one of the better attended Nationals this year - in EACH of teh Prod classes the top 3 finishers had a 5 second per lap spread. FIVE seconds. There is no doubt in my mind a top prep IT car could wiggle it&#39;s way in there.

[924Guy]

There is no doubt in my mind a top prep IT car could wiggle it&#39;s way in there.
[/b]

Once, at least... :dead_horse:

[Charlie Broring]

Well I guess the question I need answered is HOW do you go into it with your eyes open? A front running IT car won&#39;t get lapped twice. Take a look at your next set of National results in your area (a collective you, not Leslie) and place the IT track record down in the results. It will give you a idea of how &#39;deap&#39; these National fields are - or AREN&#39;T as the case is. I bet I could podium at the LRP National this year.

Regardless...not many people share my vision. Not a problem! I believe the CRB will do all they can to make it easier to transition to Prod from IT...I just want to make it easy to TRY the scene before you BUY the scene...
[/b]

Andy, I tried to take a front running ITB car into Production and met with nothing but frustration. I did so with the encouragement of a member of the CRB at the time. In retrospect, my eyes were not open wide enough. The Prod Ad Hoc has shown little interest in attracting IT cars in the past. Their Prod classifications of larger IT cars such as my Volvo show no effort to allow them to be competitive. Based on past performance I hold little hope for any rule rewrite. It would take some strong direction from the CRB to get the Advisory Board to change it&#39;s ways.

Running IT cars in Prod is a brilliant idea. A workable transition from IT to Prod for ALL cars would certainly help with Prod&#39;s recurring participation number crunch. But, in the past Prod has been too nearsighted for this kind of thing. Now if you suggested a new engine configuration for a H/P Bug Eye Sprite they could deal with that...

Charlie Broring

[lateapex911]

............... It would take some strong direction from the CRB to get the Advisory Board to change it&#39;s ways.

Running IT cars in Prod is a brilliant idea. A workable transition from IT to Prod for ALL cars would certainly help with Prod&#39;s recurring participation number crunch. But, in the past Prod has been too nearsighted for this kind of thing. Now if you suggested a new engine configuration for a H/P Bug Eye Sprite they could deal with that...

Charlie Broring [/b]

Well, what Andy is saying is that the CRB IS going to give strong direction....and I&#39;ve heard the same thing. It might be too little too late, but, if the PAC can nail down an objective method, thats a major first step.

It IS a tough situation though....

[shwah]

Regardless...not many people share my vision. Not a problem! I believe the CRB will do all they can to make it easier to transition to Prod from IT...I just want to make it easy to TRY the scene before you BUY the scene...
[/b]
As I stated at the beginning (if you are referring to trying the National scene), this already exists in DP.

I believe that we will have an easier transition in the future from IT to Prod. I believe that IT has provided a clear example of the type of methodology that can help resolve much of Prods classification issues and reputation issues. This will result in a stronger Production class, and a stronger club if it can be accomplished before the small production classes vaporize.

[Bill Miller]

Okay, now this is strictly from what I have seen since we have run cars in ITB and GP:

Slicks are NOT 4 seconds a lap faster at a track like Gateway (or any other track that we regularly race at). Use of DOT vs slicks doesn&#39;t make that much difference if you are mid-pack to begin with.

Overall, national drivers are NOT "better" then regional drivers. Got to tell you, there are some real squirrels out there who only race 4 races a year, or less, and will get a waiver to hold their national license.

Development is development. It doesn&#39;t cost me any more when Chris takes the G car to the dyno then the B car. Only costs me more if Chris decides he must have a new cam. Building a new motor is just expensive; since Chris does his own assembly, only the machine work is different, and it&#39;s not a deal breaker. Maintenance is the same (actually the IT car is worse because it usually does more races).

The BOB, CRB and Prod Adhoc members responsible for the first LP classifications can say whatever they want. LP cars (at least ours) were not intended to be competitive. The ONLY reason Chris was 3rd last year at the Runoffs was because of the rain AND he&#39;s a good driver, especially in the rain. Anyone who says otherwise is delusional. When we first started with the GP car (not the crossover IT car), there was no way the car was competitve. It has come a long way, but on a dry track at Topeka, if Chris can stay within 2 seconds/lap of the leaders, I will be surprised. In 20 laps, 2 seconds is a LONG time.

Allowing IT cars into Prod is not going to help the problem in the longterm if they go out and get lapped twice in every race. Very demoralizing. Logical classification of more IT cars into Prod is a better way to handle it. Go out and use your car as a "crossover" car the way we did for awhile. It was a lot of fun, but it was also a lot of work.

The fact is that if you want to go to Prod, you will. Just go into it with your eyes open.

BTW, I am solely responsible for the opinions expressed in this post and others within my household may not agree with me.
[/b]


Thank you Lesley!

Andy,

Take a look at Summit Point. ~5.5 seconds between the FP lap record and the ITA lap record. Over the course of a 22 or 23 lap race, that ITA car would get lapped at least once. Put that ITA car in GP, and you&#39;ve got a much better race.

[lateapex911]

Well, all this talk about IT going national, or not national, and running in Prod, etc got me thinking...

here&#39;s an interesting look back...

http://web.archive.org/web/20021002215258/...ring.com/chat2/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20021002215258/www.improvedtouring.com/chat2/)

[Bill Miller]

Well, all this talk about IT going national, or not national, and running in Prod, etc got me thinking...

here&#39;s an interesting look back...

http://web.archive.org/web/20021002215258/...ring.com/chat2/ (http://web.archive.org/web/20021002215258/www.improvedtouring.com/chat2/)
[/b]

Thanks Jake, I didn&#39;t realize that stuff was still around. There were some pretty interesting reads.

[Andy Bettencourt]

Thank you Lesley!

Andy,

Take a look at Summit Point. ~5.5 seconds between the FP lap record and the ITA lap record. Over the course of a 22 or 23 lap race, that ITA car would get lapped at least once. Put that ITA car in GP, and you&#39;ve got a much better race. [/b]

Those records are weird. 2/10ths of a second difference between EP and FP?

http://www.wdcr-scca.org/laprecs.php

And nobody said you wouldn&#39;t have a better chance...just maybe too much of a chance for this to fly.

[Grumpa]

I&#39;m not going to weigh in on the IT racers propping up the Prod numbers debate - I think that has been flogged pretty thoroughly. I really don&#39;t see the point of allowing IT to run in Prod Nationals, it seems to me to be like comparing apples and oranges. If I really want to try the Prod waters, I would find a Prod owner/team and approach them with the idea of renting the operation for a National weekend. My pretzel logic is a weekend spent in a Prod car would be a much better way to test the water than flogging my Rabbit around the backend of the field and not really getting to race anyone except the other ITC racers - if there are any others. If I liked the experience and didn&#39;t wad the car up, then I would inquire about running another race or two in the car to get a better understanding of the car and the racers I was up against.

My other observation is this; why the sacred cows in the National program? Throw caution to the wind and open the Runoffs up to the 23 or 24 classes that have the best participation regardless of their National/Regional status. Keep the programs separate, but if one or more of the IT classes have the numbers to make it to the Runoffs, then let them participate. For crying out loud, it&#39;s not our fault that the IT fields are getting bigger than the ones in Prod. It&#39;s pretty hard for 20-30 year olds - the future of the club - to get excited about 40 to 50 year old racecars, but they certainly know Honda, Nissan, Toyota, etc, ad infinitum.

[pavis]

Andy,
That sounds good especially in our DIV as there are a lot of one race weekends for IT.
[/b]

Mac-

I agree that it would give the SoWest Div IT community more racing time. However, it might also give the division an excuse to continue to ignore our pathetic regional racing program. (See Chirs&#39; comments) Be careful what we wish for (i.e. SM going national)