Wings and things...

[cmaclean]

What's the collective thought regarding petitioning the ITAC to allow IT cars to run rear spoilers? It makes no sense to me that we're allowed to run big old airdams and splitters and yet the cars can't balance the aero with a wing/spoiler on the rear trunk lid.

Here is an excerpt from the Honda Challenge rules:

2) Any rear deck spoiler that attaches to bodywork is allowed.
Rear spoiler may not protrude beyond the overall outline of the body when viewed
perpendicular to the ground above the part.

Apparently this simple rule does the trick. I would like to hear everyone's opinion on allowing this in IT. I don't see how this falls outside the intent of the class and these parts are obviously very functional while being CHEAP (please note the Scotsman highlighting the most important part here)

Thoughts?

Cheers,
...Colin

[Andy Bettencourt]

http://honda-challenge.com/hc/images/zoom/summit05h/viewsize/hfdsc_0056.sized.jpg

[dickita15]

I remember hearing a story about a competitor calling the chief steward about the size limit on a rear wing in the prototype class for the Nelson Longest Day, the chief steward paused for a second and said well the bridge is 11’…..

[Greg Amy]

http://honda-challenge.com/hc/images/zoom/summit05h/viewsize/hfdsc_0056.sized.jpg
[/b]

OK, well, that's that...

[Gregg]

Colin-

Who needs a rear wing when we can just change the pick-up points for our rear suspension and get better mechanical grip? :P

[Knestis]

Eh. The thought has occurred to me but we are ALLOWED to put on a splitter, not REQUIRED to do so. If a car gets all oversteery-scary at speed, take it off. Cost/benefit math isn't clear, to my mind.

K

[tnord]

how would this make IT a better class?

[924Guy]

Cheap speed. I know a guy, former IT competitor, took his ITS BMW over to NASA, bolted on one of those cheap AEM or whatever spoilers offa eBay, and got a second or two at Mid-O.

Then again, is this really adding something we need to the class? Are we not going fast enough? I can't say that I'm feeling left out...

[cmaclean]

My reasoning:

1. It's a standard "race car" part that we're not running.
2. It's cheap.
3. It makes you go faster round the track. (proven)
4. It can make the car handle better.
5. It makes the cars look better/worse/more like real race cars.
6. It can help attract a younger/tuner type to the class.

Honda Challenge has basically stolen a LOT of IT's thunder with the very active tuner crowd. The rules are very similar to IT so why are people running HC and not IT? Engine swaps, spoilers etc. It all adds up to the perception that in HC you get to build a "cool" car and in IT you build an old showroom stock car. Personally I want to see the class grow.

Does that make the class better? I think so, but I don't make the decisions :)

[Andy Bettencourt]

I don't know much about REAL aero stuff but I bet you a set of tires that if this sort of thing is allowed, it will get REAL expensive. I bet you don't just bolt it on and nail the settings. Testing, testing and more testing. Then equipment changes/upgrades to compensate for the 'new' dynamics you have created. The guys with the know-how and the bucks will make these things sing and the average guy may even slow his car down. Seperation between the haves and the have-nots is what I see.

[Doc Bro]

Pimped out ideeea playa!! The Z has no Butt so it would look better. I'm writing my letter.....I'm also goin' for DUBS, Boomin' Systems, those windshield washer light up things, and Fart Cans. IT is gonna be tight yo'

Bro

[JamesB]

I dont see how it can help in some cases, FWD I think it would do more harm then good, and what if they show up with this

http://cse.unl.edu/~bkell/ricer.jpg


sorry couldnt resist.

[Gregg]

Honda Challenge has basically stolen a LOT of IT's thunder with the very active tuner crowd. The rules are very similar to IT so why are people running HC and not IT? Engine swaps, spoilers etc. It all adds up to the perception that in HC you get to build a "cool" car and in IT you build an old showroom stock car. Personally I want to see the class grow.
[/b]
Colin-

Not sure what part of the country you live in but I'd suggest that you take a look at NASA Mid-Atlantic's HC participation numbers every year since HC was created in 2002 and tell me if it's really stolen a LOT of IT's thunder. I can guarantee that the MARRS series has picked up and maintained far more IT cars than ECHC. In fact, I think you'll find that most of the IT cars that originally filled the non-H1 ranks (and made up the majority of the entries) have found their way back to IT and have left the series. Things may be different on the west coast, but you'll find only small pockets around the rest of the country.

As for your other arguments:

1. I think we can find many a race car where it isn't a standard part.
2. It's cheap if you don't have to engineer a custom mount for your car, because until you put the car in a windtunnel you'll never know if the cheap stantions that you get off ebay are the right height for your car or if they position the wing in a place where it makes the wing very ineffective
3. If angled incorrectly, it can make you much, much slower (proven)
4. If angled incorrectly, it can make your car handle much, much worse (proven)
5. My car has numbers on the side, is wrinkled and has a crappy paint job--therefore it already looks like a race car.
6. Inexpensive racing can keep drivers in a class. I think you'll be hard-pressed to find HC drivers who stick it out for more than a year. In addition, most of them have come up thru NASA's HPDE ranks. Hopefully our PDX programs will have the same effect.

[cmaclean]

All excellent points. So I have to ask this...

Why then are airdams and splitters allowed? Every point made so far, while 100% valid, can be applied to airdam/splitters also. If the IT ruleset deems them allowable then the precedent is already set and there is no reason why a rear spoiler allowance would be any different.

Andy, 5 degree wing angle is the sweet spot on a Miata :)

[rsx858]

I think the allowance of wings has the potential to get pricy but then again it could be a great recruiting tool for the tuner crowd. I swear the two most common things i hear when i tell people i race is.. how fast do you go?? and, do you drive a car with like a big wing and decals and stuff??

I for one choose IT soley because it is what i considered to be a "tuner" class, meaning that i could choose which parts and which brands to run on my car. -personalize it in a way, as opposed to a spec class where there is a lot less fun to have under the hood.

the "tuner crowd" has the same mentality, and there are a lot of potential racers who just need to get hooked. Personally when i made it out to the track the first time and saw the flashy cars flying around i needed to get a piece of it. Younger car enthusiasts these days place a very heavy weight on appearance especially after having watched the fast and the furious trilogy 100 times over. Where i dont think we should have quadruple deck 10 foot superstructures on the backs of our cars, I think we should consider that there might be something to gain from allowing something in the arena of a spoiler, canard, carbon fiber accent, or otherwise.

[Greg Amy]

Why then are airdams and splitters allowed?[/b]
Adding *any* aerodynamic downforce results in *significant* increase in expense. Proven.

Splitters were never "allowed" in IT; show me where they're explicitly addressed? We had this conversation on this forum a year or so ago, but splitters showing up in I.T. were as a result of the evolution of cars in the 70s and 80s from those with detached metal bumpers to those in the 90s incorporating integral bumper covers. Within the confines of your typical IT-legal car back when the rules were written, splitters were virtually impossible to make (and not thought of; I don't think I saw one on a pro race car until maybe early 90s in WTCC or BTCC?).

Enter the integral bumper cover and now you've scads of horizontal space to mess with behind the vertical nose, coupled to graphic examples in Pro racing to emulate and - voila! - splitters show up in Improved Touring.

Besides, adding a rear wing to a street car is just simply gay. Or ricer, though in some cases I fail to understand the differences...

And what of the FWD disadvantage? Adding a rear wing to a FWD car is PAINFUL, especially if you can't install the mega-buck remote reservoir shocks you're going to need to control the springs you're going to need to setup the car stiff enough that you're going to need to take advantage of the wing.

However, I can be convinced: I propose that we allow unlimited wings in Improved Touring, with an automatic 10% weight penalty. That should even it out. Maybe.

[JLawton]

More speed = more $$$

More brakes, more tires, etc...........


Just becasue some mistakes were made when setting up the rules years ago doesn't mean we should continue with the trend.

- Anybody up for using SIRs for adjustments??
- What GM product was allowed to upgrade to rear discs? Should everyone be allowed better brakes?? It would make us faster........And those big red calipers would certainly be cool looking!!

OK, so I can't think of any other examples off the top of my head, but you get the point.

I've seen ITE cars with wings. And SPU and SPO cars. Maybe you should make your Miata an SPU car?? :D

[DavidM]

I'm not sure I'd call IT a tuner class. Although with the impending ECU rule change it will be more so. :pokestick: Wings would just add another element for people to have to spend money on to tune correctly. And, as Greg said, I think splitters are technically bumper covers that just happen to be really, really thin.

Sure, we like our cars to look good, but it ain't a priority. The first time you bust up that nice carbon fiber hood and tear off those side skirts going over a curb you're going to regret it.

David

[JeffYoung]

Testify to it Brother Dave.

Wings seem like high dollar trouble to me. Hell, I just spent a LOT of time fabricating something that works up front.

I want no part of that stuff.

[Doc Bro]

Two thoughts (more serious than my last post);

1. If it doesn't provide downforce (or lift conversely) then it provides drag. Aero(hydro)dynamics 101. You must have enough forward speed to realize the gain and not the loss (ie drag). An aereeeoplane traveling at sixty miles per hour (on land) will take less work to propel without the wings than with.

2. Why do we always bring up the "tuner crowd" segment? Wings are not keeping them away from sports car racing...access to it is, be it money or time or information or distance.

R

[Knestis]

My reasoning:

1. It's a standard "race car" part that we're not running.
2. It's cheap.
3. It makes you go faster round the track. (proven)
4. It can make the car handle better.
5. It makes the cars look better/worse/more like real race cars.
6. It can help attract a younger/tuner type to the class. ...
[/b]
Translation: "I have perceptions of what a race car is supposed to be and I want IT to align with them."

Nothing personal but there's a lot of danger in this kind of approach. Everyone's got their own "thing" on this issue - aluminum door panels, lots of gauges, missing dashboards... Heck - turbos. If that rationale makes sense for wings it makes sense for other things.

They ARE cheap, though - the carbon VWRacing rear wing for the MkIV Golf is only $1149 from Bildon. :blink:

K

[planet6racing]

If we add wings, can we add moveable aerodynamic devices? With the possible new ECU rules, it wouldn't be too hard to add variable wing angles to that...

(And, no, I'm not joking. Tracks like Road America would benefit HUGELY from something like that.)

[Andy Bettencourt]

Two thoughts (more serious than my last post);

1. If it doesn't provide downforce (or lift conversely) then it provides drag. Aero(hydro)dynamics 101. You must have enough forward speed to realize the gain and not the loss (ie drag). An aereeeoplane traveling at sixty miles per hour (on land) will take less work to propel without the wings than with.[/b]

Is this worded correctly? Downforce IS drag. High downforce = high drag = lower top speed. Low downforce = low drag = higher top speed. Am I wrong?


2. Why do we always bring up the "tuner crowd" segment? Wings are not keeping them away from sports car racing...access to it is, be it money or time or information or distance.

R [/b]

Tuner dudes have - and spend their money. People always point to them as a pocket of potential 'customers'.

[ddewhurst]

Some of these brainstorm thoughts make me wonder if I'm logged into the RX-7 club site.

[cmaclean]

Translation: "I have perceptions of what a race car is supposed to be and I want IT to align with them."
[/b]

LOL, not sure what translator you're using to come up with that corker! :blink:

[gran racing]

Honda Challenge has basically stolen a LOT of IT's thunder with the very active tuner crowd.[/b]

I have to say it is interesting to hear what the Honda Challenge folks are saying about IT. They're saying that IT is steeling a LOT of Honda Challenge's thunder due to the Toyo spec tire among other reasons. Besides, why should SCCA try to emulate what NASA is doing? I don't think it's such a bad thing to have some differences which may attract a different target market.

SCCA also needs to utilize the PDX tool now that we finally have it.

[Greg Amy]

Is this worded correctly? Downforce IS drag.[/b]
To be accurate, Andy (yes, I know it's kinda off-topic), they are not the same thing. Accurately said, devices that produce downforce (or lift) also produce drag, in two forms: parasitic drag (same as dragging anything through the air; increases as a function of such things as frontal area and skin friction) and induced drag (as a function of the lift; it increases as a function of the angle of attack). Even if you were to make a form infinitely small as to create zero parasitic drag, any lift would produce induced drag.

So, they're not the exact same thing, but they are directly related: more lift generally causes more drag. - GA

[Knestis]

LOL, not sure what translator you're using to come up with that corker! :blink:
[/b]
The one honed over 25 years of listening to cases that started out with pretty much exactly the points you've made but in the end - if/when every one had pretty much been countered - boiled down to "but it's a RACING car and RACING cars have [fill in the blank]."

Really. It's not you, it's me. :)

K

[captdanh]

Aren't factory rear spoilers allowed already? EX, Fiero, MR2?

[Andy Bettencourt]

To be accurate, Andy (yes, I know it's kinda off-topic), they are not the same thing. Accurately said, devices that produce downforce (or lift) also produce drag, in two forms: parasitic drag (same as dragging anything through the air; increases as a function of such things as frontal area and skin friction) and induced drag (as a function of the lift; it increases as a function of the angle of attack). Even if you were to make a form infinitely small as to create zero parasitic drag, any lift would produce induced drag.

So, they're not the exact same thing, but they are directly related: more lift generally causes more drag. - GA
[/b]

Yes, poorly worded on my part - downforce CREATES drag - is what I should have typed.

[Doc Bro]

Yes, poorly worded on my part - downforce CREATES drag - is what I should have typed.
[/b]


Yes, and is the only desirable part of drag.

R

[Andy Bettencourt]

Yes, and is the only desirable part of drag.

R [/b]

Unless you're a pilot...:)

[Doc Bro]

Unless you're a pilot...:)
[/b]


I should've known that would be coming next...

R

[shwah]

No big wings please. Not IT to me.

[bldn10]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think that allowing bigger wheels, lower ground clearance, and limited "aero," e.g. a "reasonable" wing - stuff to make our cars look more like DTM, etc. - would attract more interest (racers, spectators, media) to the class. Those things have become common bolt-ons on the street and are more consistent w/ the Class Philosophy than open computers.

[cmaclean]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think that allowing bigger wheels, lower ground clearance, and limited "aero," e.g. a "reasonable" wing - stuff to make our cars look more like DTM, etc. - would attract more interest (racers, spectators, media) to the class. Those things have become common bolt-ons on the street and are more consistent w/ the Class Philosophy than open computers.
[/b]

Werd.

[Knestis]

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/images/it2civic2SM.jpg

OR

http://www.it2.evaluand.com/images/mt2civicSM.jpg

It's out of date now and largely obsolete because we finally got the bigger issues resolved but...

EDIT - better link is http://www.it2.evaluand.com/compare.php3

Have fun!

K

EDIT EDIT - for those of you not around then, consider for a minute that in May of 2004 (not so very long ago!), it was BIG NEWS that the following cars were under consideration for a move out of ITS:

Acura Integra RS 94-97
Chrysler Neon SOHC 95-96
Chrysler Neon DOHC 95-96
Honda Civic Si 92-94
Nissan NX2000 90-92
Nissan Sentra SER 2.0 90-92
VW GTI 2.0 16v 90-92
VW Jetta GLI 2.0 16v 91
Honda Prelude 88-91

[Greg Amy]

I've said it before and I'll say it again: I think that allowing bigger wheels, lower ground clearance, and limited "aero," e.g. a "reasonable" wing - stuff to make our cars look more like DTM, etc. - would attract more interest (racers, spectators, media) to the class. Those things have become common bolt-ons on the street and are more consistent w/ the Class Philosophy than open computers.
[/b]
Ok, if we're going that way then let's get philosophical:

Why would that be a good thing?

[shwah]

Doesn't Prepared already offer many of these things?

Does IT have a participation problem?

I think cars with those things look cool, I just don't think that they fit the Improved Touring class.

[Doc Bro]

I guess I'm somewhat baffled by this topic. While I agree a wing MAY make a car more "racing inspired" in apppearance, are there member's out there who feel that this IS what is holding them back from being competitive? Have we digressed to the point of needing to add wings to;

1. Attract new members?
2. Feel like we drive real race cars?

It is my contention that this effort is driven purely by an esthetic need not a competitive one. I have a "race"car that would greatly benefit from additional rear downforce, however addition of a wing will only disrupt my current progress and add more time to a problem we almost have understanding of. I guess I'm not saavy enough to understand why something like this would be necessary or good, nor has any arguement to the contrary convinced me.

R

[lateapex911]

If you think you need a rear wing, ask yourself,:
Why? How much will it cost?
How will you adjust it?
How will you test it to know how to adjust it?
Will you use a wind tunnel to derive the best height and attack angle, and the relative positions that yeild better drag or better downforce for the different tracks you run?
Do you have on board data aq to help make those track to track calls?
Have you developed every other aspect of your package?
Do you have the budget to replace the springs you'll need with the new downforce?
And the dampers to go with the new springs?
(Oh, and the original allowance of "air dams" was probably done so as to create a logical place for brake ducts to mount to. Air dams were common at the inception of IT)

[tom_sprecher]

OK, I'm not an aero engineer but I did play one on a regional level for 5 years on a FC team. The racer's bible on the subject is Joseph Katz' Race Car Aerodynamics : Designing for Speed. What I have read and discovered through much testing is that you can create a tremendous amount of down force with little or in some cases (the diffuser) practically no drag if designed and setup properly.

Down force, as its name implies, increases downward loading on the tires w/o increasing the cars weight at high speeds. This additional load allows more side forces to be created at lesser side slip thereby reducing the heat and subsequent wear due to frictional force. Plain and simple the car sticks better in the turns even with a smaller contact patch. Also, aero can be used to effect weight transfer during high speed braking as the aero loading can be larger than any weight transfer that is occurring. While inducing some drag at its location aero elements can and do reduce overall drag of the car at speed.

Some may have noticed the common factor is high speed. Most aerodynamic elements and especially wings require a decent amount of speed to be effective. High speed corners like 12 and 1 at Road Atlanta are good examples for those familiar with the track. The slower the speed the larger the element must become to be of any use and then you compromise any down force gained with added drag. Unless you want something the size of Texas hanging off your car think about where you race and if aero would get you anything. At some tracks we would flatten or remove elements due to the speeds involved vs. any drag that may be produced.

The vast majority of the crap I see hanging on cars of the tuner, ricer or whatever category you want to call them are all drag and little or no down force. Even if you had access to a wind tunnel for testing I would suspect the amount of down force generated as a percentage of overall weight of the car would be pretty dismal not to mention the drag induced. These "sculptured" elements are more for looks than record books and as my esteemed colleague Mr. Amy expressed they look gay.

Many aero elements can and have been fabricated for fairly cheap when compared to other go fast items. Properly designed they can be easily adjusted at the track so you can get real data to back up any ideas you want to try. Do they have a place in IT? I haven’t given it much thought as I'm more interested in getting things like jacking plates added or removing vestigial street car items in order to make my racing easier and cheaper.

[944-spec#94]

I don't know much about REAL aero stuff but I bet you a set of tires that if this sort of thing is allowed, it will get REAL expensive. I bet you don't just bolt it on and nail the settings. Testing, testing and more testing. Then equipment changes/upgrades to compensate for the 'new' dynamics you have created. The guys with the know-how and the bucks will make these things sing and the average guy may even slow his car down. Seperation between the haves and the have-nots is what I see.
[/b]

This quote is the truth.

Sure wings an aero are cool, but don't be fooled into thinking they will improve the racing any.

[dickita15]

Maybe if you win a race or two you should have to run one, you know rewards aero. :lol:

[benspeed]

I've been looking at the aero opportunities for my SPO car - anybody coming to the Fun One at the Glen this weekend should look for Mike Cohen's GT1 stock car that developed like a hybrid Trans Am style racecar. I think Mike and the guys from Mach I Performance are onto the next generation of GT1 cars. Mike is WAY under the 2:00 mark and will run with cars that are $50K+ more than his car. Big performance gains via better aero.

The development of an aero package for my car similar to his car STARTS at around $3K. (Yes, I am trying to get the former ASA aluminum block cars into GT2 or worse case, GT1)

I like better aero and cool looks but not a good idea for IT - not when done right. A wing off eBay, well, Greg said it already. I can see those things coming loose and pounding somebody's font end.

[bldn10]

"Why would [attracting more racers, spectators, and media to IT] be a good thing?"



Greg, are you kidding?

Does IT need more participation? Well, in the Midwest this year we have essentially 2 ITS cars vying for the championship and we there are only around 5 or 6 even entered. We used to have 30-car IT fields here; now we have 15. And nobody shows up to watch.



Yea, I'm talking purely aesthetic. No apologies! :rolleyes:

[Doc Bro]

"Why would [attracting more racers, spectators, and media to IT] be a good thing?"



Greg, are you kidding?

Does IT need more participation? Well, in the Midwest this year we have essentially 2 ITS cars vying for the championship and we there are only around 5 or 6 even entered. We used to have 30-car IT fields here; now we have 15. And nobody shows up to watch.



Yea, I'm talking purely aesthetic. No apologies! :rolleyes:
[/b]


Bill,

In putting together a differential diagnosis for the problem plaguing your region would you put lack of wings on the IT cars as the most likely cause for the problem?

The numbers are telling. They are a way to quantify our sucesses and failures. In other regions IT is THRIVING, using the same ruleset. I would sugest that there are other fish to fry in your region, and that those fish are the reason participation is low. If we NEED wings to attract new interest in the SCCA we as a club have some very serious problems.

R

[gran racing]

The numbers are telling. They are a way to quantify our sucesses and failures. In other regions IT is THRIVING, using the same ruleset. I would sugest that there are other fish to fry in your region, and that those fish are the reason participation is low. If we NEED wings to attract new interest in the SCCA we as a club have some very serious problems.[/b]

Rob, you also need to remember that the N.E. is a bit unique with IT participation numbers. How familiar are you with the participation numbers across the nation?

I personally am not a fan of having wings or several other tuner type of items becoming a part of IT. Although, it would add some strategy of having three NOS hits per race. :) I also understand where Bill is going with this as far as marketing our club and category.

[Doc Bro]

Rob, you also need to remember that the N.E. is a bit unique with IT participation numbers. How familiar are you with the participation numbers across the nation?

I personally am not a fan of having wings or several other tuner type of items becoming a part of IT. Although, it would add some strategy of having three NOS hits per race. :) I also understand where Bill is going with this as far as marketing our club and category.
[/b]


Dave we're saying the exact same thing. Wings are NOT hurting IT #'s in the NER. Changing the ruleset as an experiment to increase membership is not the answer. Creating a class for Evo Lancers and the WRX is the way to attract that demographic if that is the demographic you wish to attract. Focused marketing is the way to deliver a product to a target audience.

R

[cchandler]

Regarding speed, drag and downforce:

The Skip Barber school cars (without wings) are faster (top speed) than the Skip Barber F2000 race cars!! How is that possible with the same chassis, suspension, engine and brakes? It is because the F2000 carries around wings and the associated weight and aero drag. The wings, and a 5 speed sequential gear box, are the the only differences between the cars!! However, the F2000 puts in faster lap times due to its gear box and higher CORNERING speeds (because of downforce).

And now, I wonder why a FWD car would want more rear downforce. Because it won't understeer enough? :blink:

[Greg Amy]

And now, I wonder why a FWD car would want more rear downforce. Because it won't understeer enough? [/b]
It *can* be beneficial, but it takes a puss-bucket full of development, testing, and a damn good driver.

Generally speaking, you setup the FWD car so that it oversteers at low speeds likes a golf cart going backwards, then you rely on the rear wing to keep you on the track at high speeds. - GA

[tnord]

"Why would [attracting more racers, spectators, and media to IT] be a good thing?"



Greg, are you kidding?

Does IT need more participation? Well, in the Midwest this year we have essentially 2 ITS cars vying for the championship and we there are only around 5 or 6 even entered. We used to have 30-car IT fields here; now we have 15. And nobody shows up to watch.



Yea, I'm talking purely aesthetic. No apologies! :rolleyes:
[/b]


c'mon bill. i know you know the REAL reason IT numbers suck butt in MiDiv. it's all down to scheduling. how many regional weekends do we have in this division, 15? 17? the answer is way-too-effing-many. we're not growing any, yet we keep adding rediculous events (ie Nashville), and people ask why car counts are down and every region is losing tens of thousands?

in addition to that, MiDiv cars in general, are pretty significantly under-prepped. we've already heard complaints about the big bad 30k SM cars coming in and wiping up IT (which isn't true at all), and we read complaints all over the board about people wanting rules adjustments because of the unnecessary cost associated with conforming to them while reaching maximum prep (ie min weight for RX7s), just wait until we bring in wings......that will cost people 10x the cost of the wing itself to actually get the car setup for it.

i didn't like the ECU thing, but the wing idea is twice as bad imo.

[BlueStreak]

*threadjack warning*
There was a day when I thought there was no such thing as too many events. I now realize how wrong I was. On the surface, everybody (myself included) wants an event every weekend that is in their backyard. But when you stop to think that a region has to draw drivers, pay its bills, and draw workers, you realize the need to pull back a bit. Too many events create fewer financially viable events, fewer financially viable regions, and too great a strain on the worker base. We need fewer events, of higher quality. I don't mean a drastic reduction either, but a small reduction (maybe one race per division on average) and a breather from the expansion of the schedule. Growth is critical to success, but the pace of that growth must be sustainable.

[bldn10]

Travis, your point about the no. of events is valid and would explain the low count at any specific event but does not explain why there are just fewer cars period. So far this season only 4 Mid-Am ITS drivers have run more than 2 events. Indeed, the cumulative total no. of events run by all Mid-Am ITS drivers is only 21 (and 2 drivers have 13 between them). We have 6 ITA, 2 ITB, and 1 ITC who have done more than 3 events. The bigger reason is probably SM but I think that anything we can do to attract new blood should be considered.

Another reason to try to increase appeal to the younger crowd is workers. They enjoy watching cool-looking cars on the track but don't give a hoot about a bunch of crapped out oldies that appear not much more than street cars w/ DIY graphics. We can get along w/o spectators but not w/o a new crop of workers.

Someone said that wings, etc. were not compatible w/ IT. How can that be so when we can have aftermarket stand-alone computers (not to mention Motec in-a-box), and you can buy "aero" stuff at AutoZone? :wacko:

[Gary L]

Another reason to try to increase appeal to the younger crowd is workers. They enjoy watching cool-looking cars on the track but don't give a hoot about a bunch of crapped out oldies that appear not much more than street cars w/ DIY graphics.[/b]

Great... so if we allow wings, we end up with a bunch of crapped out oldies that appear not much more than street cars with AutoZone wings. Notice the DIY graphics are gone... couldn't afford them after the trip to AutoZone for the wing. :D

[tnord]

Travis, your point about the no. of events is valid and would explain the low count at any specific event but does not explain why there are just fewer cars period. So far this season only 4 Mid-Am ITS drivers have run more than 2 events. Indeed, the cumulative total no. of events run by all Mid-Am ITS drivers is only 21 (and 2 drivers have 13 between them). We have 6 ITA, 2 ITB, and 1 ITC who have done more than 3 events. The bigger reason is probably SM but I think that anything we can do to attract new blood should be considered.

Another reason to try to increase appeal to the younger crowd is workers. They enjoy watching cool-looking cars on the track but don't give a hoot about a bunch of crapped out oldies that appear not much more than street cars w/ DIY graphics. We can get along w/o spectators but not w/o a new crop of workers.

Someone said that wings, etc. were not compatible w/ IT. How can that be so when we can have aftermarket stand-alone computers (not to mention Motec in-a-box), and you can buy "aero" stuff at AutoZone? :wacko:
[/b]

eh....adding wings to cars i don't think is going to suddenly make people say "cool, cars with wings, i didn't before, but NOW i want to race or go work races."

i don't think you can really compare the ability of IT drivers to understand ECU's to wings. ECU tuning i don't think is terribly different from car to car. there's some individual stuff like each mfgs VVT, but for the most part you're just adjusting ignition timing and the fuel curve from what i can tell.

aero is completely different from car to car, and just because one setup works on your RX-7, it will be completely different for a miata, crx, golf, bmw, etc. it would take extensive real wind tunnell testing to really optimize it, and who can afford that? whereas with the ECU any honda tuner can setup the ECU across all hondas, bmws, etc.

i think they're both bad ideas...but the aero thing is way worse imo. at least most average car people already have a decent understanding of engine tuning.

[Z3_GoCar]

Downforce- Smoundforce, I'd like to have the benefit of the staunchins and end plates and the increased directional stability. Don't get me wrong, there's lots of corners around here that down force sure would help. They way it is now I feel like I should be installing roof flaps or something :blink:

[bldn10]

Forget it - let's just soldier on ... into oblivion.

[Knestis]

Don't get me wrong. The question that underlies Bill's thinking is still a fair one - Is IT positioned for the future?

Someone could actually do some strategic planning (NO SH!T) and we might benefit from it. This has been a sorely lacking point of non-performance by SCCA over the course of my experience with the Club. I do this kind of program evaluation for a living, so it's obviously not rocket science. It just requires that someone have the foresight and position to ask the questions that need to be answered.

...and no, I don't think that this kind of planning is inconsistent with the organization being "member driven." It's not necessary to be reactive and disjunct in order to give member constituencies what they want.

K

[tnord]

totally agree kirk. unfortunately i don't think that will really happen in any sort of signifance.

the more i think about it, the more i think NASA is going to kick our butt over the long run. why? because they're organized as a business, and we act like a government entity that thinks it can never lose out. we simply don't have the resources to really evaluate such a large scale question with only a handful of people actually employed in topeka. furthermore, how many people are actually qualified to take on such a task? i really don't think the BOD is, and the membership has proven time and time again to be incapable of looking beyond their own nose and as a whole act only in their own immediate self interest (ie DSR/CSR, SS/Touring, etc).

imo, if the runoffs stay in topeka for another 3 years, by the end of that three years we will be measureably behind NASA. their National Championship is gaining momentum very quickly, and ours is falling off. i dunno...

to get back on topic....

as you said, bill's motivation for being in support of wings is very well founded. my perspective is that the solution to the problems in SCCA and IT go far and above just slapping on some trendy parts and stickers, and that doing so would hurt the class without helping the actual issue.

[Andy Bettencourt]

I disagree with you Trav on the SCCA / NASA thing. NASA is a very 'right now' club. They are constantly moving to grab the lowest hanging fruit. I see nothing 'strategic' from them. Witness the abundance of spec classes. SE-R? Neon? Focus? 944? E30? Factory Five?

Their core class, HC, is shrinking. PT is a bandaid that may or may not survive. The way the rules are written allows for short term growth but no long term stability. Class subscription is notthing to write how about. A quick look at how many cars are rinning their National now is proof. The biggest concern I have heard is safety...and that shoul dbe at the CORE of your program, not a second thought.

That being said, they do many things well. Low hanging fruit is still just that - reveune nobody else is getting - and those drivers may stay with NASA forever. Younger crowd, a cool party-type atmosphere are all plusses to many. They also seem much thinner and less resistant to change.

Right now, there is room for both. Each can learn from the other but I see plenty of space for each group as they seem to cater to different enthusiasts.

Bottom line? The SCCA needs to get younger and NASA needs to get older....

[tnord]

i don't disagree with any of that Andy.

at least in the case of SM, i don't think it's so much what NASA is doing right, but how SCCA is pissing everyone off that's the cause for defaction. NASA has way too many classes just like SCCA does, but my understanding is that they've done a fair bit of consolidation this year compared to last. i could be wrong though.

sure, NASA's core of HC guys are on the decline, speculation is that Spec Tire is a primary reason for that. but SCCA's money maker SM and SRF have been dropping off as of late also.

i don't know what the #'s are up at MO this year, but estimates right now for the RO's is about 100 lower than last year. not good. NASA is gaining momentum from where i sit, and SCCA is losing it.