What would it take for you to go Production car racing

[cherokee]

I want to be honst here, I want to be positive.

I know that most racers are happy in IT, I also know that many have looked at production and said "Only IF....."

Well I want to know what that Only IF is. I want to make production a place that people will want to upgrade to, and know it will not cost them a bunch of $$, heartache and headache. There are problems in production everyone can agree on that much at least. Lets start talking about fixing the problems, and what it would take for you to be a production racer.

There is a thread on the prod board that tells you how to find the Advisory Committee members for production, I will copy the info here:

Disclaimer: I'm not a production car driver or crew member. I'm one of those "somewhat worthless officials" (as Matt W refers to us). However, I'm also a second generation race brat, and I throughly enjoy watching the production cars race together.

Please, please while you're busy working on plans/ideas/etc to extend the life of the current production classes contact your Production Advisory Committee members. These gentlemen have volunteered their time to serve on the committee. They can't monitor everything that gets said on this board, but if you feel strongly about what needs to be done - please contact them. They need to be involved in this process and be your advocates to the CRB and the BoD.

I will not post their contact information here - but it is available to each and every SCCA member through the website. (www.scca.org -> Inside SCCA -> Boards & Committees -> Log In to secured area -> Directory -> Boards & Committees -> Production Committee)

David Lemon
Jesse Prather
Jon Brakke, Chair
Eric Krueger
Kevin Dennis
Kevin Allen
Larry Funk
Mike Cummings
Tom Feller

Donning my nomex and going back to lurking,
Kelley Huxtable
DMVR
"PLAY SAFE"
Natl Registrar/Natl F&C/Sr T&S




There is also a thread going over on the prod site about "fixing production"

http://prodracing.com/prodcar/viewtopic.php?t=7904

Let me know your ideas, reasons, whatever for your opinions. Lets try to keep it clean and above board.

[RSTPerformance]

I would run national races in production if I did not have to do anything to change my IT car from weekend to weekend, and if my car was classed.

IE: Classify EVERY IT car into a class, don't require members to submit all the info on the car and a request... It sounds lame, but people are lazy and they don't want to do the work. If the car is classed and legal in another class then they will (might) come B)
Change IT or Prod rules to be similar in the areas of door window glass, headlights, etc so that cars can be legal in BOTH classes without making changes.
Allow production cars to race on DOT legal tires if they choose... I have to ask why isn't this legal? It is an obviose disadvantage.
Fuel Cell? While it is legal to have a fuel cell in an IT car, a lot of people don't. It needs to be revisited as to If one is needed especially for LP.
Fire System? Is this a rule? if so is it needed as well for LP?
Again if I could not change anything to my car and run in a production class then you would probably see me out a few times running in production (and no not in DP, lets at least have a chance to finish mid pack).


Raymond

[cherokee]

If you did not have to change anything and still run production is a little confusing. As I see things IT is a step up in prep from a SS car, and Prod shoud be a setp in in prep from a IT car, right now I think that step from a top IT car to a top Prod car is too great.

Now I think that any SS car should have a place in IT just as any IT car should have a place in prod. But I think we can all agree that unless that SS car upgrades some things like shocks, ECU, Exhaust.... the SS car is not going to have much of a chance, so for that SS car to have a chance in IT it would have to make some changes. I think the same should hold true for Prod.

What I am fishing for is things like $7000 trannys are crazy, 14:1 motors dont live very long, I am not an engineer so I don't want to move susp points around, rules not stable....whatever.

While I agree that an IT car should be legal in Prod I don't feel that an IT car with no additional prep should be a top 5 car.

[ddewhurst]

cherokee, I worked a bit with a guy from KC in an attempt to get the 1st gen RX-7 non-ported classed in G Production. You most likely know the guy as he is an active ITA 1st gen RX-7 racer. Nuff said....... The Fastrack response " Another level of prep is not consistant with the Production car philosophy" (political bull shit). & I don't want to hear about the 2293 cc because it is only 1146 cc. The motor is constantly saying to it's self why can't I have some torque. Torque get you there while hp keeps you there. & in the next breath THEY class the Hybird (full prep chassis/LP motor) after THEY said they wouldn't class any more full prep cars. First off the Hybird is a BREED which is half full prep & half LP including being another level of prep. As is so common it ain't who you know it's who you.....................

THEY saw the light with some rules in Spec Miata & reined them back in which is the same thing THEY should do with the LP/RS Production cars rules.

From ITA to Production would have been fun but the thing that ain't EVER going to change with the SCCA is the constant changing of the guard with the continious political bull shit.

Am currently building a Spec Miata........ :023: Another potential Production car owner GONE.

[RSTPerformance]

Cherokee-

I agree to win in prod (or be top 5 when more than 5 cars show up :rolleyes: ) one should have to prep to the prod levels (thus not be legal for IT). My comments simply are that an IT car should be legal to "play" in prod be it at the back or not without making any changes to the car. Same with SS -> IT and Prod -> GT. A smooooth transition is needed across the board.

Raymond

[gran racing]

A smooooth transition is needed across the board.[/b]

I agree. Think of it as a way for people to taste a different category and see if they like it more.

[kgobey]

Just some miscellaneous ramblings while I am bored listing to this conference call. :024:

History: Production is the old IT and is what happens to IT when IT goes National. (just my opinion)

Problem: While the classes share genetics, they are different species.

Opportunities: To save Production might solve IT's most sensitive problem at the same time.

Tactic: Combine goals. Combine efforts. Combine the future of the 2 entities.

Areas of complication
Tires: :dead_horse: They are dissimilar wheel and tire rules. This is an expensive problem. We'd need to align wheel and tire rules across the 2 entities.
Engines: :dead_horse: The disparity of engine rules is an enormous canyon, there is noway to align these rule-sets. It's just not possible to ask a guy with a $25,000 Rx7 Engine to downgrade his car, neither is it possible to ask the "normal" IT racer to catch up either.
Body: :dead_horse: This is easier to align. Glass, Interior, Cages, batteries, fuel delivery, fire systems, etc... And one biggie: Plastic = bad IMO ($$) and it would be hard to get IT racers to launch their future personal economic futures into a plastic race.

To get me into a Production Car.
1. Give me a fair chance to win
2. Make it "not scary". I.E. don't put me in with Spridgets... I can't see them. Don't out me in a class with car that can do 77 down the straights but 70 through the corners where I can do 120 down the straights but 50 through the turns, that's just f'n nuts.
3. Make the class structure make sense, don't put my ITA friends in a different class to me, we want to remain racing with similar cars and car types.
4. Welcome us... Don't "allow us into your club", it's just semantics but it's an important distinction. I am already "good" I don't need some guy thinking he's my big brother letting me play in his "better class" with "his" rules.
5. Accept the fact that a 2009 car will want to race in 2014 and that's going to screw the classes up - prepare in advance for this eventuality. Just because a guy has a car from 1959 does not mean he will necessarily be competitive against cars 50 years newer, and we need to prepare for this.

[seckerich]

Quit jerking around and finally fix the cage rules so an IT cage is legal in Prod. as is. I won't start the X bar debate because it is too stupid to waste time on. It was clarified in IT but not Production?? Mark me down as another that has a Spec Miata in process and will not play production again until it is fixed. Fix it now or die a slow death as other classes have.

[NutDriverRighty]

For me, a move towards it being a race of modern cars instead of a vintage car race would be a big boost. Not only for prod, but for all production-based classes. If I had the $ to go to prod, I would pass it by for some other class that isn't running 40+ year old LBCs. (begin the flaming now)

Scott Franklin
ITA/IT7 and SPU
F&C
www.NutDriver.org

[kgobey]

For me, a move towards it being a race of modern cars instead of a vintage car race would be a big boost. Not only for prod, but for all production-based classes. If I had the $ to go to prod, I would pass it by for some other class that isn't running 40+ year old LBCs. (begin the flaming now)

Scott Franklin
ITA/IT7 and SPU
F&C
www.NutDriver.org
[/b]
You know this is not an original issue... Guys born after 1985 (22) don't give a crap about a 1956 MGA.

[RacerBill]

I would run national races in production if I did not have to do anything to change my IT car from weekend to weekend, and if my car was classed.

IE: Classify EVERY IT car into a class, don't require members to submit all the info on the car and a request... It sounds lame, but people are lazy and they don't want to do the work. If the car is classed and legal in another class then they will (might) come B)
Change IT or Prod rules to be similar in the areas of door window glass, headlights, etc so that cars can be legal in BOTH classes without making changes.
Allow production cars to race on DOT legal tires if they choose... I have to ask why isn't this legal? It is an obviose disadvantage.
Fuel Cell? While it is legal to have a fuel cell in an IT car, a lot of people don't. It needs to be revisited as to If one is needed especially for LP.
Fire System? Is this a rule? if so is it needed as well for LP?
Again if I could not change anything to my car and run in a production class then you would probably see me out a few times running in production (and no not in DP, lets at least have a chance to finish mid pack).
Raymond
[/b]


Yes, Yes, Yes

'Classify EVERY IT car into a class....' My car (83 Dodge Shelby) is already classed in FProd (LPrep) and EProd (FPrep), Class more cars like this!

'Change IT or Prod rules to be similar in the areas of door window glass, headlights, etc so that cars can be legal in BOTH classes without making changes....' Removing stuff only costs time (for the most part).

'Allow production cars to race on DOT legal tires if they choose... I have to ask why isn't this legal? It is an obviose disadvantage...' I thought this was already legal! GCR requires only the capacity to run certain sustained speed - IT adds the restriction of DOT approved.

Fuel Cell, Fire System, Cage... these requirements need to be revisited and rewritten with movement between IT and Prod.

[dickita15]

Class every IT car in a prod class with IT prep.
Make IT cages legal in prod (at least the welded ones).
Change headlights to may remove from shall remove.
Allow either DOT or slick tires.
I do not mind the windshield clips, fire system or even fuel cell (although I have seen more fires from bad fuel cell plumbing than EOM fuel systems).
Personally I would not mind if the weights are different in prod trim than IT, but other than that you would need to be able to build a car that can run either.

OR if you they don’t want to attract such riffraff suck it up and combine F, G & H Prod into Classic Prod so the 150 people who like current production racing will have a class to grow old in.

[RSTPerformance]

OR if you they don’t want to attract such riffraff suck it up and combine F, G & H Prod into Classic Prod so the 150 people who like current production racing will have a class to grow old in.
[/b]

:happy204: lol That actually is a great idea...

Then make IT a national class and get rid of the entire "National & Regional event" system...

Raymond "Simple is sometimes A LOT better" Blethen

[Knestis]

"Make my IT car legal and competitive in Production and I'll run Production."

This baffles the crap outta me. That's an answer to a completely different question. It's not changing Production: It's making IT a National category.

At the end of the day, there will be a lot of talk (typing, anyway); nobody will agree (because we're all arguing about different things); and nothing will happen. The direction of the Production category is and will forever be in the hands of a limited number of folks with vested interests in the status quo. Make that the "stati quo" since they're protecting different positions and agenda.

How about club racing category hospice - "death with dignity?"

K

EDIT


What I am fishing for is things like $7000 trannys are crazy, 14:1 motors dont live very long, I am not an engineer so I don't want to move susp points around, rules not stable....whatever.[/b]

That's the stuff that makes a Prod car different than an IT car.

[cherokee]

Thanks for the feedback, I agree with most.

While I think there should be some difference between the classes, and it might take putting a fire system or buying wheels and slicks to give it a (faster,higher whatever you want to call it) class a try, I think that is not asking too much. The cage thing is just stupid. If a cage is legal on that X car in IT it should be legal in Prod, end of story.

Dave, I can see two sides to the argument, I see no reason why if we can have a Miata in two classes in Prod why we can't have the 7 in GP. The one thing I hate is these canned responses. I agree with you in saying BS. And answers like this just feed the perception or someone trying to protect their own turf. Here is a guy tha wants to run in GP (a class in trouble) and this is what they get when a new car is tried to be placed. A nother degree of prep, darn near every car in prod has a different level of prep. :D
I know you have been onthe prod site and have been in the discussion going on over there. I want to fix things. Let the powers at be know why you are not racing in production....the place you first wanted to go. And if you ever think of coming racing in production what it will take.

But on the other hand why did you not want to run the 7 where it is classed now? Is it the expense of prepping the car?

If one of the things to change was, if LP was truely LP would things be different?
If you could build your car with an engine that would last longer and be cheaper, but faster then in IT would things be different?
If things like one off trannies, moving susp points be outlawed would things be different?

If a prod car was an IT car with a little cam, little compression, better brakes, slicks..... would that change anyones mind.

As things are to go from a top IT car to a top Prod car is just too big a jump in time, money, prep level. I think it is beyond the reach of most racers, that and get the politics out of the rules and classing will go a long way.

[Dave Burchfield]

1. Create a rules set that is as consistent and well thought out as the IT rules set is.

2. Stop "tinkering" with the rules until a well thought out review on any change has been done with full disclosure and the membership has had sufficient opportunity to comment.

3. Develop an attitude of inclusion among the participants rather than one of exclusion.

I am sure that there are other thoughts, but I am just waking from a nap and still a bit sleepy........

[cherokee]

At the end of the day, there will be a lot of talk (typing, anyway); nobody will agree (because we're all arguing about different things); and nothing will happen. The direction of the Production category is and will forever be in the hands of a limited number of folks with vested interests in the status quo. Make that the "stati quo" since they're protecting different positions and agenda.

K

EDIT
That's the stuff that makes a Prod car different than an IT car.
[/b]

I think this may be the time for this to change, they are finally looking the shotgun in the face, some are running for the hills and saying "I QUIT"...there is a multi page thread over there Why I quit.

They may just now be seeing that the status quo is not working anymore, and things are going to have to change if they want to keep national status. And that is going to be painfull for some.

A prod car should be different then an IT car, its a DIFFERENT CLASS PEOPLE. Production is a class where you run slick tires, where you remove the lights, the ideas (if they let me run my IT car as is in prod with no changes are not realistic) Now if you want to meet all of the prod (fuel cell, lights, slicks...) with an IT susp, motor, tranny..... then I have no problem with that. But to ask your IT car to run in production with ZERO changes that I can't agree with.

What I think we need is a smaller divide between the two classes, things like $7000 trans and $25,000 motors need to slowly fade away.

[seckerich]

I could pick 10 IT cars in the southeast alone that are prepped to a level much higher than 90% of the prod cars. The cages are much stronger and safer than any prod cage. I built an EP second gen RX7 for testing and the specs changed 3 times while I was running (weight and trans penalties). Took the parts off and sold it as an ITS car and put the convertible tub away until I see some progress in rule stability. Cut out the back door good old boy deals and get some stable rules and I will come back in a minute. Alternative is the slow death you are watching now and my ITS car will soon be at the runoffs in your place. See how many members of the Production board will be watching the runoffs as their class will not be included this year until the last minute change relaxes the rules--hide and watch. I hope this is a wake up call to finally get something done.

[RSTPerformance]

A prod car should be different then an IT car, its a DIFFERENT CLASS PEOPLE. Production is a class where you run slick tires, where you remove the lights, the ideas (if they let me run my IT car as is in prod with no changes are not realistic) Now if you want to meet all of the prod (fuel cell, lights, slicks...) with an IT susp, motor, tranny..... then I have no problem with that. But to ask your IT car to run in production with ZERO changes that I can't agree with.

What I think we need is a smaller divide between the two classes, things like $7000 trans and $25,000 motors need to slowly fade away.
[/b]


I agree a winning Prod car should be a different car than an IT car, but realisticly if you want to save the class and/or get me into it you need to allow less prepped cars to be classed... It is VERY basic and fustrating that people like you who want change and want to "get the numbers up" are unwilling to allow or make an entry level for newbies interested in prod.

I started racing an Audi in IT back in 2000. The car was completely bone stock with exception to a role cage, a racing seat, a bit of "gutting" such as the carpet and what not and a cheep lowering kit that made the car look good more than perform better as with every kid in town on his/her street car (gheto sled). Over 6 years I have devolped the car (along with my brothers car) to be a full blown IT car. With the development we have put into them I have gained over 10 seconds a lap!!! If I wasn't teamed up with my brother developing/trying new things with one car then the other then I am 100% positive that I wouldn't be as fast as I am today, however I would still be as I am today trying to test new things and develope the car even more.

Production NEEDS to have a basic entry level that doesn't require such a high expence otherwise why move? I can race in IT with double the amount of people and with FAR less money. Racing is all about addiction to go faster and beat some new goal. You will suck a heck of a lot more people into Prod if they can do virtually nothing to thier IT cars get thier but handed to them but have the hope that if they convert the car and do A and B all the way through Z then they might have a chance at winning in prod.

I could have taken my Audi into prod instead of IT back in 2000 (well if it was classed) but I had to make a choice...

A: Spend a few thousand dollars for the required equipment to drive a less than IT developed car in production 15 or so seconds off the pace

or B: Spend a few thousand and develop my car to be a front running IT car.

Now I have two options:

A: continue compeating with a heck of a lot more competition spending my money on actually racing

or B: Spend a few thousand more to convert the car and try Prod running at the back.


SCCA has a major issue that other compeating organizations seem to have figured out... natural and smooth transitions that offers drivers/cars choices/options.

Good luck with your efforts. Unfortunalty I think kirk has the right idea, let em die

Raymond "I can't expalin what I mean worth shit on paper... lol" Blethen

PS: I am 100% for Prod cars having the ability to have $7,000 transmissions and 14:1 time bomb engines... that is what makes a WINNING prod car different than an IT car. Reality is though you can build a near showroom stock car to prod minimum rules that wouldn't stand a chance in IT let alone prod. Make some changes to the rules to allow IT cars to fill up the back of the fields.



What I think we need is a smaller divide between the two classes, things like $7000 trans and $25,000 motors need to slowly fade away.
[/b]


Sorry I have to try and keep pointing this out... As long as thier is a "divide" between the two classes that doesn't overlap top prep (winning) IT cars and low prep (loosing) prod cars then I don't understand why anyone in IT would even consider changing to the class... we are already in a far better organized and competitive class.

Raymond

[seckerich]

So out comes the July fastrack and the longest running "we're working on it" has finally arrived. Some sanity in cage rules across classes. That EP tub just might come down from storage. :026:

[Andy Bettencourt]

Here is what you do:

1. Eliminate all the requirements and allowances that cost huge money to be competitive (like you have suggested with trannies, etc). Most everyone in IT likes the IT ruleset. It provides enough to be creative yet not so much that it will kill you trying to get to the top (and even that is relative). In order to phase in 'success', I do think you will have to embrace two seperate levels of prep. You need an 'entry' level of prep and you can keep what you have - but BOTH must be competitive. Tough job but its the only way to open the doors to new drivers/builders while keeping your current mebership somewhat happy.

2. Stop the moving target. Steve's example is CRITICAL to the understanding when none of us build these cars.

So the question is how 'entry' is your new 'entry level'. Allowing IT cars 'as is', is not the answer. These are two different classes and they should remain as such. Simple (and maybe 'reversable') changes are what should be considered. I don't think fuel cells are needed. Make me take my lights out - no problem. Allow me to run DOT tires - who cares? I suppose a weight penality (or allowance, depending on how you look at it) for the big tranny, relocated suspension pick up points, big motors, etc is the way to go. THAT will take a lot of work.

Limited Prep Prod had/has SO MUCH potential. You just have to look at it from the outside looking in, instead of the inside looking out.

[cherokee]

I want to try to make my position a little more clear.

I think that you should be able to take your IT car and run it in Production with the safety stuff taken care of.
Have the fire system (it is a good idea anyway and I would bet not too far off from being a requriement in IT) Have the fuel cell (same deal) The cage is a different deal, I think there is a reason for the difference in the cages, in IT you can keep things like bumpers, side impact door protection and so on. In production that stuff can be removed. So you need a stronger cage. My IT cage was built with prod in mind, and I would bet that there are more then a few custom, welded, whatever you want to call them type cages that should be ok in production.

Other then the safety stuff I think that your IT car should go right into production (loose the remove lights and such) rules. IT can loose the door glass now if the cage is designed in a specific way, so I see no real blocks there.

Take a few moments and check out what is going on the thread on the prod site. Send in your input, I want to make the move less of a shock from IT to Prod.

But I agree STABLE RULES are something that keeps comming up. The more input we give to the powers at be the better chance something will get done. And some of those powers are checking that thread.

[RSTPerformance]

I am glad to see that you suppor tthe idea of us keeping our headlights :023: 1 Step closer.

A fuel safe is probably not as safe as as my current Stock tank not to mention it is an expensive conversion. probably $1000+. I can't afford that right now.

I don't see a need for NASCAR door bars, and can't afford that either at this point. As for the windows, even if I were to put in NASCAR door bars I am going to do everything possible to keep my power windows. Call me lazy, but I want windows to keep dry without making up some lexan thing. I can't tell you how many times I have put up my windows on grid from a passing sprinkle and or grid workers with squirt guns. To me the door glass isn't going to go anywhere it is self contained in the door, so the rule is pointless to remove them. If the "PROD" world is so stuck on making sure that the class has different rules, then so be it, I don't want to race with a bunch of people whom thing that because they took thier windows out of the doors they are now in "real race cars" and not some junker that I picked up for a few houndred bucks. I really don't understand the big deal. I don't mean to harp on this but I only STRONGLY recomend the change of the door glass because MOST IT cars don't have NASCAR bars on both sides.

The rules are SOOOOOO friggen close to each other, why can't they at least have a the smallest little bit of overlap? Realize that by allowing a small amount of overlap DOESN'T make the classes the same. Prod has a bazilion different things you can do in addition to IT. All it would do is simply allows cars to enter into a dying class that otherwise can't.

Raymond

[RacerBill]

I think that Andy has the answer. I can't think of any better solution. Having joined SCCA originally in 1966, I remember very well what 'Production' was back then, and it was very much like IT is today.

One of the reasons I purchased the car I did is the fact that it is classed in IT, Prod and GT, so even if I don't have the resources today, I still had options for the future or racing where I think the grass is greener.

There is one question that sticks in the back of my mind as I read these posts. There are references to a 'level of preparation'. That term brings two things to mind: 1) level of preparation - as in the number of modifications you can make on a car ie $15,000 transmissions, 14:1 motors, relocated suspension points, etc. and 2) the level of care and planning you put into your car and all the stuff that goes along with it (do you have a $3000 paint job, or $30 worth of Home Depot's Best, open trailer or 50' transporter).

Level of prep (modifications and safety) we can control. Level of prep (appearance) we have less control over.

[Greg Amy]

Anyone besides me see the obvious parallel between this discussion and our recent "SM into ITA" fracas?

Keep that - and your feelings about it - in mind as you debate changing Production rules to shoehorn-in IT cars... - GA

[RSTPerformance]

Greg-

I see the similarities, however a big difference in what happened before was illigal cars got "special treatment" to run in a already popular class. Production is looking to make changes to bring in new drivers. Changes to me means that they will need to making changes in rules. Allowing already built and compeating race cars to run is going to attract a heck of a lot more people to try it than will simply making new rules that still require a "risk" on the driver to also make changes to thier car in hopes that the class succeeds.

Raymond "Good point though greg" Blethen

[Knestis]

...Other then the safety stuff I think that your IT car should go right into production (loose the remove lights and such) rules. ...[/b]

Yeah - what Greg said. If all current Prod entrants want to band together and propose this, that's their how-do-you-do. I STILL think it's stupid to put cars prepared to one set of rules straight into another category, but I tend to believe that members should have control over the direction their category goes, to some degree.

The point at which Andy's vision comes true and real parity is achieved between two levels of preparation, an interesting thing should happen - the more expensive route to competitiveness in a given class will become extinct.

I know why he proposes the "two-state solution" but it's only really valid as a transition. Except, I suppose for the fact that some SCCA racers will continue to do ANYTHING for ever. Why would you spend the coin to build a full-prep (something) to turn an X:XX.XX when you can build an LP (something else) to do the same thing, for less dough?

K

[cherokee]

What I am suggesting for prod is indeed "another level of prep" I liked the term Very Limited Prep Or what I like to say what LP should have been.

The deal with the cages is, I think that if a sedan type car has a legal cage in it then it is a legal cage. I understand stronger cages in cars that have plastic doors and such and if you decide to to that to your cross over car I think you should have to be open to having a stronger cage mandated for your car. But if you leave your body of your IT car alone it should be good.

I will admit I am on the fence on the fuel cell deal, for the same reason, also I drove a MR2, there is not much better place to put gas in a car IMHO. Putting a cell in the frunk or wherever is less safe, again IMHO. But on the Opel, it needed some help in the gas tank department. Some can do better others can't, thats why I am on the fence.

A fire system, sorry but I think every race car should have this.

What I am trying to get support for is this general idea:

You take your IT car and go run in production as is. You will not be competitive. Now you can take your same car and put some big ole brakes on it. You will do a little better. Now you put a bigger cam and TB on the car....You are getting faster, Bolt on the slicks, I can do corners faster now.... and so on.

This is what I am trying to get to, and I see this as no different the IT is now. You can take a street car, put the cage in and run. My MR2 still has the carpet and radio in it. It is 100% street legal, (I have to change the belts because race belts are not DOT approved) :blink: My car was legal could have been faster but there was a lot of things that could have been done that I did not do. It would be the same as saying a SS car should go into IT and be competitive right off the bat. I doubt anyone would agree that should be the case. In IT you can do things you can't do in SS. You have a higher level of prep, more things to tinker with.

Will that IT car that has had the bare basics done to it be competitive? Nope, I doubt it. But the point is he can get out there and run and have fun. That is what I think the move from IT to Prod should be. He can upgrade his car a little at a time and not kill his bank account and risk divorce from the wife. Production has gotten to be too much of....everything.

I am also suggesting a foundation of what prod cars should be and set this foundation in stone. Make the core rule set very stable. New cars will be limited in what they can do, I am not suggesting killing of existing levels of prep just adding a new one with some limits that can not be changed. These limits will still give you the production experence (cams, brakes, TB...things you can't do in IT) but put a cap on how far you can go.



I never explain my self well on while typing, I hope this cleared things up.

[JoshS]

To answer the original question, one would have to ask: "What is more attractive about Production racing than IT racing?" or more to the point, "What would have to change about Production racing to make it more attractive than IT racing?"

This question, being posed to IT racers, implies that Production would like to change to attract IT racers to switch over from IT racing to Production racing. I wonder if that's the best place to try to attract drivers from?

Assuming that this is a desired source of new Production blood, Production needs to find a way to capitalize on the things that IT drivers don't like about IT.

My personal feeling is a lot like Andy's ... IT gives engineers some wiggling room, without breaking the bank. Yet the cars are close enough to stock to be cheap to get started with, and to maintain reliability. Seems to be that the IT drivers that want to go to the next level of car modification are only going to be serious engineers -- engine builders, chassis technicians, etc.

Personally, I think an IT car should be able to be raced in Production, provided it is even listed there, with minimal mods, just like an SS car can run in IT with minimal mods. Off the top of my head, the only required mod to move from SS to IT is a kill switch, and that's optional in SS. Should be similar to move from IT to P. But to be competitive in P, I think it's perfectly reasonable to have to go past a point of no return.

[cherokee]

I don't think it is "what I don't like about IT" it is more of I want to do more things to my car then IT allows, but prod is scarry. The attraction would be getting to do more to your car then you can in IT, and have a light at the end of the tunnel. Know you are going to get somewhere.

What I am suggesting production offer the it racers is things you can't do in IT. Most IT racers are "tinkers" most have some basic mechanical knowlage. And some would like a little more but don't see a place to get that. What I am suggesting in a nut shell is:

Limit the CR to X over stock, 2 points for example
Factory susp attach points
Factory valve sizes
Open cams
Open carbs, TB
Open brakes
A "factory" type trans.
My ideas are all over on the prod site. The things I suggest are aimed at cost control, and reliability all the while giving you room "tinker" a little more

Offer something inbetween full prep, heck even LP and what IT offers. You would end up with a faster car, some very common "bolt on" and "tuner/hot rod" type mods.

A car that you could take to 10/10's and not break the bank in both time and money. More $$ then IT but then you are doing more to the car. Those 4 piston brembo calipers might cost more then oem calipers. But they would work better with those new rotors.

I think that there are some IT racers, and other "car guys" that would be intrested in a class like this.
Would you be intrested?

[Andy Bettencourt]

The point at which Andy's vision comes true and real parity is achieved between two levels of preparation, an interesting thing should happen - the more expensive route to competitiveness in a given class will become extinct.

I know why he proposes the "two-state solution" but it's only really valid as a transition. Except, I suppose for the fact that some SCCA racers will continue to do ANYTHING for ever. Why would you spend the coin to build a full-prep (something) to turn an X:XX.XX when you can build an LP (something else) to do the same thing, for less dough?

K [/b]

EXACTLY. I believe this is a way to get new people IN the door AND bring the rules back to some sort of sanity. Hell, if IT were National - I bet Prod would disappear completely.

[dickita15]

The easy target for you is the cars that are popular but not competitive in IT. If it was a pretty easy transition then it might be attractive, of course that was the idea with the not ported Rx7 in G Prod. I have extra caged rx7s sitting around because they are not worth much in ITA trim. If you had a rule set that was a little less crazy that full prep E prod I would put one together and score some ashtrays. Of course I would still race IT because you cannot guarantee me someone to race with in prod.
I have enough stuff sitting around to build a prod rx7 from the piles of stuff but it would be woefully underprepared.
I really am amused at the statements on the prod board over the years about what they think IT want and do not want and I applaud your asking here because many of those guys have no idea what anyone from outside their small world think of them or their rules or culture.

[shwah]

If/when I go production racing it will not be by changing stickers on my IT car and 'trying it out'. I guess I can see why some would do this, but for me - I will decide where I want to compete and build my car to COMPETE there for wins.

A few years ago I thought that was LP GP. After watching some more, I asked my car to be moved from EP to FP in full prep form. This is where I figured I would be going. Now that there is a process being developed to classify cars and set weights, and now that the G cars will likely be moved up or down, I will wait and see what shakes out. Then I will build the car to the prep/class that I think it can be most competitive in.

IF Improved Touring were to become a National class before that time, I may very well just keep doing what I am doing. At the end of the day we have some pretty damn good racing in IT, even better than I imagined when I started this. I simply am looking ahead to the time when I want a new challenge. A Runoffs championship would certainly present such a challenge.

What does all this mean to the question at hand? Above all else - get a stable rule set. This is the primary stopper for me. They have lost who knows how many current or potential competitors because we never see the target stop moving for the fast guys.

[Knestis]

...You take your IT car and go run in production as is. You will not be competitive. Now you can take your same car and put some big ole brakes on it. You will do a little better. Now you put a bigger cam and TB on the car....You are getting faster, Bolt on the slicks, I can do corners faster now.... and so on.

This is what I am trying to get to, and I see this as no different the IT is now. ...[/b]

You can do this now - almost. Build the safety stuff so it fits, spend a weekend on details, and knock yourself out running around way off the pace. Hell, at a typical National, you could podium.

But you don't want to do just that. You want to actually be competitive with a lower-specification build. If you didn't want to be competitive, you'd already have built a "Production Minus" car and be improving the car count but a significant amount!

The problem is that - with due respect - your logic is terribly flawed. Your argument moves from the assumption that "lower spec" (fewer rules allowances) will allow you to be competitive for less money. It's been demonstrated over and over that rules restrictions do NOT limit spending. The amount of money someone is willing to chuck at a race car depends on lots of things - desire to be competitive (which is influence by perceived value to running up front, a la "pro" racing or high profile events like the ARRC), competition (if you are the only guy in your class and can win with a half-assed effort, you don't feel pressured to spend more $$, the amount of discretionary income laying about, etc.

Heck - right now, even though you CAN spend $6000 on a Honda gearbox in LP Prod, few people have decided to because they just don't care enough. Taking that option off the table might (1) not change a damned thing for some entrants, or (2) free up money to spend on other things that really matter like testing, dyno time, tires, or driver coaching. No magic cost savings.

K

[Chris Wire]

Anyone besides me see the obvious parallel between this discussion and our recent "SM into ITA" fracas?

Keep that - and your feelings about it - in mind as you debate changing Production rules to shoehorn-in IT cars... - GA
[/b]

I'm with you GA - I had that very same thought. Of course, we were concerned about rules stability in IT, and that's out the window with Prod anyway!

[John Herman]

I've actually thought about this and I agree with Raymond and Cherokee, but let's look at the whole racing progression process. If you look at how a person could advance through SCCA with their car building skills, I see the process of SS->IT->Production->Prepared->World Challenge. Theoretically, I'd like to see the rules allow a car to progress from one level to the next, though from a vehicle's age, this likely wouldn't (shouldn't) happen. I could see safety stuff as being additive, but should not involve a huge tearup of a vehicle if it were to move up a class. Ideally, any true safety items it a higher class should be legal in a lower class, but I understand this could get bastardized with seam welding, more attachment points... So for example on the cage, items could always be added, but it should not require items to be cutout and redone. Cars prepared to SS rules would still fit (be legal in) the IT rules, IT prep would fit Production, Production into Prepared, Prepared into WC,but the converse is not true It should not be expected that IT cars would be competitive with well built production cars any more than we would expect an SS car to be competitive with a well built IT car. The rules should allow/encourage the natural transition from class to class. To expect most people with no experience to jump in and build a Prepared car is not realistic in my opinion, but the rules should make sense such that a person sees the natural growth potential so they can dream/strive to "someday I'll drive World Challenge." (Yes I know some individuals have made the jump from IT to Pro, but it's not in most people's pocket books.) So in general, my thoughts are SS is a stock class with little engineering/tinkering to be had. IT allows basic suspension upgrades. Production allows more suspension and restricted engine/transmission upgrades. Prepared is high level of suspension, engine/transmission upgrades. World Challenge is considered the top of the rung, everything goes. This process needs A LOT more thought, but I really think a vision needs to be put in place and worked towards. Currently it seems to me that there are a lot of individual classes working independently trying to serve there own good. (I'd like to throw GT into this process/progression as well, but I do need to get back to work. :( )

[JeffYoung]

I am fairly new to the SCCA. I can't speak for others of my "ilk" (say those who started racing in 2000 and later, I began in 2003) but I can say the following:

1. When I looked at the rule sets, I IMMEDIATELY had no interest in the complicated mess that is Production.

2. When I went to races to work corner stations and figure out what was going on prior to building a car, I IMMEDIATELY saw that IT and SRF and then SM fields were way larger than production fields.

3. When I looked at an IT car, I thought, that is somethign I can build.

4. When I looked at a prod car, I thought, that is something my dad would have liked.

5. When I thought about "advancing" through the SCCA ranks, I saw prod as a dead end, not part of the chain of progression. I see many top flight IT and SM drivers making the jump to a pro series without ever touching production.

And that is where I think a lot of this thread is just wrong. Production is no longer the "big leagues" (in my view) for regional racers. Honestly? We just don't care about it. Most of us. Going to the nationals -- so what? Not what I am interested in. An ARRC win would be just as satisfying (and just as unobtainable for most of us).

Production, to me, is now just a dead end "branch" off the SCCA tree. It's interesting, I like watching the cars, and certainly don't advocate killing it, but I just think a vast majority of the SCCA regional club level membership in IT, SM and SRF simply has no desire to go down that path.

[dickita15]

Years ago during the announcement of some rule realignment Brian Holtz then CRB Chairman said “Touring, Improved Touring, Grand Touring, Pick a car and just keep pouring money into it.

[cherokee]

The problem is that - with due respect - your logic is terribly flawed. Your argument moves from the assumption that "lower spec" (fewer rules allowances) will allow you to be competitive for less money. It's been demonstrated over and over that rules restrictions do NOT limit spending. The amount of money someone is willing to chuck at a race car depends on lots of things - desire to be competitive (which is influence by perceived value to running up front, a la "pro" racing or high profile events like the ARRC), competition (if you are the only guy in your class and can win with a half-assed effort, you don't feel pressured to spend more $$, the amount of discretionary income laying about, etc.
K
[/b]

I would say you are right and wrong at the same time. The lower spec I am suggesting would go a long way at making the cars more reliable, and if it is less "high strung" stressed, whatever then it should last longer and that would be cheaper. I don't like the idea of 10k trans. and moving susp pickup points, these are very expensive for not a good return, outlaw them and save money, And the trans should last as the cars will make less power. People are going to spend what they are going to spend there is no way around that. There are some VERY expensive programs in IT, the rules have not limited spending. I think the logic is sound if the lower spec limits the amount of time rebuilding things because they have just been pushed too far, it will be cheaper.

I also think that the limits I suggest will get a car on track at a high level of prep for less of a time investment, they is currently available. The average IT racer I think could do the things I am suggesting. I think if production offered a product that was below what LP is now but past what IT is it would intrest many racers. If the rules where VERY STABLE.

I think it would be of intrest to folks like Jeff, would you not love to put some real brakes under that car. What would a couple of points of CR and a cam cost you over a normal IT build. Same goes for any car, You build that CRX, or Golf, is it going to cost that much more and you will be faster,and stop faster.
What I suggest is things you can't do to an IT car but are so far below the prep of a full prep or even a LP car.

I do agree with one thing if IT was national prod would be dead. Much of the IT racers do not want to go national, but I think if they could get their existing IT car in prod with a couple of fairly inexpensive mods not 100,000 hrs in the shop, and do well there would be converts.

[JeffYoung]

Honestly Cherokee? I'd rather spend the time to get these brakes to work (they are almost there) and run under the IT ruleset than fool with the production mess. While for my brakes it may be cheaper to bolt on a solution than engineer one within the limiations of the rules, that changes significantly once we start talking about motor and tranny.

Plus, I then don't want to get into a 4 hour debate over how much weight I need to add to the car because of the great brakes I now have.

Cherokee, this is well intentioned and I appreciate your thoughts and efforts on this. I'm just saying, from my perspective as an SEDiv ITS driver looking at 15-20 car ITS fields every race this year, I see no reason other than to continue doing what I am doing. Prod has no appeal in comparison.

[cherokee]

Fair enough. I on the other hand want more cam, more compression, better brakes, mess with carbs or FI. But I don't want to move susp pickup points, spend 10k on a tranny, have a engine with so much compression it is only good for a couple of runs. I think, and hope there is a place for that, and it would attract people.

It is a mess over there no doubt about it, I would like to see it get cleaned up. If it gets people DOING SOMETHING...ANYTHING it is a step in the right direction.

[Knestis]

(And not meaning to be a dick) then go for it, man!

There's not a darned thing stopping you from building exactly the car you describe and running it in Production. Right now. Today.

But you don't want to just participate. You want a shot at a win. Spending exactly the budget you have established.

So you get these new rules codified, so a car built to them CAN win.

And along comes someone willing to spend 2x your budget - UNDER THE NEW RULES - and you get relegated back one more spot in the pack.

Until the class gets very popular (that whole National Champ thing on the line) and 20 more guys come in, willing to outspend the guy who outspent you.

You are now a tail-ender.

I've watched it happen over the last 20 years with IT. Used to be you could slap a set of struts, a header, a seat, cage, harness, and a cute little air dam on a stock car and run competitively with it. I've watched it happen to Production - no need to go into the gory details of that. I've watched the Sedan classes become the GT classes, become GT Lite, (become extinct?). Ditto. Many would argue SM has been a victim of its own success, in a different manifestation of the problem.

The same forces are at play in all cases.

It's the natural course of things unless a very fundamentally different approach is applied. See my fear explained in the FasTrack conversation elsewhere.

K

[NutDriverRighty]

(not trying to be a dick, either) What's the answer? SRF is tightly controlled with (seemingly) very little advantage gained in having triple the budget of your fellow racer. Same with FSCCA (FE). Personally, I feel that "money racing" is a fact of life in racing in general, whether it's Formula 1 or 1/18 scale R/C cars. My brother and I have to split expenses and drive in the CCPS as co-drivers and on a very limited schedule to race at all, even as (usual) back markers. I would LOVE to find a way to afford to go wheel-to-wheel with my fellow competitor with an equal chance of victory AND at a price that the "average" person can afford. If someone can find a solution to THAT problem, you could make a mint. Not meaning to hijack the thread, but if you could start with a clean slate and build a class that would meet the aformentioned criteria, what would you do/what would it be?

[Knestis]

I'd design a category that looked pretty much exactly like IT.

I'd have a East/West/Shootout semi-pro series for new cars (up to X years old) and National, Divisional, and Regional amateur championships for cars hat have aged out. Both would run to exactly the same rules and specs.

I'd let the realities of goals and budgets sort themselves out through drivers aspiring to different championships, rather than different levels of preparation.

I'd let the marketplace take advantage of both IT's economies of scale and the interest afforded by manufacturers to something that would showcase their new cars.

I'd get the hell rid of Showroom Stock, Touring, Production, and WCTouring.

I'd have huge fields, deep competition, and races ranging from 20 minutes to 24 hours in length - again, all to the same rules.

I'd talk with club rally organizers and the SEB and show them the light, creating cross-disciplinary championships (a la the old world driver's championship or whatever it was called).

I'd go racing a lot.

K

[JeffYoung]

I'd vote for all that.

I'd vote for all that.

I'd vote for all that.

[ddewhurst]

***But on the other hand why did you not want to run the 7 where it is classed now? Is it the expense of prepping the car?***

cherokee, some of us know at what speed our talent :eclipsee_steering: runs OUT.

[lateapex911]

Fair enough. I on the other hand want more cam, more compression, better brakes, mess with carbs or FI. But I don't want to move susp pickup points, spend 10k on a tranny, have a engine with so much compression it is only good for a couple of runs. I think, and hope there is a place for that, and it would attract people.

It is a mess over there no doubt about it, I would like to see it get cleaned up. If it gets people DOING SOMETHING...ANYTHING it is a step in the right direction. [/b]

You want cams? compression? better brakes?? But youdon't want to spend big money on a trans??

Be careful what you ask for...those couple of seconds on the track will cost you...

They'll cost you weeks developing that cam, and an exhaust that gets the most of that cam, and an induction system and tune that gets the most from that setup, and then, what about head development!? Eveytime you chage ONE thing, you dive in a pool of research...sure, you can just bump your compression and get more power. But so can Bob...except Bob knows a few more tricks, because he tried more combos on the dyno.

Jim Daniels did 200 dydno pulls one season on a SM motor.....learing about it, tweaking things, and he didn't have the bunch of variables you suggest.

I'm not saying that your idea of a "New Production class nirvana" is wrong, but keep in mind that the bottom line to most racers is.....racing. And thats what happened to Prod. The racing got replaced with building cranks, dynoing a zillion cams, making dashboards, replacing windows, moving batteries, making 4 speed transmissions with revers into 5 speed transmissions with no reverse, making molds for hoods, and argueing over it all. And making "friends" where it was deemed to be profitable to do so.

If you ask me what it would take to make me race Prod, I'd have to be honest...nothing. I race in IT because of the ruleset, and the stability, and the trust in the guys who guide the category. I think the exact opposite of Prod..

If you made a set of rules up that were a copy of the ITCS, and you named them Prod, well, I'd think about that...;)

[Z3_GoCar]

Well, at least the Z3 and Miata are classed at the same weight with the same level of prep. Kind of makes you wonder why...... :blink:

If I didn't have the wide-track rear, didn't have to cut my windshield off, and run 15" slicks I'd race e-prod.

James

[lateapex911]

Well, at least the Z3 and Miata are classed at the same weight with the same level of prep. Kind of makes you wonder why...... :blink:

If I didn't have the wide-track rear, didn't have to cut my windshield off, and run 15" slicks I'd race e-prod.

James
[/b]

Hey james??? We get it...dead horse, and all that....

[seckerich]

The draw in production is that you can do more to the car. Production is for the people who say "what can we screw with now" and think it is fun to innovate. It has gotten a little carried away in the past with sequential shift trans and the like but the basic premise is good. Fuel injection and newer cars is the only way to get new blood in the class. Just move forward without killing the investment made by those who have been in the class forever. Just look at the number of long time production drivers who jumped into limited prep versions of their cars when the chance came up. No more 3 hour motors with 15-1 compression that only come out for the runoffs. Now that the cage rules are somewhat sensible and I hope stable it looks like something to go back to. Limited prep is more like old time production and will be the only way it survives.

[JWiley]

I've read about a thousand posts on this issue, and I cannot for the life of me understand any reason other than some form of misplaced elitism why anyone would oppose IT cars "As-is" being classed in Production, if:

1- IT prep is all that is allowed, nothing else. No slicks, no nothing, your existing demonstrated performance
level is all you get. As a trade-off, you don't have to add or remove anything that keeps you from
running in IT also; cage, fuel cell and fire system requirements are just unnecessary. This is the key--NO
CHANGES!!
2- IT classes with a well-established upper level of performance (meaning the race-winning guys) are placed
in an existing Prod class with a similar upper level of performance. No IT car would be allowed to become
an overdog over the top full-prep Prod cars without a comp. adjustment or reclassing upward if
necessary. Production was created for those who want to push the prep limits, and that philosophy
shouldn't be sacrificed just to swell the ranks.
3- Just as in IT, nobody is given a guarantee to be competitive, just a reasonable place to race.

What could possibly be wrong with this? If it doesn't swell the Prod ranks, no harm has been done; if it does, then the problem is fixed. Why would anyone care what level of prep the cars you are having a ball racing wheel-to-wheel with have? Spridgets may rule, but no class to run them in drools. If only the rules wonks and the CRB, as usual, won't stand in the way, we all win.

James Wiley
#72 HP (ex-IT) Midget
Atlanta Region

[lateapex911]

Jamers, pose the question another way:

Do you support IT allowing non IT cars into IT? Another prep level, in other words.

The recent Spec Miata issue illustrated that 99% of IT drivers do NOT want to allow SMs into IT as is. They cited huge numbers of SMs running and displacing true IT cars for racing room, trophies, points and tracktime.

I wonder if the Prod drivers might see your suggestion similarly?

[shwah]

Jake you must have been in a different discussion. Most IT racers opposed dropping SM as is into IT because the SM already has the option of legally preparing for both classes, and IT racers are wary of making special allowances for one car that would then be governed by a different set of rules.

There were a few, but not majority that mentioned track time, finishes etc., but all of the logical arguments centered around health of the class.

This is the reason that I suggest IT cars should only race in Production if they are legal for production. It is a classing issue, not a blanket rule issue. I am allowed to run a welded cage, a fire system, window clips, a fuel cell and to gut my doors in IT trim. So now I need to pull my headlights to legally run Production correct? Seems reasonable - PROVIDED THE CAR IS CLASSIFIED. There is no reason to further bastardize their ruleset to fit IT cars in.

If production wants more cars, they need to get them classed. Use the newly developed process and classify as many cars as you can. Start with the most popular IT cars, as there are plenty of feeder cars out there with logbooks and cages.

I am starting to beleive that the National/Regional issue will be addressed, and IT will have a shot at the runoffs before Production settles things to the point that I am willing to build my car to be competitive there...

[lateapex911]

Chris, his premise was "As is"...NO changes, which relects a different prep level/ruleset.

Secondly, IT can run in other classes if they so choose.

[shwah]

OK - we agree on the point of the original post. I was just stating that the miata drama was less related to "huge numbers of SMs running and displacing true IT cars for racing room, trophies, points and tracktime.", and more related to taking good care of the class. I thought the sentiment of that discussion was not accurately reflected by your quoted statement.

As noted I have similar feelings about Prod, but regardless would not consider running a 'straight IT car' in prod because I want to be competitive when I race. That is just what racing is to me.

[mossaidis]

I don't think it is "what I don't like about IT" it is more of I want to do more things to my car then IT allows, but prod is scarry. The attraction would be getting to do more to your car then you can in IT, and have a light at the end of the tunnel. Know you are going to get somewhere.

What I am suggesting production offer the it racers is things you can't do in IT. Most IT racers are "tinkers" most have some basic mechanical knowlage. And some would like a little more but don't see a place to get that. What I am suggesting in a nut shell is:

Limit the CR to X over stock, 2 points for example
Factory susp attach points
Factory valve sizes
Open cams
Open carbs, TB
Open brakes
A "factory" type trans.
My ideas are all over on the prod site. The things I suggest are aimed at cost control, and reliability all the while giving you room "tinker" a little more

Offer something inbetween full prep, heck even LP and what IT offers. You would end up with a faster car, some very common "bolt on" and "tuner/hot rod" type mods.

A car that you could take to 10/10's and not break the bank in both time and money. More $$ then IT but then you are doing more to the car. Those 4 piston brembo calipers might cost more then oem calipers. But they would work better with those new rotors.

I think that there are some IT racers, and other "car guys" that would be intrested in a class like this.
Would you be intrested?
[/b]

Perhaps MT2?

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/compare.php3

[JWiley]

Jake poses an interesting question, and I guess the answer is that the necessity of adding cars to save dying classes is the only reason I would suggest running IT cars "as-is" in Production, plus the fact that many IT cars should fit fairly comfortably in various Prod classes. The upcoming weekend at Barber has ITC and (I think) ITB in the same run group as Prod, so we will get a look at how that might work. The SM-to-IT thing is another issue entirely, as it involves classes that are not threatened with extinction. I don't know that there is any basic difference in prep between SM and IT; can't they run ITA or ITS now, anyway? When I was running ITC grouped with SM, I hated it because there were so many of them running in packs with little regard for whoever was in their way; I'm glad to be in Prod and away from that insanity! The fast Prod guys seem to have more of a clue about proper racing manners...

James Wiley
#72 LP HP Midget
Atlanta Region

[Knestis]

Perhaps MT2?

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/compare.php3
[/b]

There's a blast from the past, huh? :D

If Prod racers as a group decide that it's in their best interest to write the rules with another level of preparation identical to current IT rules, that's totally within their rights. It doesn't make sense however, because one of two situations must exist:

1. IT cars are listed where they are not competitive - there will be no real incentive to run under that allowance, so numbers won't really climb and the category won't be "saved."

2. IT cars are listed so that they ARE competitive - this option, since it's arguably cheaper (note the qualifier) becomes the preferred route, the numbers go up and the Prod classes essentially become IT.

The latter is a workaround to de facto National status for IT, which is why some folks support it I'd guess. Note that both of my examples run the outcome to its logical, pure extreme which we know won't ever be the case. It's strictly illustrative of the logic - or illogic.

K

[Greg Amy]

There's a blast from the past, huh? :D[/b]
No kidding. I wrote those rules, what? five years ago...?

The Internet is forever...

[ddewhurst]

***The fast Prod guys seem to have more of a clue about proper racing manners...***

James, manners come real easy when there are not enough competitive (Production cars within a single class) cars to run wheel to wheel in packs as you call it. If you were a spectator only, would you prefer to watch a group of Spec Miats racing wheel to wheel or would you prefer to watch a mix mash of 4 production classes intermingled with the faster classed cars lapping the slower classed cars. < This is not a slap at anyone, it&#39;s a fact of life with SCCA racing. ;)

[cherokee]

***The fast Prod guys seem to have more of a clue about proper racing manners...***

James, manners come real easy when there are not enough competitive (Production cars within a single class) cars to run wheel to wheel in packs as you call it. If you were a spectator only, would you prefer to watch a group of Spec Miats racing wheel to wheel or would you prefer to watch a mix mash of 4 production classes intermingled with the faster classed cars lapping the slower classed cars. < This is not a slap at anyone, it&#39;s a fact of life with SCCA racing. ;)
[/b]

IMHO sports car racing IS " mix mash of 4 production classes intermingled with the faster classed cars lapping the slower classed cars." That is the kind of racing I want to do, not in some cookie cutter car just like the other guys. Put this spectator in front of that and I will find a new way to spend my time. Spec racing is not for me in any way shape or form, be it a spec miata or a Nascar. Give me Audi Vs. Peugeot and Porsche vs Pontiac, Mazda vs Acura, Cadallic vs Chevy any day, put them all on the same track.

(In General)

Dealing with traffic as the passer and the passie is what sports car racing always has been, and should be.
"Manners" come from a guy that has spent years getting his car to the pointy end of the field, he has learned how patentience, the ability of his car, of himself and know what works and what does not. Put a mess of drivers with vary different levels of experence as close together as spec series dictate and you know what is going to happen.

MOST production drivers have been around a while, their cars have been around a while and know their abaility and their cars.

[JWiley]

This has gotten a little off the point, I&#39;ll belabor it no more after this:

My comment about SM driving manners is based on the fact that my co-driver and I have both been nearly hit, and squarely hit, on numerous occasions by these guys. I believe that there is something about a Spec class where the cars are relatively easy to build and relatively inexpensive that attracts a type of personality that sometimes fails to recognize the responsibilities that amateur racing puts on them. When I have the line and position in a corner, I don&#39;t appreciate some testosterone-crazed bozo racing for 15th place trying to banzai his way under me, and I&#39;ve experienced that more with SM than any other class. I will gladly give up the line to faster cars when possible, but every one of us deserves racing room, and I have seen an overall steady decline in what I called "racing manners" across the board since I started racing 20 years ago. I&#39;m not some old lady, I just think that a little more basic respect towards your fellow competitors and their equipment would make racing more fun, and certainly less expensive.

James Wiley

[ddewhurst]

***If you were a spectator only, would you prefer to watch a group of Spec Miats racing wheel to wheel or would you prefer to watch a mix mash of 4 production classes intermingled with the faster classed cars lapping the slower classed cars.***


cheeroke says, Put this spectator in front of that and I will find a new way to spend my time.

IMHJ spectators watch a race to see wheel to wheel racing.


James says, This has gotten a little off the point, I&#39;ll belabor it no more after this:

***testosterone-crazed bozo racing for 15th place***

James, maybe you should check some of the references many of the Spec Miata drivers bring to the party. The fact the OVER 900 Spec Miatas have been built over the past 5 years says a lot about what people think about the class. How many total Production cars exist in the four Production car classes? I will say that the Spec Miata is a momentum class just like MANY of the H & G Production cars. Body work is body work no matter what type of car it is. I for one back out of it when there may be contact because I don&#39;t want to do body work while at the same time I NEVER blame the entire deal on another driver from my class or another class. You can bet I will dam well talk to the other driver/drivers (in my mind offending driver).

[shwah]

How did spectators just become a topic in this discussion about club racing and production racing?

The miata driver generalizations, like many in life, is quite often true (and of course quite often not true). It is simply a result of so many people trying the class - there are more good drivers, but also more bad drivers. I would wager there are more first time drivers than most classes as well. So the inexperienced and bad numbers are up, thus lots of people can share their &#39;that stupid SM story&#39;. It&#39;s not fair to Miata drivers, but that is what I think drives the impression.

[ddewhurst]

***How did spectators just become a topic in this discussion about club racing and production racing?***

Quite simply, I brought spectators into the discussion. Happy 4th of July to you :birra:

***I would wager there are more first time drivers than most classes as well.***

If you consider Karters first timer drivers you may be correct. :o

[shwah]

Happy 4th back to you :birra:

I am sure there are plenty of karters. There are more of EVERY type of driver in such a popular class. However I expect there is a higher percentage of beginners than an average SCCA club racing class, because it is a &#39;spec&#39; class and does not require as much effort to get rolling.